US ends era of emotional support animals on planes • Hacker News Board

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#261

Post by bagacrap » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 12:05 AM UTC

mmglr wrote: post #247

bagacrap wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> "anything that inconveniences me is bad"

I didn't say these words, nor imply them. I find it befuddling how you act as if non-owners of pets are the selfish ones. Let's replace "dogs" with "cigarettes". After all, smokers like nicotine as much or more than dog owners like dogs. Am I also selfish if I don't wish to endure sitting next to a smoker on a flight?

Lots of things inconvenience me but are inescapable or benefit society at large. Dogs are neither of these things, and the burden of owning them should not be externalized to those who derive no benefit from them.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#262

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #145

gamblor956 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why make a mockery of this? Chastise people who are obviously trolling or scamming the system. It would have required a lot of resources to verify every individual claim and that would have raised prices for everyone. The burden of proof has been shifted to where it…

That burden of proof has already existed in the form of having to file the requisite paperwork including a letter from a doctor as well as a specific animal behavior form. It was not just a matter of claiming $random_animal is an emotional support animal. The problem appears to be that airlines ignored the requisite paperwork or the paperwork was fraudulent (for example written by doctors who are family friends).

No, the problem was that airlines did not think they were allowed to examine the paperwork because ADA proponents told them it would violate the ADA to actually verify claims related to emotional support animals. (And in CA, lower-level courts have actually ruled to that effect.)

The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support animals, and second, it permits airlines to require verification that an animal is actually required for support reasons, emotional or otherwise.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#263

Post by Ansil849 » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 6:26 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #262

Ansil849 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That burden of proof has already existed in the form of having to file the requisite paperwork including a letter from a doctor as well as a specific animal behavior form. It was not just a matter of claiming $random_animal is an emotional support animal. The problem appears to be that airlines ignored the requisite paperwork or the paperwork was fraudulent (for example written by doctors who are family friends).

No, the problem was that airlines did not think they were allowed to examine the paperwork because ADA proponents told them it would violate the ADA to actually verify claims related to emotional support animals. (And in CA, lower-level courts have actually ruled to that effect.) The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support…

The paperwork was still required. So what exactly are you suggesting? That passengers forged medical paperwork en masse, knowing that airlines would not verify it? Is there evidence that this was happening anywhere?