Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahern | Hacker News Reader

I understand all the indignation about people who lie about having a service animal. But are people so rage-filled about this issue that they're not even the least bit fascinated by the fact that the ADA explicitly includes miniature horses as permitted service animals?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136

Dogs and miniature horses--that's it. There's clearly some hidden history and science here. Come on, this is HN! Shouldn't there be several ranchers and at least one legitimate miniature horse service animal owner-operator eager to explain to us the world of miniature horse service animals? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of miniature horses as compared to dogs? How small can the horses get?

EDIT: The above link is for a regulation regarding government entities; here's the regulation for places of public accommodation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302

View on HN

I think part of the reaction here is the very idea of a horse. A horse! On a plane.

To read your link though, it says "reasonable" accommodation. It specifies that part of the assessment of reasonable accommodation is if the horse must be house broken.

Can you imagine having a non-housebroken miniature horse in your row with you? I find this hilarious and I hope it happens to me just for the story.

(i)Miniature horses.

(1)Reasonable modifications. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.

(2)Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider -

(i) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;

(ii) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;

(iii) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and

(iv) Whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.

(3)Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136(c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

I wonder what they do for long flights when the animal needs to use the bathroom.

Honestly I have never seen a diaper for a horse.

They do exist, and you see them on working horses to prevent the horses from pooping on the roads.

It's not so much of a diaper, though, and more of a burlap sack that's suspended like a hammock underneath the "business end" as it were.

Note that this only works for poop; I haven't seen any solution for the voluminous amount of pee a horse can produce.

> I think part of the reaction here is the very idea of a horse. A horse! On a plane.

I got the impression that people were glossing over the details and assuming that it's just an extreme example of airlines being required (if at all--lots of misconceptions abound) to unquestionably accept people's eccentric, ridiculous, and [arguably] illegitimate accommodation requests, such as the recent peacock incident that made the rounds.

Granted, the news reporting has done an exceptionally poor job at distinguishing service animals from therapy animals, and the sources of and justifications for various regulations and policies. But the ambiguity and seeming absurdity is precisely what caused me to dig further and discover that miniature horses are distinguishable. But that only leads to even more questions.

The article states that miniature horses live 35 years or longer, whereas dogs have a much shorter lifespan. Presuming both are equally difficult to train, this is an obvious advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com