Колумнист жестко против допуска домашних животных в общественный транспорт Ирландии

Michael Moynihan: Animals do not belong on public transport. End of discussion People can show they truly know you by matching you with something already out in the world, which I offer as context for a message I received on Tuesday. It linked to a story in this newspaper: NTA proposes allowing dogs, cats and small pets on public transport. As reported here by Sean McCarthaigh: “The NTA (National Transport Agency) has proposed that small dogs, cats and other small animals that do not threaten passenger safety may travel on bus, rail and Luas services. “They would not be allowed on seats and must remain on their owner’s lap or on the ground without obstructing other passengers or passageways. Animals would also have to be kept away from other animals.“ I am on the record as opposing the idea of dogs in public spaces such as coffee shops and supermarkets, and I hereby extend my opposition to public transport also. This proposal must be the most moronic to surface in some time, even in a field as crowded as Irish public policy. Read More However its proponents see this operating in real life, anyone with the remotest acquaintance with actual animals, not idealised creatures or fairytale characters, will be able to conjure up a mental picture or two. Imagine yourself trapped on a crowded No 208, with a dog staring at you, unblinking, vibrating slightly with suppressed ferocity, clearly measuring the foot-and-a-half separating you and it, oblivious to its owner, oblivious to everything but you, your exposed throat, your vulnerable skin, until the very moment when a distracted passenger stands down hard on its tail... Or you are on the train to East Cork after a hard day at work, dealing with all the grotesquerie modern life has to offer, and to soothe yourself, you think about the square of Green and Black's in your coat pocket. Unfortunately, when you slide your hand into that pocket, you get a sudden, sharp pain in your fingers: When you withdraw your hand, a large rat is dangling from your thumb. "Oh, Roland," says the owner of the vermin, sitting next to you. "There you are." One more? It’s a cold winter’s evening, but the Luas is bearing you to Heuston Station, and soon you will be riding the iron horse south to civilisation, with the stations whipping past — Thurles, Charleville, Mallow... Ding dong: Heuston. You spring into action, ready to disembark, and find your foot sliding in something runny, brown and smelly on the floor of the carriage. A haughty Persian cat on a nearby seat looks away, its owner pursing her lips as if to say it's all your own fault: You weren’t watching your step. This proposal is one of the all-time markers of national delirium, but we may need clarification just once more for some of the deluded: these are animals. An-im-als. They do not belong on public transport for a variety of reasons, which I am happy to spell out here. For one, readers may have noticed a story last week about public transport that outlined dozens of instances of staff being abused and assaulted. People have attacked those staff members, spitting on them, striking them, ignoring requests to stop smoking, drinking, taking drugs... Which raises the obvious question: If you can’t get passengers to behave themselves, how are you going to police the animals the passengers have with them? Another reason: Granting permission for animals to travel on public transport is an affront to public health. You may be drawing the reflexive conclusion that this will apply to dogs for the most part — a point to which I will return — but that is lazy thinking. How would you like to travel next to someone who’s brought their pet goat? Their pet spider(s)? A small cow? Three lizards? A diseased budgie? The very best of luck to the Irish Rail employee who contests a passenger’s assertion that his or her three chickens are all pets. More drawbacks: I note that support for the measure cites the “importance of travelling with pets for inclusion and wellbeing”. Interestingly, people who travel with animals out of necessity are not quite as supportive. As Sean wrote: “The Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind offered qualified support but cautioned that general pet access would need to be tightly enforced because uncontrolled dogs could undermine a guide dog partnership. “The National Council for the Blind opposed extending access to household pets on grounds of safety, hygiene, noise and conflict between animals.” I suppose the people who have a real, demonstrable need to bring guide dogs onto trains and buses just need to learn to accommodate others who need to bring their pets along for the sake of inclusion. Another point: This story emerged from a public consultation process earlier this year, which received 2,567 submissions in total. To which I can only say: This is what transport funding is being spent on? Last, but by no means least, a delicate point. It is more likely than not that this scheme is intended for dogs, for the most part. There may be cats involved, and I see no reason why a baby hippopotamus could be denied access to a train based on the provisions as they stand, but it’s about dogs, isn’t it? Speaking as a former and long-time dog owner, I must draw other dog owners’ attention to another inarguable point. Your dog is a loving companion and a great asset, (probably) good-humoured and friendly, a paragon of loyalty. But your dog is not a person. Your dog does not have an entitlement to be in places and spaces that belong to people. It should not be in a coffee shop or a supermarket, and should certainly not be on public transport. Because it is an animal. I know you think of it as a member of the family. When you come home, it looks up at you with those eyes and everything is better. But your dog is an animal. It may come as a surprise to you to learn some people are afraid of dogs, or are not interested in dogs, or actively dislike dogs. And those people are entitled to use coffee shops and supermarkets — and buses and trains — without having to deal with dogs, because those are facilities for humans. I have discussed this on radio in the past and once sank to the observation that suiting human facilities to pets was a case of the . . . tail wagging the dog. Forgive me. If you let animals on public transport like this, it is opening the floodgates. Then it is only a matter of time before some clown sues to let their dog sit up front with the driver, for instance, because Spot or Fido is being discriminated against. And then it’s off to the High Court to let Spot or Fido drive the train altogether. You have been warned.