Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Addressing the issues directly is often challenging. That is my guess on why we allow degenerate behavior to impose costs on others until it reaches epidemic proportions when we finally attempt to address it.
It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about.
Allowing the rudest people to abuse society degrades the public square and tears at the benefits that can strengthen the social contract. Sadly it seems to be a pretty dominate trait in our society these last few decades and it seems likely to just keep getting worse. Hopefully I am wrong.
It also encourages people to isolate themselves in
enclaves where people that share certain expectations
of behavior can shut out others and deal with those
that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever
behaviors the group cares about.
It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members.
This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF.
With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion.
Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them.
I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant.
I think history shows us that if it's easy for people to remain ignorant of others through cultural isolation, some subset will do so. I'm not against people carving out a cultural niche, but I think that the point we can use the word isolation to describe it, we have a problem. The problem isn't one direction, either. Cultural isolation can keep outsiders from understanding and tolerance as well, which leads to discrimination, which may lead to more isolation and reciprocated feelings towards the outside.
Case in point: Gays in the US. Acceptance of gays an gay marriage has increased DRAMATICALLY over the last decade in the US. Why? It is thought because people are starting to know gay people. Gay people are coming out and becoming visible. When you find out your neighbor or coworker or friend or even child is gay, your views of gays change. Suddenly they aren't the demonized other. In 1993 22% of Americans report having a close friend or family member who is gay. Now? 65%.
I also think social isolation leads to radicalization. When you start feeling its US vs THEM. It also leads to a loss of personal freedoms. One isn't free to integrate into a culture that is hostile to them and they lose that freedom of choice of lifestyle.
Like it or not, the US is a multi ethnic multi racial multi cultural place. I think even the majorty of countries have minority populations.
I don't think isolation of cultures is a good thing for a society.
I don't know. It seems like having mutually exclusive social norms together leads to tension between groups. Obviously both happen, and history is filled with examples of both.
"Look, we really don't want to look like a police state here, but there are about a trillion other places just a few steps away where you can sleep or beg, and where we will leave you the heck alone, so if you're unwilling to play well with passersby, we will have to physically move you."
[1] http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/BART-to-rous...
My personal opinion: I don't have nothing against dogs but I hate to hear them barking. I know that you can't completely control that but way many owners do not teach manners to their dogs and they are barking all the time.
Now before someone says "what's up with this guy expecting manners from dogs" I actually adopted two dogs last year and without prior experience I educated them really well. Now I'm pretty sure that a messy dog is absolutely the fault of the owner's behavior.
And you're right about the social contract. The damage that irresponsible owners are doing to society far extends the trivial situation of "that dog is making a lot of noise"; that thing easily becomes a "I hope the owner gets it back" and those collective feelings fuel a more hostile society in general.
0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrier
1. Dawn Antoniak-Mitchell, Terrier-Centric Dog Training: From Tenacious to Tremendous. http://www.amazon.com/Terrier-Centric-Dog-Training-Tenacious...
I don't know if shepherds are specifically prone to barking but I can tell you that my dogs were particularly prone to barking when I found them. They pretty much barked at anything, other people, other dogs, just because they were bored, etc... Ever since I got them I continuously chided them when they barked at inappropriate situations; around 2-3 months following this relatively simple treatment (sometimes as trivial as just yelling NO!) and their noise and anxious behavior has been reduced considerably.
I'm not saying they don't bark anymore, because they do, but when I'm in a situation where they start barking at someone at the street (for instance) my reaction is to immediately try to do something to make them stop and sometimes I even excuse myself with the people involved; I've seen many owners dealing with the same situation in a completely different way, even taking a defiant attitude, like in "you can't do anything, its not illegal for my dog to bark", this attitude is what pisses other people off.
It's not the dog barking, it's the owner not giving a shit; it's like seeing someone throwing trash on the street, the world's not going to end because of a can lying there in the sidewalk but a world where many people act in such manner is a world that's up to no good.
The other owners may not give a shit, some don't, but they may be intentionally acting like it's no big deal as part of a larger strategy of changing how their dog views certain situations.
Yes. Shepherds are especially prone to barking. They were trained to be, well, shepherds. This breed is used to guard sheep, not scare them. So they have to be quite and obedient to their owners.
Retrievers are also quite because they were used to retrieve game for a hunter. Those games may be just hurt and barking may scare them away. So the breeders were specifically select quite and obedient dogs to be retrievers.
Neither are things that a "good dog" wouldn't do or a "bad dog" would, they're both natural things that the dog can't help... ie. it's not the dog's fault it's shedding.
The problem is the owner that invites the situation.
It's just plain rude for the owner to think everyone else has to put up with their animal. I love animals, always have (since I was a kid I've never not owned a cat or dog, or both, sometimes multiples of both), but I would never think it sane to force my animal upon others, especially at a store.
You can't breed behaviors into dogs for 100+ years, and then claim it's the owners fault the dogs do it.
I'd believe some dogs you can get them to overcome their instincts, but even that is quite difficult.
It's absolutely fucking barbaric, and should be outlawed.
Now this animal, who was shocked into never using its vocal cords and antagonized until he bit a human or other animal out of desperation, gets put down because he is a danger to society. Job well done lads!
The dog also learns that aggressive responses are not so fantastic.
My own dog doesn't have one of these, mainly because we try to be very careful to manage how we respond to his barking. But if we couldn't keep up the late-night bark management, or if we lose control of the barking, I won't think twice about buying one of these. I've seen them used on other dogs and frankly they work just fine and are humane.
They're not humane, if you force a shock collar on another human it's legally considered a torture device. If the legal system used them it would be cruel and unusual punishment.
http://drsophiayin.com/blog/entry/are-electronic-shock-colla...
Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is not compatible with being humane. It's as simple as that. There are better solutions with fewer side effects for every use case of a shock collar. If not every single use case, the overwhelming majority of them. (edit: I didn't realize you were the one advocating using shock collars on a rescue dog that barks too much. A shock collar isn't even in the right ballpark in that case.)
Dominance and pain based training methods are outdated and based on debunked theories, in the past three decades almost the entire field of animal behavior has moved on.
My bigger problem was that it was not very effective at stopping barking.
I agree with you and the thing about "now they will bite without warning" is total bs. They somehow fail to see that if an owner cares enough to prevent his dog from barking they will, to a much greater degree, care that its dog will not harm to other people; quite the contrary, the type of guy that says "they're dogs, it's natural for them to bark" is the type of guy that later turns into a "they're dogs, it's natural for them to bite".
Interesting product anyway...
I don't agree. We had a dog who was absolutely hopeless. We took her to several professional dog trainers and spent many thousands on dog therapy to no avail. Just because you had a good experience with your two dogs doesn't mean that applies to all dogs.
You and I could exchange every kind of imaginable counterargument and nothing valuable would come out of it; the important thing is that people should (or learn to) live in a civilized environment and realize that their rights end where another people's start.
No, this is not about agreeing to disagreeing. Regardless if I'm lying or not you cannot use your anecdotal evidence to affirm a universal statement. You can falsify "no dogs can be educated", but that's it.
You're right in that you can usually tell by the parents reaction the type of person they are. My emotions adjust accordingly to that, but I do still hear from people how annoyed they are when a child acts out, regardless of the parents reaction.
You still need to do stuff in life and with children, doing stuff becomes substantially harder. I'd bet a lot of parents with kids who act out don't want to go to the store with them, but simply have to because they don't have better options.
1 - give in and give them candy or whatever it is they're screaming for. Shuts them up for the moment, but makes the problem much more likely to recur elsewhere.
2 - ignore them, or rather, pretend that they're not screaming. This is best in the long term, but obviously sucks for the short term. The worst is the sanctimonious looks you get from everybody because you're letting your children scream it out.
3 - punish them. This is just a variation on #1. They wanted attention, and now you're giving it to them. The difference is that it's much less likely to actually stop the screaming.
Of course, the worst of both worlds is starting out with #2 and then giving in to the sanctimonious looks and the screaming and doing #1 or #3.
While applying 1, 2, or 3 you should also work to find and ameliorate the root cause. Are they tired, hungry, bored or over-stimulated? The last two are particularly hard to tell apart. For instance in an airport it could be either (or both!) -- they're bored because they haven't been able to do anything "fun" but over-stimulated because they're shoved into an overwhelming new environment.
That's why shoving a tablet in their face is so effective -- it gives them something to do while simultaneously shutting out the outside world.
edit: I'm talking about preschool kids.
Is crossing the street against the light selfish? Yes, you're taking someone else's turn. No, you're just crossing the street.
Is peeing on a toilet seat selfish? Yes, you're ruining for everyone else. No, you don't want to touch that gross seat so you're not lifting it.
The media / culture in the west or at least USA relishes "break the rules" but that is often interpreted by some in ways that some would argue are selfish. Graffiti (is it street art or ruining someone else's property). Trespassing (is it just being harmlessly curious or invading someone's space or privacy). Returning things you used, as in buying a dress, wearing it to a party and returning it for a full refund. (Is it just being frugal or selfish?)
Everything is subjective, I agree, but I think everyone could be mature enough to discern the line between "I can't avoid doing this" and "I'm just being an ass". If most people were honest enough to just think "this is wrong, I'll refrain from doing it" we wouldn't even need laws in the first place.
The problem is not how subjective are the issues at hand, the problem is the attitude some people take when confronted with those issues. You can make extremely detailed laws that are designed to take into account every possible situation that may arise and still have someone study them well enough to discover a flaw and use that as a shield for, well, being an asshole. "Yeah the law says that I can't pee on toilets but I didn't pee on it, I just threw the pee there later from a bag. Gotcha!"
Usually people that work at night, how much noise they can make when they came back home early in the morning? What about people practicing music instruments? Can students party at night if they have neighbors, just once in a year? once in a month? Is it ok to bring a stroller in crowded areas? etc.
I don't think it's possible to give an answer to any of these questions that will get more than 60% agreement in any sufficiently diverse community, even given the full details of the situation.
I don't know if it is just me but I think perhaps we have gotten more individualistic in the past few decades and those questions would illicit different responses 40 years ago. Hitchhiking used to be common but now we are afraid strangers are going to kill us, even though the world is actually safer today. I even admit I am absolutely terrified of random stranger violence, irrationally. I know that if I were to become a victim of violence it would be far more likely to be someone I know who did it and not a random stranger on the street. Most people are not killers or serial rapists or muggers. Yet, I still can't shake the fear.
But you are right, those answers would very much vary between countries.
Those are my thoughts on the matter anyways, for what it is worth. (Probably not much :))
EDIT : if the downvoter can explain to me why, I would appreciate it.
Selfish, impulse driven, has massive impact on others while denying same, is a choice.
Being a dog owner, having been raised with dogs and other animals, I really don't want to see them in restaurants, grocery stores, or my doctors office. Pet stores, fine. On a plane in a carry on under the seat fine, roaming the isles no. The airplane problem is far too many people lie and declare them service dogs, something that to a point is lawful and airlines are loathe to challenge passengers over fear of suits. There should definitely not be service animals other than dogs. Emotional support animals should not be accorded the same treatment as those serving the blind.
The biggest burden on healthcare systems in the developed world is end-of-life care for people who are physically healthy but mentally unwell - a dementia patient might survive for ten or twenty years, requiring round-the-clock care.
Obese people, being much more likely to die relatively quickly while they're relatively young, represent much less of a burden on those healthcare systems than more healthy people do.
Obesity now contributes more to health costs than alcohol or smoking.
People are getting fatter quicker than they are getting older.
In the case of ESAs, every fix for this problem will be more work for people with service animals. The most popular fix I've heard of is a nationwide registry, but what kind of signup cost will there be? A service dog is already expensive, what if the additional signup is prohibitively expensive for those that really need it?
Another one I can think of is the disability pass I got the last time I went to a Disney theme park. The pass basically lets you wait like everyone else, just not in line (e.g. 100 minute wait for space mountain - sign up and just come back after 100 minutes to use the Fastpass line). It used to be a direct skip-to-the-Fastpass line, but it _seemed_ like it was abused too much so Disney changed the benefit, but not the way to get it. So the same rude people can still abuse it, but everyone else that needed it got screwed. Bonus points because people like me with no visible disability (wooohoo nerve damage in my legs) look like abusers to the average person.
Then there are the people that get pissed off that I would like to board a plane early because it's totally about me wanting overhead space for....the bag I checked... and it can't possibly be because I would like to minimize pain that drugs can't touch by not waiting in lines.
I don't think this is a particularly new problem. Some people just want all the nice things and have no respect for others.
You deserve high speed internet, you deserve a phone, you deserve pets, you deserve to take your emotional support llama with you... on and on and on... never do we hear, your rights do not supersede the rights and safety of others.
There are waiting lists, background checks, interviews, even the owners themselves are trained. There is nothing in the process of getting a service dog that is taken lightly.
EDIT: 6-9 months may be on the low side for training a service dog. This place does 9-12 months not including the initial physical/behavioral testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training
The "Emotional Support Animals" referenced in the article certainly are not receiving the training of a full-blown service dog.
A service animal may be an ESA, but not all ESAs are service animals. Also, the ADA specifically states that "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.".
The idea of the article is that, although some people with disabilities benefit from an untrained animal to the point that one wants to prevent others (e.g. landlords) from doing undue harm by not being accommodating at all, uncertainty about these provisions (not the provisions themselves!) are being abused by some egocentric pet owners.
This is very unfortunate for those with disabilities that really do need service animals. I'd put the ESA-abusers in the same class of people that use their relative's handicapped parking permit to get a better parking spot.
EDIT: Furthermore, there are only two species of animals that can be recognized as a service animal: dogs and miniature horses. There doesn't seem to be a species restriction on ESAs.
That being said, it wouldn't work if everyone exploited this loophole. And I think that the author--as brash as she was--shows how far this can be exploited.
What's to keep someone with an poorly behaving ESA dog from boarding an airplane? Nothing.
I'm all for ESA advocates getting together and coming up with a system to regulate them and ensure it's low impact, but printing off certificates from the internet isn't going to cut it.
I purposely live in places that are pretty lax about stuff like that, and one of the things I liked least about Silicon Valley is how horribly dog-hostile the housing market there is, though once you've got housing, there are, at least a few patio-equipped restaurants and coffee shops that are dog-friendly (not on par with an actual dog-friendly city like Austin, but liveable).
I am a dog lover. I own one dog and plan to adopt more in the future. But it's pretty ridiculous that people take advantage of this. Not everyone is a dog person, let alone comfortable with the number of animals this women used as ESA pets. It's unfortunate that there are actually people at such a state emotionally where they don't want to leave the house unaccompanied by their pets, but it's not exactly fair for everyone else who now has to potentially put up with their animal.
I have been to plenty of stores and restaurants that are dog friendly(some go so far as to have water bowls and treats around the establishment for them). It's neat and people going there know exactly what they are getting into. If I was at a movie theater and someone has a dog that freaks the fuck out every time there is ambient animal noise in a scene then I am not going to be happy. I have no expectations of any animals being at my local AMC theater, I don't see why a $200 dollar certificate allows that.
There are significant fines for businesses that refuse to accommodate legitimate service animals, so businesses are afraid to question if an alleged service animal is real or fake.
Otherwise, if the dog isn't housebroken or the owner can't control the dog's behavior, then you can kick them out but you have to allow the customer access to your services without the dog.
Does it really matter what the animal is? Abusing the rules with a dog is just as bad as abusing them with an alpaca.
Who cares if the person next to me at dinner has a pet snake? I know a guy who takes his pet parrot to the grocery store and the hardware store. It's a hoot. I took my former dog, an exceptionally mellow and adaptable doxie mix, on a plane flight (about 10 years ago) to see my parents. The passengers were generally glad for the diversion.
I do
A pet parrot can be a death treat to an elderly. Psittacosis kills a few each year, specially old people and children.
Pet reptiles are common reservoirs for Salmonella. You can be poisoned for Salmonella and when this bacteria enter a kitchen can be difficult to erradicate. A restaurant can be closed for this, so is a very abuse-prone field. For instance a dishonest owner of another restaurant only needs to pay an actor and his snake to move to some rival restaurant and sip his coffe each afternoon 7days for 3, 6 months or the time necessary to nuke it. All with the happy help and merry cooperation of this org.
A girl friend of mine had your father sit in a wheelchair for the rest of his life for a salmonella poisoning. He lost their job, their mobility, and their former life. Not, is not funny at all.
Some people are very allergenic to some pets, also. Other are phobic or just don't like pets. Is unfair to them to force to be near an animal when they were expecting instead a safe only-humans/dogs allowed area. I could also easily imagine a call for troubles if you put a big pink pig pet farting in a plane full of people of jew or muslim origin.
I'm not endorsing people abusing the system...I'm endorsing chilling out about dogs in "human" spaces. I understand there are valid concerns. Some people are allergic, and that's a thing we should try to be respectful of, within reason (i.e. if someone is allergic and says so, maybe move them or the animal to another location within the space). Some dogs are poorly behaved. Owners should be expected to be responsible for inappropriate behavior.
Anyway, my point was mostly that no one bats an eye at children being everywhere humans go, even though children can be unruly, disruptive, destructive, smelly, and dangerous, animals too. I like dogs. I want to live in a world where dogs are treated with reasonable levels of respect and aren't excluded unnecessarily from their families lives. (Humans have this really weird/unique relationship with dogs. They need us in ways that no other animal does. Whether it was ethical to breed that need into them over thousands of generations is not a useful debate to have, since we can't undo it...but, I believe that comes with some kind of responsibility.)
Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere, but I only use it for flying. When on the train, the dog resides in a backpack that meets the "carrier" qualification. I don't take her in restaurants or movie theaters like a huge douche.
Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope Nope.
This all makes no sense. If I buy a second seat, the size of the dog should not matter. Tiny dog in carrier is just as loud as big dog in carrier.
Toddlers fly for free and scream like fucking maniacs. 5 year olds buy a seat and scream and play iPad games on full volume.
My dog sits underneath the seat in front of me and doesn't move. I've had a 2 hour flight where people in my row did not know a dog was on the plane until we got off.
My dog's extremely well trained. She doesn't have breakfast on flight days, and I feed her a few ice cubes so she isn't crazy thirsty the whole trip. No chance of a mid-aisle poop, any more so than the old lady two rows up might. She doesn't bark, etc.
I do get that it's hard to have rules such as "your dog can fly with you if they aren't a huge fucking pain".
Two years ago tons of dogs were flying for free. Now you have to pay an extra $50 to have your doctor answer calls from the airline to confirm, and it's back down to where I rarely see another dog in the airport.
Doesn't the article specifically state the law only allows keeping an ESA in a residence that doesn't otherwise allow animals, and flying with them for free? The author explicitly states emotional support animals do not have the same rights as service animals, and you cannot bring your dog anywhere. People are just lead to believe so.
The people who bring out their animals in inappropriate places and allow them to do inappropriate things ruin it for everyone. Otherwise dogs wouldn't be a big issue.
Some people are abusing the law without taking other peoples considerations into account.
Have you considered getting a dog sitter, or pet hotel?
It's worth discussing whether the government should ban dogs from businesses that serve food. And it's worth discussing whether the regulations which essentially prevent businesses from validating a service animals papers (so to speak) should be relaxed. However, it seems that it's really a lack of understanding of the law when it comes to the difference between a trained service animal and a companion animal, not horrible government intervention.
I thought the key point here is that the government _doesn't_ force people to accommodate Emotional Support Animals at all, but many businesses don't know the difference between a Service Animal and an ESA.
If you have a dog you should have it with you all the time; they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. This means there are very few lifestyles that lend themselves to dog ownership. Farmers tend to make great dog owners, because the dog is fully integrated with the lifestyle.
The social problem is that a lot of pet owners conflate the needs of their pet with their own personal rights. "I own a dog," and "Dogs need to be with their owners," therefore "I should be able to take my dog with me everywhere." No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.
Get a second dog.
> No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.
How do you know dogs prefer to be put down than occasionally left to chill home alone?
Also "occasionally left home to chill" does not describe a typical domestic dog's life. More like "left at home all day, five days a week."
When you muddy the legal waters, you make it very difficult for your average Joe, who has no legal training, to protect themselves from legal abuses like those demonstrated in the article.
You're not going to stand up to assholes if you're afraid you might get sued for discrimination.
When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them.
In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies.
I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent).
In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.
For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??
Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is definitely NOT your house or home.
This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/urteil-vermieter-duer...
I don't think it is us vs them.
A few bad apples ruin the bunch.
There are people who just let their pets destroy their apartment because they can't be bothered to train them or even clean up after them. Landlords take the stance of that being an unnecessary risk to deal with potential propery destruction so they just say no pets because they perceive it as the less risky route.
This is the key statement: in NYC a large portion (perhaps even a majority) of the dogs that I encounter are poorly behaved and improperly trained.
Given how many 'bad apples' there are, I'm not surprised by blanket bans.
>The rights of anyone who has such an animal are laid out in two laws. The Fair Housing Act says that you and your E.S.A. can live in housing that prohibits pets. The Air Carrier Access Act entitles you to fly with your E.S.A. at no extra charge, although airlines typically require the animal to stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support rhinoceroses. Both acts stipulate that you must have a corroborating letter from a health professional.
So anywhere else these animals are it is not legal. It is different for service dogs that are trained for a specific purpose (i.e. blind people's dog)
> They defend the practice by saying [...] that Europeans gladly accept dogs everywhere.
I'd love to see them trying it in Europe :)
However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it really a trend ?
Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle that?
If I happen to sit next to a pet owner, can I claim that I'm allergic to it and this is a threat to my well being?
The same way people allergic to other things handle it. They do their best to avoid it and they keep an epi-pen on themselves in case they're accidentally exposed.
I was once at the Los Angeles airport, and a fellow passenger walked up to the counter and told the person there that they have an airborne peanut allergy, and to please announce that nobody in the concourse could eat nuts. The person behind the counter did so, but realistically, this did very little. Between the vast majority of people ignoring most announcements, and the literally thousands of people per hour coming and going from other areas in the airport and planes, there was no way you could keep everyone in the area from eating peanuts. It's on the person with the allergy to make sure they can safely go wherever they're going. You can't expect the rest of the world to magically know, or comply with procedures for your particular issues.
They piss off some of their customers and probably loose some profits.
Is it legal for places like Walmart (or Whole Foods as the authors mention) where food is served? The trained dog exception is understandable but animals in general are known to convey diseases, I'm surpised that these places are not legally required to forbid any other animals.
EDIT: Section 114259.5 of the California Retail Food Code says that "live animals may not be allowed in a food facility." But it makes exceptions not just for service dogs but for "pets in the common dining areas of restricted food service facilities at times other than during meals."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laz-dog-grocery-201410...
Does that bother anyone else? If you are petrified of dogs, you will (reasonably) pick housing that prohibits pets. Then someone comes in with an ESA dog?
Why do their rights trump yours?
Depends on the city. In the cities full of hipsters (NYC, Seattle, SF) it's a lot more common. In Waco, TX, no. Not really.
Get a big fat store kitty and buddy will lie in the window all day quietly if you must surround yourself in animals.
I also didn't realize how much people from the middle east despise dogs, there's stores some of my Kuwaiti and Saudi friends won't go into because theres a dog running around, and they consider dogs unclean barn animals. They won't even go into a coffee shop if somebody is in the line with a dog as they expect that place is unhygienic.
Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem.
But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.
Stability and growth are different things.
Not all couples need to have extra babies to have growth.
Why did you bring up growth?
As someone from Bangladesh, I have to say it's not quite so simple. Does the country need more people in general? No. Does it need more more parents to spend the time, money, and energy it takes to raise highly-educated kids that are going to be the backbone of the economy in a couple of decades, and to do that in Bangladesh instead of moving abroad? Absolutely!
So now somebody enters with their dog, lets it run around freely (!) and I have nowhere to go. Dogs are about the only things that reliably induce allergic asthma in me if exposure time is > 1 hour. So thankfully that rarely happens. But I get immediate massive hayfever symptoms. Sneezing 8 times in a row, runny nose like there is no tomorrow, itchy eyes, all that jazz.
I find it irresponsible of people to bring their pets into confined public spaces such as cafes and even more so of the owners to allow it. I like dogs a lot, sadly I cannot own one. But please don't bring it into a place like that for more than a few minutes. That's just my perspective.
Same reason I hate subway musicians btw. I mean the one inside the trains. You can't get away from them. You are forced to listen to them. Playing on the street? Ok with me, I can keep walking. But doing it in the train is rude beyond anything and I don understand why people put up with it.
Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK.
So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.
That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!
On the other hand, if you allow exceptions, such as different handling of "public places", even privately owned, if you accept regulation that limits the exclusive authority of the owner to exclude anybody they wish for any reason, then you have to be consistent and have some rules that would guide such regulation, and then what would be your reason to exclude people with (well-behaved) animals accompanying them, not infringing on anybody? "I don't like them, and that's enough" wouldn't cut it anymore - not unless you agree to go all the way. I would prefer the former approach, but it's not the world we live in now, so either we strive for that world, or we go with one we have now, but we can't do both at once.
Also, regardless of that, I think it is important for people to be a bit more accommodating to each other even if nobody forces you to. Let's assume you have full right to kick out every person with a dog out of your place of business. Why should you? Do they make any trouble? Every one of them, always? If not, why would you assume they are troublesome before any sign of trouble appears? Why not instead show some kindness and politeness and give people and dogs a chance to be good? If they don't, you can always kick them out later (ok, on the plane you can't but that's rather exceptional situation, in most situations resolution is very easy).
Err... this didn't work out too well in the past, which is why now I can't put up a sign in my store that says "No Mexicans." Or as a landlord I cant say "I only rent to whites." These regulations didn't arise out of nowhere...
I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. Other than food establishments it is generally the owner's choice to allow animals ot not. Most people just don't allow animals. You can bring your dog to PetsMart.
It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act.
Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law.
Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.
> Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people.
Well, what we're talking about is pet ownership by humans as the protected class. I don't think anyone was thinking of forcing employers to not discriminate again non-human animals.
> Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go.
Perhaps, but I suspect most people who bring their misbehaving dogs everywhere do think they have the right. If your argument is that anything which the majority of the population believe should be a protected, should indeed be a legally protected class, that's a reasonable proposition, but I think you'd find the list of legally protected classes would be a lot different than it is today.
They can be. They aren't because no US law has been passed to protect them. It hasn't because pets don't belong everywhere nobody wants businesses to not be able to tell someone to leave because their dog won't stop barking.
>But why should it be hard?
Because these people are abusing a law designed to protect disabled people because they can't excersize enough common sense and common curiosity to know what is appropriate and what is not. People who lack such common sense are surely more likely to have misbehaving animals. If everyone made rational choices with their well behaved animals then dogs wouldn't even be banned in the first place.
You want your emotional support animal to be able to go everywhere with you? Fine. I have no problem with that as long as you get the animal (and you) trained as much as ever other disability dog.
I also don't see why it's "better" in some objective or universal sense. A "preference" is already a feeling that one thing is better than another, so it's weird to talk about one preference being better than another, at least without some overarching goal like maximizing equality or maximizing utility.
Hardly.
One - liability. Your insurance may prevent you from allowing dogs. Or may up your premiums.
Two - risk. Is there a risk letting a pet in? Yea. The risk it will bite, be loud, shit/piss on the floor, or annoy other customers or carry disease. Many businesses feel this is an unnecessary risk with not much benefit.
Very few people are irrationally fearful of animals. Businesses are just risk adverse. Theres can be a lot of cost and not much benefit.
>But absent such matters, and other problems like obvious disturbing behavior
People don't bother training their dogs or using common sense and curiosity. If they did this wouldn't be an issue, dogs could just come and go in appropriate places. Since people won't do that we have the majority of businesses who don't care to have them on the premises.
Ever heard of the expression "this is why we can't have nice things?"
But you are 100% free to go open up your own non food establishment and invite all the animals you want in.
http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Co...
To paraphase the saying, we will go out not with a bang but with a whimper, when people have their ESA animal taken away from them.
That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth.
Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate in the cargo section?
The argument that the paper made, and I quote "I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans.", emphasize the first half of the sentence (sidenote: the claim shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that know about Singer's utilitarian stance, he's super consistent in being an utilitarian :-) ). He isn't saying that pets is equal to human in moral status, he's saying that the difference shouldn't be explained just by species.
I felt that the context of the claim "Pets != humans" meant that the commenter was claiming more than just the bare bones of that statement.
I interpreted my parent comment as dismissing the grandparent comment by saying that pets are not in the same 'moral class' as humans, without further justification.
It was this (probably imaginary, I now realise) distinction that I was trying to provide an alternative point of view for.
Sorry for attacking a straw man.
I have read Singer, yes.
I say this as a dog owner who understands the love for a pet and how devastated I would be were anything to happen to her. Those people need help. Pets aren't humans. There is no comparison with a human baby whatsoever. People who think the two are equal are emotionally stunted.
This is why pets aren't allowed in grocery stores. Yesterday, I counted 5 dogs inside another local grocery store. Some of them may have been legitimate emotional support dogs (although none of them appeared to be service dogs), but surely the others were just people behaving badly.
As an European: wat ?