Emotional support animals (ESAs) require no training, and ESAs are assigned to people who are not emotionally stable.

Dogs are also dangerous animals; it is known, and the reason for the use of dogs as guards & for personal protection. Dogs are also known to read their owners emotional distress, and assess what or who is causing the distress, then do something about the distress to help their owners. This is exactly why ESDs are used, but while extremely helpful & useful, to the dog’s owner, this behavior, when untrained, can be extremely dangerous to everyone who is not the dog’s owner. This danger is amplified when people around the dog are scared, or wary, of the dog, and further amplified if the owner is emotionally unstable.

This brings me to dog breeds; some are more dangerous than others, and some are less apt for the task/job of being an ESA. Therefore, if dog breeds that are dangerous or inept for the tasks of an ESD are not trained, and their owners are likely to be emotionally unstable: such ESDs, while essential to their owner, are a danger to everyone else.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical to expect the people around such ESDs to suffer emotional distress, as a result of the threatening ESD, for the sake of the ESD’s owner.

Thank you for reading my rant.

TLDR: Some dog breeds, if not all dogs, should be required to pass the same qualifications as a Service Dog in order to be registered & certified as Emotional Support Animals.

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I dunno man, this is a fairly popular take overall, among people who are involved in emotional support training. Also among people doing service training. Also among people that have genuine need for an ESA.

    There’s a big movement to place greater limits on what kinds of animals can be ESA. Breed wise, if the training was done to the same standards as service dogs, or ponies, it wouldn’t be an issue. Way more dogs wash out for behavioral incompatibilities with service than you think.

    Hell, I’ve heard arguments for limiting ESAs to only dogs, though that isn’t useful or necessary imo. As long as the animal is either small enough to not be an issue, or is one that can be trained to standards, it isn’t like the kind of training necessary is dog exclusive. Dogs are just the best at it.

    Anyway, the arguments you’re making are well supported by anyone with exposure to the issue on a professional level, so I had to throw the downvote for being at least mostly popular. Sorry, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • kemsat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it should only be dogs. I personally hate dogs, and find them to be unreliable. I’m not the only one, and if I legitimately needed an ESA, I would be unable to get one if they were only dogs.