« Famous economists' famous errors | Main | Are health insurance markets competitive? »
Some do, some don't
Some people enjoy running into an occasional primate or farm animal while shopping. Many others don’t.
That's from The New York Times. This very interesting article is about the growing debate over the role of service animals in public places. I hadn't known that parrots were being used to help medicated bipolar patients negotiate public situations. In case you didn't know, I would enjoy running into an occasional (non-human) primate or farm animal while shopping. Not that I ever have.
I thank John De Palma and Michelle Dawson for the pointers.
Addendum: On service animals here is much more.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 2, 2009 at 07:14 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I encountered this once at the zoo of all places. The woman in front of me had a tiny monkey climbing over her shoulders and head. The zoo didn't want to let her bring it in (concerns about it getting loose and getting hurt/eaten by something, as well as diseases). The woman didn't have any disabilities--and admitted this--but raised a fuss based on it being a companion animal.
They finally let her in. I crossed paths with her a few more times that afternoon, and people kept thinking that she was a zoo employee who brought out an animal for people to pet and play with. She kept having to explain it to everyone, meanwhile the monkey just looked terrified and confused and kept pulling on her hair.
Posted by: Sviluppo at Jan 2, 2009 8:19:06 AM
Last night, one of the Encore channels in my area ran "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes." Be careful what you wish for. ;)
Posted by: meter at Jan 2, 2009 8:50:50 AM
Last time I looked the shops were full of primates. Maybe I need spectacles?
Posted by: Stu at Jan 2, 2009 9:02:11 AM
The problem I have with this isn't if this animal is a service animal or companion animal or whatever. It is when someone owns a business and loses property rights to someone who is "disabled" and their pet. If I own a shop and don't want animals in my shop they can either check their animal at the door or go somewhere else. There was something like this that happened a few years ago in my home town where a lady's hearing ear dog was not allowed to come into a nail saloon. The owner was allergic to dogs however the lady still sued.
Here's another question. The one lady in the article had a seeing miniature horse which is allowed on planes. So do we let any service animal on planes? If I have an elephant that guides me around should it be allowed on the plane? If I am not accommodated can I sue Delta?
I don't have any problem with disabled people trying to better themselves, just when they use the ADA to bully other people to do so. Can't we all just use our comparative advantages instead of the evil coercion of the ADA???
Posted by: stickrouse at Jan 2, 2009 9:07:57 AM
I would prefer not running into as many primates while shopping.
Posted by: libfree at Jan 2, 2009 9:34:58 AM
The NYTimes also had a real winner in yesterday's article about the suicide of that French Madoff victim:
"Suicide is the most intimate of acts, and no one can know exactly what Mr. de la Villehuchet was thinking as he decided to take his own life."
I guess they have a different definition of "intimate" than I do.
Posted by: Virtual Memories at Jan 2, 2009 10:05:27 AM
I'd like an chimp bodyguard, a la trunk monkey, to protect me from ad hominid attacks.
Put enough chimps at keyboards and you could win every argument.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 2, 2009 10:46:09 AM
I just can't get upset about this. The guide horse seems like a no-brainer, economically, due to their long-life span. The monkey for the paralyzed, same thing. Would anyone object if they were using horse-like robots? Nope. I'm going to put this "controversy" down to people seeking a justification for deep bias against the disabled.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Jan 2, 2009 11:09:41 AM
Or possibly, deep bias against animals.
Posted by: neil at Jan 2, 2009 12:16:37 PM
There are soooo many asshats where I work - I would very much like a tiger to help reduce
stress and comfort me (eat asshat tiger ;)
Posted by: fresnodan at Jan 2, 2009 12:26:30 PM
I'd give up my arms and eyes for a helper monkey riding a guide horse. Of course, then I couldn't see it.
Posted by: Nate at Jan 2, 2009 12:27:43 PM
ALl I could think of was the parrot guy meeting the horse lady.
"#$%^ you and the horse you rode in on!"
Posted by: 8 at Jan 2, 2009 1:20:18 PM
What I don't get is why dogs are not allowed in restaurants? The family sitting next to me is allowed to bring in their crying, screaming, food throwing baby and no one makes a fuss. All my dog wants to do is lay on the floor at my feet under the table. At most I'd ask for a bowl of water for him.
explain to me how
baby=cute
dog=illegal
?
Posted by: Steve at Jan 2, 2009 1:45:49 PM
"What I don't get is why dogs are not allowed in restaurants? The family sitting next to me is allowed to bring in their crying, screaming, food throwing baby and no one makes a fuss"
Because people demand the right to bring their screaming, filthy, disgusting offspring into restaurants and movie theaters so that they can avoid hiring a babysitter.
Dogs, meanwhile, are expected to take care of themselves when left home alone, even though they are the most co-dependent creatures on the planet. But, hey, if you're not home, you're not there to be bothered by the constant howling.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Jan 2, 2009 2:22:28 PM
@Steve
"What I don't get is why dogs are not allowed in restaurants?"
But of course in France dogs are allowed in the best restaurants, while children are somewhat discouraged in the temples of gastronomy.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Jan 2, 2009 3:53:11 PM
The family sitting next to me is allowed to bring in their crying, screaming, food throwing baby and no one makes a fuss.
This reminds me about a time I went to a sushi restaurant. These people had their two brats sitting there, being generally loud and making a giant mess on the floor. The parents did nothing to stop them. As they were walking out, the owner came and asked them if they would like a vacuum to clean up their kid's mess. The parents got all indignant and said they'd never come back. The owner essentially said "good, please don't come back" The people in the restaurant all sided with the owner.
I do like how some restaurants are now 21 and over only. An even better thing is that in the State of Washington, only people 21 and over are allowed into a bar area. Two things it does, for one the bar almost always has seating available. Second, there's no chance you'll sit next to someone's kid.
Posted by: JordanT at Jan 2, 2009 4:11:13 PM
Parents do need to be smarter about where they take their kids. However, pet owners can be just as blind to the annoyance
that their pets cause others. Is there some thought that all owners of dogs are responsible, respectful of other peoples'
wish not to be sniffed/licked, etc.... while no parents can control their kids? My guess is a random sample of each
population finds the same degree of annoyance in the people exposed to them.
Are these dogs wearing diapers? I can't imagine how much it would ruin my dinner if a poorly trained dog at a nearby table
"took care of business" on the floor while I was eating...
Posted by: mike at Jan 2, 2009 5:07:34 PM
I do like how some restaurants are now 21 and over only.
Can you claim an under-21 human being as a "service animal" and threaten to sue?
Or maybe show up with a child, get turned away, and come back a minute later with a donkey, and watch them squirm. Just tell them it's the law -- the law is, after all, an ass.
Posted by: at Jan 2, 2009 5:43:42 PM
Now we have to be disabled haters to wonder about guide HORSES?
I could become one yet.
Open your own damn horse bar.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 2, 2009 7:56:28 PM
I own two beagles, and am very glad that in the west side of Los Angeles, dogs are welcome in most major malls as well as the outside tables of most restaurants.
"Doggy Dining", even in outdoor tables of restaurants, is highly regulated by local governments in the U.S. For example, there are only a handful of restaurants in the Washington, DC, area that have obtained variances to allow for dogs (such as Pat Troy's in Alexandria).
Florida and Chicago now have normalized procedures for obtaining "doggy dining" licenses for a restaurant.
My mother-in-law had a pet monkey growing up...
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jan 2, 2009 10:54:33 PM
I have a seeing-eye blue whale. I tried to bring it on the plane with me, but it turns out it was larger than the plane.
So I sued, and they built the Airbus 380.
Pretty cool.
Posted by: Mike at Jan 3, 2009 4:16:38 AM
Dogs: I know a restaurant in Santa Barbara where you can take dogs. But a waitress there says they are violating a health ordinance by allowing them.
Parrots: They've become an invasive species in Santa Barbara. A breeding pair got loose about 5 years ago. Late yesterday afternoon a dozen of them showed up in a tree near my yard and really carried on squawking. A page out of Africa.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Jan 3, 2009 12:37:19 PM
Tyler, I'm surprised you've never run into a farm animal while shopping. You do visit a lot of developing countries, right? Just go to the local markets there.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jan 3, 2009 8:49:16 PM
"seeking a justification for deep bias against the disabled"
Not hardly, just biased against being coerced. If any business lets in "service" animals, pets should be just as welcome. In either case, the person should be responsible for the animal and any damages it causes.
The ADA should be the "A**holes with Disabilities Act", since it actually helps malingerers and druggies more than the "traditional" handicapped. Studies I've seen quoted in Reason and in books, including Olson's "Excuse Factory", shows that employment rates of the traditional handicapped has gone down, because of how the act has been "abused".
Miniature horses are a reasonable substitute for dogs as help for the blind. They are about the size of a medium large to large dog, easier to care for, less likely to actually injure someone if they freak out, and cleaner (if they wear a diaper, horses unfortunately can't be housebroken like predators). The biggest drawbacks are that they are nowhere near as intelligent, flexible, or trainable as a dog and their feed is bulkier and they spend more time actually eating.
Posted by: billswift at Jan 4, 2009 12:22:32 AM
