It affects me if the dog is next to me and I have to smell it/its breath. If it barks or moves around and touches me. If I’m allergic (though that may still be an issue if its crated).
And, you know, I care about things that don’t affect me. I’m weird that way. They could be affecting others negatively. It reminds me of high school when classmates were “why do you care if public teacher-led prayer causes problems for Jews/non-Christians if you aren’t one?”
Yes, some dogs are well-behaved. Not nearly all from the ones I’ve been exposed to. With a genuine service animal you have high degree of certainty the animal is well-behaved and will not be a hindrance to other passengers (and even if they aren’t perfect, there is a need for them to be there). With a non-service animal you have no such assurance, and if they act up 30 minutes in, there’s not much you can do about it without inconveniencing most of the people on the plane.
If the owner is willing to commit fraud and pretend to be disabled in order to bring their animal on the plane unencumbered, exactly how much time do you think they have invested in training said animal?
When they are in an environment they know, and cannot hear or smell anything unusual, they are plenty easygoing.
How they behave at home has little to do with how they will handle going through a major commercial airport with a million new sights, smells, people, etc. Everything is strange, everything is a potential threat, and everything is too close for comfort. Mix that with the sound, vibration, and subtle shifting of the ground around them and you have a formula for many “previously undiscovered” behaviors to manifest.
How, exactly, is it harmful to someone who needs it, unless there is a limited number of places, and a qualified user is denied. Like handicapped parking spots. If they let everybody on with a dog, the dependent person with a genuine need to board with a proper service dog gets aboard too. How is that “definitely harmful”?
But it’s not just that. The dog parks are littered with folks that don’t think they should follow the rules or their animals should be on leashes because they’re so well behaved. Then we see the article about a mauling and everyone shakes their collective heads.
And Donald Duck was awesome. I would’ve loved having him as my seat mate.
Yep, I did know that. I should perhaps have added a :rolleyes: to indicate the semi-humorous nature of my comment. In my case, moving my many animals was going to cost several thousand dollars, so I drove them. The Newfie was the extra special icing on the cake. He was just too large, especially by the time you added in appropriate crate, for a commercial carrier. It’s just one of those things that you don’t consider until you find yourself trying to arrange something like a long distance move for a multiple animal household.
Thanks, btw, for adding the industry perspective to the thread.
It’s more than that, though. Service Dogs are trained to an incredibly high standard, and ownership is retained by the school, although the dog goes to live/work with a handler. The school also insures their dogs - up to $5million per incident. They know how that dog will respond in any stressful situation. They guarantee it.
I can’t speak to the duck, but I can speak to the horse and dog.
Mini horses have been used as guide and service animals for a number of years. They go through the same training as dogs.
Yes, their owners would have to provide paperwork, and likely would have had to buy a row of seats to accommodate the animal.
Yes, they can be potty trained; it would depend on the length of the flight whether it would need to wear a diaper, but it’s unlikely.
No, they do not have to purchase a ticket (with the exception of the mini horses). That’s why companion animals have to fit under the seat- they count as your piece of carry on. SAs, if they do not fit under the seat, count as medical equipment- you wouldn’t charge someone traveling with a bottle of oxygen extra for a seat either.
The article I linked to said the woman who accompanied the duck said she provided a note from her doctor. I doubt a duck can be expected to do much in the way of training, but it was apparently calm and well- behaved. I think it’s a breed that doesn’t quack loudly. And I’m sure the airline reaped a good deal of positive PR.
Because when the non-service animal that got on the plane due to it’s owners deception shits all over the place, or barks incessantly, or wanders the aisle slobbering on other passengers, the other passengers get pissed off about it, and wind up assuming that actual service animals behave the same way. This makes thing harder for those with actual need, since they’re now encountering people who assume their animal is going to cause problems, and treat them as such.
Travel in cargo for a cross country flight, then let me know how comfortable the trip is. A dog in a crate going into cargo is looking around to see what’s going on, then when they are coming down out of cargo, they are also interested & excited as they are seeing the light of day again-or at least people and other familiar things. It’s the pitch black experience in a strange place with unfamiliar sounds for (in my case) a 5 hour flight that kills the deal for me.
The public at large has a finite patience for “special needs” stuff.
Consider for a minute if it became commonplace for schmucks to print their own fake handicapped parking hang tag and put it on their car so they could use the reserved spaces close by the entrance that are always vacant.
Once most of those spaces are occupied most of the time by cheaters, the public will say “Enough; cancel the handicapped spaces completely.”
The world can tolerate a certain amount of cheating. But not much. When dealing with something as vanishingly rare as a person truly needing their true emotional support animal and also choosing to expose themselves to the emotional rigors of air travel, we see that it doesn’t take too many cheaters before the cheaters outnumber the legits by a factor of 10 or 100 to 1.
Which undermines support for the whole idea of society at large making accommodations.
The people with legit special needs are the ones who ought to be making the most noise demanding proper credentialing for anyone claiming those special needs. Lest their cause be drowned in cheaters.
Bottom line: One cheater on one airplane on one day doesn’t materially inconvenience the other passengers on that one day & plane. But that’s not the problem we’re having.