Pets on trains? What about my allergy?

Rules have changed for public transit. But that doesn’t mean fur should fly

As a noted lover of dogs, I’m in favour of allowing pets on public transit. As a noted haver of allergies, I’m sort of uneasy about it, at least insofar as I’d have to sit near them or breathe the same air.

While Ottawa has tried to strike the right balance on this, the city hasn’t got it quite right.

New rules say that only small pets, in a carrier, will be allowed aboard OC Transpo buses and trains.

But these rules are too restrictive. The most important reason to transport an animal is for its own health, so the size constraints discriminate (a term used colloquially, not legally) against larger pets.

To some extent, animals are acquiring rights. You can abuse a plant; you can’t abuse a dog. We spend thousands to keep pets alive, there are special diets — the days of table scraps are long gone — and they are members of the family.

Which means that, in considering policies that affect animals, their well-being really does matter — not just ours.

Still, I’m an allergy sufferer. When around some animals, I have not only a runny nose but a whooping sneeze and cough normally associated with 19th-century slums, and lungs that wheeze and pop and whistle — think along the lines of a kazoo — and require an inhaler to restore to normal.

So pets on a train is a classic conflict of, if not exactly rights, at least of needs and wants. Does your wish to transport an animal outweigh my deep preference to be symptom-free?

Given this conflict, there are limits in the OC Transpo plan to allow pets: namely, big pets aren’t allowed.

A city staff report says this policy “will minimize human/pet interactions with strangers” — including bites and scratches — “and may help to reduce the dispersal of allergens.”

In other words, it’s a logical circumscription. Then again, when it comes to allergies, the restrictions may not even matter.

A study of Helsinki’s transit system concluded few pets were brought along, even when allowed, and at any rate, most allergic reactions were to pet owners’ clothes.

If you’re particularly sensitive, you’re likely already having a reaction whether there’s an animal on the bus or not.

The biggest problem with the rules, though, stems from the reason an animal might need the bus or train in the first place.

It might be infirm, or it might be on the way to the vet or its owner might not be able to afford other means of transportation.

This is a continuum of need, and a trip to the vet is the most important of these. This creates another dilemma: If animals have needs and rights, and if those needs involve transit, then those needs exist for pets of all species, breeds, shapes and sizes. Yes, even the slithery ones.

The report done for Ottawa’s transit commission looked at 18 cities, and all allowed pets on transit. Fifteen cities declared the pet must be in a carrier (three said leash or carrier) but 15 also set no size restrictions. And, though a carrier is a de facto size restriction (it’s pretty hard to squeeze your Great Dane into a carrier and then onto your lap on a bus), Ottawa has gone against the norm here.

The ideal scenario is like Boston’s, where only small pets are allowed during peak hours, but during non-peak hours leashed animals of all sizes are allowed.

This accommodates most possible permutations of pet (I’m open to debate when it comes to slithery ones though) which is important if we’re considering the scenario where they need transit.

Now, no decent person would refuse entry to a bus or train for an animal of any sort that desperately needed to get to medical care.

That’s the crux of the issue. Rules are rules, but in times of real need, they ought to be broken by all concerned. For the sake of your pet, and despite my allergies, I’ll tough it out. As long as you do the same for mine.