How about if you're mentally ill enough to need a support animal you can take it anywhere, but the animal needs to be handicapped too.

In this great country, America, that is packed to the brim with lawyers, you can and will be sued for anything. Given the costly nature of litigation, most parties end up settling.

How long until job-o-phobia is a recognized disability?

Who do you think should compensate them? The airline, which is compelled by law to accept the animal? The dog's owner did make a weak gesture to send everyone a Starbucks gift card, as if that in any way compensates them for the inconvenience.

So the person can keep the the ESA in his dorm, but can't take it to class, dining areas, etc? If that's true, what's the point of the student suing? Unless, it's a fake ESA. But even then that's a lot of trouble to go through for a fake ESA?

If you want to be able to walk around with an animal in public and call it your emotional support or assistance animal then surely it needs more than a couple of lines from your local doctor saying that because of such and such this person needs this animal because they are supposedly suffering from anxiety or depression. This also comes down to impacting on other people's rights to be able to walk around in public and not have to be interfered with by an animal in the case that they suffer allergies and the like.

So I am just a little bit more cynical when it comes to people's dependence on animals on the basis that they need them for such mental conditions as anxiety and depression, especially, as I have said before, when that assistance animal is a predator.

If I am reading it right if you state or tick that you suffer from these physiological afflictions on driving applications, as Jmakin describes, that you can still get all these different types of licenses that allow you to operate various kinds of machinery and vehicles and that in itself is a dangerous proposition to think about. Taking him at his word, I can be quite certain that this is not how it has always been or ought to be.

The likelihood of a small dog being dangerous or menacing is a whole lot less likely than a larger dog. Sorry but it is ridiculous to put smaller dogs such as gobbo's one in the dangerous or menacing category. Absolutely ridiculous actually.

Exactly.

I believe small dogs bite much more frequently than big dogs. They just do less damage when they do.

You have believed other things in this thread that are untrue or unverifiable, so the above comes as no surprise.

This is true to an extent. Dachshunds have the highest reported rate of biting (both their owners and others), but a dachshund bite is usually not sending you to the ICU, unlike a rarer bite from a pit bull or one of these bastards

1) All that should matter is the validity of the prescription. Just like a narcotic prescription, you don't need anything beyond a piece of paper. You have the doctor's name and office number to call. There is no national database. Perhaps there should be.

2) I still don't know what safeguards were in place "before". It is my opinion that "before" mental illness was never discussed because of the stigmatization of being "crazy". And I think people self-medicated/internalized their problems in the past. Have we gone too far with anti-depressants and ESAs...

3) All dogs can be dangerous. And very unpredictable around food and children. ESAs require ZERO training. I think many people when they see vests assume that the dogs are more likely to be controllable. Not true.

I swear that a lot of these people would probably do just as well with a cuddly toy.

How are these supposed to be "used". Is it like a rescue inhaler or epipen that you use to treat attacks, or more like a pacemaker or cast or something you always need to use?

I get that anxiety and panic disorders are serious conditions and think ESAs could be effective in managing symptoms and maybe even treatment. But taking that to the extreme and allowing people to take animals places that are supposed to be human only doesnt seem merited here. Psychological conditions arent the same as blindness and a cuddly puppy that youve maybe trained to not freak out in public is not the same as a guide dog.

More than anything this sets a dangerous precedent. Pet owners are already irrational enough, telling them that certain people just need to have their pets with them at all times to function is gonna open the floodgates. If there are specific chronic conditions that arent responding to other treatment, and were dealing with animals specifically trained to meet the needs of these individuals, then maybe it's ok for those ESAs to be in places that serve food and enclosed transportation. But the way it is now is just a joke and only exists because there's no "i dont want to see animals licking themselves and possibly barking and ****ting while i eat or fly" lobby to push back.

How are they irrational? Does an irrational person buy a pet or does a pet make a rational person irrational?

ESAs, as the name suggests, help support people with their emotions in public. It should, theoretically, improve their ability to function and perform day to day activities that they are not capable of doing otherwise.

The floodgates are already open. Anybody and anyone can pretty much get one. But, you can say the same thing about anti-depressants.

Anti-depressants aren't ****ting in the aisle tho… well, pretty much the majority of them aren't.

You are right.

But ESAs also aren't being traded or associated with a potential increase in a psychotic or suicidal episode.

What about a study that showed that people with ESAs are less likely to engage in road rage. If that was demonstrated, would you be more open to ESA prescriptions? That is a benefit to society.

My observation was meant to convey that those popping pills aren't causing disruptions to others on the plane as a result of the action of swallowing a pill—assuming that they are taking their meds sometime during the flight.

Once again, theoretically, the passenger is 100% responsible for their ESA.

I, and many would agree, much rather sit next to a dog than a baby. Talk about being trapped. And these babies smell just as much, if not worse.

That seems like an imposition as well. And a crying baby impacts at least 5 rows in all directions vs. an ESA which probably effects 2 rows.

Yikes, who is using a baby as an ESA? That seems like a bad idea.

If a person relies on an ESA and then that ESA is taken away, killed, etc won't that potentially increase a psychotic or suicidal episode? I agree that meds are not the answer but allowing someone to take their ESA any where they wish while not taking into consideration of others is not the answer either.

3 People are boarding the same flight.
A) has a fear of dogs because they watched their brother get mauled to death when they were a child and being in the same space as a dog causes that person severe anxiety.
B) has a severe allergy to dogs and may go into anaphylactic shock if in the same space as a dog.
C) has anxiety over flying and has their ESA (dog) with them.

Why should C get to have special accommodations made when it causes another person anxiety and could potentially cause physical harm to the other?


Please correct me if I'm wrong but a person does not have a right to fly. A person does not have a right to eat in a restaurant. If you can't do these things with out the aid of an ESA then you don't get to do them. There are cars to travel in and restaurants offer take out. You are still free to travel and still free to eat.

If I have an anxiety of going on a certain ride at an amusement park should I expect the amusement park to make accommodations for me and my dog, cat, monkey, etc? What is the difference?


I probably wouldn't have such a problem with the whole ESA thing if there was a regulatory system in place but as it sits there isn't and pretty much anyone can get any pet certified as an ESA.

serviceanimaltravel.com is one site where you just have to answer a few questions and for a $100 you can get your pet certified as an ESA.

On their home page the quote below is their opening paragraph.

It doesn't even mention anything about needing an ESA, it talks about saving money!!!! Their entire marketing strategy is "fly with your pet for free" and has nothing to do with actually needing an ESA for anxiety, depression, etc. This entire industry is a scam and the people operating these sites should be arrested. How can you clinically diagnose someone from just a short questionnaire and not actually sitting down with the person face to face talking to them?


IMO I think a lot of it is that because most people think dogs are cute that these people get positive reinforcement/attention while out with their dog that they usually wouldn't get. I'm using dogs as examples because they seem to be the most commonly used ESA's.

Take Gobbo for example, he's not a normal looking guy by societies standards and may encounter people giving him negative attention while out whether it be by staring, dirty looks, avoiding him etc. Put a cute little dog next to him and all of the sudden he gets positive attention that he may not normally get. Anxiety fixed!!!!!!

I would rather sit next to an empty seat, attractive woman or small quiet person. Sure, we all have our preferences. So what?

Yes, babies can be a disruption on a flight—so that's justification for creating more disruption?

To be fair, that horse didn't seem out of place at all—must have been because those seats were facing a bulkhead. Of course, if the seats had been any other location the passengers with seats in front of the horse would have probably experienced a bit of discomfort from having their seats bumped when the horse reared up every now and then during take-off and landing. Oh, and when it dumped a load or took a piss in the aisle.

I agree. There needs to be uniformity and at least some studies. It is the Wild West and not only are people not addressing it, you can be sued if you do!

And, as I have said, these cute dogs become walking advertisements for other people wanting to do it.

It is people going into medical offices asking (demanding) for it. And they didn't do this five years ago.

Tipping point will be a violent outcome with an ESA and cute kid captured on video. Seems inevitable.

Has it been mentioned in here if there are dog breed restrictions for ESAs? I'd probably rather sit next to a mini horse than one of these:



At least until the horse started freaking out whinnying and unleashing unholy barn hay farts.

ya seriously, support animals are ****ing bull****

what if im allergic to their dog or something serious? I cant go on the ****ing plane now?

So now because you are ****ing crazy, i cant actually board the plane....

its funny how these people think they can just do whatever they want.

****ing animals in the poker room and ****, its so ****ed its beyond reason.

yeah its ****ing disgusting, but people dont think of fairness, just ignorance.

Whatever happened to just closing our eyes and letting the weak just die off?


Just kidding obv but cmon, emotional support animals my ****ing cock.