For being annoyed I was asked to stand on a bus because of dog allergies?

[anywayhereswonderwall]

I went to visit a friend in London today and I took my dog. It's worth noting she is a mini poodle, and hypoallergenic, and well behaved. You can barely even tell she's there. I got on the bus as part of my journey. It was the middle of the day so there were a few empty seats (but not loads).

I got on and sat down, and the woman a few rows behind me said 'can you move , I have a dog allergy'. I apologised and moved a few rows forwards, the furthest forwards I could go and still get a seat.

She then shouted forwards 'not far enough, you're going have to stand at the front'.

I was confused, but did it. I spent the rest of the 35 minute journey standing right at the front of the bus while the woman was 3/4 of the way along, sitting.

I did what she said for the journey, but when I got off I felt annoyed and I'm not sure if I'm justified.

I like dogs that are well behaved, not really ‘funny’ at all, hardly a conspiracy, presumably we don’t all live in the same place.

A bus is a very public place and dogs are allowed. What if several people get on with dogs? It's up to the sufferer to take care of their own health. I wouldn't have stood for the duration of the journey!

So would I.

I mean, if you want to get technical about it, children are animals - human animals. Human animals have rights that non-human animals do not. That’s partly because of an arrogant centuries-long belief held by human animals that non-human animals are out property, and partly because the legal system has only two categories of thing - legal persons and things which are not.

Some non-human animals are protected from being killed, which you could see as a right to life in some respects. Not dogs, obviously.

I’d be well up for legal personhood for non-human animals.

Exactly.

What if it was a service dog? Does someone who is blind (with their large dog) still have to stand next to the driver? Ridiculous.

Poodles are non-shedding, so unlikely to provoke an allergic reaction. Most service dogs are labradors, retrievers or german shepherds and they shed like billy-o.

I can promise you that during lock down my local Wagas clearly stated they could no longer cater for allergies and removed their online allergy menu. There was uproar on various fb coeliac groups I’m on so don’t think it was just my branch. No idea about the legality.

Exactly. It's on you @Fourteenhouses to manage this if there's a risk that he will attack people. Should be 2:1 already. It's a horrid situation for you and I empathise, but there will always be dogs, and your son will keep growing and getting stronger, so the situation needs to be managed.

"the issue here is that people genuinely think a pet dog has more rights than a disabled child and that’s batshit" -@Fourteenhouses

Reasonable adjustments are there so that the person with the disability can access the service, place or whatever but not necessarily to the detriment or exclusion of others.

It isn't a case of the dog having more rights than a child - that's a very polar, antagonistic way of looking at it.
Of course your child has a right to a reasonable adjustment but this isn't necessarily at the cost of excluding someone else.
Your child's rights are equal to everyone else's but not necessarily greater than everyone else's.

We don't know enough about the cafe in question, as to what reasonable adjustments might have been possible or realistic in the legal sense. (Not that I'm suggesting anyone delves into that now) but it isn't a given that you were "right", even though you got your way.

I completely understand that when you have a child with autism, you have to advocate from them repeatedly. But may I gently suggest that most situations are not an "either/or", and someone having their rights/needs met doesn't necessarily mean that your child's go unmet.

@Goldenbear not a conspiracy, no. But I do think people tend to exaggerate in order to make their points more valid.
It's the same on all dog related posts.
Many posters can't leave their houses without having multiple dogs jumping all over them every time they so much as walk near a grassy patch, and have to practically swim through rivers of dog mess that has been left on pavements.
And as I said earlier, I've never encountered anyone IRL that feels as venomous towards dogs as many posters on mumsnet.

If it was that serious why was she on public transport. I wouldn’t have done what she asked, moving once is fine and respectful but she was really pushing her look. She caught you off guard and now you’re annoyed at not standing up for yourself, id be exactly the same.

@DrMeredithGrey2023 I agree. I don't actually like dogs but I don't bump into them the way MNetters do. They're always sending toddlers flying like skittles as well. Never seen that happen but it's a daily occurrence for some...

It's the hyperbolic language from the dog haters that makes it hard to care about what they're saying.

How exactly would that work then. ‘Non-human animals are our property’, isn’t a pet dog seen by most as their ‘property’? It is a pet, you own it and it hasn’t made a choice to be at the beck and call of its owner, who it lives with, what it eats, where it goes. How exactly can dog owners argue that it is ‘not’ owned by them, that it is with them through choice?

By law, any food that is sold that contains any of the 14 major allergens must be clearly labelled or made available. Foods prepacked for direct sale must have it written on the packaging/label, and loose foods must have the information available either through written or verbal communication. This comes under Natashas Law.

I doubt they were serving food that didn't contain these ingredients, especially milk, eggs, and cereals containing gluten. If this is the case then that's shocking!

My favourite is the use of the words mutt, scruffy, smelly, ugly and slobbery, as if a dog owner will break down and weep over a random stranger insulting our pets.

And it's always 'Fido'

How many dogs are actually name Fido now? Would love to see the stats 🤣

I hate dogs being everywhere, especially in eating establishments, but you really can't take your allergic son with autistic-related fear of dogs to a dog friendly cafe and then expect dog owners to leave for your son. Your entitlement is off the scale. Take your son to a cafe which isn't explicitly dog friendly if he can't be around dogs. Sorry, but you just can't behave like that.

It is hay fever season. At the moment in my family medication is not coping so it is not just a case of 'take your medication' sometimes. The swelling eyes and flu like symptoms are rife this year at the moment here. We also have to be very mindful of going places allowing dogs.

It might well have implications for pet ownership, yes.

The difficulty is particularly evident with dogs, which have now been socialised by humans to such a degree that it's difficult to envisage a way in which they could live with humans and not be considered property.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting idea. Huge ramifications, obviously.

I would have been tempted to tell her F off and if she’s allergic to move herself away.

thankfully not dogs but my daughter has a severe cat allergy so I get how severe allergies can be but she had no right to boss you around.

what would she do if a guide dog got on board?

@Goldenbear
Still no apology for accusing me of ableism.
You are a thoroughly disgusting person.

Absolutely right

‘No sorry a child with disabilities comes first.’

Fear of dogs isn’t a disability. This common and fixable childhood trait is parented out.

Usually.

Slight exaggeration? According to https://asthma.net/living/face-masks, who conducted actual research on this, the majority seem to feel that wearing a mask is helpful. And there are plenty of reports of benefits from filtering out the asthma triggers....

And it's always "fur babies". MNnetters are the only ones who insist that dog owners refer to their dogs in that way - I've never heard it in real life.

I didn’t accuse you of ableism, I stated that you were referring to children as feral which you did, you have.