Likewise, I’m sure. I hope you and the crazy woman and the monkey are all very happy together. And not that it matters, but I’m pretty sure no one said they’d try to get the woman kicked out of the restaurant. They were asked if they would object, and they said yes. Personally, I would tell the manager that I was not confortable eating in a monkey-friendly establishment and that I would be dining elsewhere. I think that counts as an objection, but it hardly amounts demanding the woman be kicked out.
This was absolutely hilarious.
“‘Many people on board the aircraft were quite upset that there was a large uncontrollable pig on board, especially those in the first-class cabin,’ the incident report stated.”
So you tell the manager that it’s you or the monkey woman and that’s not asking to have her kicked out? Take some responsibility, that’s the same difference, just a little more cowardly.
It’s OK with me, as long as she doesn’t mind when I bring my helper animal to the same buffet: a harpy eagle.
There’s also this:
“The animal became unruly as the plane taxied toward the Seattle terminal, the report said, running through the jet, squealing and trying to get into the cockpit.”
This incident definitely happened pre-9/11. In this day an age, air marshalls would have shot the pig for that.
Yep. These people tend to flip out the minute they are asked questions by shopkeeps or restaurant staff who KNOW their rights and the laws. Unfortunately, most people just go the easy route and let them do their thing, as to not make waves… It’s starting ot lead to problems for those of us with legitimate working animals. We’ve had cases of “pseudo” service dogs attacking guide dogs ad other legitimate working dogs. It’s not pretty. And it’s annoying.
To those of us in the training community, a service dog is a piece of medical equipment. (Yes, they are our companions and we ADORE them.) There’s nothing glamorous about being confined to a wheelchair because you’re paralized from the waist down. There’s nothing glamorous about a brain injury that makes you feel so disoriented you forget where you are, and how in bloody hell you’re going to get home. There’s nothing grand in a Psychiatric Service Dog user’s sudden dissociative episode… It’s not cool, and cute, and fun. Most of the users I know would KILL to be able to be 100% independent and leave the house without their working dog. Truth is, unless they have their “service human” with them (mom, dad, husband, wife, care giver) their working dog IS indispensable.
That is where the difference lies, really.
Unless a disability is proven, and unless a dog is task trained, then it’s nothing more than a pet, a therapy dog, or an ESA (and there’s lots of TDs and ESAs who do INCREDIBLY valuable work!).
Now - if we could train a dog to prevent you from making horrible typos, I’d so TOTALLY qualify for one…
I can spell. HONEST.
Where did I say I would tell the manager “It’s me or the monkey woman”? Where did I imply that I would stand around, waiting and hoping they’d kick her out? “I’m not eating here” does not say or imply anything about the woman or the monkey – it simply conveys the reality that I’m not eating there, and why.
I assume that an establishment that sells goods or services for money would always be interested in knowing why they are losing business, and it is hardly cowardly to let them know. What they do with that information, if anything, is up to them. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the woman or the monkey or, ultimately, what their decision may be. But if the monkey’s in the house o’ eatin’, I’m not.
She can’t eat there without her monkey. Well, I can’t eat there with her monkey. There’s no more malicious intent to keep her from dining on my part, by objecting to the monkey, than there is malicious intent on her part to keep me from dining by insisting the monkey be allowed. She wants it; I don’t. Simple as that.
I don’t even like monkeys, but I would be cool with a monkey in a restaurant if it was a restaurant where everyone was welcome to bring pets. Calling it a helper monkey doesn’t really mean anything. It’s just a monkey. It’s not a service animal, and shouldn’t be treated as such. Perhaps I would like to bring my cat. He helps keep me amused, so maybe he’s a helper cat. But I don’t bring him to restaurants because animals that are not service animals are not allowed in restaurants.
Once again, its not a helper monkey, it doesn’t do anything. Its an exotic pet, so I would object in that I can’t just bring my pets wherever I want either.
Pfft. That’s a helper monkey.
Only the legal nitpick about whether it’s an “ADA covered service animal” is seriously debatable (if you read the article though the justice dept. apparently thinks they are).
But helper monkey? If it helps her, it’s a helper.
Define “helper”. What, if anything, does it have to do to be a “helper”. And who decides? You?
My dogs help me feel better about myself too. As a single woman, they are the two living beings that I have the most contact with on a daily basis and my life would be immeasurably poorer without them. They are “emotional support animals” – most pets are; that’s why people bother to keep animals who contribute nothing tangible despite the time, effort, and money that goes into the keeping – you know: the whole idea of a “pet.”
So what do you propose, that pets should be able to go everywhere with their owners? That’s not the rule our society lives under. No pigs on the plane, no llamas in the grocery store, and no monkeys in the restuarant. And your pet doesn’t become your helper just because you say so.
No, I just propose that people lighten up a little. And let the lady who says she needs her monkey have her monkey.
Yes me. Or her. Or you. It’s a common English word. We don’t need a lawyer to define it. That which helps is a helper.
Or, if the other customers take the piss, dramatic potential.
Thank you for the tautologic non-definition. :rolleyes: Helps her do what? Feel better? If that is all it takes to be a “helper animal,” you are essentially advocating that anyone with a pet who is willing to assert that the pet’s present “helps” him or her is allowed to bring the pet into public accommodations, even when other people who manage to function without the constant presence of a pet are made uncomfortable, are inconveniences, or are exposed to a less healthy environment.
So you would allow anybody who felt better by having their pet with them to always have their pet with them. I absolutely would not. I don’t like eating around strange animals; I don’t trust many strange animals – one reason legitimate assistance animals are tolerated is because it is rightly assumed that they are screened for temperment and thoroughly trained so that their behavior is impeccable; and I am allergic to many animals. So, no, I will not “lighten up,” and no, I will not agree that the woman can have her monkey in the restuarant if I have anything to say about it. Guess that makes me a big ol’ hater-of-the-disabled. :rolleyes:
Personally, seeing the occassional monkey when I was out to dinner would be a welcome surprise. I imagine it would be interesting to watch and probably provide a funny story or two. Whether it is a “helper monkey” or not is immaterial to me. If the monkey acts up or flings poo, I could just leave – and there are similar risks every time I dine out (bad service, rude people, crying babies, cold food, etc.).
No, no it does not. In fact, we praise you and thank you.
The definition of “disabled” and “service animal” is at the core of these laws. We have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise everyone and his brother would be dragging along their little pet foofoo along with them everywhere, claiming FooFoo helped them cope with every day life.
Having a service animal is not a “perk”. Being disabled, truly disabled, sucks. The service animal is a tool, much like a wheelchair, or a cane, that the hadler CANNOT BE WITHOUT when trying to go about their lives independently. If a condition is controllable or correctable through medication and therapy, there is debate as to whether or not the person is DISABLED. For example, if you are legally blind without your glasses, but your glasses or lenses correct the problem, you’re not considered disabled under the law. If you are blind and no glasses, lenses, surgeries or whatnot can change that fact, then you are disabled. You qualify for the use of a white cane. Of a service dog. If you are wheelchair bound, taking your wheelchair away would significantly reduce your ability to go about your day, now wouldn’t it. The service animal can help you pick up things you drop, open doors you couldn’t open otherwise… and so on. Those are tasks. Tasks are things you, as a disabled individual, CANNOT PERFORM FOR YOURSELF.
When it comes to psychiatric service dogs, there is a lot of controversy. A lot of psychiatric conditions can be controlled through medication - anxiety is one of those conditions. In fact, the attention that is given to service animals when they are out and about tends to make people’s anxiety WORSE. Anyway. There ARE legitimate uses for Psychiatric Service Dogs (PSDs) - there are legitimate TASKS these animals can perform. Their human partners, though they may be medicated, followed by a psychiatrist and a treatment team and all that, could NOT function independently without the animal’s help. The animal does NOT simply provide “comfort”. It performs tasks that the human partner CANNOT PERFORM FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF.
An example of a task for a PSD would be, for example, seeing to the safety (through guide work and boundary work) of an individual with PTSD in the middle of a sudden, full blown dissociative episode. THAT is a task. Taking that person to a safe place to calm down is a task. Taking that person home on command, fetching help, those are tasks.
Another task for a PSD can involve mild mobility work - many psychiatric drugs make the patient dizzy at times. The dog can help steady that person’s gait.
… and so on.
I hope this helps clarify the whole song and dance.
Well that might have made sense if the term “helper monkey” had any legal implications whatsoever. It doesn’t though. It’s just common English and says nothing about the ADA coverage or my opinion of what it should be. The legal definition of an ADA-covered “service animal” is a totally different issue.
No, I just think you’re a big ol’ hater-of-strange-animals.
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome monkey-woman?”
Finally! The approbation of my peers!
Shoshana, Licensed Psychologist
I think you’re 100% offbase, and Jodi is 100% on the money.
But I must reply here to give you mad props for the Henry II allusion – excellent, humorous historical reference. This is why I love the SDMB.