Some of the other comments seem to miss vital information in the article.
ESAs (emotional support animals) are not the same thing as service dogs[1]. There's debate about whether they're even effective[2].
Not only does this mean that people with ESAs likely don't need their dog as much as people with service dogs, it also means ESAs don't have the same legal protections. The only places that are required to accept ESAs are airplanes.
In any other context, only service dogs are protected.
1. From the article: "The [Americans with Disabilities Act] states, 'dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.'"
Here is the problem - you are a restaurant owner and someone walks in with a dog wearing some sort of blue or red vest with an official looking logo. What do you do? If it is a real service animal, you don't want to grill the poor disabled person for the dogs paperwork, you want to be a good guy, so you do nothing, and bunch of dog owners abuse that goodwill by bringing their dogs places they shouldn't.
You aren't allowed to ask for paper work anyway. Here is all they are allowed to ask: "A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform." See section f at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136
That said, just asking people with apparently inappropriate dogs what task the animal has been trained to perform would be a first step towards removing fake service animals. If they can't answer, I assume there is something you can do, but I don't know what that is exactly. It may depend on your state.
In the case of a specifically badly behaving fake (or even real) service animals, section b of the same document says: "A public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if - (1) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) The animal is not housebroken.", so a dog barking or pooping in a business can definitely be ordered removed.
Exactly this. The more you learn about the faking, the more suspect legit owners become and then it becomes a hassle.
I find it mildly annoying to see dogs in restaurants and grocery stores, even more so in the work place, but I've heard of a lot of people abusing these laws here in LA to be able to get into apartment buildings that don't allow pets.
As a neighbor, if you're animal isn't well-trained, I don't want to live near it in an apartment building. Were I someone allergic to pet dander, I wouldn't want to unknowingly live somewhere that a dog/cat had lived for years no matter how well you cleaned it. Especially at the expense we have to pay for rent in this city.
I think taejo has it right in her/his comment about how US owners act about this stuff:
"I don't think this would fly in the US, where cultural attitudes tend to be less "we've all got to do our bit to make society pleasant for everyone" and more "it's a free country and this is my dog, I'll train it if I want to"."
The solution to that has to do with circumstance. Is the dog behaving fine? Then who cares? If its not, you get a manager and they ask if the dog is required, citing the problem. I don't see a need of doing all of this when every dog walks in.
You can't request that a legitimate service animal be removed because you're afraid of it, you're only option is to get your own service animal to keep the dogs at bay, e.g. a Tiger. Such is the MAD doctrine of service animals.
Not to mention, there's a non-insignificant portion of the population that's allergic. Generally it's not life threatening but most commonly it'll lead to cold like symptoms (nose/head congestion, trouble sleeping).
My ex had narcolepsy and had a service dog to help her. She (the service dog) did a number of things for her including detecting and alerting her to an oncoming cataplectic attack, giving her a little extra time to get somewhere safe. Her training was extensive and very expensive and she was incredibly well behaved. She was a ten pound miniature poodle though (my ex was allergic to dogs and poodles are naturally somewhat hypoallergenic (also very smart)) so she faced a lot of skepticism. Seeing what she went through on a regular basis, the fake service dog trend that's arisen since has really annoyed me.
On another note, I've been living in Europe and the UK for the last few years and one of the interesting cultural differences I've noticed is how common it is over here to just allow dogs in restaurants and pubs and on public transportation. That seems to be the default and only some places have "no dogs allowed" signs up. If the US would take a similar approach, maybe people wouldn't feel the need to fake service animal status.
> I've noticed is how common it is over here to just allow dogs in restaurants and pubs and on public transportation. That seems to be the default and only some places have "no dogs allowed" signs up. If the US would take a similar approach, maybe people wouldn't feel the need to fake service animal status.
A culture of allowing dogs in these places needs to go hand in hand with a culture of training dogs extremely well (and not taking advantage of the facilities that allow dogs, if you don't manage to train yours). Dogs in Germany are almost a different species to those in some other countries; the number of times I've heard dogs barking in the last year could very possibly be counted on one finger, despite seeing many more dogs than in other places.
I don't think this would fly in the US, where cultural attitudes tend to be less "we've all got to do our bit to make society pleasant for everyone" and more "it's a free country and this is my dog, I'll train it if I want to".
Same in France. For all the dogs around me, humans seem invisble. At least until you explicitly let the dog, at which point he look s at you as if christmas came early.
An hour ago I was walking back home from a restaurant and a dog looked at me, well until I realized that there was a bird or something behind me. They are indeed an alien breed once here.
As someone who is allergic to dogs, I appreciate that they're not permitted in many places in the US (especially restaurants). Actual service animals, as you point out, are incredibly well behaved, but I've definitely been subject to a fake service animal jumping at my lap while seated at a restaurant. Not my favorite thing in the world.
If people would actually train their dogs not to be disruptive, I'd mind less. But in my experience, most dogs are rowdy, annoying, and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by their owners.
This is entirely anecdotal, but in my experience Californian dog owners don't exercise their dogs as much as British dog owners would, resulting in generally rowdier dogs. Your experience of "most dogs are rowdy, annoying, and don't keep to themselves" is something I've encountered more on the West Coast than I do at home in the UK so maybe that's a contributing factor.
I live in Edinburgh - practically every bar here allows dogs. To give an anecdote against your anecdote, I can't think of one occasion where a dog in a bar was behaving any way less than perfect. Most of them curl up under the table, and come out when someone walks by and rubs them.
I could make the same point about children, FWIW. Most children are rowdy annoying and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by their owners. Should children be banned from all restaurants?
In restaurants I have three major causes of anoyence that decrease or even ruin the enjoyment of the meal, in order:
1: Smokers who don't consider people down wind.
2: Very loud and intoxicated groups, which occasionally are also behaving hostile/violent.
3: Parents who seems to think that children that cry for extended amount of time is something to ignore and simply wait out inside the restaurant.
But I have never had a animal jumping at my lap while seated. It not something I would find ruining the meal unless the owner could not control the animal, it would be hostile, or the owner would ignore the problem. Is that common, and where on the scale of the other annoyances would you place it?
I'm in my forties. I've been all around the country and have traveled internationally plenty. I have never been in a restaurant and had any animal jump on my lap, invited or not, service animal or not.
And I've ate at plenty of dog friendly cafes.
Your experience is unique and frankly strange. I've never heard a similar anecdote. As a person who has had canine companions for the bulk of my life I would never allow such a thing to happen in my own home let alone at a restaurant.
Just for a counter viewpoint, I have lived in Asia for most of my life and the US in the last couple of years. I greatly appreciate the fact that dogs and pets are not allowed by default in certain places in the US. Regardless of how smart you think a dog is, most of them are barely, if ever, trained.
In Palo Alto and Menlo Park, it appears that all the landlords have colluded to forbid dogs. Both towns are very dog-friendly, just not for renters. However, if you get a letter from a doctor saying that your dog is an ESA, which you can obtain online, then the landlord is forced to allow it (barring extreme circumstances like dangerous dogs). So that is what everyone does.
It indirectly becomes a form of discrimination against the poor. Wealthier renters play the game, call their doctor friends to get a note (like they did in high school to get out of tests). Poorer renters go look elsewhere.
Is it really that? Or is it simply more likely that in a landlord's market where they can choose to rent to a dog owner or a non dog owner, they opt for the one that carries less risk of damage or complaints by neighbors (all other factors being equal)?
Dogs can scratch floors, pee or poop on carpet, shred things, keep people up barking, dig up yards, even bite people. I can't say I blame them for protecting their investment to the maximum extent possible when market conditions allow. It's an investment to most, and nothing more.
And I say this as someone who grew up with cats and a dog and loves animals. I might one day decide to own a pet myself, but I sure as heck wouldn't begrudge a landlord who did not want one living in their property.
Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Why shouldn't they be spending their money on their childrens education for instance or putting the money towards buying or other long term stablisers to their future.
Do they have some local law there that prevents forbidding ESA? The article specifically says, "Emotional support animals (let’s just use that as a catchall for any dog that provides comfort but does not perform a specific task) are specifically excluded by the ADA, and access for them is not provided by that law. Businesses and similar entities are left to define their own policies."
I don't have an ESA so I can't say firsthand, but my understanding is that in California, the Disabled Persons Act has this effect. Intuitively, I think the idea is that when your doctor certifies that you need an ESA, the reason is that you have a disability, so a landlord rejecting it would be illegal discrimination.
Edit: I believe this only applies to housing, not restaurants or other businesses.
Looking for an apartment in the Bay Area is impossible with a dog. Doubly so if your dog is more than 30 lbs (really a large cat). Triply so if you have one of the breeds the large apartment complexes don't allow.
> Doubly so if your dog is more than 30 lbs (really a large cat).
Maybe if you have a cougar for a pet. Large housecats are 15-18#. When they get to 30# they can't see their feet anymore because they are shaped like beach balls at that point.
Landlords have no way of knowing which dog is going to be the one that costs them thousands of dollars in damage and/or headaches, so they have to charge extra for all of them, same way insurance underwriting works.
You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose survival depends on it.
You say "bullshit charges" like having a dog is of zero consequence. Maybe your dog is the one that never comes in with muddy feet, never has an accident, or never scratches or chews a thing, but even if it is, it isn't bullshit for a landlord to try and manage the cost.
I mean, I get it, but this is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons. All these "fake" "registrations" (in quotes because registrations aren't required) do is make life even harder for the people who have a true need. And, yes, I'm a dog owner who's genuinely sorry and more than a little pissed off at how landlords operate in hot housing markets but economic need is not a true need. There are hundreds of rentals in Seattle that are off-limits to me because I own a dog and I flatly refuse to pay pet rent so it makes my life a little harder but a companion animal is a privilege, not a right.
Larger dogs can chew on moulding, etc. (My large one did) Cats can leave random stains (mine has). Dogs may be apt to urinate indoors, especially smaller breeds (like my dachshund has). Perhaps $5000 is excessive, but I think the $1500 I've paid for my pet deposits was quite fair.
And why aren’t there more dog-friendly restaurants, bars, music venues, and
other businesses? There are nearly 90 million pet dogs in this country.
That’s a huge market, but also a huge problem when us owners act
inappropriately. As animal lovers, creating and supporting dog-friendly
businesses should be our priority. Acting selfishly to the detriment of
others will not create a more dog-friendly future. We want to be able to
take our dogs to more places, more often, but we have to make sure doing so
is appropriate and doesn’t infringe on the rights and well-being of people
who need real service dogs.
I don't understand this remedy. How will making it easier for the average Joe Public to take his ill-behaved pet everywhere make it easier for those with disabilities who require service animals? Won't that just make it more likely that service animals encounter other animals which interfere with their duties?
I think the real answer is to actually have certifications and licenses which effectively differentiate service animals from ordinary pets. Right now, there's pretty much nothing that anyone can do to prove that their "service animal" is actually well-trained enough to be in a public place without causing trouble. So, of course, people are abusing the system in order to get their ill-behaved pets into public areas. The solution to that problem isn't to make every public area open to pets, the solution is to have a clearer way of differentiating well trained service animals from ill-behaved pets.
EDIT: The main fallacy that I see in the article is that it seems to be treating pet ownership as some kind of fundamental right, and sees the "fake service animal" phenomenon as a way that people are exercising this right without working to change the system to make the exercise of this right easier. I don't agree with that worldview at all. Owning a pet is a privilege. If you find yourself in circumstances that are routinely unfriendly to owning a pet, don't own a pet.
I've used this informally as justification before when renting housing and bringing my dog to work (she's a plain CGC).
I think there's value in having these be more recognized. I especially wish they were by airlines.
Note that this isn't the same thing as the issue with service animals, where credentials are at a totally different standard, and more important than where I can bring my pet.
That's useful. It's a low standard of dog training, merely decent on-leash behavior. If you can't get your dog up to that level, it shouldn't be out in public.
What entity bestows the privilege of pet ownership? It seems like people who claim that something is a privilege usually want to deny it from others.
Something doesn't have to be a fundamental right in order to expect a lack of discrimination or the bare minimum of accommodation. If you accommodate the lives and desires of others only because you're legally required I can't say I would want to visit your business.
Something doesn't have to be a fundamental right in order to expect a lack of discrimination or the bare minimum of accommodation.
What about accommodating those people who have allergies to dog or cat dander? I think their need (i.e their need to breathe without discomfort) takes priority over the want of pet owners to bring their pets to all public venues with them.
> Right now, there's pretty much nothing that anyone can do to prove that their "service animal" is actually well-trained enough to be in a public place without causing trouble.
That's what the author suggests following that paragraph with the American Kennel Club certification: "If you want to bring your dog into a café, why aren’t you being asked to produce evidence of [it being well-behaved], rather than falsely stating that the business owner has to permit your emotional support animal?"
My issue with ESAs is a tragedy of the commons. Are current ESA dog owners are really okay with being in the middle seat of an airplane with two other ESAs on either side of them? With the exception of one girl who has noticeable anxiety issues, most ESA owners I've met have been yuppies who just wanted to take advantage of a loophole.
> I think the real answer is to actually have certifications and licenses which effectively differentiate service animals from ordinary pets.
If you're blind and you need a seeing eye dog, an untrained dog is useless to you. You actually care if the dog is properly trained.
But for people who don't care about real training and just want the certification, University of Phoenix for Dogs will appear and let anyone get their family pet certified for a nominal fee.
Imposing some kind of $5000/year certification fee or equivalent arduous bureaucracy would weed out people who don't really need the animal, but it also means you would be imposing a costly burden on everyone with a legitimate disability.
Service dogs are already not cheap -- the linked article mentions $20k as typical. Presumably (hopefully!) this cost is covered by insurance, and a certification fee could likely also be covered... for people who actually need it. And insurance companies are pretty careful not to pay for things a patient doesn't actually need, so that should weed out the fakers.
"But for people who don't care about real training and just want the certification..."
The certification should cover both the fact that the animal is properly trained and the fact that the owner needs the animal because of being disabled. Just like the disabled parking permit.
nope. It is a service to humankind. We evolved in close communication and collaboration with dogs, cats, horses. Keeping pets is keeping open that window into communication and collaboration with other species. Without dogs and cats around (and we pretty much already lost horses) humankind have all the chances to lose such capability completely. To illustrate just one, most obvious and straightforward, part of the picture - one can just google about pets effect on children development (and one can see that making owning a pet hard/impossible is basically equivalent to depriving children of such a benefit).
At the personal level - pets enhance our lives, our perception and understanding of the world, our emotional well being, our sense of empathy to others. Does it sound like a privilege or a fundamental right?
I've always wondered about the prohibition on asking for proof that the animal is actually a service animal. Why is that considered too much of a burden for a disabled person? We don't let people into bars unless they provide proof that they're over the legal drinking age; why should we let animals into restaurants without proof that they have a legal right to be there?
It's somewhat ironic, since I see people flaunting their fake "service animal ID cards", which, according to the law, aren't required.
I really really wish more businesses would at least ask the "what task is this animal trained to perform?" test. I imagine it would weed out a lot of the fakers on the spot. I think a lot of people are "passive liars" in that they're ok putting on a fake ID tag and presenting it when asked, but will have a harder time actually lying about the animal's service-related capabilities.
even in systems where there is an official system, think temporary handicap stickers, abuse can be rampant in certain areas. From outright fraud of fake stickers/mirror hangers to just always using a relatives car which has a sticker.
the fix is in enforcement backed by real fines. nothing disgusts me more than watching obviously healthy people run from handicap spaces into stores and back out only to watch the little old lady have to hobble from further out because all the spaces are taken.
we live in a society where there are people who will abuse a system because they can or they feel entitled to do so because of some perceived offense.
considering the technology available today there is zero reason we cannot provide RFID or similar tags that cannot easily be spoofed that is on the dogs collar. where I am we have to have rabies tags on dogs so adding another tag is a non issue
It has to be a dog, you have to pass it off as a service animal, and you have to do so in a way that meets the CA legal standard for "fraudulent". It's a little silly that there's a specific statute for it (and that it only covers dogs), but it's really just a refinement of the crime of fraud, which most assuredly is a crime in Europe too.
One of the things that this visitor to CA found disturbing was how so many signs have the code number of the law listed on it. Made the visit feel more police-state-ey. Even the little cart that carries tourists up the hill at Alcatraz had a "do not board moving vehicle" sign on it with a legal reference.
CA has a really weird relationship with government.
Many countries in Europe (I would know beacuse I live in one of them) have laws forbidding you from possessing certain drawn pornography of fictional characters on threat of imprisonment. I would say we have our fair share of hideous or ridiculous laws too.
Political affiliation and number of laws and regulations aren't obviously correlated. How many red states/cities have the same fines and taxes for grocery bags and improper garbage sorting?
It's not hard to find out; just search "service dog fraud" and [southern state], for instance, to find out that Alabama appears to have no such law, while Texas will fine you for trying to pass off a dog as a service animal (but apparently hasn't done so in a long time).
Generally speaking the left states are also the most authoritarian states. If you can think of it CA probably has a law regulating it and criminalizing failure to comply.
Whether a state is left or right leaning does not have any bearing on whether it is highly authoritarian or not. It just so happens that the general pattern in the US is high population -> lots of laws -> left leaning.
I guess, why should we allow more than the bare minimum of dogs in public buildings. I don't like dogs much, and I'm mildly allergic to them. I've never had a bad interaction with a real service dog, but this article glosses over the part where some people might not want dogs in a restaraunt or on their flight at all. I know I don't.
I think the question of pets in public spaces is a bit of a culture-clash issue. I was raised with well-loved, well-trained dogs, but I would never have considered taking them to a grocery store or restaurant. There are a lot of people whose enjoyment of public spaces is impeded by the presence of animals - one person's emotional support animal is another's source of anxiety, and often for good reason.
I think it is reasonable to expect people to tolerate the broad spectrum of humanity encountered in public, including those at difficult developmental stages, but extending this tolerance to other species is a matter for debate.
There are probably plenty of liars out there, but I think part of the problem may be the fact that there are a lot of people out there that need a proper service dog but can't afford one.
PTSD seems to be a big market for service dogs. However, every program I can find that helps people pay for PTSD service dogs is for military veterans only (If you know of one that isn't please let me know). Which is pretty sad considering far more people in the US have PTSD for non-combat related reasons.
If you can't get someone to help you pay for one, some of the trainers charge $20k or more. People hear stories about how service dogs can change a person's life completely and so when they can't afford one they buy a dog they can afford and attempt to train them on their own. There are lots of organizations and individuals out there providing information on how to do it. I'm not sure what the typical results are like, but I imagine its harder to accomplish than many assume.
My wife and I would have to save for years to get a $20k dog, so we've been thinking about trying to train one ourselves. It might be foolish, but when you're desperate you'll try anything. If they pass laws implementing fines for fake service dogs, I really hope they are thoughtful enough not to make it illegal to have a service dog that's not officially trained by someone that charges a fortune.
If you have a diagnosed illness, then your service dog should probably be considered "real." I'm not as confident as you that most of these people have diagnosed illnesses, however.
I know a guy with a traumatic brain injury that is confined to a wheelchair and has a "real" service dog. I don't think there is any way you can train a random dog to this level on your own. The dog has amazing skills and took many months to train. Also the trainers select dogs that exhibit the right temperment at a very young age.
I think it would be a great idea for cost, but is not comparable to a properly-trained animal in most scenarios. My mother is blind and also has a cochlear implant (basically is just shy of being deaf) and has had a service dog for the last 7 years. The dog was in training for 18 months specifically to aid blind and deaf (combo) people, then my mother had to fly out East from Minnesota for 6 weeks just to train with it without the distractions of home. Her program was solid and both of the owner and dog know their roles very well. It would be extremely tough and cost prohibitive to do this without a track record and support structure behind the whole process.
Readit News
ESAs (emotional support animals) are not the same thing as service dogs[1]. There's debate about whether they're even effective[2].
Not only does this mean that people with ESAs likely don't need their dog as much as people with service dogs, it also means ESAs don't have the same legal protections. The only places that are required to accept ESAs are airplanes.
In any other context, only service dogs are protected.
1. From the article: "The [Americans with Disabilities Act] states, 'dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.'"
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/07/02/t...
That said, just asking people with apparently inappropriate dogs what task the animal has been trained to perform would be a first step towards removing fake service animals. If they can't answer, I assume there is something you can do, but I don't know what that is exactly. It may depend on your state.
In the case of a specifically badly behaving fake (or even real) service animals, section b of the same document says: "A public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if - (1) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) The animal is not housebroken.", so a dog barking or pooping in a business can definitely be ordered removed.
I find it mildly annoying to see dogs in restaurants and grocery stores, even more so in the work place, but I've heard of a lot of people abusing these laws here in LA to be able to get into apartment buildings that don't allow pets.
As a neighbor, if you're animal isn't well-trained, I don't want to live near it in an apartment building. Were I someone allergic to pet dander, I wouldn't want to unknowingly live somewhere that a dog/cat had lived for years no matter how well you cleaned it. Especially at the expense we have to pay for rent in this city.
I think taejo has it right in her/his comment about how US owners act about this stuff:
"I don't think this would fly in the US, where cultural attitudes tend to be less "we've all got to do our bit to make society pleasant for everyone" and more "it's a free country and this is my dog, I'll train it if I want to"."
Dead Comment
Personally, if there was a dog on a plane I was flying that would make me extremely uncomfortable and nervous.
On another note, I've been living in Europe and the UK for the last few years and one of the interesting cultural differences I've noticed is how common it is over here to just allow dogs in restaurants and pubs and on public transportation. That seems to be the default and only some places have "no dogs allowed" signs up. If the US would take a similar approach, maybe people wouldn't feel the need to fake service animal status.
A culture of allowing dogs in these places needs to go hand in hand with a culture of training dogs extremely well (and not taking advantage of the facilities that allow dogs, if you don't manage to train yours). Dogs in Germany are almost a different species to those in some other countries; the number of times I've heard dogs barking in the last year could very possibly be counted on one finger, despite seeing many more dogs than in other places.
I don't think this would fly in the US, where cultural attitudes tend to be less "we've all got to do our bit to make society pleasant for everyone" and more "it's a free country and this is my dog, I'll train it if I want to".
An hour ago I was walking back home from a restaurant and a dog looked at me, well until I realized that there was a bird or something behind me. They are indeed an alien breed once here.
If people would actually train their dogs not to be disruptive, I'd mind less. But in my experience, most dogs are rowdy, annoying, and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by their owners.
I could make the same point about children, FWIW. Most children are rowdy annoying and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by their owners. Should children be banned from all restaurants?
1: Smokers who don't consider people down wind.
2: Very loud and intoxicated groups, which occasionally are also behaving hostile/violent.
3: Parents who seems to think that children that cry for extended amount of time is something to ignore and simply wait out inside the restaurant.
But I have never had a animal jumping at my lap while seated. It not something I would find ruining the meal unless the owner could not control the animal, it would be hostile, or the owner would ignore the problem. Is that common, and where on the scale of the other annoyances would you place it?
And I've ate at plenty of dog friendly cafes.
Your experience is unique and frankly strange. I've never heard a similar anecdote. As a person who has had canine companions for the bulk of my life I would never allow such a thing to happen in my own home let alone at a restaurant.
We don't all like having animals in every public place. They are still animals.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dogs can scratch floors, pee or poop on carpet, shred things, keep people up barking, dig up yards, even bite people. I can't say I blame them for protecting their investment to the maximum extent possible when market conditions allow. It's an investment to most, and nothing more.
And I say this as someone who grew up with cats and a dog and loves animals. I might one day decide to own a pet myself, but I sure as heck wouldn't begrudge a landlord who did not want one living in their property.
Why are the poor getting pets? Why do you think it's a right? Why shouldn't they be spending their money on their childrens education for instance or putting the money towards buying or other long term stablisers to their future.
Edit: I believe this only applies to housing, not restaurants or other businesses.
Looking for an apartment in the Bay Area is impossible with a dog. Doubly so if your dog is more than 30 lbs (really a large cat). Triply so if you have one of the breeds the large apartment complexes don't allow.
Maybe if you have a cougar for a pet. Large housecats are 15-18#. When they get to 30# they can't see their feet anymore because they are shaped like beach balls at that point.
When landlords stop gouging, I'll stop finding loopholes.
You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose survival depends on it.
Do you really believe there is no risk or concern a landlord might have for their investment and property. You comment reeks of entitlement.
I think the real answer is to actually have certifications and licenses which effectively differentiate service animals from ordinary pets. Right now, there's pretty much nothing that anyone can do to prove that their "service animal" is actually well-trained enough to be in a public place without causing trouble. So, of course, people are abusing the system in order to get their ill-behaved pets into public areas. The solution to that problem isn't to make every public area open to pets, the solution is to have a clearer way of differentiating well trained service animals from ill-behaved pets.
EDIT: The main fallacy that I see in the article is that it seems to be treating pet ownership as some kind of fundamental right, and sees the "fake service animal" phenomenon as a way that people are exercising this right without working to change the system to make the exercise of this right easier. I don't agree with that worldview at all. Owning a pet is a privilege. If you find yourself in circumstances that are routinely unfriendly to owning a pet, don't own a pet.
I've used this informally as justification before when renting housing and bringing my dog to work (she's a plain CGC).
I think there's value in having these be more recognized. I especially wish they were by airlines.
Note that this isn't the same thing as the issue with service animals, where credentials are at a totally different standard, and more important than where I can bring my pet.
What entity bestows the privilege of pet ownership? It seems like people who claim that something is a privilege usually want to deny it from others.
Something doesn't have to be a fundamental right in order to expect a lack of discrimination or the bare minimum of accommodation. If you accommodate the lives and desires of others only because you're legally required I can't say I would want to visit your business.
What about accommodating those people who have allergies to dog or cat dander? I think their need (i.e their need to breathe without discomfort) takes priority over the want of pet owners to bring their pets to all public venues with them.
At least in Switzerland, we had to take a theoretical course, get certified and ensure we were properly taking care of our pets [1].
[1] https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/pd/de/index/stadtpolizei_zueric...
That's what the author suggests following that paragraph with the American Kennel Club certification: "If you want to bring your dog into a café, why aren’t you being asked to produce evidence of [it being well-behaved], rather than falsely stating that the business owner has to permit your emotional support animal?"
My issue with ESAs is a tragedy of the commons. Are current ESA dog owners are really okay with being in the middle seat of an airplane with two other ESAs on either side of them? With the exception of one girl who has noticeable anxiety issues, most ESA owners I've met have been yuppies who just wanted to take advantage of a loophole.
If you're blind and you need a seeing eye dog, an untrained dog is useless to you. You actually care if the dog is properly trained.
But for people who don't care about real training and just want the certification, University of Phoenix for Dogs will appear and let anyone get their family pet certified for a nominal fee.
Imposing some kind of $5000/year certification fee or equivalent arduous bureaucracy would weed out people who don't really need the animal, but it also means you would be imposing a costly burden on everyone with a legitimate disability.
The certification should cover both the fact that the animal is properly trained and the fact that the owner needs the animal because of being disabled. Just like the disabled parking permit.
nope. It is a service to humankind. We evolved in close communication and collaboration with dogs, cats, horses. Keeping pets is keeping open that window into communication and collaboration with other species. Without dogs and cats around (and we pretty much already lost horses) humankind have all the chances to lose such capability completely. To illustrate just one, most obvious and straightforward, part of the picture - one can just google about pets effect on children development (and one can see that making owning a pet hard/impossible is basically equivalent to depriving children of such a benefit).
At the personal level - pets enhance our lives, our perception and understanding of the world, our emotional well being, our sense of empathy to others. Does it sound like a privilege or a fundamental right?
It's somewhat ironic, since I see people flaunting their fake "service animal ID cards", which, according to the law, aren't required.
I really really wish more businesses would at least ask the "what task is this animal trained to perform?" test. I imagine it would weed out a lot of the fakers on the spot. I think a lot of people are "passive liars" in that they're ok putting on a fake ID tag and presenting it when asked, but will have a harder time actually lying about the animal's service-related capabilities.
So the law explicitly sets up an honor system, where you have to accept it if someone says they have a service animal.
the fix is in enforcement backed by real fines. nothing disgusts me more than watching obviously healthy people run from handicap spaces into stores and back out only to watch the little old lady have to hobble from further out because all the spaces are taken.
we live in a society where there are people who will abuse a system because they can or they feel entitled to do so because of some perceived offense.
considering the technology available today there is zero reason we cannot provide RFID or similar tags that cannot easily be spoofed that is on the dogs collar. where I am we have to have rabies tags on dogs so adding another tag is a non issue
The number and nature of jailable offenses in the US state and federal legal systems keep baffling the European mind.
CA has a really weird relationship with government.
Deleted Comment
Whether a state is left or right leaning does not have any bearing on whether it is highly authoritarian or not. It just so happens that the general pattern in the US is high population -> lots of laws -> left leaning.
I think it is reasonable to expect people to tolerate the broad spectrum of humanity encountered in public, including those at difficult developmental stages, but extending this tolerance to other species is a matter for debate.
PTSD seems to be a big market for service dogs. However, every program I can find that helps people pay for PTSD service dogs is for military veterans only (If you know of one that isn't please let me know). Which is pretty sad considering far more people in the US have PTSD for non-combat related reasons.
If you can't get someone to help you pay for one, some of the trainers charge $20k or more. People hear stories about how service dogs can change a person's life completely and so when they can't afford one they buy a dog they can afford and attempt to train them on their own. There are lots of organizations and individuals out there providing information on how to do it. I'm not sure what the typical results are like, but I imagine its harder to accomplish than many assume.
My wife and I would have to save for years to get a $20k dog, so we've been thinking about trying to train one ourselves. It might be foolish, but when you're desperate you'll try anything. If they pass laws implementing fines for fake service dogs, I really hope they are thoughtful enough not to make it illegal to have a service dog that's not officially trained by someone that charges a fortune.
I know a guy with a traumatic brain injury that is confined to a wheelchair and has a "real" service dog. I don't think there is any way you can train a random dog to this level on your own. The dog has amazing skills and took many months to train. Also the trainers select dogs that exhibit the right temperment at a very young age.
I pretty much agreed in my comment. People try anyways because they've tried everything else and don't have the money.
>Also the trainers select dogs that exhibit the right temperment at a very young age.
There are lots of breeders now that offer to help you find a dog with the right temperment. I'm not sure how legitimate they are though.