Misleading headline: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/emotional-support-pea...

> There is no federal ban. If Delta wants to allow a therapeutic wombat on board, Uncle Sam will not get in the way.

> If some airlines crack down, others can market themselves as pet-friendly. Rather than using the federal government to force airlines to allow these animals on board, we should trust airlines and passengers to find what works best through the marketplace.

Exactly. The current bullshit situation is due to a federal regulation that requires airlines allow emotional support animals. This proposal would simply eliminate that requirement.

I’m glad because people are abusing the system. I have a coworker that spent a lot of money getting her dog trained and certified so she could bring it into restaurants. All it does is tying up resources from people that actually need service dogs.

I wish we could persucute those who abuse the system. Hving my compassion gamed for your furbaby makes me seethe.

> Rather than using the federal government to force airlines to allow these animals on board, we should trust airlines and passengers to find what works best through the marketplace.

Because we all know self-regulation works so well for the consumers.

"Democracy dies in darkness."

Any change to this rule is welcome in my book. What really gets me is the people who fly with dogs that are obviously terrified. Putting an animal that isn't trained to handle airports and planes in that situation so you don't have to be separated from fluffy is just cruel. Put your dog in boarding (or find a pet sitter, etc.) when you go out of town. If you can't afford to do the right thing for your dog when you travel, then you can't afford to travel.

Where did the emotional support animal term come from? That's what a pet is, an animal you keep for emotional support.

Its acutally a good question. I understnd it as a mis-wording of 'service animal' in air-travel laws that a whole industry sprung up around to exploit.

Relevant article from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22122890

My wife has severe anxiety flying. Having her dog is better than medicating. People whose emotional support animals are not chill are the issue. Chill dogs do not mean any breed or upbringing. It takes the right combination of proper genetics and upbringing to have a dog that fits the bill. And one with a strong bladder. We also are annoyed with those that abuse the system with obnoxious yelpers who themselves are scared or anxious. The human should not be the emotional support for the dog. And those people will ruin it for my wife and others like her.

Also. I need to make another point. On no less than a dozen flights, we’ve enlisted our dog to deal with small children who are losing their mind. Dog is deployed, wailing stops, other passengers have literally cheered. Flight attendants are so delighted we drink for free on the flight. End of flight dog returns a hero. So, before we get the pitchforks our, consider how emotional support dogs serve a purpose. Those with bullshit ESANS can stay away.

This is a strangely one-sided article. Surely there are people who want the definition of service animals to include more than just dogs - where's the quote from them?

Other than miniture horses, only dogs can be service animals. The other pets are the problem being addressed.

Should I bring my emotional support <cat | pony | donkey | vulture | fruit bat | rhinoceros> on my international flight?