SFist: Ask a Muni Driver

guest

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:02:06 -0800

I don't know if anyone will read this since it has been almost a month since this article, however I wanted to put in my two cents. I bring my dog on Muni several days per week for various reasons. Sometimes its to go to the park, others to work. Less frequently to the Vet. I always muzzle my dog. She is the sweetest thing and has never shown aggression. The key is...respect people that are not comfortable around dogs. They may or may not have a "reason" for it but I need to respect them. ALL the muni drivers who I have encountered have treated me and my dog with respect. I have had a few freebies, but overall I pay my fare and my dogs and get on and get my transfers. Dog owners need to realize that not everyone loves dogs. If you hit my dog, you will have to answer to my fist- I wont deny it. But if you move away, ask her not to get close, whiz by, then more power to you. My main comment is this. WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE TRY TO ABUSE A SYSTEM THAT IS ALREADY THE MOST DOG FRIENDLY IN THE COUNTRY. Hands down Muni has the most dog friendly policy in the country- especially for my large dog. I will never take the policy for granted and feel grateful every day that I can continue to live car free and take my dog to places that I cannot walk. Thank you Muni and FUCK YOU to people who abuse the system.

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:11:36 -0800

Heya, #35 - Yep, right now apparently MUNI policy says a simple verbal assurance that the animal is, in fact, a legitimate service animal is sufficient; the discussion ends there. But that's just their own policy. If they ever wanted to get serious about the issue, they could give their drivers leave to ask the task question and be on solid legal ground. And that remains true even with the city handing out tags every which way, since as far as I can tell said tags have no legal significance (which, why do it if you're not going to codify it anywhere? Bizarre).

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:09:05 -0800

wow this needs to stop or somebody is going to get hurt

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:17:31 -0800

Hi #34, I see your point. And you may be right that it might weed out certain offenders. However, the way the driver made it sound, once they claim it's a service dog, that's it. I hope you're right, and I hope it would work. At least it's a start.

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:39:32 -0800

#17 - It's not that calming someone down isn't a valid service. It's just not a valid answer to the question, "What tasks is your animal trained to perform?" That is, a handler has to be able to identify exactly what specific tasks the animal has been trained to do that provide the calming influence. "He keeps me calm" or even "He's trained to keep me calm" are no-go, because there are no specific tasks being identified. Now, it's true that if the handler says, "He's trained to wag his tail when I'm sad," then that's is a valid answer. But my point is that many people whose dogs aren't even remotely service animals will likely falter when this question is asked of them. It's not perfect, but it may well weed out the worst offenders.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:59:29 -0800

According to san francisco city code section 41.12 and california Civil Code Section 54.1 and ADA laws. Service animals must be at the very least leashed while in public. There are no exceptions granted in City, State or Federal Law for "service" animals. As for the muzzle, yes a muzzle is needed on a bus, but this discussion has bloomed to a general service animal discussion, which includes places where dogs are not required to be muzzled. SEC. 41.12. DUTIES OF OWNERS OR GUARDIANS. (a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or guardian of any animal, other than a domestic cat, to permit said animal to run at large within the City and County; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to any area under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission of the City and County, and which has been designated by said Commission as an animal exercise area. "At large" shall mean any dog off the premises of its owners or guardians and not under restraint by a leash, rope or chain of not more than eight (8) feet in length, and any other animal not under physical restraint. -iam5

wsanders

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:50:12 -0800

mariconsay writes, "My problem is about my snake. It's too small to use a snake muzzle, but too big for a cage. Most taxi drivers won't let Cleo in either." Just put your snake in your pants! http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/494203,CST-NWS-snake02.article I can't help you with Cleo, though. Must be some pretty ugly mother if the cabbie won't let him/her in!

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:34:26 -0800

I'm still trying to understand how an unleashed dog provides service to someone. This dude in my neighborhood doesn't use it to get around, he just walks it off leash. I know he can hear and see well, because I yell at him.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:09:09 -0800

"Insensitive to offensive"? Bring it on! San Francisco and its lunatic special needs (I'm SPECIAL because I have LOW SELF ESTEEM and need a COMPANION GOAT) armies could deal with a great deal more insensitivity.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:55:47 -0800

Correct you are guest #15. Finally a rationale comment! Guest #16, you are incorrect--service animals must be under the control of the owner, but not necessarily leashed. I think that most of the posters on this should have to spend a day relying on a service animal (and they are used for far more than as "seeing eye" guides for the blind). Realize how many times are blocked access, and you'll see why this string comes across as insensitive to offensive.

Deborah

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:51:00 -0800

I wish I knew which "guest" you were. It gets confusing when you all have the same name. Which are your comments? It would be great if you registered.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:41:43 -0800

True Deborah. Another reason why we should not take any chances. Thank you for validating my point, once again.

Deborah

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:36:48 -0800

Dogs can smell fear.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:30:04 -0800

Sorry Iam5. They need to be muzzled. It's a matter of public safety. I'm sorry for people's mental challenges. I'm all for them seeking ways to heal. However, not at the expense of being bitten by their dog.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:19:47 -0800

There are a few problems here. One is that the city simply doesn't enforce leash laws. Service animals are required to be leashed, but not muzzled. But the other problem is that if the city made the barrier to entry to get a service tag harder, its likely that those that would be most helped by the animal would be unable to get them. There are multiple studies that show that companion animals extend life and perform as well psychotropic drugs and therapy to a significant population of people with mental disabilities. The city should simply enforce the leash laws that are already on the books. I see uniformed beat cops sitting at a cafe near my apartment ignoring unleashed dogs on a daily basis. As a dog owner (not a service animal) I find that ridiculous. -iam5

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:42:28 -0800

Well Deborah, That's the exactly what we are setting ourselves up for. Those that support such lax restrictions are compromising the safety of the general public.

Deborah

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:34:41 -0800

I don't believe I said that service animals should be running around attacking people.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:57:05 -0800

"Right to animal companionship" Where, exactly, is that right in the law? Maybe it's time for a constitutional initiative! Is this how decadent and selfish and trivial we've become? A right to have a pet and the bad taste to take it everywhere with us? What about the real problems in this city, like the ability to live free of gunshot wounds, or to have access to adequate education, etc?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:02:32 -0800

The debate is about whether animals who are not service animals should be on the Muni. A companion animal who keeps me from being lonely should be left at home. The pleasure of being greeted at the door of my home by my "companion animal" should melt away the pain of a MUNI trip.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:26:02 -0800

Actually Deborah, It's not another story. No one has the right to put other HUMAN BEINGS in harms way. That's what this comes down to. There have always been animal restrictions in residences. I can appreciate that. I don't want to live next to your "untrained, unharnessed dog." I appreicate the need for animal companionship. I have 4 pets myself. I don't appreciate people abusing the rules that puts me or my family in harms way. The rules need to be far more strict. It's common sense.

Deborah

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:17:25 -0800

To those of you who are so angry that untrained, unharnessed dogs get to be service animals in SF - I just want to remind you that without this classification, many homebound people (senior citizens/folks with terminal illnesses, etc.) would not be able to keep their animals in their homes. Whether or not these animals should be on buses is debatable, but whether or not these people have a right to animal companionship is quite another story.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:15:09 -0800

I don't think asking for specific tasks the animal can perform will work. Look in the last "security guy" post. According to the article posted, an owner can "train" a dog. One SFist poster noted that "he calms me down" is not a valid service. Well, according to everything I am reading here, it is. Despite what the "MUNI security guy" says, it's pretty clear that just about anyone can bring a dog on MUNI or even acquire a bogus service dog tag. It's alarming to me that someone in a security position is so ill informed on such an increasingly dangerous issue.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:16:53 -0800

Service animals are still required by law to be on leash in all public spaces except in designated off leash areas (BTW that does not include duboce park). As for what services these animals are required to employ, since you can get a service tag just as easily as a pot card in this city, simply being there can be considered a service.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:56:30 -0800

Uh, well, MUNI is right to be "chickenshit" in terms of not requiring ID; they could be sued in a heartbeat. Federal law says mandating ID is illegal. Period. What MUNI shouldn't be too chickenshit to do is to allow its drivers, if they are suspicious of a given animal's status, to ask the owner what specific tasks that animal has been trained to perform. I guarantee you that Random Yappy Dog Owner X will not have thought through an adequate answer to this--and if that's the case, they can then legally be refused access. I do take your point that legitimate service animal handlers shouldn't have to stand around and extrapolate on their need for said animal in a public place. But if as many people are taking advantage of the system as you say, then it's really to everyone's benefit--including that of legitimate service animal handlers--for MUNI to employ whatever legal means are at its disposal in order to weed out the fakers. Asking an owner to enumerate his or her animal's trained tasks is, unfortunately, pretty much the only way to do that (until the fakers' animals start behaving badly, of course).

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:24:40 -0800

The guy with the rottweiler probably places some peanut butter in a strategic spot and lets the dog service him.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:37:23 -0800

I recently yelled at a guy in my neighborhood because he won't put his enormous rottweiler on a leash. The dog is totally scary. He told me he didn't have to leash it, because it was a "service dog." This guy has no obvious physical disabilities. I see him working in his yard, driving, walking w/o assistance, etc. How could the dog be serving him? I kind of feel bad about this, but in light of this post, he may just be some douche who has a service dog tag so he doesn't need to use a leash.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:09:37 -0800

I don't understand this. When I'm going to take my terrier on the bus, I leave him unmuzzled until the very last minute (since he hates it and is constantly clawing at it), right before I get on the bus. But I have never, EVER felt like the MUNI guy wasn't going to insist I muzzle him. In fact, once I was running to make the bus, and as soon as I got on and was feeding my money into the meter, the guy told me, "make sure you muzzle him" (which of course, I promptly did, as I was planning to). Who are these people who get the free pass from MUNI people? I NEVER get a free pass! I had someone keep me off MUNI at five minutes before the end of the commute time (she was sick and had an emergency vet appointment)even though we were going to do a reverse commute. They are STRICT. I've never seen them not be strict. They enforce the "only one dog per car" rule and everything. I'm not bitching, I'm just wondering where all these lackadaisical MUNI drivers are that everyone keeps bitching about. Although now that I think about it, I've never heard them say anything to people with unmuzzled pits. Maybe they just assume the girl with the terrier will be more compliant and unlikely to be menacing?

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:22 -0800

Mariconsoy--just slip your pet snake through the belt loops on your trousers. Then flash your fastpass and walk quickly past the operator.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:32:32 -0800

Well, most of those "mental defectives" lead a life that you probably wouldn't want to lead. If people bringing their dogs into safeway piss you off so much, maybe you yourself are a mental defective. On the other hand the fact that it is so easy to get a tag, begs the question of why everyone's well trained dog is not allowed in the same places. -iam5

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:25 -0800

This is such nonsense. I give it a year until a dog really hurts someone on a train or a bus. It's no wonder that the homeless bring their mean, untrained, dogs on MUNI all the time. Turns out, they have a right to do so. They just have to SAY that he's a service dog. Incredible. Thank you for adressing the issue. Could you please send this link to the "Muni security Guy?" He should read what you have to say. This is a serious problem that should be addressed, immediately.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:13:13 -0800

"Real service animals"? Oh yeah, like Emotional Support Pigs. If it isn't a guide dog and it isn't wearing a harness and you aren't blind then GET YOUR LOATHESOME PET OFF MY BUS. (nb My blinds friends couldn't agree more.) The selfish mental defectives with the "service" animals are the same class as the park-anywhere-anytime-for-free "disabled" placards which monopolize the streets of San Francisco.

mariconsoy

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:37:50 -0800

Personally, I have special clauses in my insurance policy that cover me in dog maulings, or blindness due to cat scratches. My problem is about my snake. It's too small to use a snake muzzle, but too big for a cage. Most taxi drivers won't let Cleo in either. This is discrimination, in it's purest form.

wsanders

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:19:54 -0800

I'm not going to make a stink if a dog can sit quietly in the owner's lap and not crap or piss. There was a lady on BART a few days ago with a little chihuahua in her purse, and the mood of the whole end of the car lightened as everyone went gaga over widdle doggums. But sooner or later widdle doggums is going to bite someone, and I'm going to call 911 if it happens around me. I know BART Police give a shit about this kind of thing, dunno about SFPD. BTW out of pocket expense for a bog bite injury can quickly run over $5000. Admission to the ER can run over $1000, and the health plan will subrogate. And considering how many lawyers infest SF, pray that your dog never bites a lawyer. A lawyer friend of mine got bit a long time ago - let's say she got a settlement big enough to pay off her student loans from Stanford.

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:12:30 -0800

Since it is ludicrously easy to get a service animal tag in San Francisco. I wouldn't bet on the poorly trained dogs not being a "service dog".

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:58:17 -0800

@2: Pug muzzles look a bit different from "regular shape" muzzles. Keep an eye out for something like this: http://www.dogmuzzle.com/nylmuzforpug.html

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:57:01 -0800

I thought all service animals always have to/should wear "ID", like tags or vests in public. Makes sense, since it makes their job easier when people know it's not a pet you should jump on with affection. As a big/med size dog owner I don't see the problem with muzzling my dog on the bus. It's common sense for responsible handling, no matter what the rules are. It's pretty simple. People who don't muzzle their pet dogs in a small, confined, noisy and smelly bus packed with strangers - often aggressive or grumbling over the commute - don't have a good understanding of the nature of dogs, regardless of size.

chelsea

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:40:30 -0800

i'm so glad this came up because i have a question and i'm on the other side of things: i have a 7-lb. dog with a flat pug-like face. i hate to have her in a cage because i prefer walking her, but i can't find a muzzle that won't fall off 'cause she has no real pronounced nose! any pet owners have suggestions on what i can use? i don't have a car and she loves riding the bus...

guest

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:31:50 -0800

Amen! From my experience, I've seen a few people with service animals show their paperwork to the driver, just so there's no question of the status of the animal. I'm a bit afraid of large dogs, so when I see one (a non-service animal) without a muzzle on, it always makes me a bit uncomfortable...