Pets on a train

Pets on a train, manners, morals, and ethics.

Which of these things is not like the other?

That’s a “gotcha” question. In fact, they are all related.

Last week, Chicago’s commuter railroad Metra announced it would be allowing more pets on trains under limited circumstances. It was thence widely reported that Metra’s experiment was a success, and the presence of pets on trains had resulted in no complaints. Hmmm!

On the surface, Metra’s pet policy seems reasonably considerate of those without pets. Small pets must be in carriers that can fit on the owner’s lap or under the owner’s seat. Carriers may not block aisles or be placed on other seats. After the start of the new rules, pets are limited to off-peak weekdays and weekend trains. The rules as published by Metra clearly limit the practice to small pets. “Small” is not defined, but appears to be limited by where a carrier can go. Metra also reserves the right to remove disruptive pets. Last, but not least, the owner must be willing to clean up any mess.

Though the press release cites “no complaints,” I wonder if any enforcement of either the size, disruption, or mess rules has taken place. If so, has the pet owner willingly complied in all cases? If Metra answers yes to the latter, then I laud Chicagoans as possibly the most even-tempered pet owners on the face of the planet—yea no, in the universe—and recommend they apply some of this even-temperedness to Chicago’s rash of gun violence. But I digress.

Amtrak has had a similar policy for some time and shows no sign of modifying it. Rather than quote from it, I link to it here. Amtrak Pet Policy. The important points are the reservations, seven-hour trip limit, exclusion from all cars except coach, and specific size and weight limits for animals. Thank God, Amtrak does not allow pets in sleeping cars. . . yet.

Now let me tell you where I’m coming from. I like small animals, but I am highly, if not potentially fatally, allergic to some dogs and cats. If a room has been allowed to accumulate enough dander from these pets, I can enter it and be instantly uncomfortable, if not in total respiratory distress. The same would be true of a train car.

Simple ventilation doesn’t make a difference. The room (or, by extension, the train car) must be thoroughly cleaned on a regular basis, and I mean super thoroughly. I doubt that Metra or Amtrak or any other entity that allows pets in the passenger compartments of trains cleans that thoroughly at any time short of complete refurbishment of a car.

I understand the love of a pet, and I also understand how a pet can provide serious emotional support. I also understand that, from a strictly analytical point of view, most pet trips on a commuter railroad will be entirely made at the option of the pet owner and will have nothing to do with medical or life-or-death situations for either the owner or the pet.

I hate to use a “slippery slope” argument. You know, the kind that says, “If we start to allow X, then we will have to allow Y, and pretty soon we’ll be allowing the whole damn alphabet.” Take one step down the slippery slope and you can’t go back, there’s nothing to grab onto, you must just hold your breath and slide all the way down, hoping for the best. As I said, I hate to use such an argument.

So, I’m going to try something else.

Is it moral for Metra to make even one person uncomfortable in order to, a) allow another person to selfishly satisfy arbitrary personal needs, and b) possibly accrue more fares in the process? In the case of b), is it ethical?

Since manners are a person’s outward manifestation of their ethics or morality, I would ask a third question: Are Metra and its pet-carrying passengers exhibiting good manners toward all other passengers?

I submit that the answer to all three questions is a solid “no!”

Let me analogize to, I hope, explain why. Metra, along with just about every other public transportation entity, has spent untold dollars providing legal accommodation for differently abled passengers; everything from ramps to lifts to, in the case of buses, special vehicles. We accept that this is a moral obligation codified into our federal and state regulations as law.

Why, then, is it not immoral to deny someone who has pet allergies, or just an aversion to small animals, whether logically rooted or just a personal preference, the opportunity to ride in a train car that has never been subjected to pet dander or odor. Even if a government entity has not declared me a part of a protected class, am I not owed commonly decent manners?

If the answer is no, then why not? If the answer is yes, then why are passenger carriers expanding the circumstances under which pet-averse people, against their will, might be exposed to other peoples’ pets?

You can take this discussion and apply it to any of many areas where society is breaking down vis a vis morals, manners, and ethics; if you don’t mind becoming pariah. That’s because those who know no other way of life than to always get what they want will label you a bigot, racist, or worse. . . in order to get what they want. Those of my readers who are smart enough to understand my argument already know which areas.

Pets on a whatever. Really? More like whatever anywhere. Okay, maybe it is a slippery slope.

©2017 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

(Charles A. Turek is a writer and novelist based in Albuquerque, NM. After four decades working in areas of the insurance industry related to transportation, he now writes on all aspects of American railroading. Charles is a political conservative but believes in public funding of passenger rail as a part of the federal government’s constitutionally conservative obligation to provide for defense and public infrastructure so that private enterprise may flourish.)