I read this article. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6484932
I was disgusted.
I'm sorry but I think it's a joke. She already has 3 pets at home which she can use as "support" and that is the maximum allowed under law. Maybe the reason she has mental issues because she has too many dogs!
It's clear she wants to break the law and thinks rules don't apply to her. Am I right?
A "joke" in what sense? That dogs can't actually help support people emotionally?
I wouldn't agree with that. Anyone who hasn't had their day improved by interacting with a loving animal is probably dead on the inside. If a dog helps someone cope with stress or otherwise improve the quality of their life, then in general I don't see what the problem with that is.
Of course the system can be abused, but then so can any other system. Personally I'd rather see someone use the company of a dog to help deal with their emotions, rather than massive doses of doctor-prescribed tranquilizers for the same purpose.
What is the difference between having a regular dog vs an "emotional support dogs"? Aren't all dogs "emotionally support therapy dogs" by default?
I think it's silly they need to carry an animal around them everywhere they go just to get through life. What is wrong with leaving the pet at home?
I will admit that the distinction between a "regular dog" and "emotional support dog" is hazy. It's not a black or white issue, but more of a spectrum-type situation. There's a great deal of overlap, and really no definitive answer to that question. While I wouldn't quite agree with your suggestion that ALL dogs are 'emotional support therapy dogs' by default, I understand where you're coming from.
It's basically a matter of individual perception.
You may think it's silly for people to carry their dogs around everywhere, and in many cases I would agree. Like I said, the system can certainly be abused. Some people just love their dogs; others want to show them off in public; some might use the dog as a way out of awkward situations (similar to how many people use their phones these days).
There are countless "illegitimate" reasons for someone to "need" a therapy dog, but what I fail to understand is what you find so 'disgusting' about this whole thing (the article you posted in particular). I didn't even get any impression the girl was being publicly obnoxious with her dog—she clearly just loved him. And if the dog helps with her anxiety, awesome. If not, and it's just a "regular" dog, then who cares? As long as the dog is well behaved and not aggressive, why shouldn't she be able to keep him?
A joke, no, but the guidelines for it to be qualified as a legal service dog need to be more tightly regulated, as its easily abused. The blind, those with seizures, PTSD for veterans and severe diabetics are all good examples for a legitimate reason to have one.
Thank you. I don't want your dumb dog in a restaurant when I'm eating dinner, or sticking its nose in the produce at the grocery store.
This bringing of animals into places which must be kept sanitary is ridiculous.
If you can't handle being in a restaurant without your poodle, then stay home.
I don't mind if it's a genuine service dog to guide the blind. But they are so rare that it's insignificant. The "emotional" ones I have a problem with and agree with you.
Real service dogs for the physically handicapped. Of course!
This silly emotional dependency? Grow up already. I threw away my teddy bear when I was 5 years old.
Spot on!
shareAgreed. These people can leave their filthy animals at home.
shareJust more enabling of the weak and stupid.
The good part about this happening is eventually there will be a majority of stupid weak and then they will all get their asses kicked back in line by the strong ones that survive.
Reality will prevail.