fotographer

Here we go again with the "emotional support whatever" I feel so sorry for the young 5 year old girl, there is no way to see the impact it may have on her during her life
so this is a simple solution: if you are need of "emotional support" then go private.. sorry you dont need to cause harm to someone else.
sorry but I have very strong feelings on this..

GRALISTAIR

Agreed

blue_can

I'm also one who believes only properly trained service animals such as seeing eye dogs should be allowed on flights with leashes.

I was at YVR a month ago and watched a girl board a flight to SEA with with two small dogs on leashes. They looked like regular pets. I did not know you could take more than one dog per person.

Gynob001

I also would like muzzle on some passengers who incessantly talk on the cell phone! I am glad they don't bite! They give me little emotional support.

Boggie Dog

I'd be more afraid of the actions of most people than most dogs.

I have no issue with true Service Dogs/Animals. ESA are a whole different deal and need strict controls.

DrAlex

IMO, yes - especially in regards to service dogs. Muzzles aren't going to solve the situation. A vicious dog in a muzzle and do a lot of damage as well.
And here's the real reason these incidents happen. Much easier to train dogs than people.

stallion114

WillCAD

I don't think you're out of line, though I would say that trained service animals don't need muzzles. Because they're trained to behave, and they do.

The ACAA does allow airlines to ask for such documentation:
(d) As evidence that an animal is a service animal, you must accept identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal.

ADA does not:
When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

However, ADA strictly defines what qualifies as a service animal, and specifically disqualifies emotional support animals from this definition:
Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

I suspect you're correct, however I would also say that the need for an ESA does not necessarily mean that a person is 'unstable'; ESAs can be legitimately used to combat phobias. I like to think of them as living security blankets.

The problem is that just because someone has a legitimate need for such an animal does not mean that the animal itself is properly trained to behave in public situations like a shopping mall, airport, or airplane cabin.

Maybe, maybe not. It's my understanding that there is no government certification, at least not at the federal level, for either service animals or those who train them, which means that the best documentation that most SA's will have is a diploma from their training academy. That is something I'd like to see fixed in ADA.

ACAA does put forth some strict documentation requirements, however, and specifically prohibits rodents as ESAs:
(e) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger's mental or emotional disability) stating the following:
(1) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM IV);
(2) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination;
(3) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and
(4) The date and type of the mental health professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.
(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin.

I'd like to see the definition of service animal extended to ESAs - but ONLY to animals who have received the same extensive behavioral training as any other SA. I'd like to see some sort of certification of those animals and their training by a government agency. And I'd like to see a requirement that the certification be displayed on the animal's collar, vest, or leash at all times when it's working in a public place.

If an animal has such a certification, displayed properly, then boom! Problem solved. No more people faking to get their pets on the plane for free, no more ESA's making noise or dropping bombs, no more untrained animals injuring other travelers.

Beyond that, I respect the privacy rights of those who are afflicted with either a physical or emotional condition that requires them to have one. All I'm concerned with is that the ANIMAL be properly trained to behave in public, whether it's a seeing eye dog or a living woobie. WHY someone needs an animal is none of our business, but whether the animal is safe in a social setting IS the business of anyone who may encounter the animal without their consent.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. People with emotional problems should not be denied their rights, except in cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others.

Untrained ESAs obviously present a danger to others, and as such should be mandated to receive the same training as an SA. But if the ESAs were trained to be as safe and well-behaved as SAs, then by all means they should be allowed to go where SAs are allowed to go. That isn't the case now, so I'd love to see the ACAA and ADA changed to require training and certification of both SAs and ESAs.

stallion114

CaliforniaSteve

What's missing in this report is the breed of dog in question. Another report I've read says the emotional support dog was a pit bull. What kind of emotion does that kind of animal support.....anger?

I have no issues with service animals that are legitimately needed by people with certified PHYSICAL disabilities. Those animals are great and life enriching. Plus, they are extensively trained in dealing with day to day situations. Let those animals on the plane, by all means.

However, emotional support animals are not extensively trained and are going to react to situations in the real world much differently. This is, unfortunately, a case in point. I don't think any emotional support animals should be allowed on flights. If someone needs their pet cockatoo to go to the grocery store, tough. The big issue is that businesses have reached a point where they're scared to follow the rules and regulations that they establish for fear of someone, anyone, getting upset.

If someone needs to take their animal on a flight, let them get a certification from a licensed medical professional, that states the nature of the disability and the service that the animal provides. If that service falls under the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act (and yes, I'm being US-centric on this post because I don't believe for a second that this is a huge issue outside the US), then let the animal fly as a service animal. If it's some kind of emotional need, the animal can fly, but needs to be handled in the manner that the airline prescribes for the transportation of pets.

Boggie Dog

There is some point where my rights should protect me from someones ESA. Their rights do not override mine. Using a muzzle on an ESA protects my rights without depriving the other person of their rights.

jbsack

onlyairfare

I too have wondered how all this Emotional Support Animal nonsense began - and I do think most of it is nonsense.

Twenty years ago, or even 10 years ago, we did not see dozens of people with their ESA's all over the airport and in every departure lounge. There was an occasional passenger with a cat or a small dog in a soft-sided cage that would fit under the seat in front of them, for which they had paid a modest "pet fee" of $25 or $50. The animals were required to stay inside the cage throughout the flight - no running around pooping on seats and carpet or biting passengers.

Then the airlines raised their under-the-seat pet fees (I think the last time 2 - 3 years ago I paid $150), and began limitations on pets as checked baggage or cargo, also with heftier fees, though the restrictions were largely safety related. An entitled population then demanded their pets travel in the cabin with them as Emotional Support Animals at no additional cost (after all, there was a disability), since they were too large to go under the seat, or it would cost them more than they were willing to pay even if the animal were small.

So here we are today, with ESA digs mauling other passengers, or taking up all the floor space in a row of seats intended for use by others seated there too, just like a Person of Size, which we also complain about.

TWA884

Folks,

When posting in this thread, please keep in mind that this is the travel safety/security policy debate forum.

Pursuant to FlyerTalk Rule 5, Stay on Topic, please confine your remarks in this thread to the effect that emotional support animals have on flight safety and security.

Thank you,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

TBD

Will, thanks for the legal outline. Interesting that the airport, in this case, seemed to absolve their own responsibility by saying "we aren't allowed to ask ___", when it seems that this only applies to service (not emotional support) animals.

In any case, I found this yesterday and thought it relevant (if not a direct result): The Tampa Airport is changing their policies on pets in the airport (https://news.tampaairport.com/tampa-international-airport-tightens-leash-on-pets-at-the-airport/).