The key difference between an "emotional support animal" and a legitimate service animal is that service animals have training that directly assists with the person's disability. Easy examples are seeing-eye dogs, dogs that are trained to smell/detect low blood sugar in diabetics, and dogs that are trained to protect their owner if they have a seizure or similar.

Emotional support animals are just...emotional support and aren't trained to really do anything.

It seems like businesses were just too scared to go to battle over people bringing their pets places for fear of being accused of violating the ADA.

To be clear, I think emotional support animals are ridiculous, but the "no registration/license" piece is a very critical part of the ADA. Finally, businesses are allowed to ask what tasks a service animal has been trained to do as verification and that allowance doesn't even extend to service animals in training.

This is an extra burden for having a disability which is specifically what the ADA tries to prevent. It allows anyone to train effectively any animal to perform any task that helps them with any disability they (or someone else) may have. It's ultimately these tasks and abilities that make an animal a service animal, not a registration or tag that needs to be kept up to date and costs money.

To be clear I'm talking about any registration that certifies an animal is a service animal, to my knowledge all service animals still have to have all other forms of legal registrations and tags.

It's really about the spirit of the ADA which tries to make sure that there are as few barriers as possible for people with disabilities in society. Someone else made a comment that describes how low the rates are for people with disabilities to have normal forms of ID for themselves, let alone their animals. For someone with a disability even the smallest of barriers can sometimes be insurmountable.

For example, California landolords must allow ESAs and can not require pet deposits for them

https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-animal-l...

ESA are an accepted therapeutic aid for mental issues. In fact airlines require medical evidence under 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(e).

I also mentioned in another comment below that my general interaction with ESAs is people using it as a loophole to take their pets places and causing issues for people with service animals. You're right that there are certainly good cases for it and I'm sure plenty of responsible people with ESAs that aren't part of that group.

Yes. As you say those are service animals, meaning they are trained to actively help e.g. a service animal could be trained to detect acute distress and actively insert themselves into the situation. An ESA is just support.

> I also mentioned in another comment below that my general interaction with ESAs is people using it as a loophole to take their pets places and causing issues for people with service animals.

I completely agree that this is a huge issue. Although people will also misrepresent service animals as most states have no sanctions about that (it's rarer because there are usually expectations about service animals, and the available "range" is extremely limited e.g. a cat or a cockatoo can not be a service animal).

I think a solution is for the government to place restrictions on emotional support animal use, eg the same way prescriptions are handled.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/culture/emot...

I'm a bit touchy on it because I've seen it become a real issue for people with service animals.

The thing that bothered me more than anything about this is that you aren't allowed to ask for any type of verification, so people can just walk in with them anywhere. Never made sense to me.

At least to park in a handicap space you need a hang tag or a special license plate. Why not something simple like a special collar tag or card in your wallet?

Service dogs(or rarely horses) can generally go anywhere the owner can go including areas pets are prohibited. There is no formal verification, but the owner of the property or their employee can ask if this is a service dog that is required because of a disability, and what tasks it is trained to perform. If it is a cat or other animal, or not trained to perform a task, just to provide support it is not a service dog and they can be refused entry and trespassed.

Registration of service dogs would disenfranchise the disabled. About twice as many don't have photo ID as the general public, many do not own a car or have access to reliable transportation, even relatively small costs can be prohibitive

Service animals have to be licensed, trained to perform a task or duty, and be easily identifiable. Misrepresenting an untrained and unlicensed animal as a service animal is fraud and illegal.

I do think it would be better off for everyone if there was a license though. I've known people with legitimate service dogs who have had that opinion even. They wish they had a document to prove their legitimacy, as they are constantly asked for a document that doesn't exist.

The correct solution is for businesses to grow a backbone and do that for all animals all the time until people gaming the system with fake ESAs give up.

In the US this is not true by the ADA as licensing is a pretty prohibitive cost for many people with disabilities.

I personally don't see the argument that a separate license is needed or helpful. It's an extra cost and step that's entirely unnecessary. If you want or need a service animal you obviously have to have some way to train it and care for it, but a license is extra. Also if it is ever lost or anything you could be turned away from any public place until it's resolved. I just see it causing more issues for people than it tends to solve.

I expect not waving this is what the rules change actually is, because I don't think the DoT can just decide the ACAA is not a thing.

For a service animal, the airline can only require

> identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal.

Although it should be noted that only 23 states prohibit misrepresentation of a service animal, the main difference being that service animals are rather obviously limited as they can only be dogs or miniature horses (an other thing which makes me doubt the complete veracity of the article).

Sometimes someone's life comes unraveled because their disability has never been properly identified and accommodated. Being able to say "I need this" without having to jump through hoops to prove it can help such people make their lives work better.

Most studies suggest that something like one in five people has a disability. One study that asked about user needs and challenges in using stuff intentionally avoided using stigmatizing words like "disabled" or "handicapped" and more like three fifths of respondents said they had some degree of trouble doing various things and more accessible design would benefit them.

People who are only moderately disabled often try like hell to avoid getting labeled as disabled because it is stigmatizing and people start treating you like you are stupid and worthless rather than like you just need special accommodation in some areas to make your life work. Those who qualify for an official label of "disabled" are equally hostile to seeing only moderately disabled people being granted the label that grants special status and special accommodation.

The reality is that disability occurs along a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch where if you fall on this side of the line you are "normal, healthy and able-bodied" and if you fall on that side of the line you are "disabled." We try to categorize it like it works that way but it doesn't really work that way.

> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying), this brings us tangibly closer to the implementation of laws, regulations, and policies that make it harder for me to live my life without being treated as a second-class citizen."

As a video: https://www.kronon.tv/videos/people-behaving-badly-2013-farm...

I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I homeschooled my two gifted-learning disabled sons for years, which means I effectively ran a two student school under the laws of California for years. I also spent some years homeless in part due to my own disability.

Before I was diagnosed with a serious disability in my thirties, I was routinely dismissed by people around me as merely "lazy" (while being sick all the time and one of the top students of my graduating high school class).

Lots of people who claim their animal is a "service animal" are people whose lives are in the toilet, the system doesn't work for them and they have serious issues. Inability to prove need is not actually evidence of lying.

I have a dog phobia and don't like being around them. I am all for finding some means to make sure people keep their animals under control in public. I have had lots of negative experiences with assholes who will not control their dog and who feel I am obligated to meet their dog's emotional needs and all this kind of crappy thing.

Plenty of people being dismissed as "merely abusing the system" have a real need and "abusing the system" is their only means to try to meet it in a world that is routinely hostile to their needs.

It's really complicated. Trying to sort out a better policy is not simple at all.

Anything you or I write here is effectively the same thing. ;) Equal valuation. This blog does cite the ADA and IAADP though.

You seem focused on the bureaucratic hoops and seem to think I want them enforced more strictly? I haven't mentioned that. Please evaluate only the words I use. You seem to be making a point about specifics I haven't raised.

The people acting unethically/immorally and abusing the system know who they are when they do it. It's why they are so defensive. Selfish people ruining good things, once again.

It's really not as simple as "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." That's not how that works. I know many people like to think the world is nice and straight forward like that, but it usually isn't.

The thing you quoted did say that, which is what I'm responding to:

> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying),

Have a great day.

A family friend owned and managed an apartment complex and had issues with tenants buying certificates online for their pit bull and saying it was an "emotional support animal." The dog wasn't, they just wanted to get around local breed restrictions.

Apparently that is quite common.

Landlords can't charge a pet or animal fee for emotional support animals.

Now the new thing is to get out of paying exorbitantly high ($500) pet fees by claiming the pet as a support animal. Competent building managers will see this coming and note that only service dogs are exempt.

Yes, this is done to avoid the risk of running afoul the ADA and ACAA. Sadly this has gotten more and more abused in recent years.

On the other hand landlords compete for tenants. So they may want to allow pets but impose a surcharge for the potential damage.

You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.

https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Dowagiac-house-fire-sparke...

https://www.myarklamiss.com/louisiana-news/child-playing-wit...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/child-linked-...

https://www.fox13now.com/2015/07/25/fire-crews-respond-to-2-...

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kids-playing-with-lighters-ca...

Pets don’t make the news when they ruin dwelling places, as it is relatively common compared to that.

In both cases -- pet or children -- damages should be extracted from a security deposit. j

The reality is that animals are rougher on homes than humans are. Even things like the backyard will have more wear and tear on it with a pet than with humans and all of this has to be dealt with during turn over.

A perfect example of this is paint. During a normal turnover we would do a "tier 3" paint job. Which is to hire someone to come in with a spray gun and spray the walls white. They don't target baseboards or ceilings, but the overspray will generally cover some of it (ever notice how apartments and rentals generally have white walls, white baseboards, and white ceilings?). It is a cheap and lazy paint job that we have negotiated flat rates for $300-$400 per home. This happens no matter what.

But on a home with a pet occupant, it is nearly guaranteed that you would need to perform at least a tier 2 paint job which is generally coupled with a carpet replacement. The carpets are torn up (or peeled back if they are recoverable), the painters come in and spray the walls, baseboards, with overspray on the underlayment (under the carpet) and the ceiling edges. This usually runs us $800 - $900. So pet rent usually goes to that.

After a tier 2 paint job, a carpet contractor usually comes and re-stretches the carpet and does a carpet shampoo. But on a home with a pet occupant this has to be replaced since hair and dirt that most people don't notice, can cause allergies for the next tenant. So with a pet occupant our turnover cost goes from a standard $200 for re-stretching, as much as $1,200 for fresh carpet. Pet fees go to that.

A final turnover item is the backyard. Normally a lawn care company comes to do a standard touch up on the yard. This includes mowing, trimming, leaf blowing, etc, just to make the home presentable for walk-through. But with a pet, the grass is usually thinner after the pet use, and needs some re-seeding. Sometimes it is destroyed with holes or previous renter patches. Fences often need fixing (which gets really expensive, even if it is just a few boards) and so on. A standard lawn turnover usually costs $50. But with a pet it usually is $100+ and I have seen extreme cases where it is in the thousands.

This all comes from someone who owns a big dog that I love. My dog is well behaved. He never has accidents in the house and for the most part doesn't cause noticeable damage. But there are minor things that you just don't notice that I have only seen now that I have experienced it through property management.

Pets really do cause more wear and tear on homes than human-only occupied homes. That is why there are pet fees. They know that more is going to be done when you move out and those fees contribute to limiting that.

Now many renters have learned that if they claim that a pet is an emotional support animal, that they can avoid pet rent. But the reality is that if you claim a pet as an emotional support animal, that you can basically kiss your deposit goodbye. The company that I worked for was pretty good about giving back deposits. There was a $400 non-refundable deposit that we collected upon move in that you never got back. THis covers standard turnover stuff like tier 3 painting and carpet re-stretching. So if you leave the house in good condition, then we can give you everything other than that $400 back, and usually did. If you have a pet, then the extra rent from pet rent is calculated to cover the upgrades to tier 2 paint jobs and carpet replacement jobs. So again, you get your deposit back unless something is beyond normal wear.

But if you avoid pet rent with the emotional support animal, then that is fine. They won't charge you pet rent, but you will certaintly not get any of your deposit back. The owner or property manager still has to do the carpet replacement, yard fixes, and extra painting regardless of whether you pay pet rent or not. So emotional support animals generally lose their deposits to cover these costs, while people with pet rent usually get their deposits back.

Hotels discount rooms all the time for guests they know have a very low likelihood of causing damage. The probability of a person with a pet causing damage must be sufficiently high that it makes sense to charge extra. There's plenty of competing landlords and hotel businesses, and if there was economic opportunity in doing it the way you said, it would be done.

It's not just pets though. Hotels will charge more for wedding parties, who are far likelier to cause noise complaints, damage etc, than a crew of workers who will be sleeping, going to work, rinse repeat.

Oh, I realize why landlords prefer it. I just don't think it holds up under scrutiny. If you're my tenant and I charge you $100/month for dog rent on your new puppy, who causes $0 damage and lives for 14 years, I've extracted $16,800 from you, $0 of which will go toward rehabbing the apartment of dog damages when you leave.

Additionally, a landlord will want to work on the space more often than once every 14 years. A security deposit does not cover this.

Additionally a tenant renting for 14 years is making a suboptimal financial decision regardless of pet ownership. Much more than $15k would be unnecessarily spent, for many people. A tenant who wants to get the better end financially, especially a pet owner, will buy or at least keep the landlord honest about market costs of the rental.

Then again, I had a therapist who vouched for this and actually do have mental health problems that my Shepherd without a doubt helps me with.

No way in hell I am putting the dogs in the cargo hold. The passengers around us and flight attendents were absolutely enamored with how well they behaved.

While I tend to agree that this has been abused - it frustrates me that obnoxious children get a pass.