Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/pets-allowed

by wallflower • 12 years ago

176 179 12 years ago

newyorker.com

cft• 12 years ago

because there are fewer and fewer children. http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-tim...

dghughes2• 12 years ago

1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population

Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem.

But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.

dsymonds• 12 years ago

"stable" here means zero population growth over the long term, which actually requires a little above 2 per couple to account for people who die before being old enough to parent children. 2.1 is the common approximation for that.

Dylan168072• 12 years ago

I don't understand your question.

Stability and growth are different things.

Not all couples need to have extra babies to have growth.

Why did you bring up growth?

alextgordon• 12 years ago

I found the interview at the bottom of that article completely surreal. A couple of talking heads applying reason to question of whether the world has enough people or not (and apparently deciding that it doesn't have enough), when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh.

rayiner• 12 years ago

when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh.

As someone from Bangladesh, I have to say it's not quite so simple. Does the country need more people in general? No. Does it need more more parents to spend the time, money, and energy it takes to raise highly-educated kids that are going to be the backbone of the economy in a couple of decades, and to do that in Bangladesh instead of moving abroad? Absolutely!

kghose• 12 years ago

But net immigration into the US, so the population is actually increasing.

brc• 12 years ago

The point is many people forego having children, and then keep dogs or cats to fill in their need for nurturing.

vmarsy3• 12 years ago

tl;dr: Emotional-support animal (E.S.A.) are not allowed in places they shouldn't be. Exceptions are:

The rights of anyone who has such an animal are laid out in two laws. The Fair Housing Act says that you and your E.S.A. can live in housing that prohibits pets. The Air Carrier Access Act entitles you to fly with your E.S.A. at no extra charge, although airlines typically require the animal to stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support rhinoceroses. Both acts stipulate that you must have a corroborating letter from a health professional.

So anywhere else these animals are it is not legal. It is different for service dogs that are trained for a specific purpose (i.e. blind people's dog)

They defend the practice by saying [...] that Europeans gladly accept dogs everywhere.

I'd love to see them trying it in Europe :)

However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it really a trend ?

mc322• 12 years ago

Somewhere someone mentioned that normal pets are not allowed on planes unless you pay more but if you get your pet labeled emotional support then its free AND they mentioned getting that classification is easy and people abuse it to get a break...

gamegoblin• 12 years ago

I was recently on a flight from Chicago to Seattle with a chihuahua on someone's lap a few rows in front of me that yapped in long stretches for the entire flight. Far, far worse than any child screaming.

vmarsy3• 12 years ago

... this is just sad to abuse it like this. I feel sad for people who _really_ needs their animals for this particular reason.

Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle that?

If I happen to sit next to a pet owner, can I claim that I'm allergic to it and this is a threat to my well being?

Dylan168072• 12 years ago

It's not legally mandated that the animal be allowed in, but it's perfectly legal to bring the animal with permission.

vmarsy3• 12 years ago

I see. But the permission is granted because the restaurant's staff is afraid to break the law.

They piss off some of their customers and probably loose some profits.

Is it legal for places like Walmart (or Whole Foods as the authors mention) where food is served? The trained dog exception is understandable but animals in general are known to convey diseases, I'm surpised that these places are not legally required to forbid any other animals.

EDIT: Section 114259.5 of the California Retail Food Code says that "live animals may not be allowed in a food facility." But it makes exceptions not just for service dogs but for "pets in the common dining areas of restricted food service facilities at times other than during meals."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laz-dog-grocery-201410...

ars2• 12 years ago

E.S.A. can live in housing that prohibits pets

Does that bother anyone else? If you are petrified of dogs, you will (reasonably) pick housing that prohibits pets. Then someone comes in with an ESA dog?

Why do their rights trump yours?

baddox12• 12 years ago

Well, either way it's one "right" trumping another.

icelancer2• 12 years ago

However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it really a trend ?

Depends on the city. In the cities full of hipsters (NYC, Seattle, SF) it's a lot more common. In Waco, TX, no. Not really.

curiouscats• 12 years ago

It is sad how we allow rude people to get away with selfish behavior and make life for difficult for everyone else. Doing so encourages rude people to be even more selfish and we get the kind of behavior you see discussed in the article.

Addressing the issues directly is often challenging. That is my guess on why we allow degenerate behavior to impose costs on others until it reaches epidemic proportions when we finally attempt to address it.

It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about.

Allowing the rudest people to abuse society degrades the public square and tears at the benefits that can strengthen the social contract. Sadly it seems to be a pretty dominate trait in our society these last few decades and it seems likely to just keep getting worse. Hopefully I am wrong.

wozniacki• 12 years ago

  It also encourages people to isolate themselves in 
  enclaves where people that share certain expectations 
  of behavior can shut out others and deal with those 
  that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever 
  behaviors the group cares about.

This. Yes. Hat tip.

It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members.

This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF.

With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion.

Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them.

I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

baddox12• 12 years ago

I'm not so sure that self-imposed cultural isolation is such a bad thing, at least inherently. It seems like a potentially better way for global society to support an extremely wide range of cultural norms than for every set of norms to be distributed evenly and tons of effort spent futilely teaching people to be "tolerant."

SilasX• 12 years ago

Agree completely. We saw a similar dynamic with the recent stepped up enforcement of the rules against blocking BART stairways and exits in the Bay Area [1]. When they finally took action against it, they had to use the pretense of safety. No one was willing to say,

"Look, we really don't want to look like a police state here, but there are about a trillion other places just a few steps away where you can sleep or beg, and where we will leave you the heck alone, so if you're unwilling to play well with passersby, we will have to physically move you."

[1] http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/BART-to-rous...

_almosnow6• 12 years ago

Right on spot.

My personal opinion: I don't have nothing against dogs but I hate to hear them barking. I know that you can't completely control that but way many owners do not teach manners to their dogs and they are barking all the time.

Now before someone says "what's up with this guy expecting manners from dogs" I actually adopted two dogs last year and without prior experience I educated them really well. Now I'm pretty sure that a messy dog is absolutely the fault of the owner's behavior.

And you're right about the social contract. The damage that irresponsible owners are doing to society far extends the trivial situation of "that dog is making a lot of noise"; that thing easily becomes a "I hope the owner gets it back" and those collective feelings fuel a more hostile society in general.

dengnan2• 12 years ago

You are right to some extent. But may I ask what is your dogs' breed? Different breeds have different behavior patterns and some specific to barking, some breeds are just more noisy than others no matter how you trained them. For example, terriers were used to rats, rabbits, and foxes [0]. This means they had to work along underground so that barking was actually a good trait otherwise their owners might not be able to find them when they had some dangerous situation underneath. Barking was an old GPS for their owners. Terriers were specifically selected by breeders to bark loud and frequent[1]. Of course that does not necessary mean a barking terrier is acceptable. They have to be trained but may bark more than other breeds.

0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrier

1. Dawn Antoniak-Mitchell, Terrier-Centric Dog Training: From Tenacious to Tremendous. http://www.amazon.com/Terrier-Centric-Dog-Training-Tenacious...

dominotw• 12 years ago

s/dogs/kids

DannyBee2• 12 years ago

As someone else said, different breeds are very different in behaviors, and it's not as simple as you make it out in any way, shape, or form.

bdamm3• 12 years ago

Inform the owners of this product:

http://store.sportdog.com/nobark-6-standard

Kiro4• 12 years ago

Now I'm pretty sure that a messy dog is absolutely the fault of the owner's behavior.

I don't agree. We had a dog who was absolutely hopeless. We took her to several professional dog trainers and spent many thousands on dog therapy to no avail. Just because you had a good experience with your two dogs doesn't mean that applies to all dogs.

rottyguy• 12 years ago

I actually feel the same way about kids "acting out" in public. The difference is, if the guardians are attempting to control the situation. If they are, then I am much more tolerant to the disruption. If not, well to be honest, I'm not sure if I'm more upset with the child or the parent at this point.

greggman• 12 years ago

What each person considers selfish is, unfortunately?, subjective.

Is crossing the street against the light selfish? Yes, you're taking someone else's turn. No, you're just crossing the street.

Is peeing on a toilet seat selfish? Yes, you're ruining for everyone else. No, you don't want to touch that gross seat so you're not lifting it.

The media / culture in the west or at least USA relishes "break the rules" but that is often interpreted by some in ways that some would argue are selfish. Graffiti (is it street art or ruining someone else's property). Trespassing (is it just being harmlessly curious or invading someone's space or privacy). Returning things you used, as in buying a dress, wearing it to a party and returning it for a full refund. (Is it just being frugal or selfish?)

_almosnow6• 12 years ago

Yeah you can get lost in the details for as much time as you want and you can also justify pretty much every kind of behavior imaginable by artificially constructing a scenario that favors whatever point of view you are trying to defend.

Everything is subjective, I agree, but I think everyone could be mature enough to discern the line between "I can't avoid doing this" and "I'm just being an ass". If most people were honest enough to just think "this is wrong, I'll refrain from doing it" we wouldn't even need laws in the first place.

The problem is not how subjective are the issues at hand, the problem is the attitude some people take when confronted with those issues. You can make extremely detailed laws that are designed to take into account every possible situation that may arise and still have someone study them well enough to discover a flaw and use that as a shield for, well, being an asshole. "Yeah the law says that I can't pee on toilets but I didn't pee on it, I just threw the pee there later from a bag. Gotcha!"

SixSigma4• 12 years ago

See also: obesity

EDIT : if the downvoter can explain to me why, I would appreciate it.

Selfish, impulse driven, has massive impact on others while denying same, is a choice.

lmm3• 12 years ago

You may find it upsetting to see an obese person, but I don't think it really compares to having someone's dog crap on your aeroplane.

SixSigma4• 12 years ago

Shame one can't see the up / down vote count. This post has ranged from +3 to -2

silencio• 12 years ago

It's difficult to challenge also because it makes it even more difficult for the people who need help, and there will always be some number of rude people that squeak by too.

In the case of ESAs, every fix for this problem will be more work for people with service animals. The most popular fix I've heard of is a nationwide registry, but what kind of signup cost will there be? A service dog is already expensive, what if the additional signup is prohibitively expensive for those that really need it?

Another one I can think of is the disability pass I got the last time I went to a Disney theme park. The pass basically lets you wait like everyone else, just not in line (e.g. 100 minute wait for space mountain - sign up and just come back after 100 minutes to use the Fastpass line). It used to be a direct skip-to-the-Fastpass line, but it _seemed_ like it was abused too much so Disney changed the benefit, but not the way to get it. So the same rude people can still abuse it, but everyone else that needed it got screwed. Bonus points because people like me with no visible disability (wooohoo nerve damage in my legs) look like abusers to the average person.

Then there are the people that get pissed off that I would like to board a plane early because it's totally about me wanting overhead space for....the bag I checked... and it can't possibly be because I would like to minimize pain that drugs can't touch by not waiting in lines.

I don't think this is a particularly new problem. Some people just want all the nice things and have no respect for others.

fineIllregister• 12 years ago

It's been a while since I've been to Disney, but I don't see how that's any different than a fastpass. Would giving a fastpass be sufficient accommodation?

dfxm12• 12 years ago

If you're so worried about what other people think of you while boarding a plane first, why don't you simply board it last?

Shivetya2• 12 years ago

Well when you have a government people telling them they are entitled to this, that, and oh yeah maybe that, its bound to filter into the common mindset. Follow it up with TV programs, internet sites, and the like, which on serve to reinforce the attitude.

You deserve high speed internet, you deserve a phone, you deserve pets, you deserve to take your emotional support llama with you... on and on and on... never do we hear, your rights do not supersede the rights and safety of others.

smsm427• 12 years ago

If so many animal companions visit places where they weren't allowed before, and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse, maybe the problem is not "cheating" but overabundance of restrictions? Maybe people are afraid of other people's pets out of ignorance and lifting the veil of ignorance is a good thing? There are, of course, bad apples - as there are among people. In a restaurant I'd be more worried about a waiter not washing their hands after visiting bathroom (the fact that there are placards saying they ABSOLUTELY MUST DO IT everywhere is kind of unnerving - if they insist on it so much is it the case that one reminder at the start of the employment is not enough?) than about the quiet dog under the table on the other end of the room. There are also things like poorly trained dog doing "what the dogs do" in the airplane, and the owner not thinking about dog's needs on a 5-hour flight. There are also sanitary and other concerns - e.g. in some places, it is clearly not appropriate to come with animals (most of these places, though, are not exactly open to public either). But I see no problem for a well-behaved dog (or other like animal, of course bengal tigers require an exception here) to accompany its owner to a restaurant or similar establishment - provided they don't smell offensively, shed, make loud noise or otherwise disturb people. Of course, the responsibility should be on the owner and if the companion pet misbehaves or makes trouble, they both should be out, but as a consequence of a problem, not as a pre-determined conclusion.

Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK.

So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.

forrestthewoods4• 12 years ago

"and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse"

That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!

smsm427• 12 years ago

There should be a high bar to for prohibiting people from doing something that does not infringe anybody's rights.

SwellJoe2• 12 years ago

I almost never mind as long as they are well-behaved. Just like kids. If your dog or your kid is making noise and stinking up the place, I don't much like it. Otherwise, why would I care? They're cute and funny (dogs moreso than kids), and they have shared human spaces for thousands of years.

I purposely live in places that are pretty lax about stuff like that, and one of the things I liked least about Silicon Valley is how horribly dog-hostile the housing market there is, though once you've got housing, there are, at least a few patio-equipped restaurants and coffee shops that are dog-friendly (not on par with an actual dog-friendly city like Austin, but liveable).

ssully2• 12 years ago

I am not sure if you read the article, but it goes far beyond dogs. It's about people abusing the concept of an emotional service animal. People do it to get their pets to fly free as well as other things. The main portion of the article is about the author seeing how far she can go by claiming random animals are ESA's for her. She used turtles, snakes, pigs, alpacas and a few others successfully.

I am a dog lover. I own one dog and plan to adopt more in the future. But it's pretty ridiculous that people take advantage of this. Not everyone is a dog person, let alone comfortable with the number of animals this women used as ESA pets. It's unfortunate that there are actually people at such a state emotionally where they don't want to leave the house unaccompanied by their pets, but it's not exactly fair for everyone else who now has to potentially put up with their animal.

servicepups5• 12 years ago

I think at the end of the day it should be about discretion. A store should be able to say "oh sure, Fido is awesome" and "uh, no, he ate my childs arm last time, fuck off Marty" without any worries. Banning animals in places that serve food city wide is quite silly. Let the stores set their own rules. I'd love a coworking cafe that charged by the hour and let my dog run around.

fallinghawks• 12 years ago

I think rubber ducks as ESAs would be just as effective and far less annoying :)

There are significant fines for businesses that refuse to accommodate legitimate service animals, so businesses are afraid to question if an alleged service animal is real or fake.

ars2• 12 years ago

but it goes far beyond dogs

Does it really matter what the animal is? Abusing the rules with a dog is just as bad as abusing them with an alpaca.

mturmon• 12 years ago

I mostly disagree, and generally like places that aren't hung up on rules that (in this case) don't really make a difference.

Who cares if the person next to me at dinner has a pet snake? I know a guy who takes his pet parrot to the grocery store and the hardware store. It's a hoot. I took my former dog, an exceptionally mellow and adaptable doxie mix, on a plane flight (about 10 years ago) to see my parents. The passengers were generally glad for the diversion.

SwellJoe2• 12 years ago

I did. I just haven't seen it. Ever. I've seen dogs. Nothing else. I used to see birds and snakes and big lizards a lot when I lived in Houston 15 years ago, but not really anywhere since (except in Venice Beach), and that obviously wasn't because of this ESA thing. It may have been a factor of who I was hanging out with and things I was doing.

I'm not endorsing people abusing the system...I'm endorsing chilling out about dogs in "human" spaces. I understand there are valid concerns. Some people are allergic, and that's a thing we should try to be respectful of, within reason (i.e. if someone is allergic and says so, maybe move them or the animal to another location within the space). Some dogs are poorly behaved. Owners should be expected to be responsible for inappropriate behavior.

Anyway, my point was mostly that no one bats an eye at children being everywhere humans go, even though children can be unruly, disruptive, destructive, smelly, and dangerous, animals too. I like dogs. I want to live in a world where dogs are treated with reasonable levels of respect and aren't excluded unnecessarily from their families lives. (Humans have this really weird/unique relationship with dogs. They need us in ways that no other animal does. Whether it was ethical to breed that need into them over thousands of generations is not a useful debate to have, since we can't undo it...but, I believe that comes with some kind of responsibility.)

checker• 12 years ago

My girlfriend is extremely allergic to animals and if someone took a dog onto an airplane just for the hell of it she would suffer for hours. There are some people who can't physically be around animals for extended periods of time without being drugged up on a cocktail of antihistamines.

servicepups5• 12 years ago

Confession time. I have an Emotional Support Dog that flies with me for free. The certificate cost $250 per year (or rather, the airlines require a prescription letter dated within 1 year of your flight). I obtained it without lying. I answered every questions honestly, though I am capable of flying without my dog. Yes, I have anxiety, like any person. Yes, my dog makes me feel better, like (I assume) anyone with a dog. Boom, certificate.

Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere, but I only use it for flying. When on the train, the dog resides in a backpack that meets the "carrier" qualification. I don't take her in restaurants or movie theaters like a huge douche.

Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope Nope.

This all makes no sense. If I buy a second seat, the size of the dog should not matter. Tiny dog in carrier is just as loud as big dog in carrier.

Toddlers fly for free and scream like fucking maniacs. 5 year olds buy a seat and scream and play iPad games on full volume.

My dog sits underneath the seat in front of me and doesn't move. I've had a 2 hour flight where people in my row did not know a dog was on the plane until we got off.

My dog's extremely well trained. She doesn't have breakfast on flight days, and I feed her a few ice cubes so she isn't crazy thirsty the whole trip. No chance of a mid-aisle poop, any more so than the old lady two rows up might. She doesn't bark, etc.

I do get that it's hard to have rules such as "your dog can fly with you if they aren't a huge fucking pain".

Two years ago tons of dogs were flying for free. Now you have to pay an extra $50 to have your doctor answer calls from the airline to confirm, and it's back down to where I rarely see another dog in the airport.

anthracis417• 12 years ago

|Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere

Doesn't the article specifically state the law only allows keeping an ESA in a residence that doesn't otherwise allow animals, and flying with them for free? The author explicitly states emotional support animals do not have the same rights as service animals, and you cannot bring your dog anywhere. People are just lead to believe so.

UrMomReadsHN8• 12 years ago

The point is - many people have very poorly behaved animals. Even if the animal was otherwise well behaved, bringing an animal on a plane is a whole nuther matter.

The people who bring out their animals in inappropriate places and allow them to do inappropriate things ruin it for everyone. Otherwise dogs wouldn't be a big issue.

Some people are abusing the law without taking other peoples considerations into account.

23090940923• 12 years ago

Some other people also have anxieties, but from dogs. Perhaps we should allow guns on airplanes, for emotional support of those people.

k-mcgrady2• 12 years ago

Exactly. Shouldn't we prioritise humans? Fear of dogs isn't exactly an uncommon thing. Neither are allergies (and we got rid of peanuts on planes for those people). I have a dog, which I have no fear of, but walking down the street will usually cross if I see a large dog coming (even on a leash). It's irrational but if I was on a plane and there was a dog somewhere on board I would be on edge the entire flight unable to concentrate on anything but where the dog was. If you don't wan't your dog kept in the planes hold how about not bringing it with you? There are plenty of options available - pet hotels, sitters, family, friends. To be clear I have no problem with guide dogs etc. as they are expertly trained but people lying to get their pets onboard is disrespectful.

hbosch• 12 years ago

Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope Nope.

Have you considered getting a dog sitter, or pet hotel?

baddox12• 12 years ago

Out of curiosity, why are you even in the position to fly often with your dog?

briandear5• 12 years ago

A toddler is not the same thing as a dog.

Paradigma11• 12 years ago

What gave it away?

cpkpad2• 12 years ago

A toddler won't make 5% of the population sick when in an enclosed air system like a plane, some to the point of needing an adrenaline injection or they will die of anaphylactic shock, or a beta antagonist inhaler for an asthmatic attack (which can also be lethal, although less often than anaphylaxis since it can usually be managed with an inhaler). The rules are not there for pain in the butt. They are there to protect a lot of other people.

cpkpad2• 12 years ago

As someone with both allergies and a child with life-threatening allergies, I have noticed this trend and find it disturbing. There are stores I cannot go to anymore because of this sh*t. That's about 5% of the population and rising.

kendallpark2• 12 years ago

Unlike the Emotional Support Animals, service animals have to undergo a large amount of training and certification in order to be considered as such. This ensures that they are well behaved in situations where animals would not normally be allowed (like airplanes).

This is very unfortunate for those with disabilities that really do need service animals. I'd put the ESA-abusers in the same class of people that use their relative's handicapped parking permit to get a better parking spot.

EDIT: Furthermore, there are only two species of animals that can be recognized as a service animal: dogs and miniature horses. There doesn't seem to be a species restriction on ESAs.

servicepups5• 12 years ago

There are a limited number of handicapped spots. Not so with ESA dogs. Though, I'm very very careful to make sure mine isn't a pain in the ass, and not everyone goes to such lengths.

kendallpark2• 12 years ago

I understand that the analogy is not entirely symmetrical.

That being said, it wouldn't work if everyone exploited this loophole. And I think that the author--as brash as she was--shows how far this can be exploited.

What's to keep someone with an poorly behaving ESA dog from boarding an airplane? Nothing.

stolio6• 12 years ago

False. Society has a certain amount of patience for people taking their dogs everywhere, it's not unlimited. Not everybody likes dogs, some people have had traumatic experiences, some people are allergic, there are health codes to worry about, etc. The more people take their ESA's around, which inevitably causes problems, the lower that level of patience becomes.

I'm all for ESA advocates getting together and coming up with a system to regulate them and ensure it's low impact, but printing off certificates from the internet isn't going to cut it.

cm2012• 12 years ago

My god, the author comes as annoying. Something about the voice, whether it's pretentiousness or condescension, grates at my brain.

DAddYE• 12 years ago

Dog owner and cat owner here (I love them!) but my question is, why do we needs pets at all? Is it right to put a bird in a cage or a cat in a small apt or having a dog and bring him out just 3 times a day? Why we are so selfish to prevent birds from flying or cats from hunting? Should we rethink in general about the pet in general?

enneff3• 12 years ago

Certainly, yes. Most people don't treat their pets properly.

If you have a dog you should have it with you all the time; they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. This means there are very few lifestyles that lend themselves to dog ownership. Farmers tend to make great dog owners, because the dog is fully integrated with the lifestyle.

The social problem is that a lot of pet owners conflate the needs of their pet with their own personal rights. "I own a dog," and "Dogs need to be with their owners," therefore "I should be able to take my dog with me everywhere." No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.

ryanjshaw• 12 years ago

they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone.

Get a second dog.

No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.

How do you know dogs prefer to be put down than occasionally left to chill home alone?

stolio6• 12 years ago

For reference it costs about $25,000 over a period of 6 to 9 months to train a service dog. If you see somebody with a service dog it's because they absolutely need it.

There are waiting lists, background checks, interviews, even the owners themselves are trained. There is nothing in the process of getting a service dog that is taken lightly.

EDIT: 6-9 months may be on the low side for training a service dog. This place does 9-12 months not including the initial physical/behavioral testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training

ryen• 12 years ago

Are you referring to service dogs that help the blind? Or those that offer emotional support? Clearly there is a difference in training.

stolio6• 12 years ago

I'm referring to service dogs for severe disabilities: multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, traumatic injuries from war, things like that.

The "Emotional Support Animals" referenced in the article certainly are not receiving the training of a full-blown service dog.

briandear5• 12 years ago

An emotional support animal is NOT a service animal. There's a huge difference. There are not any legal requirements for emotional support animals. A parrot can be considered an emotional support animal. A service animal is a highly trained animal, while an emotional support animal is anything you say it is.

mbrameld2• 12 years ago

As others have said, ESAs can be any animal type, but business are not legally obligated to accommodate ESAs. Only dogs (and in some limited cases miniature horses) can be service animals in the US.

A service animal may be an ESA, but not all ESAs are service animals. Also, the ADA specifically states that "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.".

sqrt17• 12 years ago

The article specifically made the distinction between service dogs - which are well-trained and, as a result, well-behaved and very seldomly a bother to anyone - and untrained animals that are held only for reasons of mental comfort.

The idea of the article is that, although some people with disabilities benefit from an untrained animal to the point that one wants to prevent others (e.g. landlords) from doing undue harm by not being accommodating at all, uncertainty about these provisions (not the provisions themselves!) are being abused by some egocentric pet owners.

wooster• 12 years ago

Awhile back I was chatting with one of my friends who was working security at the local Whole Foods, when a woman walked by the produce section literally dragging her defecating dog through a pile of its own crap.

This is why pets aren't allowed in grocery stores. Yesterday, I counted 5 dogs inside another local grocery store. Some of them may have been legitimate emotional support dogs (although none of them appeared to be service dogs), but surely the others were just people behaving badly.

swatow2• 12 years ago

The key point here is that the government forces businesses to accommodate Emotional Support Animals through the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disability Act. This is not an issue of modern society not being able to control assholes. It is a matter of government legislation intended to protect the rights of disabled people, being (allegedly) misused. The difficulty in drawing this line directly brings into question whether the government should be forcing businesses to accommodate people with disabilities.

mwfunk• 12 years ago

IMO the difficulty in drawing the line suggests that the existing laws aren't quite there yet and some refinement is probably needed. I'm sure that sounds like a really boring, milquetoast opinion to a lot of people but that makes a lot more sense to me than using ambiguous or annoying ESA laws as Exhibit A for why the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses to accommodate the disabled.

swatow2• 12 years ago

Are you really disagreeing with me? I simply read an article, and noted that the real issue was the government intervention, not private businesses inability to make good judgments, or individuals lack of restraint in assholish behavior. I didn't list this as "Exhibit A" I just noted that if we're talking about this article, this is the main issue.

briandear5• 12 years ago

I didn't think ESAs were accommodated by those laws. Only Service Animals.

ZoFreX2• 12 years ago

The key point here is that the government forces businesses to accommodate Emotional Support Animals through the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disability Act

I thought the key point here is that the government _doesn't_ force people to accommodate Emotional Support Animals at all, but many businesses don't know the difference between a Service Animal and an ESA.

gojomo• 12 years ago

SFWeekly covered the similar proliferation of 'support animals' in San Francisco back in 2009:

http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Co...

wyager• 12 years ago

Another example of well-intentioned laws (the ADA and associated acts, in this case) having unfortunate semi-predictable side effects.

When you muddy the legal waters, you make it very difficult for your average Joe, who has no legal training, to protect themselves from legal abuses like those demonstrated in the article.

You're not going to stand up to assholes if you're afraid you might get sued for discrimination.

pakled_engineer• 12 years ago

I hate the now common occurance of the store and office dog, which is always a yapping tiny viscious ball of fur that immediately runs at you barking when you walk in. Leave precious at home so I can negotiate a sale without the sound of endless barking drowning out our conversation.

Get a big fat store kitty and buddy will lie in the window all day quietly if you must surround yourself in animals.

I also didn't realize how much people from the middle east despise dogs, there's stores some of my Kuwaiti and Saudi friends won't go into because theres a dog running around, and they consider dogs unclean barn animals. They won't even go into a coffee shop if somebody is in the line with a dog as they expect that place is unhygienic.

littletimmy2• 12 years ago

To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane.

That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth.

Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate in the cargo section?

tdkl2• 12 years ago

Pets != humans. There is no other perspective.

littletimmy2• 12 years ago

Why are you convinced that your perspective is The perspective?

Kiro4• 12 years ago

How does it feel to be so cold-hearted?

JimmyM3• 12 years ago

Yes there is. http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf

k-mcgrady2• 12 years ago

> "To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane."

I say this as a dog owner who understands the love for a pet and how devastated I would be were anything to happen to her. Those people need help. Pets aren't humans. There is no comparison with a human baby whatsoever. People who think the two are equal are emotionally stunted.

tdkl2• 12 years ago

emotional-support animals

As an European: wat ?

briandear5• 12 years ago

Exactly. If I go to the local tabac/bar/newsstand and proclaim that I need an emotional support animal, I'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely, they'd pour me a Pastis and tell me to find a woman.

tallanvor• 12 years ago

I look at this from a slightly different perspective... Why shouldn't animals (mainly dogs, really) be allowed in many of these places, assuming they are well behaved?

When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them.

In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies.

I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent).

In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.

eloisant• 12 years ago

Unfortunately it seems that, especially in US, most problems end up an "us vs them" problem. People pick sides and do whatever it takes to win battles.

For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??

JimmyM3• 12 years ago

This is also the case in the UK.

Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is definitely NOT your house or home.

This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.

pluma2• 12 years ago

In Germany landlords are allowed to forbid pets, but they can't do anything about "small animals" such as cats or rodents unless they cause trouble (e.g. via excessive smell or noise).

UrMomReadsHN8• 12 years ago

For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??

I don't think it is us vs them.

A few bad apples ruin the bunch.

There are people who just let their pets destroy their apartment because they can't be bothered to train them or even clean up after them. Landlords take the stance of that being an unnecessary risk to deal with potential propery destruction so they just say no pets because they perceive it as the less risky route.

a_c_s• 12 years ago

"assuming they are well behaved"

This is the key statement: in NYC a large portion (perhaps even a majority) of the dogs that I encounter are poorly behaved and improperly trained.

Given how many 'bad apples' there are, I'm not surprised by blanket bans.

neuronic• 12 years ago

Just made an account to reply. I have absolutely nothing against dogs or other pets whatsoever. Sometimes I expect to be sitting in the library or in a cafe, usually a confined place, for a while. To do some work or chat with a friend etc. The issue is, I am extremely allergic against dogs (only horses are worse but I hope nobody will bring a horse into my go-to cafe).

So now somebody enters with their dog, lets it run around freely (!) and I have nowhere to go. Dogs are about the only things that reliably induce allergic asthma in me if exposure time is > 1 hour. So thankfully that rarely happens. But I get immediate massive hayfever symptoms. Sneezing 8 times in a row, runny nose like there is no tomorrow, itchy eyes, all that jazz.

I find it irresponsible of people to bring their pets into confined public spaces such as cafes and even more so of the owners to allow it. I like dogs a lot, sadly I cannot own one. But please don't bring it into a place like that for more than a few minutes. That's just my perspective.

Same reason I hate subway musicians btw. I mean the one inside the trains. You can't get away from them. You are forced to listen to them. Playing on the street? Ok with me, I can keep walking. But doing it in the train is rude beyond anything and I don understand why people put up with it.

gadders2• 12 years ago

I can't even believe Emotional Support Animals are a thing. People are so feeble.

To paraphase the saying, we will go out not with a bang but with a whimper, when people have their ESA animal taken away from them.

cafard• 12 years ago

Most interesting. I know a fellow who works in retail, and has done so for many years. I remember from a brief bit of conversation a couple of years ago that he must have been unclear on the distinction between service animals and emotional support animals.

Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be?

Related Stories