"Emotional Support" Dog on Delta Flight Mauls Stranger Next to It

[MagicallyMom]

I'd definitely sue the airline. They have the deeper pockets and will likely settle!

You'd have to prove they're at fault first. They can also afford better lawyers.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

I know someone who moved to a small one bedroom apartment and classified her two pit bulls are ESA's so she could get the apartment since pit bulls aren't allowed in most complexes in my area. I thought it was a load of crap and still do. Completely out of control.

 

[cabanafrau]

I don't mind seeing eye dogs, or seizure dogs, etc.

But an untrained yorkie someone just needs because leaving them at home might make them sad, so EMOTIONAL SUPPORT!....Nope.

In short: trained and licensed dogs: yes. Untrained, possibly unwarranted dogs: no thank you.

Trained service animals are an entirely different prospect altogether. They are working and are not to be interacted with by the public. No problem with them whatsoever.

 

[Klayfish]

"Emotional support" dog... oh please. I don't know if my reaction is more or

 

[jen7233]

I hate to say this, but my mom had an "ESA" and this was written up by her doctor. She has some mental issues, and anxiety. I couldn't believe it that this particular dog was being labeled as ESA, the dog was not very friendly. He was small though, but still, not very friendly, only to her. I do not like the dog, now the dog is old and blind so has no clue and not a threat really unless you go up to it, but he tried to bite at me and my kids. I don't live near her, but when visiting I insisted the kids do not go near him. He's even bitten my mom. She rode with him on Greyhound bus lines. There's a difference in appropriately trained and socialized assistance animals which are amazing, and these animals that are just getting a pass.

 

[Julie's Haircut]

Delta could have insisted that the dog be in a crate. When the dog was cleared for a later flight, it was crated.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely no way I would agree to sit next to an unknown "support pet" on a flight, regardless of the species.

Yep, there's no way I'd sit next to any type of ESA on a plane. If they can fake it, so can I by claiming I'm allergic to or psychologically fragile around said animal. I don't care if it means changing my seat or even putting ME on another flight.

The dog should have definitely been put down. I wonder if it was crated in the cargo hold for the later flight. Too bad there wasn't an "accident" during the journey.

 

[DizBelle]

I think they should put down the owner and re-home the dog. It's not the dog's fault.

 

[cabanafrau]

Delta could have insisted that the dog be in a crate. When the dog was cleared for a later flight, it was crated.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely no way I would agree to sit next to an unknown "support pet" on a flight, regardless of the species.

Interesting dilemma. Passenger A presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat with their ESA and documents. Passenger B presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat and informs flight crew they are both unable to sit next to Passenger A and their ESA because of PTSD, and will not willingly give up their pre-booked seat because of having paid extra for the specific seat two months before. Flight is full and no other passengers agree to swap seats. I want to see the airline sort that one out.

Clearly something's got to give regarding this ESA nonsense.

 

[mousefanmichelle]

I am not an animal person. I don't like to see dogs in restaurants, Home Depot or on an airplane, etc. I don't want to sit next to a dog breathing on me, moving around or just in general being an annoyance. Leave at them at home unless they are a true service animal. I understand service animals but the general excuse of a comfort pet is crap in my view point. I would sue the owner and I would debate about the airline. I don't understand the need to have them right next to you at all times - crate them and put them in their proper place in cargo or wherever they put them. Just because you think they are cute pets doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[bcla]

Interesting dilemma. Passenger A presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat with their ESA and documents. Passenger B presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat and informs flight crew they are both unable to sit next to Passenger A and their ESA because of PTSD, and will not willingly give up their pre-booked seat because of having paid extra for the specific seat two months before. Flight is full and no other passengers agree to swap seats. I want to see the airline sort that one out.

Clearly something's got to give regarding this ESA nonsense.

It may not be exactly the same it doesn't specifically apply to air travel, but ADA guidelines would suggest that both be accommodated through some creative means. If nobody else is willing to switch, they will be forced to make a decision and literally tell someone else to move. A flight crew has that authority. If they have to they probably go as far as offering to refund the ticket price to any passenger involuntarily moved.

 

[Nancyg56]

That is a dilemma, isn't it? I have seen dogs on a plane but none have sat next to me. Not sure what I would do?

My own personal opinion is that 50lb dog has no business on a passenger plane (unless it is for police purposes).
Quarters are just too restrictive for a dog of that size. You feel like a sardine in a can already! I can't imagine having my 50lb dog with me on a plane. Maybe they should buy first class? Or was this in first class?

How awful for that passenger.

Service dogs actually do not take much room. My friend has a service dog, a yellow lab. How that dog can curl so small and still remain vigilant is beyond me, but he does.

I think assistance animals need to be somehow registered as such with some governmental agency and those that have them should be prepared to provide the registration information.

I agree. I am not going to get into a discussion about emotional support, necessary or no. I will say that I believe that any animal who allowed entry based on need should be a registered and trained animal. I am not sure what the requirements would be but I would support that animals that are needed for service of some kind should go through the kind of training and registration that the "conventional" animals go through.

I guess I'd be in the minority because I wouldn't be suing the owner because the dog is an emotional support animal but rather because a dog bit me. If an animal is brought on board regardless of the reason and they bit me unprovoked then I would be suing the owner.

As far as abuse it does happen for sure I know and it sucks that it does it truly does for those who honest to gosh benefit from having the animal.

I agree. IF someone brings an animal anywhere, regardless of the reason, that person needs to bear responsibility for any actions that animal takes.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Pictures out today those involved, if anyone wants to see them, including the dog.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html

I would not be happy sitting next to a dog that I knew nothing about, either, as much as I love dogs. I'd know that chances were good, unless it's *really* a trained service animal, that it's likely an over-indulged, under-socialized, un-trained accident waiting to happen, especially on somewhere like a plane, which is very stressful to the animal, and through no fault of the animal itself.

Mind you, I am NOT against support animals. This, coming as the daughter of a service veteran with life-altering PTSD. Animals were actually calming to him long before the concept of support animals came to be. But as he taught me, there is a time and place for everything. And this wasn't it. As much as I love German Shepherds, I always kept a healthy respect going for those who might be afraid of them. Always. I would never dream of taking one on a plane in the passenger compartment. A pit bull? No way.

I flew last week and there were two dogs on the plane that I saw - one was a puppy who was kept crated, and the other was a very large dog who had a "service vest" on. Not sure where that dog sat, nor was he muzzled, at least in the gate area. I think they will have to look at this as a matter of public policy soon. This case will no doubt get the ball rolling. I hope, anyway. I feel sorry for this passenger who was no doubt afraid of this dog. The dog's owner obviously did not have control of his dog.

 

[Magpie]

Pictures out today those involved, if anyone wants to see them, including the dog.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html

I would not be happy sitting next to a dog that I knew nothing about, either, as much as I love dogs. I'd know that chances were good, unless it's *really* a trained service animal, that it's likely an over-indulged, under-socialized, un-trained accident waiting to happen, especially on somewhere like a plane, which is very stressful to the animal, and through no fault of the animal itself.

Mind you, I am NOT against support animals. This, coming as the daughter of a service veteran with life-altering PTSD. Animals were actually calming to him long before the concept of support animals came to be. But as he taught me, there is a time and place for everything. And this wasn't it. As much as I love German Shepherds, I always kept a healthy respect going for those who might be afraid of them. Always. I would never dream of taking one on a plane in the passenger compartment. A pit bull? No way.

I flew last week and there were two dogs on the plane that I saw - one was a puppy who was kept crated, and the other was a very large dog who had a "service vest" on. Not sure where that dog sat, nor was he muzzled, at least in the gate area. I think they will have to look at this as a matter of public policy soon. This case will no doubt get the ball rolling. I hope, anyway. I feel sorry for this passenger who was no doubt afraid of this dog. The dog's owner obviously did not have control of his dog.

Well, if the Daily Mail can be trusted (and it really can't, but let's overlook that for the moment)...

They claim this was a trained and certified service animal, issued to a US Marine Corp combat veteran.

In other words, if accurate, this story is not about "ESA"s at all. Or about anyone cheating the system.

The Daily Mail (ick) makes this sound more like what we'd have if a seeing eye dog attacked someone. If so, the plane cannot refuse entry to the dog. The owner of the dog has a legitimate, recognized disability as well as a history of honorable service to their country. The dog themselves has been trained and is a legitimate service dog, not an emotional support animal.

It's hard to tell what's true here - is the dog an "emotional support animal", or is it a "service animal"? There's a huge difference between the two, and I honestly can't find any news source that is making the distinction clear.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I also think it would be extremely difficult to deal with an adrenaline-pumped, vicious pit bull on an airplane without doing more harm to others in the immediate vicinity. As we read in news reports, often it takes a bullet to stop the dog. Even something like a baseball bat often doesn't help. When others try to intervene, they are bitten as well. My understanding of the "bull dog" is that they were bred to bite a bull's nose and hang on to get it back in line. Supposedly it's not that their jaws "lock", but they are not going to let go easily, by any means. And on a plane, there are few resources to use to get an enraged dog to stop. So I'm not sure how anyone could stop something like this easily, let alone kill the dog - at least not without endangering or traumatizing many people around the incident. Thankfully the dog was probably leashed, which no doubt was one of the best defenses available for subduing the dog. The whole thing really just makes me sick. This is not good for us responsible dog owners. Since I've had my small-ish terrier I can't tell you how many people have told me I should get a "note from my doctor" so I can take him anywhere. Um, no thanks. I take him to dog-friendly places but am always respectful for those around us who may not like dogs. I get just as mad as the rest of you when I see a dog sitting in the seat of a shopping cart in the grocery store.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Well, if the Daily Mail can be trusted (and it really can't, but let's overlook that for the moment)...

They claim this was a trained and certified service animal, issued to a US Marine Corp combat veteran.

In other words, if accurate, this story is not about "ESA"s at all. Or about anyone cheating the system.

The Daily Mail (ick) makes this sound more like what we'd have if a seeing eye dog attacked someone. If so, the plane cannot refuse entry to the dog. The owner of the dog has a legitimate, recognized disability as well as a history of honorable service to their country. The dog themselves has been trained and is a legitimate service dog, not an emotional support animal.

It's hard to tell what's true here - is the dog an "emotional support animal", or is it a "service animal"? There's a huge difference between the two, and I honestly can't find any news source that is making the distinction clear.

Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.

 

[Magpie]

Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.

It's considerably worse. I still remember the thread on this board when The Daily Mail spun a child welfare agency's efforts to reunite a little girl with her uncle and cousins, into "Child Welfare Agency rips Indian child away from Good Christian Foster Home and gives her to Dodgy Not-Even-Real-Indians, because Political Correctness!"

So many ugly lies.

Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it:

Wikipedia

• In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution.

(Despite what some tabloids have claimed, Wikipedia did not actually "ban" the Daily Mail. On the other hand, I do believe you can't actually post links from the Daily Mail to Reddit's "News" or "World News" subreddits any more. The mods automatically block any submissions from tabloids.)

And this one's fun - the Daily Mail's list of things that give you cancer from A to Zed: http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabl...things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/

 

[ford family]

Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.

I fully agree.
Such remarks tell me more about the complainer than they realise and makes me treat the rest of their comments less seriously.

ford family

 

[PrincessShmoo]

They claim this was a trained and certified service animal, issued to a US Marine Corp combat veteran.

In other words, if accurate, this story is not about "ESA"s at all. Or about anyone cheating the system.

They've allowed a loophole for combat veterans making an "emotional support animal" (not trained) a "service animal". But they're still not a true service animal.

Again, I say I think "emotional support animals" are just pets. Sure, pets make you feel better. And can be helpful in getting through rough times, but they're still just pets. Not SERVICE animals.

And saying they are "service animals" if the owner is military just creates a loophole for other (non-military) people to say "I can bring my emotional support animal anywhere I like."

 

[Magpie]

I fully agree.
Such remarks tell me more about the complainer than they realise and makes me treat the rest of their comments less seriously.

ford family

Yes, you're quite right. It means I habitually try to check my sources and consider where my "facts" are coming from, before accepting anything I read at face value.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It's considerably worse. I still remember the thread on this board when The Daily Mail spun a child welfare agency's efforts to reunite a little girl with her uncle and cousins, into "Child Welfare Agency rips Indian child away from Good Christian Foster Home and gives her to Dodgy Not-Even-Real-Indians, because Political Correctness!"

So many ugly lies.

Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it:

Wikipedia

• In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution.

(Despite what some tabloids have claimed, Wikipedia did not actually "ban" the Daily Mail. On the other hand, I do believe you can't actually post links from the Daily Mail to Reddit's "News" or "World News" subreddits any more. The mods automatically block any submissions from tabloids.)

And this one's fun - the Daily Mail's list of things that give you cancer from A to Zed: http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabl...things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/

Whatever. I could pull up similar examples from any newspaper. So I'll agree to disagree.