Pets should be banned from the rail network

[styles]

I don't think I've ever seen a badly behaved dog on a train. I think most owners know that if they have a dog which wouldn't deal well with being on a train then it would be a stressful experience doing it. I don't take my dog on trains at the moment because although she's 'harmless', she's very nervous of new situations, while equally wound up if she can't say hi to everybody, and not everybody wants that. We're working on it, but right now I just know I would find it a bad experience, let alone anybody else.

That's not to say it doesn't happen, but banning all pets because exceptionally you get one misbehaving, is a bit of an overreaction in my view. A bit like banning alcohol ok board because every now and then someone takes it too far.

We wouldn't ban alcohol (except case by case service basis), and there's way more drunk people causing problems than pets which by the regs have to be on leads or in crates.

 

[Lewisham2221]

We wouldn't ban alcohol (except case by case service basis), and there's way more drunk people causing problems than pets which by the regs have to be on leads or in crates.

There's way more sober people causing issues on trains than pets do. I can't ever recall seeing a dog vaping or watching TikTok videos without headphones whilst on a train.

 

[styles]

There's way more sober people causing issues on trains than pets do. I can't ever recall seeing a dog vaping or watching TikTok videos without headphones whilst on a train.

Ban people from trains.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't mind quiet dogs on trains. There are two I walk past on the way to the station who go bezerk whenever someone walks by. I've nicknamed them the Hound of the Baskervilles and Cerberus.

 

[WestCoast]

My friend‘s dog is a certain enthusiast, he absolutely loves watching trains go by and travelling on all kinds of traction. He will pull towards the station when walking by it. It’s quite funny.

Most dogs are fine as long as they are on the leash, sit on the floor and perhaps muzzled if large. Far better than any shouty drunk.

 

[duffield]

The only problem I've ever had is people allowing their very large (but perfectly genial and well behaved) dogs to sprawl right across the aisle, so you are expected to step over them to get to the toilet or leave the train. This makes me extremely anxious, I'm afraid the train will lurch slightly and I'll tread on the dog. I found it surprising that on none of these occasions did the guard ask their owners to stop their dog obstructing the aisle.

 

[Russel]

Someone will be along to suggest banning children next!

I can't say I've ever seen a badly behaved dog on a train, passengers on the other hand...

Even if we're going down the hygiene route, the majority of dogs I've seen on trains are cleaner and make less mess than many passengers do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==

We wouldn't ban alcohol (except case by case service basis), and there's way more drunk people causing problems than pets which by the regs have to be on leads or in crates.

ScotRail says hello.

 

[sefyllian]

Very bad behaviour is easy to spot and pretty rare.

I think the problem is more that a lot of dog behaviour is in the eye of the beholder – what can feel like bad/unwelcome/intimidating behaviour to some people is often regarded as good-natured/inquisitive/friendly behaviour by pet-owners.

And even a perfectly quiet and still dog can be a problem for someone with an allergy or a fear of dogs.

But I don’t think we should ban pets from trains entirely.

It would be great if we introduced the Swedish model. There most (all?) trains have a designated pet carriage (or half a carriage, with a glass dividing door). There’s a big symbol of a dog on the outside, like the symbols telling people with bikes or wheelchairs where to board. If you have a pet you have to travel in that section (you can specifically reserve seats there if you need to). If it’s full you either stand in the vestibule of that section with your pet, or you can try asking someone without a pet if they’ll move to another carriage, which is usually fine.

It would be fairly easy to introduce this policy, you’d just need to stick dog symbols on one carriage of every train. Or perhaps an even quicker way, for longer-distance trains at least, would be to ban pets from the Quiet Zone (on the basis that dogs can’t be expected to be quiet at all times), so at least allergy-sufferers and non-dog-lovers would know they have somewhere to sit in peace.

 

[bramling]

Very bad behaviour is easy to spot and pretty rare.

I think the problem is more that a lot of dog behaviour is in the eye of the beholder – what can feel like bad/unwelcome/intimidating behaviour to some people is often regarded as good-natured/inquisitive/friendly behaviour by pet-owners.

And even a perfectly quiet and still dog can be a problem for someone with an allergy or a fear of dogs.

But I don’t think we should ban pets from trains entirely.

It would be great if we introduced the Swedish model. There most (all?) trains have a designated pet carriage (or half a carriage, with a glass dividing door). There’s a big symbol of a dog on the outside, like the symbols telling people with bikes or wheelchairs where to board. If you have a pet you have to travel in that section (you can specifically reserve seats there if you need to). If it’s full you either stand in the vestibule of that section with your pet, or you can try asking someone without a pet if they’ll move to another carriage, which is usually fine.

It would be fairly easy to introduce this policy, you’d just need to stick dog symbols on one carriage of every train. Or perhaps an even quicker way, for longer-distance trains at least, would be to ban pets from the Quiet Zone (on the basis that dogs can’t be expected to be quiet at all times), so at least allergy-sufferers and non-dog-lovers would know they have somewhere to sit in peace.

I suspect what causes people to become anti-dog is the sheer arrogance and ignorance of some owners, a trend that’s got a lot worse since Covid.

When you have situations where dogs go jumping up on people in parks, sometimes when wet and muddy, and perhaps even attempting to bite in excitement, and the attitude of the owner is totally nonchalant about it, it’s no wonder they have a bad reputation.

Or the owners who will take their dog out in the car to a park, woods, beauty spot or whatever, walk it 100 yards primarily so it can do its business somewhere other than in their garden and they don’t have to clear it up.

None of this is the fault of the dogs of course, just their rancid human owners.

 

[Peter0124]

Pets should be allowed on public transport, however NOT on seats or off-leads.

 

[yorksrob]

Even if we're going down the hygiene route, the majority of dogs I've seen on trains are cleaner and make less mess than many passengers do.

But the majority of passengers wear clothes, which is why I tolerate them on the seats.

 

[styles]

ScotRail says hello.

Alcohol is allowed on the majority of ScotRail services.

 

[321362]

Ban people from trains.

My point exactly.

 

[Russel]

Alcohol is allowed on the majority of ScotRail services.

As of a few weeks ago, yes, but remind me, how long was it banned for?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==

But the majority of passengers wear clothes, which is why I tolerate them on the seats.

True, but dogs don't generally sit on the seats.

 

[xotGD]

When we take our dog for a bash, we put a blanket on the seat, and she sits on that.

 

[styles]

As of a few weeks ago, yes, but remind me, how long was it banned for?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==



True, but dogs don't generally sit on the seats.

It was banned as a COVID measure though, then the lifting of it was delayed by the nationalisation and the inevitable prioritisation that came with that. ScotGov decided they needed to run a consultation on lifting the ban, which just wasted time when it was clear most passengers wanted it lifted, and ScotRail and BTP had made clear it wasn't really being enforced anyway.

LNER also banned it on and off during lockdowns, a sensible measure imo, just they were quicker to lift the ban afterwards.

I don't think a temporary ban during a deadly pandemic is really comparable, even if the bureaucracy of a new public ownership delayed the lifting.

 

[mike57]

Pets should be allowed, but not on seats, change the rules so that if a pet is on a seat an immediate 'penalty fare' can be issued.

 

[Falcon1200]

some of the worst behaviour I have seen from dogs (and their owners) has actually been on the northern WCML between Preston and Glasgow.

I travel regularly on that route in particular and have never seen such behaviour. And if there is, every such train has a Guard who can deal with such issues.

 

[Helvellyn]

But the majority of passengers wear clothes, which is why I tolerate them on the seats.

When a dog is casting you might not agree when you get up and find yourself covered in dog hair!

Most dogs are well-behaved and usually kept on leads. My only two issues have been with the owners. Firstly, where a large dog was sprawled in the aisle, the owner wouldn't move it and as I was stepping over it the train lurched and I stood on one of its paws. The owner then started shouting at me! The other was coming to sit in my reserved seat, at a table of four, and finding a large dog on the floor under the table. The owner refused to get it to move even when I pointed out I couldn't occupy my seat because I had nowhere to put my legs. I'd have tried to find an empty seat but the train was full and it was only the train manager coming through that resolved the issue but the atmosphere was chilly for the rest of the trip.

 

[RedKing]

Should people be allowed to take wardrobes, sofas or desks on the train then?

If you arrived at a station carrying a wardrobe or a sofa, and could manage to get it on the train by yourself without causing a delay, then I'd say you should be allowed to travel!
---
If we are trying to encourage people to switch to public transport, why would we implement barriers to this? Everybody with a pet (but not a car) should only be able to go to the same limited number of places within walking distance??

If the argument is they can be "inconveniently" placed (on seats, blocking aisles, etc), I see more this more with suitcases than pets. We ask people to move their suitcases, we can ask people to move their pets.

The argument about drunken passengers comes up because one of the anti-pet arguments is how the pets behave, but passengers will behave worse than pets 99 times out of a 100.
If the argument is about intimidation/fear, see above.

Could there be processes implemented (and actually acted upon by rail staff if not followed) such as not on peak/busy services, not on seats, not in aisles, etc? Yes.
Should there be a blanket ban? Ridiculous.

 

[WibbleWobble]

I’m not a huge fan of dogs on seats, but equally accept many dogs are cleaner than the individuals that may replace them if they were to move.

But the majority of passengers wear clothes, which is why I tolerate them on the seats.

Dogs should never, ever be on seats, as it can cause big problems for those with allergies.

 

[Andymo]

I agree dogs should not be on seats but should people not eat peanuts on a train, carry anything containing latex etc because of allergies? It’s mass public transport not catering for individual idiosyncrasies.

 

[duffield]

Allergies may be triggered whether the dog is on a seat or not, but dogs shouldn't be on seats anyhow, because unlike - say - cats they don't tend to clean their bums, and the dog's bare bum may come into direct contact with the seat (unless they are Schnauzers in trousers).

 

[Peter0124]

Dogs on seats is a problem - because dogs can walk in muck and get it all over the seat, aswell as all the hairs that get left on it, and they don't wear pants so god knows what you are sitting in.

IIRC certain TOCs used to 'promote' this kind of thing on social media by liking/commenting on posts where people put their dog on a seat.

Using a blanket might be a different story?

 

[Jimini]

Using a blanket might be a different story?

We don’t even do that (noting that our pooch is a tiddler, to be fair). He’s either on one of our laps, or curled up by our feet.

 

[GusB]

Dogs on seats is a problem - because dogs can walk in muck and get it all over the seat, aswell as all the hairs that get left on it, and they don't wear pants so god knows what you are sitting in.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that dogs should be allowed on seats. Whenever I've taken pets on public transport they were on a lead (as required) and not on the seats (also as required). I also remember having to pay a quarter fare at one point! (one for the "anachronistic things" thread in General Discussion)

As far as walking in "muck" is concerned, every single one of us walks in places that aren't sterile. Some humans, despite rules that forbid it, will put their feet on seats.

You also have to remember that some humans have issues with personal hygiene and they go to the supermarket like the rest of us do...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Allergies may be triggered whether the dog is on a seat or not, but dogs shouldn't be on seats anyhow, because unlike - say - cats they don't tend to clean their bums, and the dog's bare bum may come into direct contact with the seat (unless they are Schnauzers in trousers).

"Allergies" covers a wide range of reactions. Some food allergies (particularly peanuts) can potentially be fatal, but the vast majority of allergic reactions to animals are merely an irritation- they may cause sneezes or rashes, which although unpleasant are highly unlikely to cause any lasting damage.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that people with non-deadly allergies should simply "suck it up", but there's a tendency to assume that all allergic reactions are a matter of life and death, and they aren't.

 

[supervc-10]

I agree dogs should not be on seats but should people not eat peanuts on a train, carry anything containing latex etc because of allergies? It’s mass public transport not catering for individual idiosyncrasies.

A potentially life threatening allergy is not an 'individual idiosyncrasy'. Although, as @61653 HTAFC points out, allergy to pet dander *tends* to be more of a minor allergy.
I have heard cabin crew on flights instructing people not to open any foods with peanuts due to a passenger's allergy, and if someone with an equally bad issue to peanuts was on a train, I'd be fully supportive of asking people in the carriage to do the same.

Regarding pets on trains - like many, I've not seen bad pet behaviour on trains. Whenever we've travelled with our dogs on the train, they're either on laps or on the floor. Our two terriers just curl up and sleep, but our worried whippet needs to be on a lap having reassuring cuddles the entire time if it's the old SWR 159 out to Salisbury, as he finds the noises cause anxiety. We tend to drive because of his anxiety, but will use the Overground/DLR/Lizzie line and they're all fine with those. I know he wouldn't cope with the screeching of the tubes though. I see dogs quite frequently on various TfL services, and I can't remember the last time a dog was being disruptive, unless you consider looking about the carriage with 'pet me' eyes disruptive.

BTP should treat badly behaved dogs like badly behaved people - the unleashed XL Bully mentioned before is illegal anyway these days (although I will say that one of our neighbours has an XL bully type dog and he's an absolute sweetie). Anyone with a disruptive dog should be fined, the same way as being drunk and disorderly.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't think our society in general is a safe place for anyone who may suffer anaphylaxis in response to dog hair. Anyone in that situation isn't going to be on a train, because they probably couldn't safely get to the station in the first place.

Well behaved dogs (and people) are fine. Badly behaved dogs (and people) should be removed from the train. Any other type of animal is likely to be in a carrier.

 

[al78]

I suspect what causes people to become anti-dog is the sheer arrogance and ignorance of some owners, a trend that’s got a lot worse since Covid.

When you have situations where dogs go jumping up on people in parks, sometimes when wet and muddy, and perhaps even attempting to bite in excitement, and the attitude of the owner is totally nonchalant about it, it’s no wonder they have a bad reputation.

Or the owners who will take their dog out in the car to a park, woods, beauty spot or whatever, walk it 100 yards primarily so it can do its business somewhere other than in their garden and they don’t have to clear it up.

None of this is the fault of the dogs of course, just their rancid human owners.

I didn't used to like dogs but have become neutral towards them now. Apart from one incident I have never had any issue with dogs on trains. The worst that tends to happen is the dog is lying in the aisle and you have to step over it carefully if you want to move down the carriage. Dog owners are a PITA (particularly in SE England, less so elsewhere) in many other areas (e.g. consuming as much space as possible on footpaths so no-one can pass without walking in the road, fawning over each other's dogs whilst standing in the road, owners that have zero voice command over their dog), on public transport they are not an issue. If you want to improve my experience of traveling by train, sort out the smart-phone-dumb-users blaring their crap out, signal problems, staff shortages and build infrastructure that can cope with weather conditions that are experienced every year without falling over (i.e. 30+C in SE England).

It is interesting people have brought up XL bullies, some owners of this breed claim it is a misunderstood breed and is very friendly and well suited to a family home if trained properly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

The argument about drunken passengers comes up because one of the anti-pet arguments is how the pets behave, but passengers will behave worse than pets 99 times out of a 100.

Unfortunately that is a whataboutism argument which is the sort of argument I tend to ignore because it is a logical fallacy. The existence of severe issue A does not mean a lesser issue B isn't worth calling out (I'm not saying badly behaved dogs is an issue on trains, it isn't in my experience).