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.

  • @kemsatOP
    link
    11 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.