Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm an animal lover. I have 6 dogs and take some of them (1 or 2 at a time) with me on short trips in the car because they like to go. But I dont understand this animals for emotional support crap. If you cant function emotionally without your pet next to you, there is something seriously wrong with you. I need emotional support because I have pets, not from my pets.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe that animal is part of fixing what is "seriously wrong with them?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Wal-Mart is not allowed to ask for proof that the animal is a service animal, or what ailment or disability the service animal helps with, but someone walking in with their little dog in their arms is NOT bringing in a service animal. A service animal is not going to be carried like that. In that case, the store can absolutely tell the people not to bring in their emotional support animal.
The bolded is not necessarily true, seizure and diabetic alert dogs do not necessarily need to be mobile. In fact I believe that some diabetic alert dogs need to be kept in proximity to the person's breath to smell it for an impending episode. There are a few others where mobility may not be required.
Quote:
And in cases of the animal being anything but a dog in a Wal-Mart, you can rest assured that is not a service animal, and the store has every right to tell them to take a hike.
Miniature horses are also covered under service animals, but that's it, dogs and miniature horses at the Federal level. Individual States may allow more species leeway.
Nobody should have to take an allergy pill for *support* dogs. Service dogs, fine. There's nothing those folks can do about their very real challenges.
Cat allergies can be particularly bad. I know two people who were on allergy and asthma meds and inhalers and both were hospitalized after being in homes that had cats.
And as I posted earlier, these dogs aren't trained and people have been bitten. It's not just about allergies.
No one said they need to, but you are under the assumption the only animals they may encounter are ESA, however, there is a potential for them to encounter any type. If they are that damn allergic to them, they need to prepare to take a pill anyway. Cats and dogs are allowed on planes, have so for decades, it is just hardly anyone noticed because they were stowed under the seat in a carrier. A person allergic to them will not know if they are there unless of course they ask.
But a person allergic can encounter a dog or cat anywhere outside their home, so they need to be prepared to do something about it.
Can you imagine a dog or cat taking a dump on a plane that is in the air on long flights.
I would never ever put my pet on a plane.
My plane is used for charters and I have an ironclad rule that no pets allowed on-board. Period. Regardless of what it’s used for, the answer is no. Go find another plane.
It is like some of you have never left your house and town in your life.
Cats and dogs have been allowed on planes, in the cabin, for decades, it is not a new concept. Rules are they must be in a carrier and fit under the seat.
This issue and similar, has nothing to do with that.
There is also generally a limit on how many pets are allowed in the cabin on any individual flight. Two seems to be pretty standard.
The thing is, a lot of people who claim to own ESAs appear to be doing so to get around these requirements. It is hard for me to imagine anyone (well, other than T-310 ) objecting to having a seeing eye dog or other trained service animal on a plane, but that's not what's being discussed here.
Part of my objection to this explosion of ESAs is that often, the owner is not acting in the best interest of the animal. I adore my pets. I would not subject them to air travel, in the cabin or otherwise, unless it was absolutely necessary. I have flown with animals twice. In both cases, it was because I was moving and could not have taken them along in any other way. The only alternative would have been trying to rehome them. They hated it, I hated it, and it's not an experience I want to repeat.
This will not stand, hopefully it will get shot down........going all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary.
Someone unnecessarily trembling in utter fear and terrifiedness on a flight, because they are without their needed equipment...........all because the hatehype has made emotional-comfort-animals all evil and grainy, SMH!!!!!
If that equipment is so vital to their being able to fly, they should be willing to pay for that animal, right? Just like folks who travel with pets in carriers that stow under the seat.
I can guarantee that once emotional support animals get charged, their owners will manage to conquer their fear and terror while flying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) objecting to having a seeing eye dog or other trained service animal on a plane, but that's not what's being discussed here. 
