Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
I hope they're also suing the owner of the animal and not just the airport, which of course would probably have bigger pockets.
Did anyone notice that the linked story said that the dog's owner took a later flight that day without the ESA, so presumably the passenger was able to travel without whatever emotional support the pit bull gave. Moreover, there's mention of a generic letter from a therapist claiming a need for an animal, but not even specifying a dog. To me, this case screams fake ESA with (fake) documentation purchased from a website.
Some jurisdictions seize animals if they bite a person in order to determine if the animal has a tendency to bite. Had the dog been muzzled then no bite would have happened even if the girl improperly touched the dog.
I can get a passable Drivers License, Social Security Card, and most any other official looking document in a matter of hours. As far as I know there are no standards on exactly what an Emotional Support Animal (ESA) is. A quick look at a site like Amazon will show that any number of Official looking certificates are available for ESA's along with ID harnesses and vests. I feel that ESA standards should be regulated on a federal basis with a fee to acquire a license.
If a person wants to take an animal on a flight with them precautions should be taken to protect others from the animal. Even a good animal might snap at a stranger for little reason. I don't think that is unreasonable.
Support Service Animals are a different matter in my mind. These animals are generally well trained. I would still support a muzzle if practical for that animal.