Emotional Support Dogs - your view

[TillieTrotter]

I'm curious to know what people think about the use of emotional support dogs. It appears that they can be taken on planes (inside the cabins) and into restaurants. There doesn't appear to be any hard and fast rules from the government regarding this. So, are you happy to share your space with dogs in these situations?

[TillieTrotter]

ARE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOGS RECOGNISED AS ASSISTANCE DOGS?

No, emotional support dogs are not required to undergo any specialised training and are not recognised in any region of the world as being assistance dogs. The worldwide body representing assistance dog programmes, Assistance Dogs International, does not classify emotional support dogs as assistance dogs. As a result, the owners of emotional support dogs are not entitled to claim their dogs have public access rights in the UK under the grounds of ?reasonable adjustments? that apply to assistance dogs. This includes airline travel.

Taken from Assistance Dog UK website.

[Bellenden Belle]

This was one of my favourite news stories last year:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel/emotional-support-pig-booted-flight/

I think dogs are okay - as long as they have been trained in the same manner as guide dogs. Not just some over-pampered pooch in a handbag - whatever happened to good old fashioned valium?

But I would draw a line at a pig!

[legalbeagle]

If there's a genuine need for an emotional support dog I'd personally have no issue with it.

[TillieTrotter]

Emotional support dogs don't need to be specially trained so they are basically your common or garden hound. I was just reading a forum where quite a few people have had to endure having their allergies set off on planes and enclosed spaces by these so called emotional support dogs.

[*Bob*]

Are most dogs there for emotional support?

That's why we have a cat.

[El Pibe]

I've never heard of them. It does sound a bit The Day Today though.

[TillieTrotter]

It seems to be popular in the US but we don't, as yet, buy into it over here. A friend of a friend is over here from the US, the dog got to fly inside the cabin on the way over and then was allowed to take it into a restaurant last night.

Whilst I appreciate that dogs do offer emotional support I'm not sure on whether I think they should be allowed into eateries and particularly on planes disregarding others feelings because of their personal needs.

[El Pibe]

just conduct a controlled explosion, should take care of it

 

[legalbeagle]

I think that might rather depend on the level of need? Pampered pooch in a handbag is really not the same as a person whose life is considerably enriched by a support dog, or who is enabled to do things that they might otherwise not be able to?

And the affect on others similarly needs to be measured - for example I don't much care if you think they are unhygienic or you don't like them if they are doing measurable good, but I would be far more sympathetic to someone who has a bad allergy or asthma.

Perhaps a definition of exactly what we are talking about would be helpful?

By way of example, if there was a sensible way of registering these dogs so that the system is not abused, I would support a person recovering from depression using this method:

http://dogsfordepression.org.uk/how-dogs-help-us.html

[Otta]

Eventually an airline will ban a dog, then someone will go to the disability rights commission and say mental health is as much a disability as blindness (it can be), and then it will go to court.

My immediate response was "what a load of old bollocks". But then I started thinking why are guide dogs allowed, and the answer is that without them a visually impaired person would be denied access. But if a person with mental health issues is unable to function without the "support" of their pooch, then I guess I have some sympathy.

It definitely needs to involve proper training for both dog and owner by an equivalent organisation to GDBA.

[legalbeagle]

Otta - I'd agree. Unchecked and untrained it's open to abuse and also might be of dubious help. But registered/organised/recognised properly seems acceptable? Which is what that particular organisation seems to want too (I haven't looked at others).

[maxxi]

I think "Emotional Support" Dogs would just become enablers and make their owners selfish and uncaring, immune to the feelings of fellow travellers. I favour a more stoic approach and would be happier with "Don't Do That" Daschunds who would sit staring at their owners and, every now and then, shaking their heads very slowly.

[alice]

http://www.assistancedogs.org.uk/member-organisations/#supportdogs

they do seem to be trained

https://supportdogs.org.uk/

[bonniebird]

Ooooh I wonder if I could say my 3 are emotional support dogs..... would LOVE to be able to take them on the plane, there is no way I would put them in the hold. Wish I had my own plane....

[aquarius moon]

I think it depends on what the dog is emotionally supporting.

If the person can't cope with everyday situations without the dog then it should be allowed to go everywhere with them in order to give quality of life.

If the person can manage to do things on their own then maybe they only need to be emotionally supported at home.

[PeckhamRose]

I do not have a problem at all with any dogs in any space I inhabit as long as their owners are trained and well behaved.

[????]

I think anyone who relies on the emotional support of their dog to the extent they need it on a flight needs a lot more help than a dog

[PeckhamRose]

What if they suffer autism and their dog is the only being they can relate to?

[Otta]

Then they definitely need more support.

[TillieTrotter]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.assistancedogs.org.uk/member-organisati

> ons/#supportdogs

>

> they do seem to be trained

>

>

> Assistance dogs are trained but not emotional support dogs.

>

>

> https://supportdogs.org.uk/

[alice]

'When you sponsor a Support Dog, your donations are used to help support all our Support Dogs when working and in training.' so theres a difference between support dogs and emotional support dogs. I have suddenly stopped being interested.

[Mustard]

Have seen pictures and articles about two married actors, Channing and Jenna Tatum. They have what they call an emotional assistance dog which they take on the plane with them. When it travels on the plane it wears some sort of jacket, but when they are pictured with it not at airports, it doesn't have the jacket which makes me think the jacket is worn to convince the airline to allow them to fly with it in the cabin.

Apparently it's very easy to buy jackets for the dogs online, and in the States no one can ask many questions about what duties the dog performs for the owners as it would be illegal to do so. Hence lots of disruptive dogs are allowed into shops that should not be there.

[legalbeagle]

I feel a bit sad when I read threads like this. Basically, if someone really gets genuine help from something like a dog, what harm is there is a bit of live and let live?

I mean, unless you are terrified or allergic, why is one persons inconvenience or dislike of something more important than someone else's comfort or happiness? You might think it's excessive or daft or indulgent, but it's not exactly hurting anyone, is it?

Yes, register, have some sensible framework, and so on. But if you cope much better with life when you are accompanied by a dog/enormous hat/music in your ears/only wearing yellow, then what the heck. Do your thing. I'm struggling to see either what the problem is, or frankly why it's any of my business.

[Otta]

Because there is no registration or training so anyone that wants to have their dog with them can blag it.