Dogs in public spaces

[BSB30]

This is a continuation from the thread below talking about dogs in public spaces, particularly whether disabilities or allergies should take priority over people wanting to bring their dogs into public spaces.

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

This, basically. If a well behaved and quiet dog is a problem to someone in a place where dogs are allowed, then that is a problem they need to address themselves, and not expect the dog owner and dog to be removed.

You don't need to write allergies with a " " tone as if it's an alleged thing. People do suffer from allergies every day to lots of things, some of which can affect their quality of life and/or be life threatening.

Thinking back to what @Fourteenhouses said in the other thread, I think if it was me in there with the dog being asked to leave, I would weigh up each persons situation. For example, does it cause more distress for me to stay and would be leaving really be that much of an inconvenience? Although I wouldn't have appreciated being forced to leave when I had done nothing wrong, I would in this scenario put the child first as he can't control his reactions and I wouldn't like to see any child in that amount of distress. Im generally a reasonable person though so if someone had asked me nicely and explained the situation, I would have understood and been completely happy to leave. It all depends on how it's done and how people are asked.

With regards to allergies, I admit that the thread has educated me on this issue. As I don't have any allergies myself, it's not something I have ever really thought about. Again, if someone politely explained this to me then I would be more than happy to move away from them. It's the nastiness and people demanding to get their own way that gets my heckles up and it doesn't make anyone want to do anything to help.

I personally wouldn't take my dog to indoor places as I do understand others don't like them. That's in no way meant as judgement to people who do take their dogs in places though as some people really do need their dog with them for a variety of reasons.

You expect a public place to cater to your needs and just happen to be lucky enough that someone has decided to legislate in your favour. I had a dog that I organised my life around, only going camping etc, thankfully dog friendly pubs are still in rural places.

I did think this, although I'm more than happy to accommodate someone with a guide dog like most people would. But the irony of someone saying it's unreasonable to expect public space to cater to your needs when they rely on public space to cater for theirs...

Allergies do come under the 2010 equality act. People just don't realise they do.

You clearly have no concept of how severe allergies can be.

I have read the previous thread and the entitlement of people with “service” dogs is outrageous. There really should be a register of “service” dogs, a record of their training and a log of how their training progressed, there should also be a final assessment of owner and handler and these assessments should be ongoing during the lifetime of the dog. There needs to be some sort of governing body to oversee these “service dogs”. I certainly have no issue with guide dogs, deaf dogs or any dog that has paperwork to prove that they assist with disabilities. Unfortunately, there is no legality for this so anyone can claim that they have a “service” dog…

From earlier in the other thread JustLurking...
"dessyh
Angelo

"His needs should be met by YOU. Not the random cafe owner who had to turn away paying customers who probably won’t go back again after you made him unceremoniously kick them out.

I hope you spent a lot of money to make up for it… I mean really, what if customer after customer had turned up with dogs? Would you have made him turn them all away, just because you lacked the foresight to ask if it was a dog friendly establishment before you went in?"

Scary lack of empathy for a person with severe disabilities. The poster IS meeting son's needs by standing up for his rights. Not every cafe trip is planned. The idea of having to ask if an animal comes before a human with a severe disability .

This 'what if customer after customer turned up...' so what. Cafe loses £50. But those many dog owners didn't turn up in that probably half hour the pp was there. Just like cafe owner wouldn't tell an elderly person languishing over a cream tea to get a move on because they're taking up a table that a big group could use.

Also getting mother-bashing vibes on this thread where them looking out for their kids is 'entitled' but people who want to take animals into eateries aren't."

So what if my hypothetical severely autistic child comes in with their emotional support dog that they can't do without? Whose needs win here? In both case we have people with disabilities with conflicting needs.

Another hypothetical customer...unsure of point you're trying to make. Second customer would leave as the first is already settled in the cafe!

Actual scenario is should human disability/distress come above human desire to take animal into enclosed space. This what if...is which human disability/distress "wins"? Obviously the carer of the disabled person who has walked in would appreciate the first disabled person is sat and settled - and leave!

I don't know what the answer is but dogs are allowed in public places so the rest of us have to find a way to deal with it.

One answer is to deal with it on a case by case basis placing humanity, empathy and respect for customers with disabilities above customers who want their animals to eat with them. Sure plenty of people who want their pets with them in cafes will understand this.

@LouBaloo They could potentially display their licence or certificate on their hi vis jacket that guide dogs wear and other dogs that are needed could wear something similar?

@dessyh I would completely understand it and I wouldn't want to cause anyone distress if I'm honest. Not when it would be fairly simple for me to go elsewhere or come back later.

As the pp in the other thread explained towards the end of the thread about her sons potential violence/aggression, I think she more likely panicked with the situation as was desperately trying to make sure an even worse scenario did not present itself. Although saying that, I think I would be very cautious to take dc out alone if this was the case just in case he needed protecting from harming himself or others.

I would be all in favour of legit trained and registered service dogs having some sort of identification that gives them the rights to access spaces where dogs are not normally allowed. I can buy a service dog vest of ebay, so some sort of evidence for the real ones that have real rights would be good.

I have never taken my dogs to a cafe but these threads have reminded me there is one that has special treats for dogs that I have meant to try. I won't be moving for anyone when there. I will keep my dogs in the outdoor area and sit at the edge, out of the way. The cafe in question has two dog free indoor areas for anyone who wants to avoid dogs, so I don't feel I need to accommodate anyone who objects. They have somewhere to go.

The other thread has also made me aware kids could come and hassle my dogs. I will ask them to leave the dogs alone after a few seconds pat. If they persist, maybe I need to tell the parents the very friendly dog isn't friendly if someone gets in their face, to convince them to parent their child who shouldn't be hassling other tables anyway.

@Brefugee has it!
If cafes let dogs in they should be under control and no nuisance to other customers.
If someone has a severe allergy or phobia then they should not visit a dog friendly cafe, or if they do and an under control dog arrives then THEY should leave.
In the case the pp described in the cafe, if I could see a dog was distressing a child I'd probably offer to sit far away or outside even. If the parent asked nicely and explained I might change my plans. But if they told me to leave or asked the cafe owner to do so, I would not be so obliging.
However parents of loud and badly behaved kids should do the same.

She did the right thing and put her son's needs above a new customer who wanted animals to join the space already inhabited by a person with disabilities.

Her son with autism and potential for aggression/violence when faced with extreme distress - which is from fear of confined spaces with dogs - should not be kept inside in case pet owners can't be understanding about that!

@dessyh Oh absolutely shouldn't have to be kept inside. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was implying that. I meant maybe an additional carer or family member with her for support in case her son became violent through his fear.

Exactly and the tabards etc could be colour coded, I think Dogs for the Deaf are purple? I know if I see a guide dog I give the dog and the handler lots of space to allow the dog to its job whereas an unmarked dog I raise my eyebrows at tbh. I’m not for one moment saying the people should advertise their disabilities but it would would help the public to know to give space. Unfortunately there’s lots of people who purchase these tabards on eBay or Etsy for dogs that aren’t professionally trained though and they pass them off as service dogs.

We have one idiot in an Asda near us that takes her yappy Jack Russell type dog in and screams at the staff when they challenge her that it’s a service dog. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Surely if a service dog yaps, barks and runs around on the end of a lead it’s not doing a job.

No need to apologise.

Sure she/others would love such additional support but it's not always possible. Alternative is staying inside, in case pet owners who turn up after them aren't understanding about distressing disabilities.

From some of the comments above, it's clear at least some of you don't realise that severe allergies are a disability. It's not the case that all people with assistance dogs are disabled and all people with allergies are not. In fact, emotional support dogs may not belong to a disabled person at all, given their use is completely unregulated.

Getting a guide dog is difficult, and people who have them genuinely need them. I think in the scenario of a person with a guide dog and a person with severe allergies, the person with a guide dog trumps the person with allergies. This is because the person with allergies (unless they have any other disabilities) can make alternative travel arrangements more easily.

I think this gets trickier when it comes to a person with an emotional support animal and a person with severe allergies.

Guide dogs generally provoke a much milder reaction than some other animals, as their breed has been chosen specifically and thoughtfully. Emotional support animals can be any breed at all, including long-haired animals that shed copiously. They can also be a 'nice to have' rather than essential. When it comes to someone with allergies, well, their continued ability to breathe is quite essential, and I think trumps the wants of the person with the emotional support animal in many circumstances.

The real problem is that anyone can claim an animal as an assistance pet. There needs to be some form of regulation, so only certain animals/breeds can be designated as emotional support animals. There needs to be a specific harness and/or identification available, and a doctor needs to confirm the need for the animal.

Until we get regulation, the minority of people who actually need an emotional support animal will not get taken seriously, and people with guide dogs will have their rights questioned. It's not a good situation for anyone.

I think it's OK for private businesses to decide whether they're dog friendly or not (obviously making an exception where there is a medical requirement), but public transport needs to be protected adequately. No one with disabilities should find themselves unable to use public transport because of their disabilities.

Ok,
Putting on tin hat...

In reality, very, very few people with disabilities have any real need for a service dog.
It is a vastly overinflated phenomenon, driven mainly by people who like dogs and want to create a role for them.

👏👏👏 exactly. I feel so much empathy for anyone who needs a service dog to be able to live day to day with the aid of a trusted dog when there’s so many other people insisting their pet is a service dog. My cousin is registered blind and her dog gives her independence when her DH is at work, she can get out and about instead of being stuck in the house, she can collect her children from school, go shopping etc.

Are you serious?!

Would you like to say that to all the blind or partially sighted people who rely on guide dogs? All the people with hearing problems who rely on hearing dogs for the deaf etc etc?

Or don't you care about them because you don't have those disabilities and you don't like dogs?

“Ok,
Putting on tin hat...
In reality, very, very few people with disabilities have any real need for a service dog.
It is a vastly overinflated phenomenon, driven mainly by people who like dogs and want to create a role for them.”

It’s not a tin hat you need, it’s a dunce. What an offensive and untrue statement. Dogs take years to train, it costs thousands, and there are waiting lists. Worrying one idiot agrees with your batshittery.

If you have an allergy, making the source leave will not stop the allergy because the dander is in the air. I’m allergic to cats, anywhere a cat has been. Doesn’t matter if the cat leaves. I wouldn’t go to cat cafe and demand the cats leave.

The fourteen horses thread may have been a concocted scenario. Nobody has proof. None of you were there. It was next level entitlement. The argument was “my disability trumps yours”. “It depends who got there first, as to who should leave”. “My child comes first, no matter what”. Let me choose to go somewhere dog friendly and all dogs must leave.
If you were allergic/phobic, you would check. It would be easier. What a way to get through life, demanding what you want and then coming on a public forum to say “got what I wanted”. I’m sure the story changed half way through too, but irrelevant.

There’s no live and let live, it’s all me, me, me. With some posters suggesting dogs shouldn’t leave the house. Just in case someone is scared, allergic, needs to clutch their pearls over something. Dog friendly establishments wouldn’t exist if the demand wasn’t there. Go to Funky Monkeys if you need a dog free, child only zone.

Wonder what todays anti dog thread will bring, perhaps we can have a vegan dog owner causing chaos eh?

That's my sort of bus journey!

Agree - and the sam should apply to children (and adults, for that matter)

I'm allergic to pollen, but I'm not expecting trees or flowers to move...

Don't you mean ou are "allergic" to pollen?

There’s no live and let live, it’s all me, me, me.

Mainly from dog owners on the other thread TBH.

If someone has a severe allergy or phobia then they should not visit a dog friendly cafe, or if they do and an under control dog arrives then THEY should leave.

Which is why a notice on the door would help. Someone with a severe dog allergy could go into a cafe where a dog had been 5 minutes previously and not know it was dog friendly, then react to the dander in the air.

Exactly and the tabards etc could be colour coded, I think Dogs for the Deaf are purple?

I'm not sure the dog owner would want everyone to know why they had a service dog, just that it is a service dog there to support the owner.

Surely if a service dog yaps, barks and runs around on the end of a lead it’s not doing a job.

It clearly isn't a trained service dog then.

Would you like to say that to all the blind or partially sighted people who rely on guide dogs? All the people with hearing problems who rely on hearing dogs for the deaf etc etc?

It's pretty obvious to me that they weren't referring to people with a genuine need for a service dog. You are projecting.

Some people are abusing the system plain and simple.

or this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64836739