> I was rather surprised about 12 years ago when we were looking to move in together, and someone told us, "oh, you can get around this building's no dogs policy with a doctor's note." That really bothered us.

That's a federal rule around emotional support dogs I think?

Honestly I think landlords should just be banned for having those kinds of rules against common pets like some saner countries, so I don't have a problem with people getting around it. Landlords in the US have too much power over tenants.

I moved from Ireland to the US and noticed the same. So many people in the US treat others as if they are NPCs. Rules only exist so that they can’t bother you, but the rules don’t apply to you. It is extremely frustrating!

USA is not a high-trust society, and has low-key corruption everywhere. EU, or at least big chunks of it, are much more high-trust and "spirit not letter of law" minded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_socie...

We're a nation of persecuted immigrants. Some of our ancestors were deeply religious, but others were just stubborn contrarians who resisted authority to spite their neighbors. Europe exported those difficult people to the States.

Well you weren't too far off. Already calls for execution on the spot for barking and role playing robocop or something. Some very stable minds or russian bots, I dunno.

Not sure why this is on HN at all tbh

US rules around service animals (typically dogs) are a bit odd. You're allowed to take a service dog nearly anywhere, which itself is fine, but the problem is that there's no official licensing system that a business could somehow check to make sure your animal is legit. Legally, they're only allowed to ask what service the animal provides and they can kick it out if it's disruptive. So the inevitable result is people taking advantage of this legal gray area by bringing in dogs that they pretend are sorta-service dogs (emotional support/therapy dogs) and getting away with it for the reasons explained in the article. And once those dogs are normalized, then it seems like dogs in general are okay and so just about anyone might decide to bring in their dog.

A common point of comparison here is handicapped parking spots, since it's also a situation where the handicapped are granted a special privilege to mitigate the handicap, but obviously for parking spots there's a whole legal system for being allowed to park in those special spots. You can't just "self certify" that you can park in a handicapped spot, you have to get a placard from the government that you put on display on your car.

Most countries do not mandate accessibility in public accomodations to the extent the United States does.

Since the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, any disabled person can sue a business and get statutory penalties for a lack of accomodation. Wrongfully denying a service dog can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Europe doesn't have this mechanism. There's less abuse of accomodations as a result. But nothing is wheelchair accessible.

30 or 40 years ago it was much more common for people to have outside dogs in the US.

But it was also common to tie dogs up for long periods of time, which in most places will get you fined these days.

Most of the responses usually devolve into emotional ones, both from dog lovers and dog haters. As a dog owner I support common sense acceptable rules:

1. No dogs in stores that have fresh produce, dairy and meat 2. No off leash dogs in public areas except in dedicated off leash areas 3. No dogs in restaurants indoors 4. Severe penalties if you parade your unbehaved dog as a service dog

But at the same time, dog haters keep pushing it to the point where you cannot have dogs beyond the confines of your home (the home cannot be an apartment building). People don’t want dogs in apartments and they don’t want them in ANY public areas. The same people will also oppose dedicated dog parks or ensure these parks are extremely small.

Around half the households in the country have a dog. There needs to be a middle ground.

> I also loudly announce "No dogs on the walking path, thank you citizen" at the public park when people ignore posted signs.

???

Having a no dogs allowed rule on a walking path at a park feels so weird to me.

I personally think we have this all wrong, and that all species should have to comply with some level of public decorum to be allowed in public human-dominated spaces.

If a dog doesn't make loud noises, physically agitates others, or excessively spread diseases (slobbering all over the place), it seems fine to let them be in the same place. If someone has allergies, an agreement can usually be worked out to create distance, but if it can't we should favor the human.

So in a sense, I agree with you: They should have licenses that can be revoked based on their behavior. I don't really care if they're for service reasons or otherwise, I just care they're fit to be in public. Some dogs are, some aren't. Basically, we should be comfortable with fascistic enforcement around dog's behaviorally. That seems like a healthy middle-ground.

The cringiest hill to die on might be the hill of exaggerated moral panic.

There are about 931283918982 more important issues than someone being offended at seeing a dog in close proximity at a place where you have an opinion that they shouldn't be.

As long as your pet doesn't come in contact with my food or defecate near it, you really should focus on more important things in life.

Honest question: how can you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate therapy dogs if the owner doesn't have a visible handicap?

Like what if a veteran struggling with PTSD has a therapy dog to help keep them emotionally regulated? Or is that a fake service animal by your defintion?

I agree that people abuse this system, but if you're publicly shaming people, how do you avoid false positives?

Just goes to show what I've always said: People that hate dogs are just as insufferable as people that think their dogs are people.

Are you Robocop?

Does that loophole actually come up in practice very often? The impression I get is that it's much more common for people to either not know which questions they're legally entitled to ask, or not want to.

>I go to local farmer's markets. There are signs everywhere, "No Pets". No one is obeying this law. Literally no one. WTF do they have the signs? All non-enforcement does is bread contempt for laws in general. Either enforce it or remove the signs.

I think this is just health code where the law is forcing them to put up these signs but nobody actually cares if there's dogs there, it's not really needed to ban dogs there, and the only people who want to enforce that rule are people who really like rules.

> I go to local farmer's markets. There are signs everywhere, "No Pets". No one is obeying this law. Literally no one. WTF do they have the signs? All non-enforcement does is bread contempt for laws in general. Either enforce it or remove the signs.

Is that a law, or just a rule from the farmer's market?

Because people broadly understand that service dogs are a legally protected thing but not the exact details of the relevant laws, and this leads to interesting consequences when combined with increasing awareness of mental health in recent years. Probably in another decade the controversy will have settled somewhat.

Shih-tzus are some of the most persuasive negotiators.

Whatabout...

Under the ADA, the kind of dog youre describing would be a service dog, same as any other. "Therapy dog" isn't a term that the ADA uses.

You can totally have a legitimate service dog for invisible disabilities.

Licenses don't mean anything in the US btw. The law does not require it and having a "license" is meaningless. Sometimes a training organization might vouch for the dogs skills, but that isn't a license and doesn't legally mean anything.

> If they go through the same training as current disability dogs, then what’s the problem exactly?

With guide dogs the benefit is huge - someone can get around without human assistance.

With "emotional support" animals it just means someone gets to take their pet with them to have coffee. Not a big enough benefit to outweigh the downsides.

I met a couple that had paid $100 to get a fake service dog certification. I guess the training is extremely hard and many people don't want to do it.

I have a miniature golden doodle that I try to take to as many places as possible. But if there is a place that is strict, I end up just having to crate her.

There is no specific training for a service dog.

All you have to do is say your dog is a service dog, and it is, legally.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/

Q5. Does the ADA require service animals to be professionally trained?

>A. No. People with disabilities have the right to train the dog themselves and are not required to use a professional service dog training program.

Leaving aside the over-the-top violent rhetoric and the issues around emotional support animals, the relevant regulatory guidance is that you can make a service dog leave if it barks repeatedly, but not if it barks just once. (https://nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Service-Anim... I'm pretty sure I read similar language from the federal Civil Rights Division once but can't find it right now)

[flagged]

99.99% of the time it’s a way to bring your dog in the cabin instead of sedated in a crate (not something I want to do to my dog, so i get it).

But for the other 0.01% of the time - your statement is quite prejudiced. Barring people with a disability from the main way travel distance is not the world i want to live in. Everyone is entitled to reasonable accommodations for their differences. Might as well say children can’t fly - they’re “emotionally unstable”.

I’ve sat next to people who’re afraid of flying. It looks awful. If a dog on your lap helps you avoid a panic attack it seems like we can find a way to make that work without too much trouble.

Agreed. People are pushing the boundaries a bit too far and it's going to end up harming the people who truly do need animals like this with them in public.

I wouldn’t recommend that kind of behavior around Auburn.

My son attended a forest school for three years, located in the middle of a protected nature preserve. The preserve has clear signage posted throughout stating that dogs are not allowed on the trails.

Despite that, there were many mornings when I’d be walking back to my car after drop-off and would see someone heading toward the trails with a dog. I always made a point to politely let them know about the rule and that a staff member would likely ask them to leave once spotted.

This happened at least 70 times over the three years my son was enrolled. Out of all those instances, only one person actually turned around and left with their dog.

The issue became so frequent that preserve staff had to involve law enforcement and began issuing trespass notices. While I only personally witnessed this once, the director told me it became a regular occurrence.

The one time I did see it unfold was honestly kind of entertaining. I gave my usual friendly heads-up to a couple with a small dog. The woman scoffed and said something like, “It’s just a small dog,” and continue into the forest. I went back to my car to send some work emails and Slack messages — and a few minutes later, watched as she was led out of the preserve in handcuffs. Apparently, she gave the same attitude to the responding officer.

Demand free Palestine, while you're there, just to make sure you don't suddenly run out of reasons to continue being obnoxious.