Good point. If the poor woman depends emotionally on the monkey to such an extent that she can’t go out without it, Lord help her when it dies.
Is this a case of political correctness gone wild? A seeing-eye dog on a leash means “I’m blind, please respect me”. A monkey on your shoulder means “I’m fricking crazy, and I demand that you respect me for it. After all, my rights are more important than yours.”
If you can’t function in society , you deserve to get help. But society has rules. Follow the rules, or admit that you’re a loony who needs help. But don’t ask me to respect you for it.
This is not a “helper monkey”. There is apparently no evidence whatsoever that it is trained by her, and certainly not by any service animal training institute, to do anything. The woman finds comfor in its presence. It could just as easilyt have been a blanket, or a 10 ft. python.
I suggest you answer the OP question exactly as you would answer the following question:
IMO, if you’re ok with one, you should be ok with the other and vice versa.
From that viewpoint, I would say, no, I am not ok with it.
No fair! I have anxiety disorder AND panic problems! When do I get my monkey?
(Actually, I agree with Rasa that part of anxiety disorder is learning to go through daily life without having some sort of magic charm or comfort device to lean on, because you’re screwed if you lose it. But … dude, monkey! I want a monkey!)
The only way for this to be a helper monkey is if the monkey wore a butler uniform.
A service animal is and is not a pet. They live with the person they provide aid for, but they are also a pet. Their first function, however, is to provide service. I would not dream of taking my poofy little family pet to a business of any kind (other than PetSmart), and yet many people think nothing of taking their pets with them everywhere. People used to bring their (large breed) dogs to my office, and I’m certainly not a vet. This is not an okay practice IMO.
A service animal should be allowed wherever its owner person wants to go. A pet, no way.
It is not a service animal. She CALLS it one, but iit is not trained to do anything. It just makes her feel better by being there.
Oh, who would think a boy and bear
Could be well accepted everywhere
–Randy Newman
I’m against it. Actual service animals performing a task, sure, no problem. Living security blankets? Nah.
Ditto on that.
One would naturally assume the macaque must be well-behaved.
Otherwise this unfortunate, anxiety-ridden woman might be forced to spank her monkey at the buffet.
Not only would I be okay with that at lunch, I’d oay extra for it.
There ARE rules. By law, the animal must be task-trained. This means that it performs specific tasks that the handler CANNOT DO for himself or herself. Just being around to be hugged as comfort is NOT A TASK. There are legal differences between an Emotional Support Animal, a Therapy Animal, and a SERVICE Animal. They are not protected equally under the law. See this link:
http://www.richardsgraphics.com/kirsten/sdc/PSDvESA.htm
There are more and more people taking their dogs into establishments saying that they are service animals. The ADA protects the use of service dogs, and most of these people are QUICK to flip out on establishment owners and staff if they are questionned about the legitimacy of their alleged working animal.
Truth is, it’s going to take country-wide certification before the problem is under control. And it will take a shopkeep with balls of steel to stand up to one of the imposters and say “NO.”, get sued, and get some more jurisprudence on the books.
Some of us feel that this kind of misuse of service animals is an insult to the disabled community. Some people seem to think it’s a great thing to be able to pass muffy off as a Servie Dog…
From a live journal community I co-moderate, here’s what we say to people about how one can qualify for a SD:
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990), a dog is considered a “service dog” if it has been “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.”
Also according to the ADA, a “disability” is a “mental or physical condition which substantially limits a major life activity” such as:
- caring for one’s self.
- performing manual tasks.
- walking.
- seeing.
- hearing.
- speaking.
- breathing.
- learning.
- working.
To be considered a service dog, the dog must be trained to perform tasks directly related to the person’s disability.
I agree. I would not call this animal a service animal.
And thus it is harder to believe that the monkey is trained well enough to be tolerable in a public accomodation.
Neurotic women tend to have neurotic dogs (said the veterinarian’s son). Might this neurotic woman have a neurotic monkey? That I don’t want in a restaurant.
Service animal != pet. Animal not trained to do anything except comfort fruitcake woman != service animal.
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for the info, Elenfair. I suspected this was the case. I can totally understand this woman in my neighborhood wanting her dog with her, but she DOES tend to flip out with people who question whether or not it should actually be in a restaurant, and I find it a little obnoxious, to be truthful. I live in the kind of community, though, where people are not likely to make waves or say anything that might not be construed as completely tolerant, so I’m sure I will see her dog in local restaurants for years to come.
Novel concept. What did they teach you in veterinarians’ son school about neurotic men?
Regardless,
Ugly
Anyway re: the obsessive legalism/hijacking in this thread. The question *wasn’t * whether it’s legal or what the correct legal terminology is. According to the article the question’s open, but so what.
The question was…would *you personally * object to the helper monkey? Looks like most would. Which is just so f’in tragic. I would so much prefer to hang with the crazy woman and the helper monkey than anyone who would try to get them kicked out of a restaurant.
Personally if it was a *trained service monkey * and not just a “my daddy didn’t love me” security blanket monkey, then I’d be okay with this. However, if it’s not a service monkey and it’s *not trained * to be a service animal then I’m not okay with it * because it’s a monkey in a restaurant, and I go to restaurants because I’d like to eat without being subjected to monkey odors and monkey screaming.
*Yes, children have odors and children scream. However, children are still human beings (however marginally they seem to be related to the rest of our species) and are still allowed to go where human beings go.
And I can play the random emphasis game too.
Personally, if I could ban children as well as monkeys from restaurants where I eat, I would.
Same, but let’s not get into that old argument. It tends to get very ugly very quickly…
Well, ok, but I was so looking to compare children with untrained security-blanket monkeys. There are so many parallels.
Ahhhm ou’re rught… that’s a different thread.