acoldspoon

No offense, but you state this as a fact, and it isn't necessarily one. The fact that access can be abused doesn't mean that all emotional support animals are dangerous and unruly untrained pets assisting con artists. If an ethical debate is to take place on this matter then there must be agreed upon terms based in fact as opposed to subjective supposition. Your making your argument by interchanging terms that aren't so simply interchangeable and making umbrella statements based on supposition rather than fact. It makes any kind of ethical debate near impossible.

CDKing

it also mentions miniature pony's and pigs

Jim C

My daughter's guide dog is a 70 lb Labrador. He fits quite nicely in the space for a coach seat, but has more difficulty in a bulkhead seat. She always requests a non-bulkhead window seat.

gj83

For situations like this I can appreciate canada's "one person, one fare" regulation. The person could have gotten an extra seat for no charge with a true service or emotional support animal if I read the regulation correctly. Too bad the regulation got maligned for giving obese people free seats.

acoldspoon

Me too, in general.

PTravel

Unlike service animals, there are no criteria for "emotional support animals" other than a letter from a doctor saying the person needs the animal with him for his emotional well-being.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not interchanging terms. Service animals? Fine. In fact, more than fine. Admirable, and deserving every accommodation and support. "Emotional support animals"? Someone whose mental health is so precarious that the only way they can go out in public is if they take their pet with them has no business flying on a commercial aircraft.

I have an emotional support wife. Can she fly free and sit on my lap?

acoldspoon

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just pointing out that just because an animal is an Emotional Support Animal doesn't mean it isn't trained to the standard of a Service Animal. I also agree that some aren't. Your argument seemed to imply that no Emotional Support Animals were properly trained for the access they receive.

bkafrick

I want to see someone try to bring a Miniature Pony on a plane. Service Animal or not, come on... a pony?

acoldspoon

http://www.guidehorse.com/images/erik/c2.jpg

PTravel

That's my understanding, yes. Service animals are not the same thing as emotional support animals, and emotional support animals are not the same thing as service animals. Are you saying it's otherwise?

acoldspoon

I'm saying that and something else as well. I'm pointing out that just because an emotional support animal isn't held to as high a credentialing standard or training standard as other working animals might be doesn't mean they are in fact lesser trained. This seemed to get lost in the oversimplification of calling all emotional support dogs pets. For that matter, I'd like to see emotional support animals help to a very high standard.

PTravel

I'm sorry, but you've lost me here. Is your point that "emotional support animals" might be trained by their owners? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but, if so, I don't understand your point at all. My dog was very well trained, but she wasn't an "emotional support dog," she was just my pet and I wouldn't have dreamed of taking her on an airplane.

Except that I doubt that will happen for one very simple reason: an "emotional support animal" is no more nor less than a good pet. My dog was a great friend and companion -- she knew when I was sad, and would come over and lick my face. She knew when I was happy, and would play with me. That's what made her a great pet. As I said in a prior post, someone whose mental state is so precarious that they can't go out in public without their pet has no business being on an airplane. Emotional problems are very real and they should be treated by doctor. Investing so much of one's psyche in an animal so that someone can't even bear to have the animal in a carrier under the seat is not a solution to emotional problems. I'm not a doctor, and this is just my opinion, but I simply don't buy it.

acoldspoon

It may just be confusion over what we both mean by trained. Your dog was a great friend and companion to be sure, but I doubt was trained to what I'd ever consider a standard that would earn her the right to be uncrated on a commercial aircraft. You seem to assume that all emotional support animals would have one level of training, I was just making the factual argument that there are dogs flying as emotional support animals that have a training level equal to certified service dogs coming from bona fide schools. These animals may be far and few between, but they are out there. I say this knowing of a couple examples. A debate on the legalities and ethics of emotional support animals needs to be factual and take into account all applicable variables, or it isn't of much use. I for one would like to see a training standard be talked about by the airlines, but to do this there has to be recognition of different standards of training. For instance, an emotional support animal that has cross certified with a decent therapy animal standard or is a retired signal dog, will have suitable training that a house pet who went to Petco puppy kindergarten won't have.

iztok

When I was growing up my family had a service animal. He was well trained in what he did and did his job well. However I would not even think about taking him on board of an airplane in a passenger cabin. Nothing to do with safety or training. Should there be a need for him to fly he would have been in the cargo or in most cases on a non-pax flight (like armed forces flights). I guess being a Newfoundland has something to do with it

PTravel

Absolutely correct -- that was my point.

In which case, they are the exception that proves the rule. That's like saying there are laptops which are EMF-hardened, so no one should assume that someone using one during takeoff is going to cause a problem.

Whether or not there are well-trained "emotional support animals" isn't the point, or at least not my point. A true service animal has (1) received specific training, (2) to do a specific job -- these are, literally, working animals. "Emotional support animals," whether or not trained by its owner, has no job other than to be there -- it is not a working animal. Whether or not it makes its owner feel better is irrelevant.

I don't question the legality of "emotional support animals" -- they're legal. My point is they shouldn't be.

That's obviously true. If "emotional support animals" went to "accredited" schools, like service animals, I'd have less of a problem. However, that would also increase their cost enormously (I seem to recall reading somewhere that training a service animal cost in the tens of thousands of dollars) and I'd be willing to bet that the people who "rely" on them would suddenly find that they're not quite as necessary as they thought. Moreover, I'd be surprised if just any "emotional support animal" would do. People who depend on service animals are introduced to them after-the-fact of their need -- they don't say, "Hey, I already have a dog that I love -- I'll use him." They can't, because not all animals who receive training, whether as rescue dogs, seeing-eye dogs, hearing-ear dogs, etc., make the grade.