The Headline Reads: No Snakes On The Plane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcr229

You can still bring pets on the plane as long as you follow the pet rules for the airline. I think the difference between having a pet versus an ESA in the cabin is the fees; passengers pay more for a pet. Hence the $125 additional fee if your ESA becomes a problem during the flight.

---

Good luck finding an airline these days that will allow chipmunks carried on board; they were "encouraged" by higher powers to look the other way, even then.
Non-native chipmunks were not even ordinarily allowed in the country from overseas by any mode of transportation. Anyway, that was "then" & I was lucky.

Chipmunks are very sensitive, they freak & hide from any sort of ride in motorized transportation, as I quickly discovered; I'm pretty sure a ride as cargo would
have killed them, but as it was, they were fine. They silently hid in the small carrier during the long flight, as I knew they would, & no passengers had a clue.

I'd never object to paying (or pre-paying) a fee in case my animal became a problem during a flight, assuming they refund it when nothing happens. Only fair.

Back to one of the original question, I think the "no snakes on a plane" was less about snakes & more about the wide recognition of that silly movie title.
And by now, more than one snake has made headlines as questionable ESA's, so the headline was bound to happen. That snakes are still rejected should
surprise no one...more people fear them than even spiders. We as knowledgeable keepers of snakes must do more to assure they are accepted as pets, not
just on planes but in the places we rent, the parks we visit, the vets we take our pets to, and all the contacts we make. We all need to work on educating
those who still hate and fear them.

I think this is a much needed setting of the ground rules. It was bound to happen and I’m glad there is finally some documented regulation other than “must not impede or threaten bodily harm to other passengers”.

We all use our pets as emotional support. I don’t get why some people feel entitled to special privileges just because they slapped an ESA tag on their dog or cat or rooster or donkey or whatever. That animal does nothing outside the bounds of what a normal pet does— if it did it would be considered a service animal and not an ESA.

re: no animals at all on the plane--some people have dogs that detect when they're about to have a seizure or a dangerous drop in blood pressure. Those animals absolutely save lives.

Having PTSD myself, I know that stuff can be hard but I don't think banning all animals of a certain type is helpful. And it seems (like with the banning of snubnose breeds as well) they're really playing into breed and animal stereotypes here. I think there should be rules in place, but outright banning animals? Nah.