I would be really annoyed if I was in the opposite aisle seat. I am not a dog person and absolutely don’t want to be forced into close quarters with them. I am so sick of the ‘everybody has to luvvvv snookums and he couldn’t possibly fly other than right next to me’ mentality. Keep your damned dog out of my space - it is small enough as it is on an airplane. If you are legitimately handicapped, then fine. Sorry, I don’t count emotional service dogs in that category.
What about my emotional security? I am convinced snookums is going to bite me and I will be in fear the whole flight - where are my rights?
I don’t mind dogs. I do think I’d mind having my already cramped space squished by a big hairy slobbery dog or having to step over the dog to use the bathroom.
[QUOTE=csaper58;8572731]
I don’t doubt you hear ‘stories’. People love to tell ‘stories’. Some people even like to embellish/make up ‘stories’.
Especially, when they are trying to make photos, culled from the internet, support an agenda.[/QUOTE]
You’re right, I do have an agenda. I would like to see an end to the fake service dog problem in this country.
Because I love dogs, I work with them everyday, I depend on one for my independence and health, but that doesn’t mean I want to be subjected to watching you (general you) feed your dog off a plate at a restaurant while claiming its a service dog. Before you accuse me of “stories,” I’ve seen that one personally.
[QUOTE=enjoytheride;8572882]
You don’t have a problem with the giant husky in the aisle where the flight attendants and anyone going to the bathroom have to walk over him?[/QUOTE]
Since you asked, no I don’t. I step over dogs all day, I’m use to it.
I totally trust the flight staff. We all have witnessed that they won’t hesitate to enforce the rules, and keep everyone safe.
If the husky is in the way when the cart or a passenger needs to pass, they will ask the owner to place him back in the space by their feet (where the Mal is in it’s picture) no muss no fuss.
[QUOTE=gumtree;8570423]
I know people who have been doing this for years. I don’t see it as being any big deal.
But I am far from being “PC” and I certainly wouldn’t be a member of the Nanny Patrol or PC police.
Me I would be happy to pay for a seat for my pooch if they would sell it to me. I’d rather have someone’s dog sitting next to me than a lot of the people I have had over the years.
As always to each their own.[/QUOTE]
I see posts like this and think, “there but for the grace of God…”
Of course it’s NBD for you, a privileged male, who has no disability, to see pets on planes… It won’t affect you when these poorly behaved dogs result in having all animals banned from airways regardless of service deportment. And then what will the genuinely disabled people use?
I speak as someone who not only has a disability (and I am thankful every day that I am not yet at the point where I need a service dog) but as someone who has encountered “service dogs” mob me in the aisle at a grocery store, trip me on their flexi-leash as I walked around the store I worked at, etc – it is absolutely WRONG to have your animal in a private, public place unless it is truly a service dog and people who have these untrained animals are ruining the accessibility of public venues for disabled people every time they bring their untrained animals out.
What a narrow, piggish mindset.
[QUOTE=Horsegal984;8572964]
You’re right, I do have an agenda. I would like to see an end to the fake service dog problem in this country.
Because I love dogs, I work with them everyday, I depend on one for my independence and health, but that doesn’t mean I want to be subjected to watching you (general you) feed your dog off a plate at a restaurant while claiming its a service dog. Before you accuse me of “stories,” I’ve seen that one personally.[/QUOTE]
You say you love dogs, but I don’t see that in your posts. The Mal is devotedly obeying it’s master in both pics, yet you demonize it. The husky is laying quietly in the isle, his solid presence giving comfort to many around him. Just exactly what a service should do. But, again, that is not acceptable to you.
Your posts come across as very intolerant of any situation or person (or pet) that is not 100% in compliance with every rule you deem applicable.
Complete and total adherence to every rule, and in accordance with how you interpret those rules may work for you, but there are many, many, others who will not fall into lock step.
None of the situations pictured in your posts look out of control. None of the people in those situations looks bothered at all. If they become bothered there are authorities there with them they can appeal to.
[QUOTE=csaper58;8573046]
You say you love dogs, but I don’t see that in your posts. The Mal is devotedly obeying it’s master in both pics, yet you demonize it. The husky is laying quietly in the isle, his solid presence giving comfort to many around him. Just exactly what a service should do. But, again, that is not acceptable to you.
Your posts come across as very intolerant of any situation or person (or pet) that is not 100% in compliance with every rule you deem applicable.
Complete and total adherence to every rule, and in accordance with how you interpret those rules may work for you, but there are many, many, others who will not fall into lock step.
None of the situations pictured in your posts look out of control. None of the people in those situations looks bothered at all. If they become bothered there are authorities there with them they can appeal to.[/QUOTE]
Read the post above yours. Talk to my friend who works for a major airline and just had to sit through a board meeting trying to sort out what they can do about the growing problem of pets on planes. Read the other posts on here, where many people have said they don’t want to sit next to those dogs.
And I didn’t make the rules. But yes, there is a set of rules I expect people to abide by, it’s called the ADA and the ACAA. They’re pretty clear about how and when and why dogs should be allowed, and it’s not just because you want to take them where ever you go. :no: :no: :no:
[QUOTE=csaper58;8573046]
You say you love dogs, but I don’t see that in your posts. The Mal is devotedly obeying it’s master in both pics, yet you demonize it. The husky is laying quietly in the isle, his solid presence giving comfort to many around him. Just exactly what a service should do. But, again, that is not acceptable to you.
Your posts come across as very intolerant of any situation or person (or pet) that is not 100% in compliance with every rule you deem applicable.
Complete and total adherence to every rule, and in accordance with how you interpret those rules may work for you, but there are many, many, others who will not fall into lock step.
None of the situations pictured in your posts look out of control. None of the people in those situations looks bothered at all. If they become bothered there are authorities there with them they can appeal to.[/QUOTE]
You can love dogs but you can not love having them take over part of your seat, or having to ask the owner to move the dog every time someone walks by. It doesn’t matter that you don’t mind stepping over a dog. Other people would.
You can love dogs and think that dogs who are not actual service animals should ride like all the other dogs whose owners don’t lie about things to get them on a plane.
The fact is that people are taking advantage of the ESA being loosely written and enforced and this will cause the law to change and become much more strict, which will harm people who have a legitimate need to have their dog with them.
We are breeding a weaker and weaker society. It’s amazing to me ESA are even a thing.
Another factor for me is that I have a friend that is severely allergic to dogs, and has several family members who also are allergic. She knows that service dogs are legitimate, and she is the one to leave the area, but to think that my friend or someone else has a major allergic episode because of a dog someone fakes credentials for infuriates me. There are not many people that allergic, but my friend and three of her immediate family are, and it’s scary to see them have a reaction.
I fail to see what is wrong with muzzling your dog for it’s safety while it is doing a job? If that Mal legitimately has food intolerance issues, and was my working dog, I too would muzzle it to ensure 100% compliance with it’s prescribed diet. I wouldn’t want to rely only on my vigilance as a handler for keeping my dog fit for the work I needed it to do.
Unless you are saying that Malinois aren’t fit to be SDs? Maybe not for a novice handler, but hardly is there a better working breed than the Mal.
As far as dogs on planes with passengers who have allergies, that is just an issue that people have to face and deal with the airline personnel. Perhaps the plane can reassign seats to separate those passengers as much as possible. SD handler and their SD, and passengers with allergies all have a right to travel.
I fail to see what is wrong with muzzling your dog for it’s safety while it is doing a job? If that Mal legitimately has food intolerance issues, and was my working dog, I too would muzzle it to ensure 100% compliance with it’s prescribed diet. I wouldn’t want to rely only on my vigilance as a handler for keeping my dog fit for the work I needed it to do.
Unless you are saying that Malinois aren’t fit to be SDs? Maybe not for a novice handler, but hardly is there a better working breed than the Mal.
As far as dogs on planes with allergies, that is just an issue that people have to face and deal with the airline personnel. Perhaps the plane can reassign seats to separate those passengers as much as possible. SD handler and their SD, and passengers with allergies all have a right to travel.
[QUOTE=Twigster;8573519]
I fail to see what is wrong with muzzling your dog for it’s safety while it is doing a job? If that Mal legitimately has food intolerance issues, and was my working dog, I too would muzzle it to ensure 100% compliance with it’s prescribed diet. I wouldn’t want to rely only on my vigilance as a handler for keeping my dog fit for the work I needed it to do.
Unless you are saying that Malinois aren’t fit to be SDs? Maybe not for a novice handler, but hardly is there a better working breed than the Mal.
As far as dogs on planes with passengers who have allergies, that is just an issue that people have to face and deal with the airline personnel. Perhaps the plane can reassign seats to separate those passengers as much as possible. SD handler and their SD, and passengers with allergies all have a right to travel.[/QUOTE]
For starters, the DOJ is very specific that dogs trained for any bite work cannot be service dogs. For two, I have NO IDEA where csasper58 came up with the food intolerance issue, she made that up all on her own. In conversations with the handler/trainer of that dog they were very clear that the dogs are muzzled because they cannot be trusted not to bite in public.
Nobody is contesting that legitimate service dogs have the right to accompany their handlers, but none of those photos I shared are legitimate service dogs. We’re only discussing the plethora of fakes and ill behaved pets that are being allowed into the cabins more and more.
As a point of clarification, the law states the the dog may not be used for protection AS A TASK. Not that the dog cannot be trained in bite work or protection trained. Several friends of mine have service dogs that have IPO titles.
[QUOTE=Twigster;8573551]
As a point of clarification, the law states the the dog may not be used for protection AS A TASK. Not that the dog cannot be trained in bite work or protection trained. Several friends of mine have service dogs that have IPO titles.[/QUOTE]
Actually no, the DOJ has clarified their stance. "While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the “minimal protection” language to read “non-violent protection,” thereby excluding so-called “attack dogs” or dogs with traditional “protection training” as service animals. "
Link: http://www.iaadp.org/doj-def-comments-Title-II-III-SA.html
[QUOTE=Horsegal984;8573580]
Actually no, the DOJ has clarified their stance. "While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the “minimal protection” language to read “non-violent protection,” thereby excluding so-called “attack dogs” or dogs with traditional “protection training” as service animals. "
Link: http://www.iaadp.org/doj-def-comments-Title-II-III-SA.html[/QUOTE]
By taking that quote out of context, you have removed it from the subsection “Providing minimal protection.” Which is where it is stated that protection in an of itself is not sufficient for qualification as a service animal.
We went to the Bahamas over New Year’s and saw a TON of “service dogs” at the airport and on our flight!! It was bizarre. Not right.
[QUOTE=Twigster;8573714]
By taking that quote out of context, you have removed it from the subsection “Providing minimal protection.” Which is where it is stated that protection in an of itself is not sufficient for qualification as a service animal.[/QUOTE]
Did you actually read the link to the entirety? They have removed the “minimal protection” language and changed it to “non-violent” protection. This change was in direct response to people who felt that dogs trained in protection were acceptable to use service dog candidates. They are acknowledging that being a crime deterrent is not a task, but also stating that dogs trained to bite CANNOT BE service dogs.
"
The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the “minimal protection” language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the “minimal protection” language to read “non-violent protection,” thereby excluding so-called “attack dogs” or dogs with traditional “protection training” as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department´s modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog´s presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition."
And before you go there, I’m not necessarily happy with that change. I was actually planning to train and compete my Cattle Dog in Schutzhund, but cannot now that they’ve changed the law. I understand that a properly trained bite-sports or protection dog is actually probably less risk to bite strangers than one who hasn’t been worked with, but they have been pretty damn specific with the re-wording.
[QUOTE=CindyCRNA;8573422]
We are breeding a weaker and weaker society. It’s amazing to me ESA are even a thing.[/QUOTE]
You’re right. The young woman that got raped by her classmate shouldn’t need support - the veteran that served three tours and watched his comrades blown to smithereens doesn’t need support. Heck, tortured/refugee survivors shouldn’t need anything either.
