• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Emotional Support Animals On Airline Flights

Ermintruder said:
Has there been an increase in the demand for these 'support animals'?
Click to expand...

l think it’s just another manifestation of the medicalisation of day-to-day life.

It’s also a useful get-around for some daft rules. Why, for example, could l fly with a vile, shrieking, nose-excavating tsunami of diarrhoea, AKA a child, yet l would be forbidden from boarding with a clean, well-behaved and quiet dog?

maximus otter
 
Ermintruder said:
I read that as boat

Has there been an increase in the demand for these 'support animals' following the ban on smoking? Or is this just a high-profile bunch of Yanks?
Click to expand...
I don't know, you might have a point because it just sounds like a load of pretentious wankers jumping onto the next thing that's 'trending' at the moment to me Ermintruder .. a oneupmanship thing: : "I felt so much better having MY (read: expensive pedigree) puppy by my side Sally but the food was terrible !" .. "Oh I know what you mean Clara !, I would have as well but they wouldn't even let me take MY (read: even more expensive and rarer) albino Chinese water dragon on ! .. although the Prosecco wasn't too bad .." ... I'm not surprised the airlines are starting to get fed up and putting their collective foot down ..

If I was an airline using terrorist, I'd be trying to work out how to stick explosives up an expensive dog's arse at the moment ..
 
Last edited:
David Plankton said:
Q- How do you put a stick of dynamite up a Rottweiler's arse?
A- Carefully.
Click to expand...
It would have to be up something small like a chihuahua, no sane person's going to let a rotty on a plane anyway .. I don't want to get on the radar of the internet anti terrorism police though because I'm not planning on doing it (honest gov! I'd need to update my passport anyway).

 
Last edited:
An emotional support pit bull might not be a good idea. Lovely animals but too many of them are unstable.

The mother of a five-year-old girl mauled in the face by an "emotional support" pit bull at Portland's airport has filed a $1.1m (£800,000) lawsuit.

Mirna Gonzalez says her daughter Gabriela suffered permanent injuries when another passenger's dog bit her as they waited to board their plane. The legal action against the dog-owner, Alaska Airlines and the airport says the incident was on 18 December 2017. It says the dog was not in a crate after passing through security.

"As a result of the incident, Gabriella Gonzalez suffered injury to the muscles, tendons, bones, nerves and soft tissue of her face, eye, eyelid, tear duct and lip, as well as emotional trauma," says the legal action, adding that the family was on their way to Texas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47406812?ocid=socialflow_twitter
 
That just shows the emotional support pit bull should have been give an emotional support animal of it's own.
 
Why she suing the airline? Just sue the snowflake that needed it
 
Shady said:
Why she suing the airline? Just sue the snowflake that needed it
Click to expand...

It's standard practice to name any and all potentially responsible / liable parties from the beginning.

The airport is a defendant because the incident happened within their facilities. The airline is a defendant because they were responsible for managing the boarding gate area. The dog's owner, too, is a defendant for the obvious reasons.
 
WTF? Why wasn't the dog muzzled?

A passenger traveling on a 2017 Delta flight is suing the airline and a pet owner, claiming that an emotional support dog bit him in an attack that left permanent damage to his face.

Marlin Jackson of Alabama filed the lawsuit over the June 2017 incident on Friday. He’s accusing the airline and the dog owner, a U.S. Marine, of negligence and demanding an unspecified amount of damages.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pass...cid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__053019
 
Restrictions on emotional support animals.

California Assembly Bill No. 468, effective January 1, 2022, will make it more difficult for healthcare providers to issue "emotional support dog" certifications and also makes it clear that emotional support dogs are "not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded by law to a guide, signal, or service dog."

From Fenwick:


Requests for emotional support animals in the workplace have increased in recent years. Under AB 468, healthcare providers are prohibited from issuing "emotional support dog" certifications unless the provider:
  • Has a valid, active license and includes certain enumerated information concerning that license in the certification;
  • Is licensed to provide services within the scope of the license in the jurisdiction in which the certification is provided;
  • Establishes a client-provider relationship with the individual at least 30 days before providing certification concerning the individual's need for an emotional support dog;
  • Completes a clinical evaluation of the individual regarding the need for an emotional support dog; and
  • Provides verbal or written notice to the individual that knowingly and fraudulently representing themselves as the owner or trainer of a guide, signal or service dog is a misdemeanor
Click to expand...

https://boingboing.net/2021/12/07/c...lations-around-emotional-support-animals.html
 
ramonmercado said:
Restrictions on emotional support animals.

California Assembly Bill No. 468, effective January 1, 2022, will make it more difficult for healthcare providers to issue "emotional support dog" certifications and also makes it clear that emotional support dogs are "not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded by law to a guide, signal, or service dog."

From Fenwick:




https://boingboing.net/2021/12/07/c...lations-around-emotional-support-animals.html
Click to expand...
Good!

As an animal lover who suffers from serious anxiety and PTSD, I can totally understand how valuable the support from a good animal can be. I would go anywhere with my old GSD; if someone was making me nervous, her head and ears would go up (we used to call it 'police dog mode')and she'd look at them, and her whole attitude said, "don't you come near my mum, matey, I can already pick you out in an identity parade" :chuckle:

But. most of these people are just being stupid, and selfish. Peacocks and ponies aren't support animals. Properly trained service animals don't bite, or their owners are trained well enough to use a muzzle in public spaces (I've probably mentioned this before, but my uncle used to train dogs for the prison service, so I know a little bit about how it should be done.)
 
Not an airline but now Sainsbury's are banning emotional support cats.

A man with autism is taking supermarket giant Sainsbury's to court for refusing entry to his assistance cat.

Designer and writer Ian Fenn from London says the ban on Chloe, who helps him in daily life, is limiting his independence. He says she helps him stay calm, but the supermarket argues that cats, unlike assistance dogs, present risks to food hygiene. The case might set a legal precedent if it has to be ruled on by top judges.

Sainsbury's says it is working with an environmental health team to find out how Ian and his cat can visit safely.

Ian was recently diagnosed with autism after many years of struggling with anxiety in busy or noisy environments.

He has trained Chloe to help him manage his way through daily life after discovering on a train journey that her presence improved what would otherwise have been a stressful situation.

When we meet Ian and Chloe in a south London pub, she's sitting on a small, dedicated mat beside him on the sofa, gazing intently at the drinkers. She wears a "service cat" jacket and occasionally nibbles treats. Over the course of an hour, she occasionally looks around, but does not leave the mat once.

Outside the pub, she sits on Ian's shoulder or walks around on a lead.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61596623
 
I see the main problem as - how does one prove that the animal you are proclaiming to be your 'emotional support' actually IS? As opposed to just being your dog/cat/tiger/wombat that you don't like leaving at home? Would you have to provide some kind of medical certificate to show that the animal has passed some basic training to be alongside you and not bothering others (like a Guide Dog)? Or do they just have to accept your say-so?

As there seems to be a huge increase in people self-diagnosing with mental health conditions (largely unsurprisingly, given the state of the mental health services), surely this is just a lot of people deciding that their symptoms are 'anxiety', but that's better if they're allowed to take their dog/cat/tiger/wombat around with them. Does this make the animal an ACTUAL support animal or what?
 
ramonmercado said:
Not an airline but now Sainsbury's are banning emotional support cats.

A man with autism is taking supermarket giant Sainsbury's to court for refusing entry to his assistance cat.

Designer and writer Ian Fenn from London says the ban on Chloe, who helps him in daily life, is limiting his independence. He says she helps him stay calm, but the supermarket argues that cats, unlike assistance dogs, present risks to food hygiene. The case might set a legal precedent if it has to be ruled on by top judges.

Sainsbury's says it is working with an environmental health team to find out how Ian and his cat can visit safely.

Ian was recently diagnosed with autism after many years of struggling with anxiety in busy or noisy environments.

He has trained Chloe to help him manage his way through daily life after discovering on a train journey that her presence improved what would otherwise have been a stressful situation.

When we meet Ian and Chloe in a south London pub, she's sitting on a small, dedicated mat beside him on the sofa, gazing intently at the drinkers. She wears a "service cat" jacket and occasionally nibbles treats. Over the course of an hour, she occasionally looks around, but does not leave the mat once.

Outside the pub, she sits on Ian's shoulder or walks around on a lead.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61596623
Click to expand...
Good grief, how sad! While at WalMart, everything from sheep to lizards to owls and cats and dogs wander around with their owners.
 
catseye said:
I see the main problem as - how does one prove that the animal you are proclaiming to be your 'emotional support' actually IS? As opposed to just being your dog/cat/tiger/wombat that you don't like leaving at home? Would you have to provide some kind of medical certificate to show that the animal has passed some basic training to be alongside you and not bothering others (like a Guide Dog)? Or do they just have to accept your say-so?

As there seems to be a huge increase in people self-diagnosing with mental health conditions (largely unsurprisingly, given the state of the mental health services), surely this is just a lot of people deciding that their symptoms are 'anxiety', but that's better if they're allowed to take their dog/cat/tiger/wombat around with them. Does this make the animal an ACTUAL support animal or what?
Click to expand...
Yes, there should be some sort of test, like there is for PAT dogs in hospitals; the animal should be able to show a certain level of training to qualify (things like being handled by strangers without showing aggression, coming when called, sitting and staying) that doesn't disclude animals other than dogs, but if it can't do those simple things, what use can it practically be? apart from being there to be stroked, and you could use a stuffed animal for that, I do feel a lot of these animals are just "I can't bear to be separated from my pets" in reality :(
 
Fluttermoth said:
Yes, there should be some sort of test, like there is for PAT dogs in hospitals; the animal should be able to show a certain level of training to qualify (things like being handled by strangers without showing aggression, coming when called, sitting and staying) that doesn't disclude animals other than dogs, but if it can't do those simple things, what use can it practically be? apart from being there to be stroked, and you could use a stuffed animal for that, I do feel a lot of these animals are just "I can't bear to be separated from my pets" in reality :(
Click to expand...
I think that would be the way forward. A kind of 'certification' for the animal, passed by showing that it is sufficiently socialised to be in crowds. I don't deny that some mental health conditions can be improved by having animals around, but in order to take them into social situations (where I would assume in cases such as anxiety and autism they would be most needed), the animal should display a degree of socialised behaviour.
 
catseye said:
I think that would be the way forward. A kind of 'certification' for the animal, passed by showing that it is sufficiently socialised to be in crowds. I don't deny that some mental health conditions can be improved by having animals around, but in order to take them into social situations (where I would assume in cases such as anxiety and autism they would be most needed), the animal should display a degree of socialised behaviour.
Click to expand...
And a medical professional's diagnosis for the owner.
 
Coal said:
And a medical professional's diagnosis for the owner.
Click to expand...
As an ideal, but, as I said, the mental health sector is so woefully underfunded that many people are only having conditions diagnosed as adults that would have benefited from diagnosis much earlier.

If someone has taken the trouble to have their 'support animal' certificated, then at least we'd know that they believed they had issues which were made more comfortable to deal with by the presence of the animal. Just picking any old creature out of the field, saying you have whatever condition you feel makes the animal justified, and then taking it around with you, shouldn't give you rights over owners of other animals which are banned or restricted.
 
Kinda off topic rant alert:

Which animals, under what circumstances, and by whom, are all factors in the slippery slope arguments about animals in public places. I think that sighted people who bring animals into public places such as stores, airplanes, or busses are mostly selfish and poor fellow citizens. They put their desires and needs above those of everyone around them. It seems to be impossible to impose standards of behavior for the animals and their owners, so I wish the animals would be universally banned.

For me, the topic is brought into crisp definition when the place is in an airplane, with close proximity, no escape, and insufficient air circulation. If the animal cannot wear a muzzle for the duration, or be in a carrier, then I think it should not be allowed in the airport or plane. If I am on a plane with someone who has a cat in a carrier, even if it is not close to me, I am miserable from the dander. This misery lasts for hours after I get off the plane. Cat and dog dander allergy is so prevalent, about 10% of the world population, that it just narrowly misses being categorized as an irritant. A classification as an irritant would allow more stringent public health guidance, at least here in the US.

I am a selfish person, apparently, because I am against animals of any sort in food stores and restaurants. The only exception being seeing-eye dogs for blind people. I greatly dislike seeing animals in restaurants with their front paws on the table and eating from the dishes. I am horrified to see animals in grocery stores in the grocery carts, or pooping in the aisles (I wish I were exaggerating). My disabled husband's intermittent and devastatingly violent diarrhea only cleared up when I began taking a separate big bag to the grocery store and put my food into it so the food never came into contact with a grocery cart. Hmm.

I am now prepared for the fertilizing storm of animated discussion. :)
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
Kinda off topic rant alert:

Which animals, under what circumstances, and by whom, are all factors in the slippery slope arguments about animals in public places. I think that sighted people who bring animals into public places such as stores, airplanes, or busses are mostly selfish and poor fellow citizens. They put their desires and needs above those of everyone around them. It seems to be impossible to impose standards of behavior for the animals and their owners, so I wish the animals would be universally banned.

For me, the topic is brought into crisp definition when the place is in an airplane, with close proximity, no escape, and insufficient air circulation. If the animal cannot wear a muzzle for the duration, or be in a carrier, then I think it should not be allowed in the airport or plane. If I am on a plane with someone who has a cat in a carrier, even if it is not close to me, I am miserable from the dander. This misery lasts for hours after I get off the plane. Cat and dog dander allergy is so prevalent, about 10% of the world population, that it just narrowly misses being categorized as an irritant. A classification as an irritant would allow more stringent public health guidance, at least here in the US.

I am a selfish person, apparently, because I am against animals of any sort in food stores and restaurants. The only exception being seeing-eye dogs for blind people. I greatly dislike seeing animals in restaurants with their front paws on the table and eating from the dishes. I am horrified to see animals in grocery stores in the grocery carts, or pooping in the aisles (I wish I were exaggerating). My disabled husband's intermittent and devastatingly violent diarrhea only cleared up when I began taking a separate big bag to the grocery store and put my food into it so the food never came into contact with a grocery cart. Hmm.

I am now prepared for the fertilizing storm of animated discussion. :)
Click to expand...
Nope not from me, agree with you 100%.
 
Didn't some stores offer stuffed animals for people to take round with them, probably in America????????
 
Support snakes. I demand the right to fly with lots of snakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top