I was finally compelled to write after listening to the Tuesday March 23, 2004 program on the issue of guide dogs and other assistance animals traveling to Britain. As citizens of the Commonwealth, this restriction has long been an annoyance for both of us. We both work with guide dogs, for the independence and partnership we enjoy from being together at all times. Unfortunately, others cannot see, beyond the stereotyping of people who are blind who work with guide dogs, to the beauty of this liberating relationship.
It is against this positive spirit of inclusion and access for all that I listened with some consternation to your program.
The lead in to the story was a stereotyping question. It assumed negative myths. It stated: “Just how long should a guide dog be expected to endure the cramped quarters of an airliner?”
Allow me to answer the question, by saying not for one minute. I have been thrown off of an aircraft for my belief that a guide dog has the right to adequate space to lay comfortably and change position . If my disability related needs, including those of my guide dog, are not accommodated in future, I am prepared to be thrown off of an aircraft again.
My guide dog’s safety and well-being is my paramount concern. There is enough risk in life when we move around a world designed for vision, without accepting artificially created hazards, such as cramped space for my guide dog on an aircraft.
I think it is eminently reasonable to expect that airlines design into their cabin layouts provision for the comfortable carriage of my guide dog. Remember that many aircraft now have storage for wheelchairs in the cabin, accessible washrooms, etc. Space is not the issue. Customer service is the issue.
The Pet Travel Scheme has a basic flaw. It does not recognize the difference between pets and working animals. I consider my guide dog to be a part of me, and it is my essential mobility aid.
Approximate Quote begins
“For flights of more than five hours, the guide dog should remain in a crate in the hole of an aircraft. It is better for the dog, according to GDBA, which is then not expected to not do what comes natural to the dog. GDBA says that their position is supported by veterinarians.”
Approximate Quote ends
Firstly, you will find attached an article I wrote about a highlight of my life, namely a visit to Israel, involving twelve and thirteen hour flights. My husband and I have routinely flown for many hours in excess of five and a half hours.
In February 2004, we flew from Ottawa to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic so our guide dogs and ourselves could warm up our old bones on a sunny beach. With security and flight delays for a snow storm, the time between pit stops was ten hours.
The airline staff were sensitive and caring. When we arrived in Punta Cana, a airline company representative came aboard and insisted we be allowed to leave the plane first. Next to the plane was a lovely piece of grass, and the pit stop was a short one.
Travel to Europe, the Caribbean and across North America, all lasting more than five hours, are routine here. Yes, we choose flight times, when possible, that fit into our guide dogs’ natural routine. We rarely give five hour flights a thought. The guide dog takes them in stride and enjoys sleeping across the Atlantic or continent. After all, a new place to work and explore is at the end of the journey.
To be honest, our guide dogs get more upset when not fed in the Pacific time zone at her regular time, based on the eastern time zone, than they do with the flight.
Guide dogs are trained to relieve on command. Therefore, it is very unlikely that they would ever have relieving accidents on a plane, unless they were sick.
It is not unreasonable to expect terminals to have good relieving areas on the side of the airport where the planes are. After all, most third world airports have this feature.
It is not unreasonable to expect that procedures be in place for facilitating movement through formalities that accommodate the needs of persons with unique needs, such as the relieving of their service animals, because plains have yet to have onboard facilities for relieving service animals safely and sanitarily. The same argument about relieving was used in the past to prevent guide dog teams from taking cruises. Now cruise lines routinely provide relieving facilities on their luxury liners. Perhaps a design could be added to accessible washrooms, which would allow in-flight relieving. If there is space for a wheelchair and an attendant, then the space is big enough to facilitate reweaving in flight. I can dream and hope as well. It is all a matter of attitude. I would rather ask how, instead of why not.
The reality is that the cages are not cleaned during the flight. So, if a guide dog was to relieve himself during the flight, the animal would have to lay in its own feces for the remainder of the flight. It might even munch on the feces. In my view, logic suggests that a cage is a far less healthy option, than me caring for my companion in the cabin. I can get her up once and a while. I can give her ice cubes. I can give her a few morsels of food. I can give her affection and make her feel secure.
As recommended for good health on airplanes, particularly to improve blood circulation, my dog and I will occasionally get up and move around a bit, using leash guiding techniques. The dog will not have as much room and ability to move around in a crate.
She will sleep a lot more peacefully at my feet, than she will in a noisy, smelly and probably dark cargo hold, where she would have to endure the stress of separation.
It is not uncommon for a dog to not drink from morning to evening when it has access to water. It is not uncommon for a dog to sleep for ten hours over night. Add to this the reality of an aircraft cabin where the air is dry. On an aircraft, everyone have less need to go to the washroom because of the cabin climate.
And the most important reason for the guide dog to be with its partner is that we form a “team”. My dog is my mobility aid, the same as a wheelchair for a person who is unable to walk. A wheelchair user would not be expected to crawl on the floor to get around without his chair. There would be outrage at such a request. The same applies in the case of a guide dog team. We need to travel with our guide dogs, both for business and pleasure. My husband has flown from Canada to Jordan, France and will soon be going to Japan. We need our dogs to get around in the terminal, to board and get off the plane, and to find our way off the plane in case of an emergency.
The GDBA spokesman first based objections on tradition, namely that policies existed prior to the Pet Passport. It was only after persistent questioning by the host that the concern for the animal was addressed by GDBA.
Tom Pay said that it is better for the dog to be in a krait rather than cramped in the economy class of an airline, without access to food and water. How does he know that? Has he traveled in a crate? He keeps asking for scientific evidence, and at the same time offers up myths and suppositions. I think he is incorrect when he says a crate is better for a guide dog than at the feet of her companion. All my years of experience, as a frequent flyer, leads me to this conclusion.
He said, “We have now asked experts in England to look at the issue and develop the best advice we can give our users who own their own guide dogs.“ Now that GDBA has done a lot of harm, they are finally going to ask some experts. I would respectfully suggest that the best experts are people who have traveled with guide dogs for decades. At any rate, why did they not ask the experts before they publicly spoke out in a very paternalistic and devaluing way?
Tom Pay, claiming that we have the right to bring our guide dogs into Britain, is not correct, since we have to travel differently than we do anywhere else. We do not travel at any time without our guide dogs. We would never put our dogs in a crate. Therefore, as Canadians who use guide dogs, we and our guide dogs, are being discriminated against, by being excluded from entering Britain. He should be empathetic enough to acknowledge the crating trauma concern for our guide dogs expressed by many persons who are blind. Again, I regret that Mr. Pay has felt it necessary to suggest publicly that those who disagree with his view are somehow being cruel to their guide dogs. We do not mistreat our guide dogs.
As I understand the crating requirement: it exists to ensure that the plane has not stopped on route in a place where Britain has a concern related to rabies. Even though flights from Canada to England are direct, it is clamed that an emergency could cause an emergency landing in a third country. What countries are between Canada and England that possibly cause concern?
Government is wrong for withholding choice is finally something I can agree with Mr. Pay on. I think it is the first thing GDBA should have taken up with the government, and not an afterthought, now that their pomposity has been publicly questioned.
Sincerely,
Marie Laporte-Stark