Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 263 posts

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#241

Post by henrikschroder »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #50
henrikschroder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely allowed to ask for verification that an animal is a real service animal, but the people who have been conflating emotional support animals with service animals want you to believe that you can't. Service animals have to be licensed, trained to perform a task or duty, and be easily identifiable. Misrepresenting an untrained and unlicensed animal as a service animal is fraud and illegal.

> Service animals have to be licensed In the US this is not true by the ADA as licensing is a pretty prohibitive cost for many people with disabilities.

I would assume the cost of a license to be much, much smaller than the actual cost of raising and training a service animal?

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#242

Post by 1123581321 »

joegahona wrote: post #198
liuhenry wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logically, the "surcharge for potential damage" should be a security deposit, or fines and penalties against specific behavior. You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.

Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."

Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#243

Post by 1123581321 »

joegahona wrote: post #237
lotsofpulp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A security deposit is a legal term treated differently than rent, and can become a subjective thing that can be litigated. It's much more secure to simply demand it as rent. Hotels discount rooms all the time for guests they know have a very low likelihood of causing damage. The probability of a person with a pet causing damage must be sufficiently high that it makes sense to charge extra. There's plenty of competing…

> A security deposit is a legal term treated differently than rent, and can become a subjective thing that can be litigated. It's much more secure to simply demand it as rent. Oh, I realize why landlords prefer it. I just don't think it holds up under scrutiny. If you're my tenant and I charge you $100/month for dog rent on your new puppy, who causes $0 damage and lives for 14 years, I've extracted $16,800 from you,…

The naive $0 in this example is exactly the issue. Pet owners don’t notice the damage and wear (over a dog’s entire lifetime, substantial), so they contest it when they are wrong. If an expense is effectively guaranteed to be occurred, it should be paid.

Additionally, a landlord will want to work on the space more often than once every 14 years. A security deposit does not cover this.

Additionally a tenant renting for 14 years is making a suboptimal financial decision regardless of pet ownership. Much more than $15k would be unnecessarily spent, for many people. A tenant who wants to get the better end financially, especially a pet owner, will buy or at least keep the landlord honest about market costs of the rental.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#244

Post by mindslight »

leetcrew wrote: post #234
hackeraccount wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for pot.

it worked in the sense that we now have "wink-wink nudge-nudge" recreational weed in states where it would not be politically feasible to have it explicitly legalized. it's still an abuse of the system. MMJ practices in medical-only states are basically the weed equivalent of pill mills. jury's still out on whether this will have any lasting implications, but I do wonder if this doesn't detract from the legitimacy of…

As someone who is attempting to employ weed for its bona-fide medicinal properties while having little personal interest in it, gatekeeping it behind the backwards medical industry would be extremely counterproductive. Doubly so for for a drug that the establishment doesn't have much experience with, and therefore won't necessarily recommend.

Our current healthcare system is a disgrace of paternalism and bureaucracy, amounting to a constructive denial of care. If anything many more drugs need to be made available directly over the counter - a consultation with the pharmacist should be enough.

I've arrived at these conclusions even with most of the costs being covered by Medicare (family member), good relationships with providers, intelligence/bandwidth to understand what they do, and now free telehealth visits. I can't even imagine the financial-bureaucratic world of pain for people on private "insurance" (or even worse, without) trying to get care for themselves while the system just milks them.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#245

Post by randycupertino »

cj wrote: post #93
mwfunk wrote: post #70

I'm all in favor of people who need them having emotional support animals, but for as long as this has been a thing I have been totally shocked at how many people I personally know (who I thought were better people than this) completely abusing it to bring their pets with them everywhere (planes or anywhere else where you don't normally take pets). And joking about abusing the system, and joking about how awesome it…

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

I was in the same situation and thus drove with my dog. It wasn't that hard and was pretty fun.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#246

Post by CincinnatiMan »

cj wrote: post #137
jonas21 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only alternative was to drive cross-country, or... What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?

I don't have a car.

Are you able to rent one?

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#247

Post by mmglr »

bagacrap wrote: post #221
mmglr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly you could go on netjets.com and fly private if "enclosed-air spaces" are such an issue. Ridiculous right? The way I understand the argument so far is: Pets should be allowed on planes and everyone else must deal with that. Pets should not be allowed so pet owners must deal with that. Neither option sounds reasonable to me. Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport.…

That pet owners must deal with the headaches of owning a pet, and not unduly inconvenience others, seems like a perfectly reasonable stance to me. In fact, some animals are not allowed to be kept as pets at all. I'm fine with extending that to all types of animals. Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym. That makes so much sense. I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.

> Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym.

Where is this data? [1] says "Currently, there is no evidence that animals play a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people"

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...

> I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.

I don't know if this is directed at me? I don't have a pet. I'm just advocating for pet owners here.

And if you can't understand how shortsighted your view of "anything that inconveniences me is bad" then nothing I can write will change your mind.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#248

Post by TulliusCicero »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #178
TulliusCicero wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not good. The courts should only have to get involved in exceptional scenarios. The law itself should be more clear.

I suppose that's your opinion but that's just not how the law works and in many cases the subjectivity is a feature not a bug. It might be a common sense thing to say that no one would ever want or have need to use a horse as a service animal, but there are miniature horses that are service animals.

It's not uncommon for judges to complain about laws being excessively vague, so no, it's not just my opinion.

Also IIRC miniature horses being service animals is explicitly part of the law, so I'm not sure why you're using that as an example.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#249

Post by joegahona »

1123581321 wrote: post #242
joegahona wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."

Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.

“Fragile personal items” like houses:

https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Dowagiac-house-fire-sparke...

https://www.myarklamiss.com/louisiana-news/child-playing-wit...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/child-linked-...

https://www.fox13now.com/2015/07/25/fire-crews-respond-to-2-...

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kids-playing-with-lighters-ca...

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#250

Post by 1123581321 »

joegahona wrote: post #249
1123581321 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toddlers predominantly damage fragile personal items. Pets damage walls, doors, floors and furniture. Additionally, pets, especially dogs, are capable of many times more destruction in a short amount of time.

“Fragile personal items” like houses: https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Dowagiac-house-fire-sparke... https://www.myarklamiss.com/louisiana-news/child-playing-wit... https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/child-linked-... https://www.fox13now.com/2015/07/25/fire-crews-respond-to-2-... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kids-playing-with-lighters-ca...

Those are obviously unusual stories. Catastrophic fire is covered by insurance. It is not factored into rent and security.

Pets don’t make the news when they ruin dwelling places, as it is relatively common compared to that.

Post reply on HN