Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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).
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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...