What in the actual duck
October 20, 2016 6:18 AM   Subscribe

Daniel Turducken Stinkerbutt is an emotional support duck that recently flew for the first time. (SLWP) The duck’s human introduced him to their fellow, now-amused passengers: This was Daniel Turducken Stinkerbutt, or Daniel for short. He is a 4 1/2-year-old Indian Runner duck and is her emotional support animal, she explained.
posted by whitetigereyes (44 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
What a lovely little story. Daniel is a very handsome duck, and those shoes are just way too cute. Would sit next to him over most anyone I've ended up seated with when flying.
posted by Dysk at 6:33 AM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I used to know a toddler named Stinkerbutt. I wonder if they're related?
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:42 AM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh my god, he has little red booties on his little webbed feet! LITTLE RED BOOTIES!!!!
posted by xingcat at 6:43 AM on October 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think we should be as patient and accommodating as possible with people suffering from anxiety and mental health issues, but this is putting a lot of strain on that inclination.

This is cute and all, but the idea that you need a duck companion to be able to function feels like somebody was reaching for their copy of DSM-5 and pulled down The Complete Far Side by accident.
posted by mhoye at 6:48 AM on October 20, 2016 [61 favorites]


It's not in the article, but it was in the Reddit thread where I originally saw this, and it's important, so I want to emphasize that his owner said the Captain America diaper was his favorite. It's his favorite diaper, I think that needs to be part of this story.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:53 AM on October 20, 2016 [22 favorites]


It looks like the selection of a duck was not exactly intentional -- the duck stepped into a role that is usually played by specially trained animals like dogs. I think this is a unique but absolutely supportable situation. Don't let the cuteness of it detract from your understanding of the seriousness of PTSD and the role that emotional support animals play.

"Fitzgerald adopted Daniel in 2012, when he was two days old, she told The Post in a phone interview Wednesday. Less than a year later, Fitzgerald, a former horse-and-carriage driver in Milwaukee, was involved in a serious accident.

After the accident, Daniel knew things were different — and responded without ever having been trained.

“He would notice something wrong, whether it be my pain or my PTSD,” Fitzgerald said. “He would come and lay on me and [give me] lots of hugging and lots of kisses. And if he notices that I’m going to have a panic attack, he would give me a cue to lay down by trying to climb me.”

posted by cubby at 6:55 AM on October 20, 2016 [27 favorites]


All passengers on long-haul flights should be required to wear shoes and diapers.
posted by Auden at 6:58 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


All passengers on long-haul flights should be required to have a duck.
posted by briank at 7:00 AM on October 20, 2016 [17 favorites]


Everybody got a good Patronus except me.
posted by goatdog at 7:00 AM on October 20, 2016 [35 favorites]


Love the picture Daniel staring (wistfully?, if I may anthropomorphize a little) out the window.
posted by TedW at 7:07 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Isn't Turducken kind of an awkward name for a pet duck?
posted by TedW at 7:09 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]


mhoye, I get where you're coming from, but a) we, The Internet, don't get to decide what is and isn't a traumatised woman's emotional support requirement; and b) it's a flightless duck named Daniel T. Stinkerbutt wearing red webfooted booties and a Captain America diaper staring wistfully out the window of an aeroplane and wagging his tiny feathery tail like a good 'un and if a person can't find it in their heart to forgive a surrogate duck-mother that thoroughly surreal and beautiful moment, then they've not spent nearly enough time in the soulless hell of airline travel.

Damn this dusty, dusty room where I am reading this story.
posted by prismatic7 at 7:20 AM on October 20, 2016 [30 favorites]


I've been seeing pictures of this duck come across my Twitter and Facebook feeds but I had no idea the duck had such a great name. Daniel Turducken Stinkerbutt!
posted by bondcliff at 7:22 AM on October 20, 2016


This is cute and all, but the idea that you need a duck companion to be able to function feels like somebody was reaching for their copy of DSM-5 and pulled down The Complete Far Side by accident.

Take out the word "duck", and ask yourself whether you would have any objection. And then ask yourself why you're hung up on the "duck" part.
posted by Etrigan at 7:32 AM on October 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


Take out the word "duck"

then there wouldn't be a story or a Mefi post
posted by thelonius at 7:44 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Take out the word "duck", and ask yourself whether you would have any objection.

Next, replace the word "duck" with "otter", "newt", "owl", "mongoose", or "snail", and see how that flies. Personally I'm in favour of ducks on airplanes, but would draw the line at horses.
posted by sfenders at 7:49 AM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sorry sfenders.
posted by The otter lady at 8:10 AM on October 20, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think we're missing the bigger deal here..... A duck received his "Certificate of First Flight"! How cool is that!?!
posted by pjsky at 8:12 AM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


pjsky: "A duck received his "Certificate of First Flight"! How cool is that!?!"

A flightless duck, even!
posted by chavenet at 8:21 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Relevant 2014 NY Magazine article: "The Confusion About Pets"

Fortunately for animal-lovers who wish to abuse the law, there is a lot of confusion about just who and what is allowed where. I decided to go undercover as a person with an anxiety disorder (not a stretch) and run around town with five un-cuddly, non-nurturing animals for which I obtained E.S.A. credentials (one animal at a time; I’m not that crazy)...

IIRC the article notes at some point that many folks who genuinely require the assistance of (trained, certified) service animals are not thrilled about the proliferation of the similar-sounding but much more nebulously-defined "emotional support animals" (a designation that requires no particular training or behavioral qualifications for the animal, and which you can pretty much get online with $100 and a forged letter from a therapist). At a minimum, it probably makes sense to clearly distinguish the two categories, and to be open to allowing different rules for each type of animal in public spaces.
posted by Bardolph at 8:37 AM on October 20, 2016 [19 favorites]


This is cute and all, but I'm afraid I'm with mhoye: an enclosed tube with a recirculating air system is hell enough on asthmatics like myself, especially those of us also saddled with pollen/dander/feather/etc. allergies. I understand the use of valid emotional support animals, but I hope you'll forgive me if I place my interest in continuing to breathe above the entertainment value of having a cute duck wandering around the plane.
posted by easily confused at 9:12 AM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]


I've never understood why it's a problem to have well-behaved animals in public places. Sure, keeping the cats off food-prep surfaces and surgical tables makes sense, but a lap dog (or duck) on the bus or in a bar is almost never the most disruptive entity in either situation.

But, I also can't imagine what sort of monster would put shoes on a duck. Forcing humans to wear shoes is bad enough, but at least you can explain to them that they live in a cruel and vindictive world that insists on inflicting suffering on them in order to conform to senseless notions of propriety. The duck is just an innocent victim.
posted by eotvos at 9:17 AM on October 20, 2016


The kind of monster who wants to protect the duck's feet?
posted by amanda at 9:44 AM on October 20, 2016 [7 favorites]




I'm allergic to cats, dogs, and a heap of other furry animals. This allergy causes asthma. I cannot be in the same room for a long time with a cat or dog because then I cannot breathe.

This sets up a zero-sum situation with people with service animals. One of us has to leave. If that's a work meeting and someone else has a need for that service animal, then I'll suck it up (badly, coz asthma) until it becomes something I can't cope with. And then the next times, we can take turns videoconferencing in to the meeting. Or I'll sit with my head out the window. If we both have serious medical issues, then we'll find a way to make it work.

But this is bullshit.

Your need for emotional support doesn't trump my need to breathe.
posted by happyinmotion at 11:58 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


oh no not again
posted by OverlappingElvis at 12:27 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've never understood why it's a problem to have well-behaved animals in public places.

Because they are animals and their behavior cannot be predicted in all novel situations where there are lots of humans in close contact, no matter how strenuously the owner claims "he's really very gentle" or how much training they've received. I don't have a quarrel with service animals and ESAs for those who really need them, and I certainly do not object to a duck, but many comfort animals have very sharp teeth and literally no training for owner or animal. I've been asked to write letters by patients for the flimsiest reasons and there's a line somewhere. When she was 4 years old, my sister was attacked and bitten by an unsupervised unleashed dog whose owners had assured my parents moments earlier that "he just adores children."
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:47 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


"he just adores children"

He did! He was just kissing them. With his teeth.

Or he adores how they taste. Your choice.
posted by fiercecupcake at 1:01 PM on October 20, 2016


All of the emotional comfort dogs I have met in my life have been untrained wrecks that snarl and bite. At least a duck can't really hurt you, just don't bring your emotional support goose.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 2:30 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is going so well, don't you think?
posted by prismatic7 at 4:13 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


Take out the word "duck", and ask yourself whether you would have any objection.

Ducks are not people. I suspect this position is not controversial? If I left my kids with a duck babysitter or went to trial represented by my duck lawyer, I wouldn't think "you're just hung up on the word 'duck'" to be much of a defense.
posted by mhoye at 4:46 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've never understood why it's a problem to have well-behaved animals in public places.

Well, aside from allergies, the 'well behaved' is typically the weak point. Actual service animals are almost always well behaved because they receive very extensive (and expensive) training. With others, you are relying on the owner - many owners are either not capable of such training or haven't bothered (or the species used just can't be trained like that), so the animals is not well behaved, at least not reliably. The owner has often been conditioned to accept their pet's misbehavior and no longer realizes it, or the pet hasn't gone off the handle yet but will with the right stimulus.
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:47 PM on October 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


I love ducks and would probably have been delighted to have Daniel seated next to me but I'd be less thrilled about an emotional support boa constrictor, so maybe this one slippery-slope argument that I can get behind.
posted by ducky l'orange at 5:06 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cthulhu is my emotional support animal.
posted by goatdog at 5:55 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Diaper-wearing birds" is a completely new concept for me. I can see why it's nice that Daniel can wear one, as birds can't be toilet trained, and nobody wants to step in duck crap. I had a friend who had cockatiels she'd let fly around her house, and it might have been better if she could have diapered their tiny feathery tushies.

I personally don't want a pet whose diapers I have to change - that's one reason I never had kids. But to each their own.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 6:02 PM on October 20, 2016


Also ducks crap line nobody's business. You think they would be like large chickens, wrong. Frequency, violence, volume, are all much higher.
posted by smoke at 6:06 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm waiting for the inevitable news story (and subsequent Mefi post) about a flight in which the person with the emotional support duck was seated next to the person with the emotional support cat.
posted by Napoleonic Terrier at 6:35 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ducks are cute, and the story is written to emphasize that, and it's a nice feel good kind of a thing. But it is in no way something to be dismissed as "ridiculous." Perhaps the rules about emotional support animals are loose enough to create the potential for getting certification where not strictly necessary, but can we please not so flippantly pass judgement on this person's experience and that of everyone else who finds a need for an emotional support animal? As a person who has mental health issues and has suffered from panic attacks, I can assure you that they are no laughing matter. Perhaps you would think differently about the privilege of bringing a duck on a plane if you considered the opportunity cost -- this woman suffered a trauma so severe that its aftereffects are still felt years later, to the extent that (based on what I know of panic attacks) she might be reduced to a fearful, non-functioning shell of herself if stress builds beyond a certain threshold. If this duck (like many support animals) can sense that state coming on faster than she can, and can then prompt her to take the steps necessary to prevent a full panic attack, then I'd argue she has a physical need for its presence - perhaps especially in a situation as stressful as flying. And I can further assure you that the other passengers on that plane would do better to suffer the presence of a duck than a woman having a panic attack (or worse, than to deny that woman the ability to fly by tolerating neither).

I recognize that I'm reading some detail into this article that doesn't exactly appear in it. I may be wrong about this woman's experience. But before you crack a judgmental joke and move on perhaps it would be a good thought exercise to imagine, for a moment, what it might be like to be dependent -- as in, not by choice but by circumstance and medical condition -- on the presence of a duck (or some other animal) in order to have the mental capacity to face the world.
posted by cubby at 6:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow. I can genuinely, easily, clearly see both sides of this argument. It's upsetting and weird. Usually, I can read up, get the tone of things, read between some lines, and decide how I come down.

Cuteness aside, animals make many folks really uncomfortable for either physical or mental reasons. My brain functions in a way that I don't distinguish very well between mental and physical, as my brain is part of my body and therefore what my brain does seems physical to me. YMMV.

So, yeah, this story is awesome and we decide that a duck is fine in the air...lots of things to say here, everyone already has, so leaving that point aside...but if this animal is causing comfort to a person and suffering to a different person...WTH?

Can a maths person please make a duck/human/physical discomfort/mental comfort equation and supporting Venn diagram so we can decide with science whether this is okay?

Both sides. Just...staring duck eyes at me....
posted by metasav at 7:29 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]


cubby --- please note, I am not "flippantly pass[ing] judgement on this person's experience": I understand that various people do have mental conditions that are eased by the presence of an emotional support animal. That's all well and good; but like many other people, forcing me to share close quarters with such animals doesn't simply cause physical discomfort, it could easily become an actual life-threatening situation, and I'm selfish enough to feel that my life takes precedence over her mental comfort.

All I'm asking is for the understanding and consideration to go both ways: this woman, for instance, wants to travel with her cute little duckie, and feels the whole world would be improved if everyone did so; I want to survive to reach my destination, and wish she'd keep her duck to herself and not let it freely roam up and down the plane's aisle.
posted by easily confused at 4:32 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's the thing... this is a "valid" argument in the same sense that not allowing women to vote because we get emotional is a "valid" argument.

If you want to claim allergies then do we claim ALL allergies? I mean, I work in a hospital and I can't wear perfumes or colognes because it could potentially interact with a patient. Do you want us to ban perfumes and colognes on airplanes as well? Or Nickel? You really think that we can ban cell phones on planes because someone might be allergic to the metal things in their pockets.

What about sunlight? Now all planes have to be windowless tubes? Sweat? Every plane must be 62 degrees. Oh wait, some people have negative reactions to the cold. You simply can't account for every scenario.

Yes, I'm absolutely taking this to the extreme. But where do you draw the lines. We're not just talking about slippery slopes, but slippery slopes ON slippery slopes. You can no more limit the type of service animal allowed on planes than you can limit the type of allergy in the same spaces. Besides, it's fundamentally ridiculous to think that we can expect the brain to adhere to a list of animals set forth by... whoever the hell would even be tasked with making such a list.

Further, you can no more say that Fitzgerald doesn't belong on the plane because she needs a duck, than I can say that some of the posters in this thread don't belong on the plane because they're allergic to... ducks. Why does one group get priority over the other?
posted by Blue_Villain at 7:25 PM on October 21, 2016


Nobody said Fitzgerald doesn't belong on the plane because she needs a duck; nobody even said the duck should be barred from the plane.... all I'm suggesting is that she keep it under control: i.e., "not let it freely roam up and down the plane's aisle". Ditto for everyone else's emotional support animal, whether duck, dog, or miniature pony: keep it leashed or caged.
posted by easily confused at 8:48 PM on October 21, 2016


Blue_Villain: But where do you draw the lines.

Well, the line is typically drawn where the owner of the space says it is (or the local municipality, for public spaces). The thing is, service animals are able to override that line. So it's kind of a special case, and there has to be a line somewhere or people will not be able to control their spaces at all.

I think they need to reform the support animal rules so people can't just game them with pets at the very least. And I'm ambivalent about people being able to just use arbitrary animals as support animals; part of the deal with service animals is that they're so well trained they essentially never cause problems. I strongly suspect a duck cannot be trained in that manner, and nearly all emotional support animals are not trained in such a manner. So, that's also a problem. It doesn't take that many emotional support animals causing problems to turn public opinion against service animals as a whole.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:59 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or Nickel? You really think that we can ban cell phones on planes because someone might be allergic to the metal things in their pockets.

I am allergic as all get out to nickel, and it is (from the extensive research I've done) always a contact allergy. So please, keep yer phones and what have you, just don't rub them on me. If almost everywhere could stop nickel-coating things like door handles, taps, and drum/guitar hardware, that's be excellent for those of us who react badly to nickel.
posted by Dysk at 3:19 AM on October 22, 2016


« Older The End of 'Midshipman'?   |   Click! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments