While I understand and respect many people do need service animals and emotional support animals, I think currently it is far too easy to scam the system.
After I moved into my first apartment, two of my roommates found kittens off the street and wanted to keep them as pets, so both of them sought to 'order' an ESA letter online. Of course these were phony, and my roommates had no legitimate reasons to need ESAs. I specifically had moved into this apartment as it had a strict no-pet policy because I have a major allergy to pet dander, but my roommates never checked that with me. So for the next 6 weeks that we lived together, I had massive allergy attacks and was constantly sick. Eventually, the landlord came knocking with the letter they bought because they realized it was fake, and both of them were evicted in a matter of days.
Later in college, I would go on to work intensively with the disabled community and learned how big of a problem it is for people that do legitimately need service animals and ESAs that people like my former roommates are abusing the system. People start seeing all service animals as unnecessary and it just makes it harder for the people that do need them.
I think the only solution to this growing problem would be to make a stricter national standard and registry for service animals, with ESAs put under similar terms as well, so ordinary pets can't have a vest slapped on them or a fake letter ordered for them and be called something they're not.
5
@Margret I agree 100% I know quite a few people who have gotten some kind of "emotional support" certificate so they can bring their dogs to the movies, restaurant, work, on the plane, and allow them to have animals in their apartment. I have to wonder if all the people are are gaming the system are making it difficult for those with "service dogs"? Someone close recently got to take in 2 dogs to a non-animal apartment just by going online and getting an "emotional support" certificate.
2
All people can not have everything they want all the time. If an individual has a diagnosed emotional (or physical) issue that a licensed health care professional determines will benefit from a trained service animal, fine. But you cannot have a counterfeit "service animal" vest on any critter you want, stick a forged "license" in the provided pocket, and take it everywhere you go. There needs to be standards for what is and is not a service animal, they need to be clearly defined in law or regulations, and they need to be strictly enforced.
I saw a guy walking through the market with a dog wearing a blue vest that said "Service Animal". He had to keep pulling the dog away from the food because the dog was intensely interested in the Doritos. The dog was less well trained than mo non-service pets. True working dogs do not behave this way.
5
After reading this article I do think that emotional support animals are a scam. A passenger riding a plane should not have to bring an animal along with them to feel ¨safer¨. If a passenger can not ride a plane, they should use another kind of transportation. For example, a train, a car, etc. When reading that a woman needed a peacock for emotional support, this sounded a little ridiculous. Airlines should determine what pets can fly with their owns, by collecting background information. They can make sure that it's a serious matter. There should be stricter rules, because like the author said passengers often result with an allergic reaction, or feel unsafe. From personal experience, I have a very severe allergy. My symptoms of an allergic reaction can range from feelings nauseous to my throat closing. On planes not only do passengers have an allergic reaction from pets, but peanuts are a big issue as well. Also, passengers may not feel safe on board, because the dangers of the animal are unpredictable. Some passengers with emotional support animals do not train them well. This is a safety hazard. In conclusion, this article interested me because I have seen animals on the same flight as me, and they are not always necessary.
2
As a young adult who flies with an emotional support animal often, I find myself particularly interested in this article. Emotional support animals are extremely necessary for individuals who are afraid of flying and suffer from panic and anxiety attacks. A majority of the time, emotional support animals are dogs, rather than the pigs, birds, or monkeys mentioned in this article, which indeed, are farfetched and clearly not truly emotional support animals. Leonhardt continues to explain that the number of problems, including biting or barking, caused by these animals are increasing as well. Psychiatric service animals are considered service dogs, and are often times led to bite or attack someone when touched unexpectedly. Seeing eye dogs and other response and alert dogs are not supposed to be touched, as it distracts them from their main priority. People assume that these animals on planes are regular animals, when in reality, they are there for a reason and should not be pet without the consent of their owner. Leonhardt also mentions the increasing allergy attacks from non-hypoallergenic animals. As someone who also has severe nut allergies, this is quite hypocritical. Both people and airlines are often inconsiderate with the growing number of allergens. Nuts and other bagged snacks are still served on several airlines, including Delta. For individuals who are airborne or severely allergic, this is an issue as well, and should be just as addressed as the animal issues.
1
@Victoria Kornecki some good points, but
1) ESAs are assistance animals, but not service animals under federal law.
2) Service dogs (dogs trained to perfom tasks for the disabled, such as a guide dog for the blind) do not bite or scratch when touched unexpectedly. They are extensively trained and any trainee dog that displayed aggression or anxiety in public would not be placed as a service dog.
3) While you are correct that many airlines continue to serve peanuts (and sometimes tree nuts) despite the fact that some people have serious allergies, it's fairly easy for that extremely small portion of passengers to avoid exposure to nuts completely. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that a larger portion of the population suffers from pet allergies, and it's not possible to avoid exposure to dander if you are seated nearby.
It's unfortunate that you experience anxiety while flying, and I hope flying with your companion animal is helpful for you. I haven't had any bad experiences with companion animals myself, but I notice that dog/cat lovers often anthropomorphize their pets, viewing them as family members, and forget that the some have chosen to live without animals because we prefer not to be around them. My sister for example is deathly scared of all dogs, she might want off the plane if seated near one
5
Honestly, I think ESA should be allowed on planes. what makes me mad is how many people abuse ESA laws. I have a ESA residential letter for my cat. I have been going to therapy for over two years. I asked my Therapist for an airline letter but she couldn't give me one because they changed their policy due to so many students abusing the service. I have to go to another professional to get my letter now. No, I don't need my cat on the plane because I'm freaked out about flying. But everytime i travel for more than a few days, my mental health gets dramatically worse without him. My cat gives me a reason to get out of bed, makes me feel needed and worth something, makes me feel comforted when I'm having a breakdown. Also my cat has saved me from suicide. I dont think people realize how debilitating mental illness is and how therapeutic ESAs can be. I travel at least 3 times a year for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. I have gotten panic attacks in the past when the people I pay to watch him while I travel forget to send me pictures and updates everyday. I dont want to deal with that stress and anxiety when im suppose to be having a good time with my parents and siblings. No my cat does not completely relieve me from my mental health issues but it definitely helps. People need to stop faking mental illness or letters just so they can avoid pet fees...It makes it harder for those who actual need them
1
@Lexi you can fly with your cat in a checked crate even if you don't have an ESA. He will hate it though. Remember, there's no requirement that the letter be from your regular therapist. You can order an ESA letter from an online therapist. Sorta shady but they legally aren't allowed to question it. Good luck!
DOT memo on ESAs - https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/...
1
The fact that someone is so emotionally unstable that they need support from a dog is just the sad state of our wimped out society. Sure, you feel better with your 110 pound pit bull in the plane with you. But now everyone else around you is in the state of panic that you are "supposedly" trying to avoid.
True Service Animals (dogs only) that perform an actual service are the only animals that should be allowed on planes and anywhere food is sold or served. These dogs have usually been through training since birth for the service.
People that are afraid of the ocean will stay on the beach. So if you are afraid of flying you should stay on the ground.
8
I know plenty of people who laugh about how they pulled the wool over their doctors' eyes to convince them that they needed their pet as an emotional support so that they can travel with them. One family in general just doesn't like paying for a pet sitter when they go on vacation, so the father got his doctor to say that he needs their huge standard poodle as his support. This man also travels frequently for business, but doesn't take the dog on his business trips since his family is at home to take care of it. So, my proposal is that if someone claims to need an emotional support animal, they should be required to travel with it for all their trips. After all, if the pet owner claims they need the pet to avoid an emotional crisis for one trip, wouldn't it make sense that they need it for all trips?
3
You hit the nail on the head when you said people just don't want to pay for pet sitters or to put Fido in a kennel.
4
i agree with alyssa
Dexter the peacock was a bit out of the ordinary in terms of being an emotional support animal, but that doesn’t mean he fails to serve an emotional purpose for his owner. That being said, there will always be extreme cases. Allergies are on the rise these days and they can be just as extreme as someone with severe depression who relies on their emotional support animal. Often time’s decisions just have to be made for the greater good. Do we favor the people with extreme allergies or extreme anxiety? Being a person with allergies myself, I would say to leave the pets out, but that’s just my personal opinion. Being on a plane is stressful enough to even the most “normal” person, so either deprivation could be very taxing on the person. Of course there will always be the people who abuse the system. When we are given greater privileges or rights (such as bring pets on planes for emotional reasons) it also comes with greater responsibility, something of which everyone has the choice to abuse. The hope is of course for people to respect such rights, but there will always be trolls in life who abuse their agency.
I think that emotional support animals are mostly a scam, because there are far too many people that bring animals on flights to all need them, and some of the animals are too exotic sometimes to be for emotional support. Having a trained service dog on a plane is fine, but having a peacock on board crosses the line. Airlines need to enforce stricter rules, such as having the owner of the pet prove that the animal is a trained service animal, so no accidents happen on board.
Having an emotional support animal is necessary for people who have anxiety or depression. I think that Dexter the peacock was not necessary and has made it hard for people who have emotional support animals(esa) to board flights. I do think some people cheat the system which is not fair to others. I have a hedgehog which can be classified as an exotic animal. If I had an emotional disability and my hedgehog helped calm me down then I would have legal rights to board the plane with it. Since it is a small animal and would not even be able to harm an animal I have legal rights to take it. It would also be hard to have an allergic reaction to it because it does not have hair. I believe animals have therapeutic properties that can calm the mind this theory has been proven in dogs but other animals can give you the same relief. I don’t know what to do with the system. If we base the system off of trust people will still cheat the system. However, if we base the system off of harsh checking the people who actually have an esa for a good reason will have to do more work.
Honestly, i think that there are some people who benefit from a emotional support animal. Some days even I could use a small fuzzy lap dog. On the other hand, the emotional support animal should NOT be a peacock. For one it's completely unreasonable to take a bird of that size on a plane. There are too many doctors certifying animals for emotional support that dont deserve it. The way I see it, is that an emotional support animal should be a small, lap dog, that doesn't trigger allergy attacks. There are all these people being bringing bizarre pets on board. I wonder if they ever thought of that person who is allergic to dog and is stuck, miserable on a flight, that a few years ago would have been fine. Plus there's snakes. What part of a snake makes you feel emotionally comforted, a dog i can understand, that’s comforting, but as someone who is crazy afraid of snakes i just don’t understand. I would be freaking out if I were on a plane with a snake. Which is why I think that they need to make the rules more strict for being able to have an emotional support animal.
How could anybody believe that a peacock is an emotional support animal? Over time, people have just been using the excuse of emotional support animals to just ferry their pets to locations they wish to. I truly believe that emotional support animals exist, but peacocks don't seem to quite fit the budget. As stated by David Leonhardt in the article "It's Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets", in regards to peacocks, "But given that peacocks are large birds are there is not much evidence of therapeutic benefits," shows that sometimes people abuse the role that animals play in people's lives. Dogs, cats, birds even, have all had plenty of research done to show how they can help their owners recover from tragedy, cure depression, and are even the closest things some people hold dear in their lives. There need to be less "Dexters" in airlines, and more of what people actually need.
I agree with you Mark, this is getting ridiculous. How could a peacock help someone with their emotions? Unfortunately there are a lot of people that are abusing the system of emotional support animals. This has become a major problem for people who actually need a emotional support animal. A guideline should be made of which animals are reasonable for support and those that are purely insane (Hint like the peacock). There should also be a license from a professional psychologist for those who need a support animals and if someone is not able to provide a license when caught with an animal, then he or she should be charged a fine. By doing so I think that the issue will die down a little.
@Grant Holland the peacock has its own instagram account; its owner is avante garde artist from Brooklyn. So this whole controversy is generating some convenient publicity. (Performance art piece?)
This is a very abrupt challenge for airlines; they probably never thought it possible for people to actually believe some of these animals can help them. Airplanes are not meant to hold monkeys, pigs, and how in the world does a peacock help you in any way? Some of these animals that people are bringing on board do not belong outside of their natural habitat, besides being 5,000 feet in the air. Whenever I thought of a support animal before reading this article, I always believed it to be just dogs, and sometimes cats; never monkeys and peacocks. I agree with the airlines decision to make their rules regarding support animals much stricter; you can’t have people bringing exotic pets on board saying they’re support animals. What’s worse than bringing the actual animals, though, is the backlash they get for not allowing a person to bring a PEACOCK on board? It makes you wonder if these people are sane. In my opinion, support animals that are not dogs are usually a scam, unless the person can prove with certainty that they have a serious problem that only that type of animal can support.
Amazing comment, I strongly agree. The fact that airlines are getting shade thrown there way for not allowing obvious scam pets such as a peacock on board is completely ridiculous. Airlines should largely consider adjusting their rules to become more strict in order to prevent these scams. Even if they have to deal with some backlash, someone needs to lead a change.
1
From the basics, I believe Mr. Leonhardt proposal is correct, emotional-support animals have now become a scam and are not solely used for their true beneficial purpose. After reading the article, I realized how truly harsh and selfish our society has become. I mean, no one besides that person has something to gain by taking their pet with them because they want to or without legal, and I mean legitimately legal evidence. As the author stated, surrounding passengers could have fears or allergies, which apparently, nobody seems to care about now. Imagine being encapsulated with your worst horror for an hour, maybe two, maybe three, or maybe it will feel like an eternity. There you have it, you just turned what used to be a calm, relaxing ride, wondering if it ever has to end, into a dark, devastating nightmare, wondering when will it end. This is not some issue to be taken lightly and I believe our society needs to become more selfless and focus on helping others if we truly want to establish a strong, reliable country.
1
These people are just really selfish and put their own happiness above others comfort and health. Any dog is a filthy animal and they do not belong in the same space as other humans, their owners may disagree but that is just because they are brainwashed.
The broader problem here is the disturbing trend in our society where there is apparently no right and wrong. Everyone is free to make their own determination and apparently there are no acceptable societal standards anymore.
1
I hear that you feel like people with emotional support animals are just being selfish and thinking of themselves. I think you need to consider the fact that so many people suffer from depression and anxiety because of people that are not accepting of them. You may not feel comfortable having an animal on board a plane you are on, but if the animal is properly trained it can do no harm to you or anyone else. I think you need to consider other people's perspectives and realize that the best thing for them is an emotional support animal.
As a flight attendant for over a decade, ESAs didn't exist when I first started. I would have MAYBE 10 REAL service animals A YEAR! Now it's 1 service animal and 3 ESAs PER DAY! No. These people are just selfish and don't care about the people they are hurting. They could care less about our veterans with PTSD or other true illnesses. They just don't want to pay for a pet sitter and it's fun for them to bring their pet on vacation. PERIOD. As a flight attendant we can tell within the first 2 minutes of someone boarding if their service animal is real. Lack of training in a public setting is obvious.
2
@Anonymous FYI, everyone on Earth suffers from depression and anxiety because of people that are not accepting of them. Most of us just convince ourselves that people aren't staring at us, judging, and find a way to get on that plane. And its not about whether the pet is trained or a danger (although many people say their dog is well trained, it only obeys them, not other humans)-- animal lovers often don't get that dogs are unpleasant to the rest of us other ways -- you cannot stop your dog and his food from giving off an unpleasant odor in the airplane cabin, or stop him from urinating and defacating on the floor, stinking it up more. You might be able to stop it from barking, but you can't stop it from drooling and shedding hair which gets into the chairs and other passengers clothes, which then have to be cleaned. There are many reasons why many people prefer to suffer the already obnoxious horror of air travel without having to share the space with other people's pets -- despite considering their perspectives, I don't think it's fair to the vast majority of passengers to go along with "what is best" for a few, who many of whom aren't legitimate trained assistance animals, as FltAtndt observes from personal experience as a crew member
1
Personally, I agree with Mr. Leonhardt’s idea that emotional support pest are scamming airlines. Some pet owners seem completely clueless about the people are them when they try to bring on a dog or cat. Some people aboard the plane may suffer from allergies, and may not be able to handle a pet on board. That was the case when my family and I where on an 11 hour flight to Holland. My sister suffers from bad allergies and is allergic to dogs, and someone brought their lap dog on to the plane. Not only did the dog not stop barking it also caused my sister to cough, and sneeze for 11 hours straight. I felt bad for her, but there really wasn’t anything we could do. Allergies are bad but pets that are aggressive and on a plane with you are just as bad.
Airlines might want to start introducing a pet free flight as an option when purchasing you tickets. Just as the article stated, “barking, lunging, and biting,” pets should not be allowed on to the plane. Pets who are aggressive, and are not trained to hold in their duties should not be allowed on the planes for the sake of the other passengers who probably paid good money to be on that flight. Airlines need to fix there rules dealing with animals on planes and if they are a REAL emotional support animal, you should have to show a document stating so. Without stricter rules and airline making a better effort to make flights more comfortable to passengers dealing with allergies flying might become less enjoyable to many people.
1
Some pet owners may be dishonest just to take advantage of taking their pet for free on the plane, in general, the people always try making advantage of the situation and we need to think about other people, and how affect our decision to them. I think Mr. David has been interested of the communities. He says that this is only big fraud, I agree with David, because the people need learn to the actions. People are lying to the system. I think that airlines must request, a legal document from the doctor of the passenger, who needs their pet for they are emotional, safe and healthy. Airlines must also demand a document from the veterinarian, certifying that the animal has all its vaccines and that and that it is very healthy. The more requirements are needed to travel with the pet will be achieved that scammers refrain from committing this fraud, which hurts all passengers traveling on airlines. Fraud is something usual, when the people have not rules, for example, most people who drive in New York (Long Island) they do not respect the signs that indicate the speed request in each city. The county found, one way to avoid. So many deaths and accidents near schools, they placing security cameras that also taking a picture you measure the speed of the vehicle, the people who made these actions; they received one ticket or letter with the picture, and the town charge amount for this infraction, they only think about themselves, and how hurried they are to reach their destination.
@Adriana 4D. I don't see how speed cameras are analogous. This is America -- we shouldn't be setting up cameras to write speeding tickets and make $ for the county. Apply "free market" principles -- if so many people are speeding, maybe the speed limit should be raised.
My opinion about this article is that you can bring your pet to the airport and fly with them just if you have special condition and you can prove you need these animals by your side for emotional support. However, if you fly with dangerous animals could hurt somebody or can react any allergy.
I agree with author that handicapped people need to take pets with them because without helping pets it would be hard to do something on the board. Nevertheless, I disagree about people who take pets without any serious problems; it can be a problem for an owner and for people who sit next to a pet. However, to bring supportive pets is a good idea. I`m almost sure that sometimes people can be gaming the system and they do it almost every day. Nonetheless, it`s not a reason to prohibit of using pets as helpers. Unfortunately, we can`t make build a trust-based system because people are different. Everyone has their psychology traits and some of them are not always positive. I think that airlines should create a special type of the rules if someone needs to bring a pet with him or her. If you really need your animal you`re supposed to have some problems which you could not solve without animals. For instance, if someone is blind he has to get a document from a doctor and prove it at an airport I highly do not recommend bringing pets to colleges. If someone will, it would be craziness. Colleges are not a Zoo. As far as apartments, I would say people may allow to bring pets at home if it`s not a problem for neighbors. In addition, I think it would be a great idea to bring some pets to the special hospitals where people who have depression can be relaxing to play with pets such as dogs and cats.
After reading this article I agree with the Author despite flying pets it is not a big problem but I think that sometimes people lie for their own benefit even thought this affects other people.
In addition, I believe that more than 50% of pets called “Emotional-Support” are a scam, I don’t think that most people paid for bring animals every time they fly. In the other hand, I disagree with the most people that argument needed these pets like emotional support because they can prove that.
I believe that airlines should be very strict with their own rules and prevent that people lie and get special privileges just to people that can demonstrate a real disability although in other public places the rules can be more flexible while don’t affect other people avoid an allergic reaction or a headache caused by any animal.
Service Animals as dogs or other animals that are specially trained to perform essential life tasks and assist people with physical or mental disabilities. I agree with Mr. Leon-hart that people are usually cheating as they do not need any
emotional support by their pets.
Are people who "game the system when it comes the issue of Emotional Support Animals? The answer is most likely yes because airlines did not require medical proof about pets. Some people have to need their pets for getting mental supports, emotional conditions, but many people take this advantage as they do not need any mental helps by their pets in free payment.
I think airlines need to check strictly to find whether the owner needs his pet animals for emotional supports through the collections of medical records. "Trust Based System" is not only working to scam of flying pets. Some people always want to get a chance to carry their favorite pets without any fees and regulations still they may have not actually need any supports from them.
Recently, I have read an article on the New York Times about a passenger who wanted to travel with her peacock, but the passenger wasn’t allow to fly with her pet. Nowadays, the law authorizes people to travel with pet. However, there is a rule that allows someone boarding a pet on the plane. If this passenger is limited, for example a blind person can travel with his dog. This is a fact; this person really needs this animal for special services. He cannot go anywhere without his dog. This is a special situation, anyone can understand that, so the attendant of the flight or the train will reserve a special seat for this particular passenger. They have to be sure this situation will not bother anyone. What about those who are not physically limited and want to travel with their pet? We can say this category of people games the system in many ways. They say they need an emotional support. They can’t go anywhere without their pet. If you are a physical limited person or an autism, you need to have a medical proof. Than you will be sitting in a special seat. We understand someone may need special assistance, but this person must have consideration for people who are allergic to pets and afraid of them. By doing this everyone aboard will be comfortable whether on the plane,the train or on a public place
Having pets on a plane to me is a very big issue, but I think I agree with Mr. Leonhardt’s, in the other hand you and I know that pets in the plane is not advisable, although some people have them as their eye to work, some can’t leave without it, while some people are allergic to pets. Therefore, because of these pet issues, the word is turning to another thing, if someone can actually take a peacock, rats, dogs, and the most painful one is seeing someone with a snake aboarding a plane, then no more doubt. Therefore, my opinion is that I think we should stop the flying of pet except the disabled, although now people even claim to be disable just to aboard a plane with a pet, so I do not repel with the advice of having pets in a plane.
Having pets on a plane to me is a very big issue, but I think I agree with Mr. Leonhardt’s, in the other hand you and I know that pets in the plane is not advisable, although some people have them as their eye to work, some can’t leave without it, while some people are allergic to pets. Therefore, because of these pet issues, the word is turning to another thing, if someone can actually take a peacock, rats, dogs, and the most painful one is seeing someone with a snake aboarding a plane, then no more doubt. Therefore, my opinion is that I think we should stop the flying of pet except the disabled, although now people even claim to be disable just to aboard a plane with a pet, so I do not repel with the advice of having pets in a plane.
After reading this article I agree with the Author despite flying pets it is not a big problem but I think that sometimes people lie for their own benefit even thought this affects other people.
In addition, I believe that more than 50% of pets called “Emotional-Support” are a scam, I don’t think that most people paid for bring animals every time they fly. In the other hand, I disagree with the most people that argument needed these pets like emotional support because they can prove that.
I believe that airlines should be very strict with their own rules and prevent that people lie and get special privileges just to people that can demonstrate a real disability although in other public places the rules can be more flexible while don’t affect other people avoid an allergic reaction or a headache caused by any animal.
I agree with Mr. Leonhardt's article it's crazy that so many people are selfishly abusing the system to bring their pets with them on flights. It's unfair to people who actually have disabilities or some kind of mental illness.
I do think we need tighter regulations on what animals can and cannot go on planes. In my opinion some animals that are proven to have positive psychological effects aren't a scam and should be allowed on flights. If someone can even attempt to take something like a peacock on a plane we should really revise the rules. As nice as it would be a trust based system wouldn't work, especially with how many people lie to get their pets on board.
It is unusual for us to think that a person would bring his pet to an animal restricted area. However, for people who has emotional problems, it might bring harm for them without their pets around and at the same time uncomfortable.
Some places like parks, malls, schools, etc. have signs says “NO PETS ALLOWED”, basically it means you should not bring your pets in that area.
In my opinion, it is not necessary to bring your pets with you if you have emotional breakdowns. There a lot of things you can do without your pet getting involved. Alternatively, you can just talk to somebody or listen to music to encounter your emotional breakdowns.
Have you ever thought about pets in everyday living? Have you ever thought about varieties of attitude to pets in housing and travelling?
Let’s state that these animals are treated well and we are talking only from the people’s points of view. Whose interests should be preferred comparatively: animal owners vs people, who does not have pets?
Years of regular observations make me believe that people are, in general, divided into two groups: who loves animals more, than people and opposite group: who loves people more.
Ultimately, to my mind, all depends on the idea: what is mine – is the best. If somebody prefers company of animal more than person’s, he/she, naturally, shall do everything to have animal so close as it could be possible. Animal owners treat animals like family members.
That was the reason why Dexter, the peacock, from the last week breaking news, had tried to be departed on board of the United Airlines. Dexter’s owner had felt so sorry and uncomfortable of bird’s travelling alone in container and cold luggage compartment of the aircraft, so she did her best to be the emotional and physical support of her pet.
Should say, the bird was not lucky enough to travel as a human being… what is kind of animal inequity, because, for example, the opposite rules exist for falcons.
I agree with the article. Because pet owners had realized they could game the system because airlines did not require much proof of medical need. By claiming one, people could bring an animal on board without putting it in a carry-on bag and without paying a fee. Which typically runs $125. I believe that people should be honest and tell the truth if they really have an emotional problem and needs a pet for medical reasons or if they just want to travel with their home pets, because they appreciated them. I think that everything depends on what type of animal is it for example if it is a dog, these animals are very smart and they listen a lot to their owners. But if it is a peacock which is a large bird is not a good idea. I’m really scared of rats, and if someone decided to fly with a rat and it escape and goes to the passengers seats I will be super upset.
I feel agree with Mr. Leonhard’s arguments about not allow flying pets because travel in an airplane with a pet it is not good idea because most of this animals do not have training and have illness. The airlines must have to keep safe the health and wellness of your passenger.
I know about people like disabilities or autism who need your pets when they take a fly because these people need their pets by theirs side for emotional support but I also know people who do not need pets to take the plane. They are gaming to the authorities in the airport, they do not want to pay for carry their pets, so they are not reliable people, and they do not honest people.
That is why the airlines needed to be more careful about allow flying pets. I think that one good rule can be the airlines request all medical records about pet and his owner to get one advantage about what animal can fly and what not.
I think the emotional support animal can be allowed only in publics places like parks or streets, but not inside the hospital, home nurses, restaurants or movie theater because it is not healthy for everybody.
I agree with David Leonhardt because if the people do not have proof of medical needs or all the vaccines, we are able to get a disease, people have to be honest and say the truth. Although animals are friendly, but the people that usually fly with their animals, they have to adapt to the system and follow the rules. Also people have to lock animals in their cages because some people are afraid of animals. The airlines have to make sure about the people that travel with pets are their owner, in the airlines have to be a person who can give animals services, ask questions, buy a fly for pets and identify who is the owner or help people that love travel with animals. People have to stop using fake identifications with pets because they will have serious consequences. Disabled people with animal’s services, it is a good idea for me that can help to emotionally control. In addition, I recommend making a law that the animals have to be in a cage to protect other people that do not like pets, afraid of them or have allergies. Pets are beautiful, smart and they can make you feel happy, so I think they can be everywhere.
The Roman orator Tacitus once said: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”. A phrase that keep resonating throughout centuries until now in modern society. Why should we have laws? .Why not just trust each other? Why not we just be honest? .Those are the question we sometimes ask ourselves thinking in a utopia .But the truth is we need those laws to keep running a society. The human race is a social animal, this means it lays on society to survive. We share and trade the things we need to survive like food, clothes, shelter, etc. We need each other and trust and honesty should be a constant, but in reality, it is a variable. We often lie and cheat each to other, thinking only in our own benefit and not in the community benefit as this article shows us. We often try to take advantage on people to get a benefit like in the case of the article flying with a pet without paying any fed for it. When a law is flexible, we try to find a loophole in it to use in our favor these is why laws keep been improving getting stricter, which sometimes affects those who should be benefit by the respective law. Therefore, every time a law gets stricter instead of get mad at it we should be honest to ourselves and ask if we have been using loopholes to get a selfish benefit.
The author said that the modern culture disadvantage is they too often fetishize individual preference and expression over communal well-being.
Modern culture is trying to be so tolerant with everything, understand all the different situations and discriminate nobody and this of course can become in a “free rules” system. Trust in common sense and at the same time demand, is a problem because we can say that we think and care about other people but in the end if you want something it is too possible that no matter what is in your way, you are going to try to get it.
This is why I do not think this is a scam, I just think sometime it is an abuse off the benefits that are for people who really need this. However, at the same time I think everyone lies about selfish intentions, in any case in their life if they think it is necessary. At least almost everyone.
That is why I think the ‘ideal’ solution may be trust each other but I do not really think it be a good idea because it is an easy way to avoid the unwritten rules. I think it is better to create a strong system for this and demand more proof about the emotional problems or anything people are trying to use for their own benefit.
In the USA most people love their animals and some the disabled people are always carrying their animals anywhere. However, disabled people fly with any animals with service pets. Some people are dishonest their pets because they want to fly their pets and emotional their pets. Therefore, they want to fly anywhere. According to the labor union for flight attendants, most the passengers suffer allergy, worse, and over animals.
I disagree with Mr. Leonhardt’s argument about flying pets. Because people like their pets in their home not in airplanes. Some people have allergy over animals. In my opinion, I believe emotional support animals a Scam. Yes I think people are too often gaming the system and some dishonest their pets and try to fly with their pets. I think only disabled people needs their animals on a plane. Because only birds people need to fly on planes. I think airlines should determine pets could not fly with their owners. Should airlines have create stricter rules any one bring a pets.
I agree with Mr. Leonhard’s argument, because people is taking advantage cheating the system. If the people wants to bring their pets with them, everybody should pay the fee as the law said, because is very selfish of them that people who has disabilities which really needs a Service Animal will have to pay the consequences of the other people actions making more complicated their lives.
Personally, I do not have so much knowledge about Services animal’s, bud I do believe that animals could be helpful for people, I have seen people with disabilities who used horses for therapy’s, they said that is very good for them and they make them feel better. I also think for someone blind as well having a training dog can be very helpful. Therefore, I do not think emotional support animals are Scam at all; the scam is made by the people who use them to break the rules in their own benefits.
Anyone is annoyed that airlines are required to allow people to take an untrained emotional support dog on a flight unless they can show a specific reason why it should not allowed on. Obviously, the way this law is written it makes it a big hassle for the airlines to deny travel to these animal, especially if the person comes with documentation from a mental health professional. I read an article in the New York Times about “It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets” and I think I agree with Mr. Leonhard argument about flying pets because people should be dishonest. I think it is so important to acknowledge one important underling reason why people insist having their pets accompany them to public transportation is that the alternative is so dangerous. I heard that some time people tell a lies and pretend like that their pets are their emotional support because they do not want to pay for their pets. Therefore, I think emotional support animals are using as a scam and people are too often gaming the system. I also think that those people who brings animals on a plane they do not need them, and airlines should determine which pet could fly with their owners because they have stricter rules. Their rule is only for disable people who needs emotional support. In my opinion, in order for service pet to board a plane, they must have proof of training, and the need of a service pet and they have to explain specifically what does the animal do for them.
Some people do not like animals. They do not have time and patience for them. However, other people are addicted to them. I am not a pet person. That does not mean I do not like animals. Certain person likes animals they cannot live without them. They think that animal’s resolve their emotional problems, which is maybe be the case for certain people. Some people want to be always with their animal, which is normal; some people do not have kids. Other people prefer to live with animals than other person. I agree with a person who loves animal and always want them to be by their side, they even want to travel with them because either they do not want to leave them alone in the house or they do not trust people with their animal. I know many people that like animals, most of them are dog lovers, and others love cats. Animals are their priority. I also know a person who is bird’s lover. He has many kind of birds. He takes good care of them it is nice watching him feed and play with them. I think that animals should have their space everywhere if it is not going to damage anything. Unfortunately people that do not like or know something do not know their importance. I think that it is important to certain people to learn how to treat animals and how to love them because they also have their place in the society
I think some animals can help emotionally to children or some people with any condition or disability and they can help to improve their behavior o release stress. Sometimes lots of people lie and break the rules that company have about their terms and this will be strong consequences. I think if the owner of the pet do not have who take care his pet and require bring it, he should carry into a cage and complete a form about how he will can to bring his pet because is really sad leave it with other people or a refuge. In other order, the airlines should to require all the time that people complete some forms and get documents that explain the reasons why they need to fly with the pet. However, these rules should be stricter because some people are allergic to animals and many animals are dangerous to stay in the plane. Some of the advantages are, many people will travel more quiet without afraid to find any animals on the plane and they will not get to feel nervous. Another advantage is in according to fly with pet because the people will can to bring them. However, one disadvantage is that some people will want to sue the airlines company because cannot bring their pets. I do not thing is secure to have some animals in the buildings because there are animals very dangerous such as big dogs and snake specifically for the children. I do not have trouble with this, because I do not like any pets.
Now a day everyone is carrying pets. It has become a tend now, some people also carry their pets in airplane because when they visit some other places, they have to carry them for supporting their emotional situation, but it is not a good thing to carry pets in plane. It is a scam of flying pets and I agree with Mr. Leonhard’s argument about flying pets, because the number of problem is raising. He wants to tell us that pets owners should be honest and if someone is not physically disable then they need not to take any pet with them in the airplane. If anyone has some deficiency then they can carry pets with them in airplane otherwise no one need not to carry any pet for their emotion support because some passengers are suffering allergy attacks, and more are arguing, worse, over animals. I think that emotional supports animals a scam because people are not really use pets for their physical disability and all animals should be able to ride a plane with their owner but a lot of people are abusing the privilege of emotional support animals. Therefore, there should be strict rules about taking pets in airplane. It has advantages and disadvantages too.
This article is trying to tell us some important themes like trust and be honest. The problem with some people in the world is that they are not honest. They just want benefits for them and no matter if this can dissever others people that maybe they have health problems as soon as allergies or phobia to animals. Many cases exist where the person needs an animal to feel better. This can be treated in some clinics that use those animals like emotional help. In the case when the people are moving to other places or countries maybe, they really need those pets because sometime a pet is a part of the family. I agree with if we want to travel with a pet, we have to pay for them. However, if the pet is an emotional therapy or is a help for the people with some disability, they really do not need to pay.
I have seen some passengers who was sitting by a dogs and she said that she has the allergy of dogs, so she looked very hard. I travel twice a year actually Japan to New York which there is a time difference of fourteen hours between this two countries. It is a long trip and make us exhausted. I think most people need things for the airplane are comfort, relaxing, and useful. However, if there are not only dogs, but also other animals in the airplane, the passengers are not going to have a nice trip even though the animals can be emotional help and people who need animals to make them calm. I do not understand why people can not manage and handle their emotions. I think the people should give priority to find some way to manage their emotions without animals before traveling.
The article “It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets” by David Leonhardt. He mentions about a woman at Newark Airport last weekend who wants her pet Dexter- a peacock, as her emotional-support animal, flying with her, but the United Airlines does not allow Dexter to board. The event causes a heated discussion on the Internet. I agree with Leonhardt’s opinion. We all know everyone has the different hobby, some people like to feed pet, but some people do not, and others even have an allergy to animals. The other words, the animal can be easy to spread disease or to make people nervous .Therefore, animal is not suitable to stay in passenger cabin on plane where is also one of the public place. In addition, the aisle on plane is a very narrow and crowded, and the cabin is a seal space. The animal can be easy to make someone else uncomfortable. Anyway, anyone wants to do something in public place who needs to consider others else feeling and be likely to cause danger.
Designate only certain flights, buses, and trains schedules that comfort animals can ride on with the provision that the animal must have been certified as an "emotional support animal" by a professional certifying organization. Service dogs that are professionally trained and certified and needed for independent mobility for the blind are an exception. This approach will help ensure the safety of other passengers and staff who share the same space as the animal and provide paying customers that have allergies the option to avoid animal flights.
It’s seems to me that like most programs, people are taking advantage of it. Regular people who are having a bad day shouldn’t be granted an emotional support animal. This program, even though it started with the best of intentions has gone to far.
I believe that emotional support animals are very important, however the people who claim that their regular household pet is a service animal should be stopped and punished in some way. I know that they probably love their animal and they just want them near, but they are taking seats and opportunities away from real service animals, and people who really need them. I think that the term "emotional support animal" can only be taken so far. If you have a serious condition where you absolutely need the animal with you, you should definitely have that right. However if you are lying about your needs, you are putting the entire concept of animals being allowed into questioning. Basically what I am saying is that people really need to use their very best judgement when they are thinking about claiming their pets to be "emotional support animals".
The requirements to bring an “emotional support animal” on board of an airplane or inside of a Restaurant, Supermarket and other places follow the rules of a weak law. Unfortunately many are taking advantage and hurting those that really need it. The rules should be revised and those individuals that are tricking the system should be ashamed of themselves and punished.
I agree with Leonhardt; the idea of “emotional support animals” is a system that exploits existing policy regarding service animals. I find them to be, at their core, a loophole making it possible to bring animals into businesses and travel situations. Anecdotes such as a dog mauling a man on a flight and untrained emotional support animals growling at and biting passengers provide evidence that these animals can not be compared with true service animals. In addition, they may threaten the integrity of certified service animals that are highly trained, able to save lives, and provide true assistance to the disabled. If a person truly does suffer from a mental illness such as PTSD or a panic disorder, highly trained psychiatric service dogs exist to recognize panic attacks and extreme fear/aggression. For this reason, believe airlines have every right to restrict and even ban “emotional support animals”, especially considering the danger they can pose to both the crew and passengers.
1
Emotional-support animals are not a scam, it's the people who use this label for their selfish ulterior motives that are the scammers. There are many studies, as Mr. Leonhardt said, that show how many people with mental and physical disabilities do in fact function better with a trained animal accompanying them. These people aren't the problem and should not be punished by airlines and other public establishments for following the law. It is their constitutional right, as stated in a 1986 law, to not be discriminated for being handicapped air travelers. It's the people that game the system by buying their dog or pig or monkey or cat a $30 EMOTIONAL SUPPORT animal vest so they can avoid the $100 fee for boarding an animal. These people think that they are "gaming the system" when in reality they are making it harder for the people who ACTUALLY need an emotional support animal to travel with their service animal. In the article Mr. Leonhardt writes that we are living in “a modern culture that too often fetishizes individual preference and expression over communal well-being.” It is sad that we as a society that are to driven by our own selfish motives that we can’t see how our actions are affecting others negatively. Airlines need to have stricter rules and regulations for people travelling with emotional support animals by asking for official licenses to prove these emotional support animals authenticity.
I don't think emotional-support animals are a scam. Some people, like trauma victims for example, genuinely need and receive emotional help from these animals. I do, however, feel as though emotional-support animals should be limited to just common household pets. Animals such as peacocks or monkeys should not be kept as pets, nor casually brought on airplanes. I understand why United Airlines made its policy more strict. Even common pets can cause a mess. I believe support animals should be allowed in some places like college campuses if the owner truly needs them, but said owner needs to be mindful of other people, possible allergies of those around them, and to keep an eye on their pet.
I have emotional support cats (2), HUD allows (3). I have an auto=immune disorder that causes multi-medical issues. Both of my cats are registered. In order to register them I had to have my doctors prescription with details of my disabilities. I've been in pain since I was 6y/o. Chronic pain from chronic inflammation is exhausting. Despression, insomnia and others gets magnified, especially when it limits my abilities. My cats aren't trained, but one of them has been so alert to my needs that she lets me know my blood sugar is low before I even know it. She even saved my life by tending to me, getting in my face, smelling my cheeks, my breath before I was put in ICU with kidney failure and sepsis. My cats give me company. I am single, live far away from family, though now I live with my son, my cats give me much pleasure and do help manage pain rather than using narcotics (I do take tylenol#4).
I also agree that ESA pets are not peacocks and snakes! To me its just logical that cats and dogs are the best for companionship, anything else will not gravitate towards their owner. As for flying or restaurants etc, with restrictions and must be registered. I don't pack up my cats to go get groceries.
I do think people are taking advantage of these rules and its hurting those of us who really do need ESA's. ESA's are not just for companionship, but for medical reasons too.
While on my way to Baltimore during holiday break in December, I witnessed someone with a small dog in the aisle across from mine. I flew with Southwest airlines, and none of the flight attendants, nor did any of the crew have a problem with the dog flying with its owner. We were informed it was going to be a full flight- meaning, every seat would be occupied- but, to my surprise, the dog had its own seat! I looked over as we were taking off, and it had a seat belt on, in the middle chair. It was interesting, especially considering the only animals I had ever seen on flights were cats, and they were in carriers- usually under the seat, or at least on the ground. It didn't seem like this particular dog was an "emotional-support animal," but, I could be wrong. It also didn't seem like any rules about flying animals were really being enforced, because, by the time we were in the air, the dog was out of its seat. It didn't cause any obvious ruckus, but it could've easily worried or annoyed other passengers. I think having these rules be a trust-based system is probably not the smartest idea, because, even though the particular dog that I had encountered did not personally bother me, other passengers could be allergic, or be just plain uncomfortable in the presence of a certain animal. I believe when you are considering something like this, you should probably think about the other people around you before you make a final decision.
"It didn't seem like this particular dog was an "emotional-support animal,"....do you have ideas of what represents an esa pet? Or is it you don't know or understand who and why a person has one? Just asking for clarity in your statement. ESA's are for people elderly, disabled in a variety of ways does help support them or give them companionship, a reason to get up and take care of things, or an animal that picks up on a persons needs, like seizures or diabetes. I have two companion cats. They are registered. In order to be registered as an ESA you have to have a doctor's prescription. If you knew someone with issues I described, you do not understand just how much a pets companionship helps them. Btw, ESA's aren't just for people with mental issues, they are also for people with medical issues.
As mentioned by David Leonhardt in the article, the main problem here is trust. People can't trust the airlines to take care of their pets and the airlines can't trust the passengers' claims of medical need. Trust is very important in our lives because it has a large impact our daily interactions. Something as simple as confiding with someone can facilitate trust and implement a stronger relationship.
Recently I have put my trust into someone by sharing personal information. This was a leap for me and it really paid off. We now have an honest and trustworthy relationship. This is what either the airlines or the passengers need to do, but not in the same context. The airlines need to address the problem and thoughtfully consider allergies and mental or physical impediments, and the passengers doing this should instead of taking advantage of the airline, find a reasonable solution to travelling with their pets.
1
First, for my understanding there is a lot of people with disabilities like they explain in the article as children with autism, people with no sight among any others that suffer from any other kind of health problems that in the case of traveling will need guidance help from their pets. But in occasions, this will result a bad situations for the rest of the passengers that suffer allergies and also there are people afraid of animals and they will be feeling panic only by being sitting next to it, therefore I believe that the fee that the airlines are charging the travelers are justified because carrying animals for a long flights also could be dangerous in the worst case.
On the other hand this regulations will stop the people who have being dishonest and let clear that only who deserves the privilege to travel with pets are those who are really disable and with the adequate requirements that each company airline imply in order to maintain the control discipline and security on the airports for all travelers.
It's a total scam. Not only for airlines but hotels and housing. You could be sued if you refuse a hotel room or housing to someone with an emotional support pit bull puppy.. These are the same people that have handicap stickers and think they are entitled to better parking while truly handicap people can't find a spot. I can understand dogs for the blind or serious illness, but these emotional people need to get a grip and stop messing things up for the disabled.
In my idea I do think some people might make up their pet being a service animal but I do feel a lot of people do have them and shouldn't be punished for people who use it for bad. I think they should only let in pets with their vests and bracelets to prove they are service animals. I feel like pets should especially be allowed in college because school in general is difficult and stressful after elementary. it can cause those who do need a service an animal to have bad experience
I think that we need to be respectful to the environment, whether that includes picking up trash in the park, or letting a peacock ride on an airplane. May I also note that peacocks are gorgeous creatures that we need to let into our lives and souls. I have a huge heart for animals, and I think that that peacock deserves to experience the magic of riding a giant machine through the sky. Plus, you don't know how that beautiful bird might be feeling. He might have some deep, personal issues, so we need to have an open mind-set, and embrace the glory that Mother Nature has given us.
Just kidding, it's just a bird. It can fly anyway.
I believe airlines should have stricter guidelines and rules, and people should have official licenses to prove these animals are emotional support animals. The trust-based system would be morally great, but it isn't as effective, especially with people trying to bring animals such as peacocks onto the plane. There are advantages to having a trust-based system for the business - better reviews, etc. - but there are disadvantages as people bring non-emotional support animals onto the plane. Advantages to the stricter system would be to have less ridiculous animals on the plane and possibly less danger of untrained animals, but it could be a disadvantage because airlines could loose business. To sum it all up, it would probably be more beneficial to have stricter rules.
No because animals can defecate and urinate over the floor or even attack dogs and or generally annoying.
I believe that emotional support animals are ok as long as they are reasonable like a dog or cat but not a peacock like the one in the picture. Dogs are scientifically proven to help with anxiety and other problems that people, especially people who don't like to fly may have. So I think as long as there reasonable like a dog or cat.
I do not believe that emotional support animals are a scam because there are definite benefits to having an animal to help comfort or relieve stress. People definitely do 'game' the system and those people often ruin it for everyone else. However for the most part people who bring animals on planes are being honest. I think this because I have many examples of people who have emotional support animals and are honest about them. I for one have a dog that is licensed as an emotional support dog and know that no one would question her licence in or small airport.
Is emotional support animals a scam?
In my openyune yes, yes they are, emotional support animals can be used not only to get your pet on a plan but also in to other places. in a way if you think about it everyone's pet is an emotional support animal, they are their for love and companionship and company. Over all if one dose actually need a emotional support animal then I feel they might need some sort of paper that allowed them to bring a animal on the plan, so they have permission ahead of time before they bored so they know their is room and space for such a animal like a peacock.
An "emotional support" animal is a total scam and publicity stunt. There are no animals that actually provide psychological support just by being by you. These animals should be banned because they are a potential hazard to people and they do not need to be flying. If you are nuts enough to bring something as large as a peacock on a trip then you can drive unless you are going across a large body of water. Anyone who claims that they have an "emotional support" animal needs more than just help with their emotions. Just bring yourself and family on a plane not your pet, you can see them as soon as you return home. Trust me they will be fine on their own.
Some people might think otherwise but, I feel like "emotional support," is an excuse to bring your animals onboard an aircraft. The Airline companies should have stricter rules on the topic of bringing your pets on a plane. There is another problem with bringing pets on a flight. Fellow passengers might defecate or even urinate all over the seats, floor, etc. But people also might have mental problems, and they need that emotional support. Pushing them through the day, take a veteran for example. He might have PTSD or some other mental health problems.
In your opinion, are emotional-support animals a scam? Do you think people are too often gaming the system? Or do you think, for the most part, that those who bring animals on a plane need them? Why do you think so?
For me it depends on the animal because some of them are for emotional support and others are just so that they get the attention. For me i feel that yo should fiscally only be allowed to have a emotional support dog because something emotional has happen in their life were they need some type of support. I feel that they should have restriction so bring pets is not as crazy and hectic for the other people on the plane.
A lot of people are abusing the privilege of emotional support animals. People simply just tell others that their animal is an emotional support animal, so it is okay for them to board a plane, get special privileges, or whatever. If there was an official way to prove that an animal was for "emotional support", then that would make things a lot easier, preventing people from lying and it and getting privileges that they shouldn't have. I don't think they should ban these privileges because they do help a lot of different people with different things. But whenever people abuse something like that, it just spins everything out of control, and they might even ruin it for all of the other people that actually need emotional support. This abuse causes a bunch of different "dramas". I mean, a peacock riding on an airplane is kinda ridiculous, despite it being an actual emotional support animal or not. I think that if people can't take their animal on a plane, they should know beforehand, and not abuse the privilege that goes to these special animals. (Yes, I said abuse a lot, but I couldn't think of another word to use.)
I think all animals (within reason) should be able to ride a plan because they have feelings to. I also think they need to be respected because you don't how they person is feeling.
I think emotional support animals can be a scam but also a useful thing. Animals can help people process emotions, but the idea or emotional support animals cane be a little over used. People don't need to classify their pet as a support animal they can just have a pet and use it for emotional support.
I believe that Airlines should have much stricter rules on pets and flying. There are many circumstances that I have seen or experienced with untrained and or annoying pets. It had been proven that emotional support animals can be helpful and increase a person mood, but emotional support animals should have to have confirmation that they are well trained and not a scam. In other words, I believe that emotional support animals themselves are not a scam but the system can be scammed.
Overall "emotional support" is just an excuse for people to take their pets places, although I don't think they should just completely ban it since emotional support can be useful to people such as Veterans with PTSD especially on something like a plane. With that exception I think people are taking their pets these places where normal pets shouldn't belong and they are causing problems to not only other customers, but to the business itself. If I were to fly on the plane and a dog decided to defecate in the seat next to me I wouldn't be too pleased, so suddenly this business is getting a lot of dirt thrown over them, and then who wins in the end, maybe the dog owner, but they still have to deal with the fact that their dog just defecated in a plane which I assume would garner them some less than pleased patrons and passengers. My point is no one gets anything out of taking their dog on a plane under the pretense of "emotional support."
Personally i think that SOME "emotional support animals" are ok, like small well trained dogs... BUT A PEACOCK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Can you imagine being on a plane with that, especially in the seat right next to you. Specially trained service animals for people with special needs should be allowed, but there should be a limit to the type of animal that can fly on a plane for example. I don't think that emotional support animals are a scam but the system can be scammed.
Emotional support animals have been allowed on airlines for years. But now, there is some controversy. More and more people have been claiming that they need "emotional support" so they can take their pets with them on trips. Emotional Support have not been very common until the 20th century. When Mr. Leonhardt writes "There have been pigs, monkeys, turkeys, snakes and oh-so-many dogs, often sprawled across crowded cabins. Delta alone flies about 250,000 animals a year" it is very obvious that people are cheating the system. Until the past couple of years, taking animals on commercial was uncommon. Now, it seems that almost every flight has an animal on it.
Also, when Mr. Leonhardt refers to animals attacking people, I feel that when you are on a commercial plane, you should not have to worry about silly things like that. 250,000 animals being flown a year is ridiculous, no one should have to listen to an animal whining and barking the entire trip. That amount shows that 250,000 people flying a year need "emotional support". That amount doesn't make any sense.
2
That number, 250,000, is on Delta alone. We all know people who use this emotional support appellation for their animals just to transport their animals for free. And the rest of us suffer for it.
I think that they should enforce harder laws for emotional stable animals in order for them to fly. For people who may have anxiety or depression, emotional support animals help those people live a happier life. If one of those people want to fly on a plane and want to fly them along with them then they're going to need the airline on their side. I think people focus on them being animals more than friends. "Dogs are man's best friend." which means that to those people they're pigs, turkeys, snakes, dogs, and other animals are more than animals, they're family. Imagine going on a plane and someone saying that your family member can't drive because other people feel uncomfortable, you would be enraged. These rules should make it easier for these animals to fly and make it easier to reduce the number of accidents that can occur. Money is money but without the people there is no money to begin with.
To keep out fake service animals the true service animals should have a copy of their official documents on their support vests. Meaning that there would be a waterproof sealable sleeve on the side of the vest that you can place the documentation in. This should not be an honor system because people are lazy and will take any chance to get what they want, which in this case is to not have their pet in the cargo hold. But this has some reason, first there is a fee and second a cargo hold isn’t the most safe place. But neither of these reasons is cause to trigger an allergic reaction or have the animal lash out at a fellow passenger.
Either way people shouldn’t have animals on commercial flights unless it is in the hold no matter how safe it is or if they have an official service dog for an official medical purpose. This was said because I agreed with Mr. Leonhardt when he said “we live in a modern culture that too often fetishizes individual preference and expression over communal well-being”, our society is becoming more about the needs of themselves instead of the needs of the many. This may be harsh, but it is better for people with allergies, actual need for a service animal, or people with dog phobias to not have a more serious problem than for some random person to be uncomfortable without their purse dog, or having to shell out a little extra to put your animal in the cargo hold.
1
I completely agree with Mr.Leonhardt’s argument. He stated strong evidence that supported his argument that emotional support animals are becoming a scam. I used to go to a school with this girl who got a phoney emotional support tag for her dog just so she could bring him to school, although she had no illness that required the attention from a service dog. I feel that airlines should have incredibly strict rules to sift out the people and their service dogs who really need the support andy those who don’t. It’s obvious airlines can’t rely on trust judging by the peacock who, technically serves no emotional support. I understand that some people get their pets licensensed as service animals (that don’t really serve the purpose) because they’d rather not leave their pet at home or feel a strong connection to them but as Leonhardt said, their actions are selfish. I personally have a severe allergy to certain dog and cat hair, because of this, I always pray that I won’t be sitting next to a pet owner because boy would that be a terrible ride.
Emotional-support animals are being used as a scam thanks to the current trust-based system that is in place in most airlines today. People are using this term in order to bring their pets on planes at the expense of other passengers well being. While some people use the system fairly and have legitimate reasons for bringing animals aboard, others abuse this trust-based system. Airlines no longer can have these systems and need to set up stricter requirements. The types of animals allowed especially need to be stricter. The article talks about someone who was denied access onto the plane because of their pet peacock. Animals such as peacocks and other extreme animals should be prohibited. Only animals that are an extreme necessity to a person's well being should be allowed on a plane. One example of a proper use of the current system is the use of service dogs by blind people in order to maneuver. A new rule set should be in place that requires both training of the dog as well as a medical diagnosis of the person. As said in the article both Delta and United Airlines both adopted the requirement of training for an animal. This should remove the issue of bringing pets aboard who are not necessarily trained or good around people. Even allowing people to bring their animals aboard in their kennel can be a threat. A military service member abused this privilege when he let his dog sit in his lap. The dog then went onto maul another passenger with nowhere to escape.
1
I very much so agree with Mr.Leonhardt's argument about pets flying. I agree because of many reasons, one including the picture at the top of the article. It includes a picture of a peacock waiting to board. This animal is definitely not a support animal that has been certified. So many people have taken advantage of the, "amazon vest," and also the website that allows you to automatically get certified. I think that that is so rude and selfish for someone to do. In the long run if people start doing this more often then they may just take away pets overall. Then that would ruin it for others that actually need their service pets.
Again pertaining to the article, Mr.Leonhardt's explanation about people gaming this system and being able to easily get, "certified." You may not be able to tell if they are telling the truth. I still don't believe that service pets are scams because people actually need them in their lives. Unfortunately there will be scammers that just want their pet to be with them out there, but we can't tell unless we set stricter rules. Rules like the airline service must contact the doctor, if there is even a real one, and double check about the person. In one of the paragraphs throughout the passage they talked about a Delta passenger that was attacked, and had to get stitches. Regarding this information we need to also run a behavior test on the animal. I think as long as they set stricter rules people may hopefully stop scamming and be truthful.
I think that there should be stricter rules on allowing emotional-support animals into airplanes. According to the article, last summer a man was mauled by a Labrador on his flight to San Diego. I believe if there were better rules and restrictions such as proving the animal has been through proper training and that it will be able to remain calm on a long flight, this accident would never have happened. The passenger who brings the animal for emotional-support should prove somehow that it is a legitimate excuse. These rules should reduce the number of accidents on airplanes. I'm not saying that i am against having service dogs, i just believe that there many scams out there in this category.
Like Leonhardt I would agree that taking advantage of this system in particular is truly selfish. While we should be aware that the needs of individuals are extremely varied in modern society, I think the rules should be tightened slightly by airlines to ensure safety of passengers while keeping those who truly have special needs for a support animal covered. From my experiences, if there is any way people can cheat or move around the system, they will take advantage.
As it does seem slick. Leonhardt's article has me convinced that cheating the airlines system just to have your pet on a plane is nothing short of immorality. However, I don't believe that flying pets are a complete scam because the concept itself was invented to avoid discrimination against the disabled. So I can't help but think that most (or at least more than half) of reported flying pets come with at least some excuse. although we should already know better, it might be best for airlines to consider stricter guidelines to keep fair conditions for their passengers.
As we all know today animals are used for a lot of therapeutic and medical reasons such as therapeutic horseback riding. But when it comes to taking them to a small crowded area for a few hours or more I don't think it's the best idea.
Planes aren't built for the comfort of animals of all sizes, they are human transportation vehicles. They can cause a ton of discomfort to both the animals and passengers, for example: having a dog bark for a few hours because he is uncomfortable and needs a bathroom walk. This can really give the animal fear of planes and passengers a really bad experience and a negative view of the airline in which the animal was allowed on.
Animals board on planes with hundreds of passengers and maybe these animals are there for a valid reason such as emotional support but what about the rest of the passengers on the plane? passengers can be allergic to the animal or even attacked by if it isn't trained properly. Marlin Jackson mauled by an emotional support dog on a Delta Air Lines flight in Atlanta was attacked twice and could not escape because he was in a window seat. The damage can be far worse than it could've been if the animal just wasn't taken on the plane.
These incidents don't happen just once or twice but the majority of the time that animals are boarded ,it can even happen to you! if you want to avoid an allergic reaction or a headache that can be caused by dogs cats peacocks and more. you should think twice before boarding a plane with nonstrict policies.
I taught hippotherapy classes for around two years (Maybe more, maybe less. Anyone who knows me knows I have a terrible perception of time. But, I digress). Hippotherapy is a form of therapy where a child or adult with a social, emotional, or physical disability learns to ride horses. I learned one lesson time and time again over those two years - animals have power.
Emotional-support animals are not a scam. Tell that to the countless clients I have worked with. Tell that to the client who threw their arms around their horse, but got anxious when they were around people. Tell that to the mostly nonverbal kid who told their horse, “wooahhh!”. I hold these stories close to my heart because they make me realize that yes, humans can do a lot for humans, but there is something about an animal that speaks to someone in a way that another person cannot.
Unfortunately, there are scammers out there. There will always be people with selfish ambition, who see a system set up for someone who is not them, and who take whatever they can get. But, you never know. There are disabilities that you cannot see - remember, I did say “social and emotional”. Here’s the thing, friends. You and I do not have the right to sleuth around and see if someone has a disability. It is not our job to validate someone’s disability. Someone with anxiety does not need a sticker for their emotional support dog that says “My anxiety has been confirmed! Don’t worry, I can have an emotional support dog!”
While trusting people to tell the truth about whether or not the pet is an emotional-support animal or not is a good thought I don't think that it is possible in this day and age. As said in the article, it is easy to get a red vest for animal and call them an emotional-support animal, this makes it almost impossible to know who is telling the truth and who is not. Sadly I think it is necessary for people to provide papers that prove their animal is certified. I think that some time in the future these problems will be resolved and thing can go back to a trust basis. But until people take responsibility for their actions and stop lying the rules will have to increase.
In my opinion, in order for your service pet to board a plane, she/he must have proof of training, and the need for a service pet. One pet had poor, or maybe even no training. This resulted in an innocent man being mauled, and hurt very badly. Had this "service" dog had some sort of certification to board, this would have not happened. People think little of the inconvenience they are causing to all others beside themselves. Another factor: Air on a plane is recycled, resulting in any person with animal allergies to be affected, no matter where on the plane they are located. Like the article states, before trust is accepted again, it must be countered with law and regulations.
Okay, so first off, Animals don't belong on Commercial Airliners unless it is of a Cargo classification. I don't agree with this person's argument due to the fact that 1. Common sense tells me that this is straight out of a cartoon because nobody is going to claim a peacock as a "Comfort Pet" and 2. If you need a Peacock as a comfort pet, take a boat or your own transportation. Not only will this bird be a nuisance to other passengers, what if turbulence kicks in and it goes berserk? maybe the NYT's next headline will be "Peacock injures bystander on flight" I think the FAA and DOT need to have stricter rules on flights that don't just have to be dealt with on the commercial level. At this point that companies can make their own rules makes it not only like a funny survival movie seeing which one can lower their standards to make more money off the others loss (For example, Delta might make more money if they offer pet seats and United doesn't) first, but it endangers the other people using that company for travels. But, there are many disadvantages, such as the fact that people with disabilities will be reduced to a couple airlines and if a company is daring enough they can monopolize disabilities, like hiking up the prices for tickets that allow pets. Now, on the subject of college campuses; yes, they should, it is an open area unlike the cabin of a plane. And if people have a problem with someones pet, they can simply go somewhere else, unlike if you are on a plane.
1
I completely agree with Mr. Leonhardt's argument about flying pets and the reason being because that is abusing privilege. I do not like that fact that people are scamming just to get their pet of the plane especially if your dog is going to attack an innocent person and have to get stitches. I also do think that a lot of people are gaming the system some people do not want to pay for a ticket just for there dog so they find a way around it so they can save money even tho its not right what they are doing.
1
it is obvious that allowing emotional-support animals on flights has been taken advantage of. Other passengers can be afraid, allergic, and there have been cases of biting. i agree with Mr. Leonhardt in saying that the lying has gotten out of hand. I also believe that the restrictions should be stricter because the only animals that should be going on a plane with others are those who are trained and for people who do have a serious illness or disability.
1
I truly believe emotional support animals are a scam. From the evidence shown in this article it seems like people are just abusing the system currently in place. Its unfair to people on flights who are allergic of dogs unless you have a PHYSICAL disability such as being blind or having diabetes. These peoples lives actually depend on their animals especially the people with really bad diabetes. there blood sugar can drop to fast for a machine to recognize and the dog can smell it much faster and alert the owner. This has saved countless lives and is sure to save many more. if people continue to abuse the system it may end up in a banning of these dogs all together which is extremely unfair. people need to stop being so selfish and pay the fee to bring their dog on a plane. I agree with what the author says about making conditions for the animals under the cabin better so that more people would be willing to put their dogs with luggage. Airlines should also decrease the price of flying the dogs to avoid people scamming them.
1
Emotional-support animals should be allowed in places. However I believe the documentation should be more detailed and verified. Some problems will arise especially when you have others with allergies or even fears. This past weekend I was at the Queen City tournament, and this older lady had an Emotional-support dog. You could easily tell this was the real deal by how obedient this dog was. The dog in fact was behaving better than the children. this was an example of a real emotional support animal. If you look at the picture above the article you will see a peacock, and if you know anything about peacocks you would know they are not docile. while they prance in elegant feathers they can be extremely aggressive. also birds have many diseases and have been a main cause of zoo-nosis, making this a public safety risk.
1
Mr. Leonhardt certainly makes a good argument against emotional-support animals as a whole, especially when considering the tight confinement of a commercial flight. However isn't the environment of a college campus different? The way I see it, the majority of the issues with animals flying arise from the small space allowed to passengers, as shown by the mauling case from the San Diego flight. The man was not able to escape or defend himself due to the lack of space in the plane. Yet an attack like this is certainly unlikely on any college campus or classroom, given larger amount of room for escape or self-protection. This also goes along with the argument of allergies, which have symptoms that are much more prominent when in close to the allergen versus being further away or in a more open space. However, aside from their location, I believe that to be qualified as a therapy pet, the animal at hand must have proper training and pass certain tests and requirements. If only well trained animals are eligible to be therapy pets, issues associated with them will lessen significantly. So in all, I do think that college campuses should allow for these emotional-support pets, but I also believe that proper training and approval is necessary for these animals to be allowed in every day occurrences.
1
Before reading this article I was unaware that bringing pets on commercial airlines was an issue. I have flown numerous time and never once encountered a service animal. Although, now I can see where this becomes a problem. Personally I think the idea of bring an animal on a plane by itself is problematic. They take up more space than a passenger, not to mention some people might be allergic. Being someone that is allergic to cats I can see where problems can arise. Not to mention that bringing an untrained pet on the plane is set up for disaster. They are in a confined space with nothing to do, surrounded by strangers, not to mention that there is no ware for them to use the bathroom. If Commercial airlines wish to stop people cheating the system, they should implicate some form of vitrifaction (Like a doctors note) that says this pet is trained and approved for flights.
1
I agree with Mr. Leonhardt's argument abut flying pets. When you are on a plane, there is no way to avoid the animals if you have an allergy. If you have a serious mental illness, one that has been diagnosed by a psychologist, that also requires you to have some sort of emotional support through stressful situation, such as flying, then it should be allowed for you to have the animal with you. It should not be as easy as buying vest of Amazon, as Leonhardt said, or going online and getting a therapist to diagnose you.
I don't think emotional support animals are a scam. When there is a legitimate illness behind the need for the support animal, it is justified. When someone brings a Peacock on board a flight and claims it's for emotional support, it is almost definitely a scam. You should not b able to claim emotional support on an animal that hasn't been proven to provide it.
1
In my opinion emotional support animals can be a scam because, according to this article, some people are trying to board airlines with their pets even if they don't really need them for medical purposes. Now for those people who are genuine about this problem and actually need them, there should not be a problem with them having documentation in order to prove the purpose of the animal. As it said in this article, this situation also affects the people around the animals because some might be afraid of them while others may have different reactions due to allergies or disabilities. I agree with the trust-based system because it would facilitate flying airlines without having so may problems related to injuries because of untrained animals. For those who fake their need for a support pet should take into consideration about the well being of other.
I agree because as Mr. Leonhardt's said people that truly need a service dog are being harassed by impatient airline workers because of the people faking it. I feel that emotional support animals are not a scam. But when people say they have an emotional support animal but don't actually need it is when it becomes a scam.
I agree that people are gaming the system too much as the author said that decent people can make decisions that are more selfish than people realize.
I feel this way because people with medical condition that need animals to help them stay calm should be able to have them but when people just lie so they don't have to pay as much. this is when we have the problem and the honor code is no longer valid.
I feel that to have a service dog on a plane you should be required to take your dog to a specialist or get a prescription from a doctor. The author stated that once a trust system is broken enough it becomes okay to break it and to make the trust system work again your need to establish more strict rules. Then later on you can ease up on the rules and the trust-base system will work again. I agree with his idea except for the fact that it will just be a cycle of trusting and not trusting.
An advantage to a more strict policy is that not as many people will be taking dogs on flights. But in my opinion a trust based system will not work because people tend to lie when there money is evolved.
1
I do believe that emotional support animals are, as of right now, a dangerous scam. they attack passengers, other pets, and they cause people to have allergies, which will make their flight unpleasant. thankfully, they are coming down hard. however, there are websites that allow you to register your dog to be a emotional support animal, just by typing in a few words. you then get a certificate.
2