Delta imposes new rules for service dogs starting March 1

[mamabunny]

This is for folks who fly with their service animals on Delta; important changes coming to their procedures, starting March 1.

Delta Imposes New Rules For Service Animals

This is *not* intended to start debate regarding service animals and/or emotional support animals; I am posting this strictly for information purposes.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just to be clear, service animals will simply need documentation indicating they're vaccinated. Emotional support animals will be required to have the other letter as well.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

This is for folks who fly with their service animals on Delta; important changes coming to their procedures, starting March 1.

Delta Imposes New Rules For Service Animals

This is *not* intended to start debate regarding service animals and/or emotional support animals; I am posting this strictly for information purposes.

who is going to write the letter and as I said in another post how long before you can buy these letters on line. I do not see any change other than having to let them know earlier

 

[lanejudy]

Did I miss something? Maybe, because I haven’t dug for more news about this, but the link mamabunny shared doesn’t mention a letter. It states those with emotional support animals will be required to sign something, essentially agreeing that the dog is well-behaved. Nothing about a letter that might eventually be purchased online. I’m not saying people won’t lie, but it may give the airline more “teeth” to go after a passenger who’s animal misbehaves before or during the flight. Maybe. There’s always someone trying to get around rules and regulations, but I do give Delta credit for at least attempting to face the situation head-on. Whether it will have impact or not remains to be seen.

 

[Maggie'sMom]

I saw this the other day and there's one part that caught my eye. The linked article only designates between service animals and emotional support animals, but several other articles I saw list psychiatric service dogs in with emotional support animals. Service dogs for physical disabilities, seizure alert dogs, and diabetes alert dogs are only required to submit the vaccination records. But owners of psychiatric service dogs must sign the same letter as those with ESAs. While I'm sure owners of psychiatric service dogs will have no problem signing the letter since their dogs are fully trained, it's troubling to me that Delta is applying different standards to service animals based on the disability. Why not make all service dog owners sign the letter?

 

[SueM in MN]

Just to be clear, service animals will simply need documentation indicating they're vaccinated. Emotional support animals will be required to have the other letter as well.

This is a link from the Delta website to the vaccination record information and form for Service Dogs: https://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta-www/pdfs/policy/TrainedServiceAnimal-RequiredForms.pdf
The ADA FAQs Page does make it clear that Service Dogs are still required to be vaccinated: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

I saw this the other day and there's one part that caught my eye. The linked article only designates between service animals and emotional support animals, but several other articles I saw list psychiatric service dogs in with emotional support animals. Service dogs for physical disabilities, seizure alert dogs, and diabetes alert dogs are only required to submit the vaccination records. But owners of psychiatric service dogs must sign the same letter as those with ESAs. While I'm sure owners of psychiatric service dogs will have no problem signing the letter since their dogs are fully trained, it's troubling to me that Delta is applying different standards to service animals based on the disability. Why not make all service dog owners sign the letter?

It’s true that Delta is including them together. The ADA doesn’t include Emotional Support and Psychiatric Service Dogs together, but airlines are not included in the ADA.
Airlines are covered under the Air Carrier Access Act, which does put Emotional Support and Psychiatric Service Dogs together. This link explains the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/382.117

This is the link to the Delta forms for Emotional Support and Psychiatric Service Animals.
https://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta-www/pdfs/policy/EmotionalSupportAnimal-RequiredForms.pdf

Psychiatric Service Dogs have been trained to observe the person they are working with for signs of stress/other symptoms of the person’s condition or situations that might cause issues related to the person’s disability. When the dog detects some issue, it has been trained to do some specific work or task to alert the human or interrupt the issue. By definition, a Service Dog has been individually trained to do some specific task or work to lessen the impact of the disability.

Emotional Support Animals have not been taught to detect any issues or to do anything specific; the animal is basically there for the human to pet when they feel stressed. That does not meet the definition of “service” because dogs don’t need any training to be petted; in fact, the ADA specifically says being petted or just being present does not qualify.

I’ve seen many dogs at WDW in lines, at resorts and on buses that are obviously not well trained. I’ve heard a number of people explain/teach people about these “Service Dogs”, sometimes using names like “Emotional Support Service Dog, PTSD Service Dog, Agoraphobia Service Dog, Psychiatric Service Dog”. In almost every explanation I’ve heard, the “service” the dog “provides” is being present so the person can pet it. And, the person often encourages other people to pet their “service dog” because it is “relaxing”.
My guess is that the Air Carrier Access Act puts Psychiatric Service Dogs with Emotional Support Animals since many people with Emotional Support Animals think their dog is a Service Dog when it really isn’t.

On one trip, I was on the bus multiple times with the same woman and heard her explanation each time; that she needed him with her so she could pet him and she had anxiety if he was not with her. She also complained that some WDW CMs did not understand Service Dogs because they “interfered with his ability to work” by making her put her large bag with dog on the floor where she could not reach him for many rides (or even on some rides, he was not allowed at all). It was pretty clear she thought he was a true Service Dog, even though he was not trained to do anything and did nothing the average pet would not do. It was also clear from watching her that she had pretty severe anxiety/mental health issues and might have benefitted from a dog that had been trained to interrupt them.
But, that did not make her pet a Service Dog (and, in fact, her dog looked pretty stressed at times because as she got louder and appeared more stressed, she petted him faster and harder).

 

[AquamarineSteph]

Did I miss something? Maybe, because I haven’t dug for more news about this, but the link mamabunny shared doesn’t mention a letter. It states those with emotional support animals will be required to sign something, essentially agreeing that the dog is well-behaved. Nothing about a letter that might eventually be purchased online. I’m not saying people won’t lie, but it may give the airline more “teeth” to go after a passenger who’s animal misbehaves before or during the flight. Maybe. There’s always someone trying to get around rules and regulations, but I do give Delta credit for at least attempting to face the situation head-on. Whether it will have impact or not remains to be seen.

I was going to provide the link which shows the forms required, but I see a moderator beat me to it! It does appear that owners of ESA's will be required to submit three forms, one of which must be from a medical or mental health professional. The form does NOT ask anyone to reveal what the patient's issue is. It just asks a provider to state that there is a need.

 

[SueM in MN]

I was going to provide the link which shows the forms required, but I see a moderator beat me to it! It does appear that owners of ESA's will be required to submit three forms, one of which must be from a medical or mental health professional. The form does NOT ask anyone to reveal what the patient's issue is. It just asks a provider to state that there is a need.

The most interesting thing to me is that the form from a medical or mental health provider was always required for ESAs and Psychiatric Service Dogs. I don’t know if the airlines always required it, but it was in the Air Carrier Act.
The parts that are new are the “good behavior” form for ESAs and Psychiatric Service Dogs and the certificate of vaccination for all animals.

 

[AquamarineSteph]

The most interesting thing to me is that the form from a medical or mental health provider was always required for ESAs and Psychiatric Service Dogs. I don’t know if the airlines always required it, but it was in the Air Carrier Act.
The parts that are new are the “good behavior” form for ESAs and Psychiatric Service Dogs and the certificate of vaccination for all animals.

Delta's announcement at least went for the humorous since there are no more emotional support turkeys, and they have specifically ruled out certain animals in that category such as goats, spiders, and sugar gliders. Dogs and cats, though, appear to be fine as ESA as long as they can meet the other requirements.

As far as the good behavior part and the vaccinations, I know Delta has had issues in the last 12 months where someone's ESA took a dislike to an adjacent passenger and attacked the passenger as they were trying to access their window seat. I assume this is the airline's way of shifting the responsibility (and legal liability) for such actions to the passenger and not the airline.

 

[SueM in MN]

This link goes into a little more detail
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/19/del...equirements-for-support-animals-on-board.html

 

[marcyleecorgan]

*dancing in the street* It's a start!

 

[cobright]

It's a mostly empty gesture. It requires the animal owner to self-certify that their dog has been trained to behave itself.

What I would like to see the airline do before letting a support animal on board is this... You put your dog on the floor and say "stay". Now you walk 20 feet away and stand still. For 90 seconds strangers will walk back and forth between you and the dog rattling a soup can full of pennies. I the dog stays put, and stays quiet, he can fly. I live in the leader dog HQ city of Rochester Hills, MI and my little test is chicken feed for these dogs. I have a great deal of respect for Service animals and I know some people who would never leave their homes without their support dogs. I'm willing to be put out a bit if that's needed for others to have a fuller life ... but there's a line.

 

[bumbershoot]

I'm willing to be put out a bit if that's needed for others to have a fuller life ... but there's a line.

Not for me. We inconvenienced ourselves enough to move because we were tired of waiting for apartment management to get enough incident reports (mainly from me b/c I lived above them and was home all day) to kick out the not-really-a-service-dog that lived below us.

...for those who haven't seen my comments on this...it was an otherwise banned breed, the owner had worked in apartment management, there were TWO of them (only one put on the lease until management found out about it (FROM ME)), they were supposed to be seizure alert dogs for the owner (the owner overshared), but they NEVER EVER went ANYWHERE with the owner, and they were left at home with boyfriend of the month and the little daughter who liked to open the door with the big aggressive female pit, as I walked down the stairs with my baby. The female pinned my husband in his car on two separate occasions while the useless boyfriend called out to it...she was protective of the family without having been taught that there were SEVEN other units in the building and she needed to allow us to coexist. And again, she was NEVER with the owner. Hard to alert when you're miles from your owner...

And we MOVED rather than make a stink that could somehow trickle down to inconvenience real service dog owners.

So...my threshold for being put out is a lot higher than yours. Oh and I'm allergic to all sorts of animals as well, with asthma that *can* happen from some animals.

[And now I know not to get into my window seat if the person in the middle has a dog on his/her lap and isn't moving...awkward enough without a dog, actually...]

 

[arminnie]

I have great respect for what service dogs can do. It amazes me sometimes. Besides the ones that are obvious like helping the blind or picking up items, it is really something when a dog can detect a substance that could cause harm (peanuts) or detect medical conditions ahead of their becoming critical. But I see all too many people who just want little fluffy with them because it makes them happier.

I've had dogs for decades that I have loved with all of my being. I would never want to torture my dog with a day at WDW. I adore my dog - but I can give up being with him for a day (or days) so he can be safe and secure and not exposed to the heat and uncomfortable situations. I hate people who are so selfish that all they think about is this little creature makes me happy, to heck with the misery he has to go thru.

 

[seashoreCM]

The airlines need to take immediate and strong actions against unruly animals in the same way airlines need to take immediate and strong actions against unruly persons. Then it would not be necessary to differentiate service animals from support animals from pets.

 

[mshanson3121]

As someone looking to get a service dog for our daughter with ASD, I honestly don't understand why they aren't required to be formally registered, and why businesses should not be allowed to ask for proof of registration. Likewise, Delta's requirements seem perfectly reasonable to me. To me, anyone who has a legitimate service, or emotional support dog, should not be offended by such requirements, considering they would help cut down on the abusers who make life more difficult for those with legitimate needs. I'm guessing the only ones who do/would make a stink, are the abusers/those taking advantage of the situation.

 

[SueM in MN]

As someone looking to get a service dog for our daughter with ASD, I honestly don't understand why they aren't required to be formally registered, and why businesses should not be allowed to ask for proof of registration. Likewise, Delta's requirements seem perfectly reasonable to me. To me, anyone who has a legitimate service, or emotional support dog, should not be offended by such requirements, considering they would help cut down on the abusers who make life more difficult for those with legitimate needs. I'm guessing the only ones who do/would make a stink, are the abusers/those taking advantage of the situation.

Despite what the companies that sell registrations say, there is no central, recognized place to formally register a service animal. If the law was changed to require people to show proof of registration on demand, the people most likely to have that proof would actually be those with certificates they bought for their fake service animals.
One of the biggest issues is that businesses do not know their rights related to service animals.
Note: there are different rules for Emotional Support animals and for air travel.

• They don’t need to allow any Service Animals other than dogs and, in some cases, miniature ponies.
• They don’t have to allow emotional support animals except in narrow circumstances like air travel and housing. These include extra rules that Delta is starting to enforce.
• Airlines always had the right to limit the types of emotional support animals if the animal is too large or might pose a threat to other travelers (i.e. they never had to allow an emotional support turkey or ferret, etc.)
• They can already ask the 2 questions regarding the service animal listed in a prior post.
• They already have the right to refuse service or ask someone with an animal to leave if the dog is not under control of the handler, is not house trained or is disruptive (i.e. things like barking, growling). Even for Serice Dogs, the business can say the dog with those behaviors is not welcome, but the person can come back without the dog.

People have posted before about things they have seen that would have been taken care of if businesses actually did the things in the last point.
On one past post about service dogs, someone who worked in a restaurant posted about customers whose ‘service dogs’ were running around the restaurant, stealing food off their owners’s table and begging for food from other guests. The management in the restaurant said there was nothing they could do because the people said the dog was a service dog. Those are the people MOST likely to make a stink and to have bought a service dog certificate online.
You can tell a service dog (or a least a well trained dog) from a ‘fake’. Our daughter’s service dog trainer told us the dog’s first job is to be invisible. An example would be what happened to us once in a restaurant - the dog was completely curled up under the table (not an easy feat for an 80 pound lab). The waitress stepped on something when she was serving us and thought it was a piece of food from a past guest. It was actually our dog’s foot or tail (not sure which). He did not make a sound when she did it, the only way she knew was that we told her there was a dog under the table. That’s how it should be.

I think requiring showing a certificate would actually make it less likely for businesses to tell people with misbehaving dogs they need to leave. They are already too intimidated to ask owners to leave and I think they would be less likely to ask if someone is showing a certificate.

 

[mshanson3121]

Despite what the companies that sell registrations say, there is no central, recognized place to formally register a service animal. If the law was changed to require people to show proof of registration on demand, the people most likely to have that proof would actually be those with certificates they bought for their fake service animals.

I think requiring showing a certificate would actually make it less likely for businesses to tell people with misbehaving dogs they need to leave. They are already too intimidated to ask owners to leave and I think they would be less likely to ask if someone is showing a certificate.

Not if it was legislated, and all certificates were required to be purchased through one central site, and to receive said certificate of registration required a certificate from either a) an organization which provided the trained service dog (of which there are several) or b) from a trainer who tests the dog and deems it to be sufficiently trained. Again, I can't imagine any legitimate service dog owners having a program with these requirements. Would people still take advantage and try to fake a letter from a trainer, sure. But I don't think it would be anywhere near the amount of people abusing the system now, which requires nothing more than a vest purchased off eBay. Furthermore, if a business knew they were legally entitled to ask for proof, I highly doubt they would have a problem with it. Right now, they're not allowed to ask for any proof, other than what service the dog provides.

 

[DisneyOma]

It's a mostly empty gesture. It requires the animal owner to self-certify that their dog has been trained to behave itself.

But once they have the signature that the dog is well behaved, but it turns out it's not, the burden goes on the owner, not the airline.

Despite what the companies that sell registrations say, there is no central, recognized place to formally register a service animal. If the law was changed to require people to show proof of registration on demand, the people most likely to have that proof would actually be those with certificates they bought for their fake service animals.

But if they were done like a driver's license, etc, then they would be very hard to fake. And they could be checked to see if they were fake. With the threat to impound the dog for a length of time if the owner was lying, that might get rid of the fake service dogs, like my mother's friend's dog.

Not if it was legislated, and all certificates were required to be purchased through one central site, and to receive said certificate of registration required a certificate from either a) an organization which provided the trained service dog (of which there are several) or b) from a trainer who tests the dog and deems it to be sufficiently trained. Again, I can't imagine any legitimate service dog owners having a program with these requirements. Would people still take advantage and try to fake a letter from a trainer, sure. But I don't think it would be anywhere near the amount of people abusing the system now, which requires nothing more than a vest purchased off eBay. Furthermore, if a business knew they were legally entitled to ask for proof, I highly doubt they would have a problem with it. Right now, they're not allowed to ask for any proof, other than what service the dog provides.

My mom's friend bought that stuff, and flies on JetBlue with her lab. I've outed her, and they still let her fly. It's pretty pathetic. I'm all for licenses.

 

[SueM in MN]

We might need to agree to disagree.

It’s not likely to ever get to the point of a nationwide registry and if it included certification by other parties, that would be subject to even more abuse - it would legitimize the places that right now issue fake certificates.

As an example, there are companies that sell ECVs and advertise that they can provide one, paid for by Medicare at no cost to you. Their doctor will ask you a few questions, then certify that you need it and the company will put in an order for your ECV and bill Medicare. I envision the same thing happening with Service Animals if registration/certificate is required. And, once they have the paperwork certifying the animal as a service animal, it would be more difficult to do something about the poorly behaving ones (at least what I think because many of the people with poorly behaving dogs actually have poorly behaving Emotional support animals that they think are Service Animals).

Most of the reputible, real Service Animal organizations I am aware of and most SD users I know of feel behavior is the best indication of whether or not it’s a ‘real’ service animal and favor what Minnesota is proposing - awareness and education about service dogs, businesses actually kicking out poorly behaving animals, and making owners responsible for the dog’s behavior.
So, the issue is less ‘is Fido being passed off as a service dog’ and more about ‘is poorly trained and poorly behaving Fido being passed off as a service dog.’
This is a story about Minnesota’s proposal: https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/...raud-problem-mn-lawmakers-want-to-crack-down/

Florida has similar law: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/new...ration-becomes-a-crime-in-florida-070715.html