Finally! get rid of fake service dogs!
May 16, 2018, 11:30 pm
#16
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
May 16, 2018, 11:42 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,878
That's not a proposed rule change.
The DOT isn't asking you to suggest proposed rule changes, they're asking you to comment on the ones they're proposing.
That's how the process works.
This proposed change is the closest to what you suggest:
(4) limiting the species of service animals and emotional support animals that airlines are required to transport;
But that most likely refers to codifying into law excluding exotic species like insects and reptiles, which many carriers already do as a matter of policy. (See the Interim Statement for more insight.) It's highly unlikely that the law would be revised to disallow cats, for example, or specifically allow only dogs as you've suggested. That's not what is being proposed.
Also, ultimately, doing as you suggest would affect only a very small number of travelers with PSAs or ESAs, and would do absolutely nothing to "get rid of fake service dogs," the perhaps rudely-stated goal of most passengers expressing the need for changes to existing policy.
The DOT isn't asking you to suggest proposed rule changes, they're asking you to comment on the ones they're proposing.
That's how the process works.
This proposed change is the closest to what you suggest:
(4) limiting the species of service animals and emotional support animals that airlines are required to transport;
But that most likely refers to codifying into law excluding exotic species like insects and reptiles, which many carriers already do as a matter of policy. (See the Interim Statement for more insight.) It's highly unlikely that the law would be revised to disallow cats, for example, or specifically allow only dogs as you've suggested. That's not what is being proposed.
Also, ultimately, doing as you suggest would affect only a very small number of travelers with PSAs or ESAs, and would do absolutely nothing to "get rid of fake service dogs," the perhaps rudely-stated goal of most passengers expressing the need for changes to existing policy.
There are no proposed rules...I don't see a single rule being proposed.
May 16, 2018, 11:47 pm
#18
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,878
My point is that other carriers exist, not just the 4 major carrier (in response to your comment that the 4 major US carriers already require this statement insinuating that the requirement is unnecessary).
May 16, 2018, 11:52 pm
#19
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,878
Excerpt from the Advance Notice re (4) below:
4. Species Limitations
The Department seeks comment on what, if any, limitations on species should be imposed for service animals/emotional support animals. All major stakeholders—disability rights advocates, airlines, flight attendant associations—appear to agree that limiting the types of species recognized as service animals would provide greater predictability and prevent the erosion of the public’s trust which could reduce access for individuals with disabilities. Some prefer that the Department limit coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities. This is consistent with the DOJ definition of service animals under the ADA and the existing ACAA requirement for the type of service animal that foreign air carriers are required to transport.
The Department seeks comment on what, if any, limitations on species should be imposed for service animals/emotional support animals. All major stakeholders—disability rights advocates, airlines, flight attendant associations—appear to agree that limiting the types of species recognized as service animals would provide greater predictability and prevent the erosion of the public’s trust which could reduce access for individuals with disabilities. Some prefer that the Department limit coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities. This is consistent with the DOJ definition of service animals under the ADA and the existing ACAA requirement for the type of service animal that foreign air carriers are required to transport.
If the Department were to adopt a rule that continues to require airlines to accept ESAs for transport, what species of animals should be accepted as ESAs? During the Department’s ACCESS Committee meetings, the four species that were mentioned as possibilities are dogs, cats, rabbits, and household birds. Should the Department limit the transport of ESAs to dogs particularly if a service animal is defined to be a dog? What is the impact on passengers with disabilities if an ESA is limited to dogs? Are cats, rabbits, and birds common emotional support animals? Are there any other emotional support animals that are widely used by individuals with disabilities?
Last edited by Troopers; May 17, 2018 at 12:22 am
May 16, 2018, 11:58 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Nothing in these proposed rule changes do any thing to prohibit the fake diagnosis via the Internet.
For example a requirement that the person is under the "personal care" of the "professional" might have some effect. Since "personal care" would provide some direct interaction between the "patient" and the "professional".
A database listing the "professionals" who "diagnose" the emotional problems could have some impact. I suspect you would quickly find a few "professionals" who have signed way too many such letters.
For example a requirement that the person is under the "personal care" of the "professional" might have some effect. Since "personal care" would provide some direct interaction between the "patient" and the "professional".
A database listing the "professionals" who "diagnose" the emotional problems could have some impact. I suspect you would quickly find a few "professionals" who have signed way too many such letters.
May 17, 2018, 12:11 am
#21
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,878
Am I completely missing the proposed rule changes? Possible rule changes aren't proposed yet. The DOT has identified 10 issues and seeks comments on said 10 issues. The DOT will announced the proposed rule changes after the comment period has passed.
May 17, 2018, 12:40 am
#22
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 969
First, does it like to walk on two legs? 
Pet dog raised by Chinese family for two years turns out to be a black bear
Pet dog raised by Chinese family for two years turns out to be a black bear
May 17, 2018, 1:14 am
#23
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
It's strongly suggested from the "10 issues" what the "rule changes"(amendments to ACAA or otherwise new law) -- when eventually announced -- will encompass.
I noted my comments on each.
Your earlier comment regarding restricting service animals to only dogs is also fair enough -- I urge you to formally make your opinion known during the next 45 days. However, as I suggested earlier, I think the odds of that happening are slim. And the overall effect, if it does become law, would be limited, and do nothing to stop "fake service dogs."
I'll reiterate that, as sussed out from the "issues" on which the DOT is seeking comment, in my opinion the "rule changes" will likely be minor in effect.
If you feel otherwise, please let me know why.
May 17, 2018, 1:54 am
#24
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Often1 suggested that "carriers', including WN ... have rules not as tough as DOT permits."
I replied that the 4 major carriers including WN (which combined represent ~73.2% of all domestic air travel) actually do currently have rules exactly as "tough" as the DOT permits.
Read my earlier comment to understand why this is true, and why Often1's comment is incorrect.
To address your question directly (fine, I'll go ahead and do the research for you):
- Alaska requires documentation including the statement.
- Spirit requires documentation including the statement.
- JetBlue: Requires documentation that the customer traveling has a mental health-related disability or diagnosed mental health condition, but doesn't specifically state that condition be recognized in the DSM.
- Frontier requires documentation including the statement.
- SkyWest respects their partner's policies (Delta, Alaska, American, United), which all require documentation including the statement.
- Hawaiian requires documentation including the statement.
My point being that the carriers covering the vast majority of US air travel already require the statement, exactly as the law already [allows].
Lastly, I'll clarify that I was not, as you suggest, "insinuating that the requirement is unnecessary."
I was pointing out that the requirement already [is allowed] (by law) and that the majority of US domestic passengers are already subject to it.
Last edited by ursine1; May 17, 2018 at 1:29 pm Reason: changed "dictates" and "exists" to "allows" and "is allowed" to hopefully end pointless semantic argument.
May 17, 2018, 7:15 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 65
I went to the government website mentioned above. There is a button there where citizens can submit comments. Don't only give your suggested changes to the policy here, formally submit them to the DOT there. It isn't any harder than commenting here.
May 17, 2018, 7:41 am
#27
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 24
Easy! If it's being carried through the airport by a college aged female who is busy taking selfies and posting them on instagram and only puts the dog down long enough for it to crap in the floor of the terminal, it's a fake service dog.
May 17, 2018, 7:47 am
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Good god.
Again. As I have said multiple times now, each time you make this exact same incorrect statement: NO.
No. No. NO.
Carriers may absolutely NOT require a written diagnosis from a licensed professional of a DSM III mental disease or defect.
Carriers can only require a statement from a licensed professional that the passenger is under their care for a disability listed in the DSM.
Not a specific diagnosis.
These are two very different things.
As we've discussed in other threads: The DSM recognizes somewhere north of 450 distinct disorders, which include things like "anxiety disorder" (made up or not), claustrophobia, "denial," insomnia, erectile disfunction, "night eating syndrome," OCD, and stuttering.
The specific disorder would not be disclosed. That would be a HIPPA violation.
I think you highly overestimate any negative effects of having a DSM diagnosis in your "medical records."
(Which are all, of course, privacy protected by HIPPA.)
People have been getting these kinds of diagnoses for years for purposes like obtaining prescription drugs (including, now, marijuana) and work leave-related legal issues, and some "professionals" already make these diagnoses online through questionnaires and virtual visits.
Lastly, all major US carriers -- Delta, United, American and Southwest -- already require this statement for travel with an ESA.
Again. As I have said multiple times now, each time you make this exact same incorrect statement: NO.
No. No. NO.
Carriers may absolutely NOT require a written diagnosis from a licensed professional of a DSM III mental disease or defect.
Carriers can only require a statement from a licensed professional that the passenger is under their care for a disability listed in the DSM.
Not a specific diagnosis.
These are two very different things.
As we've discussed in other threads: The DSM recognizes somewhere north of 450 distinct disorders, which include things like "anxiety disorder" (made up or not), claustrophobia, "denial," insomnia, erectile disfunction, "night eating syndrome," OCD, and stuttering.
The specific disorder would not be disclosed. That would be a HIPPA violation.
I think you highly overestimate any negative effects of having a DSM diagnosis in your "medical records."
(Which are all, of course, privacy protected by HIPPA.)
People have been getting these kinds of diagnoses for years for purposes like obtaining prescription drugs (including, now, marijuana) and work leave-related legal issues, and some "professionals" already make these diagnoses online through questionnaires and virtual visits.
Lastly, all major US carriers -- Delta, United, American and Southwest -- already require this statement for travel with an ESA.
2.. Most DSM (we are approaching the issuance of DSM-V) diagnoses are benign, e.g. addiction to tobacco. Some are not. People think the worst. The guy who smokes too much has a DSM diagnosis as does the psychopath.
3. It is far from a HIPAA violation. The patient obtains the letter from the licensed professional and does with it what he will. If the patient chooses to disclose the letter to WN to get his dog onboard, that is up to the patient.
May 17, 2018, 8:44 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: DL PM/MM, Hilton Silver, SPG+, Hertz PC
Posts: 7,898
In the good ole’ days, smokers were confined to particular sections of the cabin. Wouldn’t it be possible to put all the people so emotionally distressed that they need to bring a pet on board in the very back of the cabin ? Maybe they would reevaluate their condition and decide that the emotional support given by choosing one’s seat is greater than what any animal can provide.
May 17, 2018, 9:39 am
#30
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
In the good ole’ days, smokers were confined to particular sections of the cabin. Wouldn’t it be possible to put all the people so emotionally distressed that they need to bring a pet on board in the very back of the cabin ? Maybe they would reevaluate their condition and decide that the emotional support given by choosing one’s seat is greater than what any animal can provide.
The difference here is smoking was a choice, a disability is not. Surely there's a better solution that treats people with legitimate disabilities with respect, while filtering out those trying to circumvent the rules and doesn't create a segregated "separate but equal" type setting like those "good ole' days."
