# Entering Mexico via Auto with a Dog



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

I'm (obviously) starting a new thread rather than include this in my existing Driving In thread. If moderators prefer otherwise, of course merge, but I think a separate thread may get separate notice.

I know people drive into Mexico with their dogs all the time. I've seen plenty of posts here & on other fora about it. Most of the time, it seems to be couples coming together with dogs. Has anyone, alone, driven in with his/her dog?

My concern is that, because I will be by myself, there won't be anyone to trade back & forth with me in keeping custody of my dog while taking care of border crossing formalities. As a seizure-alert dog, he is generally by my side 24/7, in the US and really worldwide. I understand that Mexican law on the subject is perhaps less robust than I'm accustomed to in the US & Europe. Coondawg advised me (thank you!) that I won't be allowed to bring him in the building where I obtain my TIP. He's not sitting in the car by himself with the AC off, and I doubt it would be wise to leave the car running while I'm not inside the car.

So, has anyone done this? How do you handle the logistics? I'm certain it has to be possible. All of the times we've flown in, other than fawning over his cuteness, nobody has ever raised an issue (we always stop at the SENASICA office when we land; half of the time they're amused that we do what we're supposed to do). 

After all of my planning, I would hate to think that this would derail my plans for the move, especially as I've read of others bringing dogs down. Help?


----------



## chuck846 (Jan 15, 2016)

We came into Mexico with 4 cats, in their carriers, in the back of the car. We came across the border very early on a Sunday morning. It was still dark. We left a couple windows cracked. There were a couple/several different things to take care of during the 'formalities' and at each break we went out and checked on the cats. Bottom line - cross early in the morning before it warms up.


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Service dogs are recognized in Mexico.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

chicois8 said:


> Service dogs are recognized in Mexico.


So how will the OP explain that his pet is a service dog to the Mexican authorities? Is there some sort of ID or certification that is recognized internationally? Just curious . . .


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Don't service dogs wear some sort of vest showing they are service dogs......I just had a friend who got his dog certified in Mexico.

https://awionline.org/content/wounded-warrior-service-dog-act


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

chuck846 said:


> We came into Mexico with 4 cats, in their carriers, in the back of the car. We came across the border very early on a Sunday morning. It was still dark. We left a couple windows cracked. There were a couple/several different things to take care of during the 'formalities' and at each break we went out and checked on the cats. Bottom line - cross early in the morning before it warms up.



Thanks.

I suppose I could also, rather than spend the night in Laredo & cross in the morning, cross around nightfall & spend the night in Nuevo Laredo. Anything in particular to keep in mind?


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

chicois8 said:


> Don't service dogs wear some sort of vest showing they are service dogs......I just had a friend who got his dog certified in Mexico.
> 
> https://awionline.org/content/wounded-warrior-service-dog-act


He has a vest. 
There *is no valid* certification for service dogs other than seeing-eye dogs. Otherwise, certification is not official and, generally speaking, a money grab. But if it eases things, why not?


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

Isla Verde said:


> So how will the OP explain that his pet is a service dog to the Mexican authorities? Is there some sort of ID or certification that is recognized internationally? Just curious . . .


I've never had an issue in Mexico, including at airports. The (land) border crossing seems a bit more complicated.


----------



## derek.larson (Jul 6, 2015)

I've traveled across the border with my dog a few times already, and have never been asked for any documentation, although it was available.


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

ExpatEmigre said:


> He has a vest.
> There *is no valid* certification for service dogs other than seeing-eye dogs. Otherwise, certification is not official and, generally speaking, a money grab. But if it eases things, why not?


I'm all in favor of service dogs when it's for a good reason, such as blindness. I was somewhat taken aback lately when a friend's visitor had a "service dog" with her on the plane "because she feels panicky when flying". Hello? White knuckles are normal on airplanes, aren't they?
lane:


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

lagoloo said:


> I'm all in favor of service dogs when it's for a good reason, such as blindness. I was somewhat taken aback lately when a friend's visitor had a "service dog" with her on the plane "because she feels panicky when flying". Hello? White knuckles are normal on airplanes, aren't they?
> lane:


That is not a service dog; it is an emotional support dog. It is not the same thing. 
Fortunately, individuals don't decide what is a good enough reason. The law does, both in the US and in Mexico.


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

derek.larson said:


> I've traveled across the border with my dog a few times already, and have never been asked for any documentation, although it was available.


The issue was with everything EXCEPT the importation of the dog. 
I was not comfortable leaving him in the car by himself while I dealt with TIP & such. 
Thankfully, reading Mexican disability law has reassured me that I can have the service dog with me while I take care of other things. 
I'll have his health certificate. (Interestingly, in countless trips to France, the required documentation has never been checked. Germany & the Netherlands are VERY different stories!)


----------



## ThomasNeumann (Nov 21, 2015)

ExpatEmigre said:


> That is not a service dog; it is an emotional support dog. It is not the same thing.
> Fortunately, individuals don't decide what is a good enough reason. The law does, both in the US and in Mexico.


It's worth noting that the sentiment expressed, above, fails to comprehend the legitimacy of mental health conditions. That's not a 'dig' at the poster, rather, it's a critique of the sentiment.

Relatively few mental health conditions are, strictly speaking, 'diseases'. As such, the only means of detecting them, and differentiating between them, is the *combination* of professional assessment *and* self-reporting.

It's rather unfortunate that individuals aren't regarded, by the law, as qualified to 'decide what is a good enough reason.' There remain unfortunate gaps between what the law allows/recognizes, and what mental health professionals understand.

Mental health continues to suffer from stigma in popular perception. People often think that it's not 'real', e.g., that clinical depression is synonymous for 'the blues', that everyone feels that way sometimes, etc. These are incorrect views, and ignorantly held even by the nicest people.

The law lags behind science, and science lags behind reality, by years -- sometimes by decades. Granted, there are some people who would abuse such opportunities by falsely claiming 'emotional support' status in order to enjoy the privilege of their pet's company, to avoid additional fees on airlines, etc.

However, the larger question at issue along that line is whether it's more ethically defensible to deny a legitimate need in the interest of weeding-out the fakers, or, whether it's more ethically defensible to err on the side of lost revenue in order to maximize the well-being of people whose emotional support needs are legitimate, but who may not actually have the full force of law and precedent behind their particular circumstances/condition.

When the 'rules' of life elevate money, and the convenience of otherwise relatively well/healthy people, above the legitimate emotional needs of people who suffer from conditions that may not yet be fully understood either by science or by law... there's something ethically inappropriate about that values hierarchy. And, (please pardon the bit of 'edge' that follows) those who would deny the well-being of people who legitimately suffer, under the guise of what science currently understands and/or of what the law currently allows, may regard their own 'right' to 'privilege' with perhaps more ego than is justifiable.

It's an admittedly nuanced topic, and I don't mean to derail the discussion. The distinctions within this point are subtle, but significant -- well, significant to those who are often denied consideration under the bludgeon of science/law. :boxing:


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

ThomasNeumann said:


> It's worth noting that the sentiment expressed, above, fails to comprehend the legitimacy of mental health conditions. That's not a 'dig' at the poster, rather, it's a critique of the sentiment.
> 
> …


I concur generally with your full post, however, I think the opening statement above misconstrued what the other poster meant. I think he was merely distinguishing between service animals and emotional support animals, not criticizing the legitimacy of either.


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

ThomasNeumann said:


> It's worth noting that the sentiment expressed, above, fails to comprehend the legitimacy of mental health conditions. That's not a 'dig' at the poster, rather, it's a critique of the sentiment.
> 
> Relatively few mental health conditions are, strictly speaking, 'diseases'. As such, the only means of detecting them, and differentiating between them, is the *combination* of professional assessment *and* self-reporting.
> 
> ...


You do me a profound disservice. The laws in both countries define persons with disabilities and service animals. The laws (at least in the US) create a distinction between service animals and emotional support animals. The service my dog provides as a seizure alert dog is categorised differently than the service an emotional support dog provides to an anxious passenger, legally. 

I stand behind the "sentiment" expressed, which is that I consider it fortunate that individuals who are not me do not get to decide whether or not I am sufficiently disabled to deserve a service dog. I can't tell you the number of times I've gotten side-eye walking through airports with my dog. The people who always manage to whisper just loudly enough for me to hear that they don't think there is anything "wrong" with me are always a treat.

As it stands currently, for flights within or to/from the US, airlines may not refuse an emotional support dog. However, they may demand medical certification of the need for one & they may charge a fee. That regime is in contrast to that for what the law considers service animals, for which neither certification nor fee may be required. You speak grandly about what is more ethical, but the truth is that the law often is not ethical.


----------



## Hound Dog (Jan 18, 2009)

I would rephrase that last sentence to propose that the individuals who compose the laws are not always sufficiently thoughtful or are often inequitable in the construction and application of statutes meant to designate status within any given community comprised of human beings. Since I live in poverty-stricken Chiapas where financial and political inequities are imposed by the privileged few through clearly inequitable and stubbornly enforced statutes meant to limit human freedoms and progress, must limit my distractions for your animals and I live with five dogs and two cats plus a skunk we feed on occasion.


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Hound Dog; said:


> I live with five dogs and two cats plus a skunk we feed on.


I know "tastes like chicken" LOL


----------



## ThomasNeumann (Nov 21, 2015)

ExpatEmigre said:


> You do me a profound disservice.


When I take issue with a sentiment, and I make it clear that I'm not taking issue with the person expressing it, it's impossible for me to do 'you' a disservice of any magnitude. Think about it 



ExpatEmigre said:


> I stand behind the "sentiment" expressed, which is that I consider it fortunate that individuals who are not me do not get to decide whether or not I am sufficiently disabled to deserve a service dog.


This is clearer to me than your earlier statement. I took that earlier statement to be a point against the legitimacy of self-reporting, and I responded by offering an implied defense of the legitimacy of self-reporting. It appears that I've misunderstood your earlier statement and, in turn, you've misunderstood the gist of my reply.



ExpatEmigre said:


> You speak grandly about what is more ethical, but the truth is that the law often is not ethical.


I do speak grandly of ethics. I consider them far more important points of interest than the charade that passes for jurisprudence by people who get paid enormous sums of money to play semantics, all the while presuming that they're serving the interests of 'justice' (a term that necessarily implies the significant role of ethics as a foundation for law).

In light of your most recent clarification, I believe our views are probably more similar than they are different.


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

Hound Dog said:


> I would rephrase that last sentence to propose that the individuals who compose the laws are not always sufficiently thoughtful or are often inequitable in the construction and application of statutes meant to designate status within any given community comprised of human beings. Since I live in poverty-stricken Chiapas where financial and political inequities are imposed by the privileged few through clearly inequitable and stubbornly enforced statutes meant to limit human freedoms and progress, must limit my distractions for your animals and I live with five dogs and two cats plus a skunk we feed on occasion.


I don't see it as a contest. The economic and political oppression of people isn't really influenced by my dog allowing me the inclusion and access I otherwise would be denied. Nor do I consider disability law or the rights it guarantees me to be mere distractions. It certainly isn't my intent to distract you.
Nonetheless, know that I applaud whatever steps you take to ameliorate the inequities you see among those around you. I do not believe it to be a zero-sum game.


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

I used the Columbia crossing. It was empty, aside from a family with a very large trailer completely overloaded with things in the parking area. The officials weren't crazy about me bringing my dog in. At one point, after sending me across the hall just for giggles, when I returned to get the FMM form to fill, the guy said I couldn't bring the "pet" in. When I said that he's a service dog, he just gave me the form & didn't say anything else. When I gave him my form & documents, he was nicer, and asked conversationally what the dog does. 

The copy lady kept trying to point to the sign on the window that says No Mascotas. She never really got that there's a difference between a pet & a service dog, but after I assured her I knew about the sign, she desisted. 

There was no one there from SAGARPA to process the animal importation paperwork. 

It was generally smooth sailing after that. Entering Durango state, there was a state policeman conducting some type of checkpoint. He looked at my TIP sticker, asked where I was headed, told me to have a good time at the beach, and complimented my dog--whom he said looked very happy.


----------



## MJD13 (Aug 11, 2014)

We cross at Nogales, AZ on a routine basis with our dog. We get our tourist cards and our car's TIP at K21. If, by chance, that is your border crossing, it shouldn't be a problem. The office for the tourist cards is small but friendly and, honestly, I can't imagine that they would challenge you with a well behaved dog on a leash. The area where you pay for the tourist card and arrange for the TIP is outside so no problems there.


----------



## ExpatEmigre (Nov 22, 2015)

MJD13 said:


> We cross at Nogales, AZ on a routine basis with our dog. We get our tourist cards and our car's TIP at K21. If, by chance, that is your border crossing, it shouldn't be a problem. The office for the tourist cards is small but friendly and, honestly, I can't imagine that they would challenge you with a well behaved dog on a leash. The area where you pay for the tourist card and arrange for the TIP is outside so no problems there.


I'm from the east coast, so I cross from Texas. Good info, though, for any west coast trips I might take.


----------

