Comment from Barbara Mace
Barbara MaceOpposeIndividual
Summary: An individual who relies on an emotional support animal (ESA) for daily functioning opposes the proposed rule to remove ESA protections. The commenter argues that the rule is unethical and suggests adding specific provisions to revoke privileges only if an animal is dangerous or a nuisance.
Instead of getting rid of this protection that disabled and veterans count on to help get them thur their daily lives. I personal with out my emotional support dog would not be able to work or be alive. She was not trained to tell me to take my meds but she will sit by wherever my medication packs are until I take them. She dose that 3 times a day. These animals are not all the same and to treat them that way because of some bad apples is unethic, immoral and plain childish. You should add a cavity to the ESA rule that revokes the privilege if the animal is dangerous or aggressive, causes significant property damage, has nuisance behavior, or is an unreasonable hardship to staff. Wow I just fixed that rule with some simple wording.