Bringing your Dog to Restaurant patios

[LTAWACS]

I still am unable to grasp why anyone would want to take an animal to restaurants, eateries, bars, or the like. I just don't understand why. Why?

[ricco67]

I still am unable to grasp why anyone would want to take an animal to restaurants, eateries, bars, or the like. I just don't understand why. Why?

I can understand a dog, but monkeys, iguanas, and snakes?

I'll pass on the rest, unless they open a reptilian/mammal restaurant.

[samagon]

The bolded comment goes both ways - there are people on both sides of the fence. ..

not really.

what he was saying, is..

that without a rule stating 'cats and dogs cannot be on a patio' a restaurateur has the option of saying:

you can't bring pets.

or

you can bring pets.

as a patron, if you disagree with either position, you can choose to eat somewhere else.

with a rule stating 'no pets allowed' there are no options:

as a patron, if I want to bring my pet with me to dinner, there are no options, I cannot choose anywhere else.

[LTAWACS]

I can understand a dog, but monkeys, iguanas, and snakes?

I'll pass on the rest, unless they open a reptilian/mammal restaurant.

Even dogs. I don't see the appeal nor do I understand why some people insist on bringing their filthy, disgusting, vile pets with them everywhere they go. Dogs belong outside. And I dont mean on the patio of an eatery.

[Flashman]

Even dogs. I don't see the appeal nor do I understand why some people insist on bringing their filthy, disgusting, vile pets with them everywhere they go. Dogs belong outside. And I dont mean on the patio of an eatery.

Dear Ken Hoffman:

Are you so lacking in empathy that you honestly cannot understand why people want to have their dogs with them while they eat?

You are either being disingenuous or are amazingly unobservant.

[dbigtex56]

I still am unable to grasp why anyone would want to take an animal to restaurants, eateries, bars, or the like. I just don't understand why. Why?

Some people like[/] dogs. They can be friendly devoted companions, and are by nature social creatures. I get the impression that you've had bad experiences with dogs, and might dislike or fear them. If so, I can't blame you for feeling uncomfortable in their presence. Some people encourage their dogs to be aggressive, and I think the best thing in that situation is to humanely destroy them (the people, not the dogs.)

Dear Ken Hoffman:

Are you so lacking in empathy that you honestly cannot understand why people want to have their dogs with them while they eat?

You are either being disingenuous or are amazingly unobservant.

I respectfully disagree. It's not either/or; Ken Hoffman manages to be both disingenuous and unobservant. I've seldom been subjected to such a smug, self-indulgent columnist. There are few things as off-putting as someone who thinks he's cuter than he really is. If he's the poor man's Dave Berry, that man is indeed desolate. His prominent influence is part of the reason I cancelled my subscription to the Chronicle. (Sorry, Lisa; I really enjoy your columns.)

[dbigtex56]

I still am unable to grasp why anyone would want to take an animal to restaurants, eateries, bars, or the like. I just don't understand why. Why?

Some people like dogs. They can be friendly devoted companions, and are by nature social creatures. They can be great icebreakers - many conversations have started over dogs or toddlers.

I get the impression that you've had bad experiences with dogs, and might dislike or fear them. If so, I can't blame you for feeling uncomfortable in their presence. Some people encourage their dogs to be aggressive, and I think the best thing in that situation is to humanely destroy them (the people, not the dogs.)

Dear Ken Hoffman:

Are you so lacking in empathy that you honestly cannot understand why people want to have their dogs with them while they eat?

You are either being disingenuous or are amazingly unobservant.

I respectfully disagree. It's not either/or; Ken Hoffman manages to be both disingenuous and unobservant. I've seldom been subjected to such a smug, self-indulgent columnist. There are few things as off-putting as someone who thinks he's cuter than he really is. If he's the poor man's Dave Berry, that man is indeed desolate. Mr. Hoffman annoys me. His overexposure is part of the reason I cancelled my subscription to the Chronicle. (Sorry, Lisa Gray; I really did enjoy your columns.)

[TheNiche]

Before you go all spastic on me, I said it that way for a reason. You are demanding laws (or the keeping of laws already in place) to suit your tastes, not because the public is endangered by the practice. Dogs have lived with humans forever. Your health claims are bogus, as are the health department's. This is a "style" issue, as opposed to substance, and frankly, these types of rules weigh society down (not this one in particular, but this type of law). We really need to start eliminating these types of laws, not enacting more of them. At least the smoking ordinance had a tenuous claim to health (save your typing, as I find the second hand smok "science" to be a fraud), but this ordinance is simply regulation of taste. So is the historical ordinance. There is nothing historic about my 90 year old bungalow. It is simply old and cute.

I respectfully disagree.

Although I like little furry creatures of very nearly any variety, I've got a friend that is severely allergic to both. He's been hospitalized before from allergic reactions to dogs, and even the slightest bit of exposure causes his airways to constrict. A few months ago we were at an outdoor bar and someone brought their dog. Sure, it was a violation of the law, but none of the patrons seemed to really care. (It was the East End, after all, not your neighborhood.) My friend's eyes got real large; he was terrified. He asked the patron if he could tie up the dog a little further away from him, but the patron was real cool about it and just put the dog back in the car altogether. There's a lot to be said about the patron's basic sense fun and his human decency; but it didn't have to go down like that. The dog was a legitimate health hazard.

Besides which, someone else's dog is unpredictable. You don't know what they're going to do under given circumstances. What if you've got a small child with you and the kid gets excited and tries to play with the dog? Not ever dog is going to react kindly. And yeah, the kid is your responsibility, but that kind of thing is still a touchy subject, IMO. Even cats, normally docile, sometimes do enigmatic and violent things. That's part of why I like cats, but it does pose a legitimate (if minor) human health hazard when they're in a public venue.

I think that there is a basis for regulating the presence of animals in public venues. That said, I'm with you that people just need to exercise their own good judgement, and that perhaps some people are just screwed by life (and too bad for them).

[dbigtex56]

I respectfully disagree.

Although I like little furry creatures of very nearly any variety, I've got a friend that is severely allergic to both.

To be allergic to little creatures must be especially vexing.

While not unsympathetic to your friend's plight, does he believe the world should revolve around his misfortune? Some people have life-threatening allergies to peanuts or shellfish. Should these be banned from restaurants, too? Some of my favorite Vietnamese food features both. I should also mention that some people claim that they're allergic to something when in fact they merely dislike something. Cowardly and dishonest, yes; but it happens.

I'm allergic to automobiles; therefore they should not be allowed anywhere, at any time. Or, I could accept my condition and try to make the best of things.

[RedScare]

I respectfully disagree.

Although I like little furry creatures of very nearly any variety, I've got a friend that is severely allergic to both. He's been hospitalized before from allergic reactions to dogs, and even the slightest bit of exposure causes his airways to constrict. A few months ago we were at an outdoor bar and someone brought their dog. Sure, it was a violation of the law, but none of the patrons seemed to really care. (It was the East End, after all, not your neighborhood.) My friend's eyes got real large; he was terrified. He asked the patron if he could tie up the dog a little further away from him, but the patron was real cool about it and just put the dog back in the car altogether. There's a lot to be said about the patron's basic sense fun and his human decency; but it didn't have to go down like that. The dog was a legitimate health hazard.

Besides which, someone else's dog is unpredictable. You don't know what they're going to do under given circumstances. What if you've got a small child with you and the kid gets excited and tries to play with the dog? Not ever dog is going to react kindly. And yeah, the kid is your responsibility, but that kind of thing is still a touchy subject, IMO. Even cats, normally docile, sometimes do enigmatic and violent things. That's part of why I like cats, but it does pose a legitimate (if minor) human health hazard when they're in a public venue.

I think that there is a basis for regulating the presence of animals in public venues. That said, I'm with you that people just need to exercise their own good judgement, and that perhaps some people are just screwed by life (and too bad for them).

We have very nice courthouses erected for just such an eventuality. We even have caselaw already decided by judges to let the aggrieved parents know what will happen in said courthouse. There are no laws prohibiting me from walking my dogs on public sidewalks. Restaurant owners should be allowed to decide whether to allow mine on their patio.

As for your allergies, I suppose you favor outlawing peanuts in all restaurants, as well?

BTW, I never take my dogs to restaurants/bars. I don't feel like spending the energy keeping them nearby. But, I'm fine with others doing so.

EDIT: Oops, just saw bigtex's peanut reply.

[Subdude]

Well, it's certainly all about you, isn't it?

Before you go all spastic on me, I said it that way for a reason. You are demanding laws (or the keeping of laws already in place) to suit your tastes, not because the public is endangered by the practice. Dogs have lived with humans forever. Your health claims are bogus, as are the health department's. This is a "style" issue, as opposed to substance, and frankly, these types of rules weigh society down (not this one in particular, but this type of law). We really need to start eliminating these types of laws, not enacting more of them. At least the smoking ordinance had a tenuous claim to health (save your typing, as I find the second hand smok "science" to be a fraud), but this ordinance is simply regulation of taste. So is the historical ordinance. There is nothing historic about my 90 year old bungalow. It is simply old and cute.

Nice straw man, but if you would have read my post before launching into attack mode you would have seen I didn't say a word about health claims.

I don't support repealing the ban because 1)I don't think banning dogs from restaurants is a particularly onerous restriction. It's not like dogs have rights that are being impinged (life, liberty and the pursuit of frisbees?), or that anyone is unduly suffering over the cruelty of it all.

2)If dogs were allowed on restaurant patios I don't trust owners to keep them tied up and under control, any more than I trust people not to talk on the phone while they are driving. I simply don't buy the naive libertarian fantasy that if only regulations were removed then somehow everything would magically work out for the best.

Just because I have a view about it doesn't make me a selfish person.

[Fringe]

At least you can now take your dog out for a drink:

Boneyard

[samagon]

2)If dogs were allowed on restaurant patios I don't trust owners to keep them tied up and under control.

replace the word dog with child.

I was in a restaurant the other day, some kids were running around, their parents were not paying attention (but I assume knew what their kids were doing, that would extremely irresponsible if they didn't), they bumped into a waiter carrying lots of food fresh out of the kitchen (hot), if the waiter had lost his balance, that food (plus the heavy glass plates) would have been everywhere, possibly hurting other patrons, etc. you know what happened? the parents didn't even notice, or care. Unfortunately the waiter didn't tell his manager (or if he did the manager didn't have the kajones to tell the parents to control their kids or gtfo).

I think based on that, all children should be banned from restaurants, regardless.

pretty ridiculous yeah?

A well behaved dog is more acceptable (in my opinion) than a poorly behaved child, but as a culture we are willing to accept that kids running around in restaurants is ok, but a dog leashed, but a bit rowdy is out of the question. All because we sympathize with parents, and it isn't our place to stand up and tell them to control their kids (but we feel we can do so with dog owners creating ridiculous laws that feign to be because of health and safety).

I guess my point is, that as with a restaurant and children, it is up to the owner (or manager) of the restaurant to tell a patron to calm their child down, or ask them to leave for the benefit of everyone else in the place, it is my duty as a patron, if I don't like the behavior that the restaurant puts up with to choose not to go back to that restaurant. It also should not be out of order for a restaurant to have a rule that no one under a certain age is allowed in their restaurant, I may be more inclined to go their than take a chance at a place that lets just anyone with kids in. Just because I don't agree with how families raise their child doesn't mean the government should outlaw them from restaurants.

replace child with dog in the above statement, and that is exactly what we're talking about.

don't forget babies can't even control their own bowels, at least dogs can do that, so as far as cleanliness (and possibly smells I have to put up with) , dogs have that over babies.

[rsb320]

Somebody told me that they saw a goat on a leash recently on the patio of a Montrose area restaurant. Who cares?

Dogs are allowed inside restaurants in Paris.

[ricco67]

Somebody told me that they saw a goat on a leash recently on the patio of a Montrose area restaurant. Who cares?

Dogs are allowed inside restaurants in Paris.

So now we're officially a backwater town because we don't do as the Parisians do?

Bah, let them eat doggie biscuits!

[TheNiche]

I don't support repealing the ban because 1)I don't think banning dogs from restaurants is a particularly onerous restriction. It's not like dogs have rights that are being impinged (life, liberty and the pursuit of frisbees?), or that anyone is unduly suffering over the cruelty of it all.

How typical of Subdude. He does not ask, "What is the justification for modifying social behavior in this instance?" He does not contemplate whether another person might value an experience differently from how he values it. He asks instead, "Why change the status quo when I do not perceive it to be a substantial inconvenience?"

He would've made a fantastic French aristocrat, back in the day.

We have very nice courthouses erected for just such an eventuality. We even have caselaw already decided by judges to let the aggrieved parents know what will happen in said courthouse. There are no laws prohibiting me from walking my dogs on public sidewalks. Restaurant owners should be allowed to decide whether to allow mine on their patio.

As for your allergies, I suppose you favor outlawing peanuts in all restaurants, as well?

BTW, I never take my dogs to restaurants/bars. I don't feel like spending the energy keeping them nearby. But, I'm fine with others doing so.

EDIT: Oops, just saw bigtex's peanut reply.

There are leash laws, the intent not being that you (someone with whom I am familiar with and whom I can vouch for as a responsible and productive member of society) are able to control your animals (which I know to be friendly), but because BELIEVE IT OR NOT, many people are irresponsible and many animals are unpredictable.

I'd imagine that if we didn't have compulsory education, you would still be an intelligent well-informed citizen capable of participating in a democratic republic; however I doubt very much that even two thirds of my graduating high school class would be even remotely prepared. Compulsory education exists (in theory if not necessarily very effectively in practice) to protect our society from its own aggregate ignorance or irresponsibility. I support compulsory education because I think that it protects me from my irresponsible neighbor's irresponsible kid; this is analogous.

Also, it's one thing if we're talking about a fenced-off dog run in a park, where every participant acknowledges a set of risks and responsibilities in a setting where every participant is focused and attentive to their animal. It's another thing if we're talking about allowing unacquainted and potentially irresponsible people to bring unpredictable and potentially dangerous animals into a setting where attentiveness to the animal is a secondary or tertiary concern (after eating or human-human social interaction).

And tying this back to the allergy issue, I've got an aunt that gets hospitalized upon contact with shellfish. She still goes to seafood restaurants; however, she simply makes it clear to the waitstaff that shellfish are not an option. Clear communication of this issue between two human beings allows for the avoidance of trips to the hospital. Pet dander is a little harder to negotiate around. It is either in the air or it isn't.

While not unsympathetic to your friend's plight, does he believe the world should revolve around his misfortune? Some people have life-threatening allergies to peanuts or shellfish. Should these be banned from restaurants, too?

No. However in a world with imperfect information, I think that there is room for some degree of regulation (i.e. leash laws). And although the allergy issue does establish that there is a public health issue meriting the consideration of thoughtful regulation, it does not stand alone as the sole justification; there are more vexing issues such as I addressed above.

Some of my favorite Vietnamese food features both. I should also mention that some people claim that they're allergic to something when in fact they merely dislike something. Cowardly and dishonest, yes; but it happens.

I'm allergic to automobiles; therefore they should not be allowed anywhere, at any time. Or, I could accept my condition and try to make the best of things.

You're right. It seems to happen a lot with second-hand smoke. People can be such incredible douches. But severe allergies to dogs are relatively common and scientifically documented.

[samagon]

I don't see how peanut allergies are analogous.

Some peanuts in a friends food aren't going to cause someone at another table to break out in hives, but an allergy to dog dander, or whatever could very easily cause someone at another table problems.

Granted no one has offered to cut down all the trees cause I'm allergic to tree pollen, or even gone through and created a law that says they can't have trees in neighborhoods, or anything else.

Anyway, there is no real reason I can think of, other than allergies that a person would be against pets outdoors. There are leash laws and such, not every place would allow dogs, not every place wouldn't.

[TheNiche]

Granted no one has offered to cut down all the trees cause I'm allergic to tree pollen, or even gone through and created a law that says they can't have trees in neighborhoods, or anything else.

Interestingly, many municipalities have outlawed the planting of female trees in new subdivisions because they drop incredible masses of seed pods that require increased street sweeping, however the consequence is that only male trees are present and that people with pollen allergies suffer horribly.

Nobody said that all regulation was thoughtful; that does not mean that the possibility of thoughtful regulation should be discarded.

[Subdude]

How typical of Subdude. He does not ask, "What is the justification for modifying social behavior in this instance?" He does not contemplate whether another person might value an experience differently from how he values it. He asks instead, "Why change the status quo when I do not perceive it to be a substantial inconvenience?"

He would've made a fantastic French aristocrat, back in the day.

Of course I understand that another person might "value the experience" of eating with dogs differently from how I value it. I question whether the people pushing this change understand how others might not "value the experience". How many times does it have to be repeated to sink in? I love dogs, but they can bark, beg, poop and otherwise annoy people trying to eat a meal. I don't trust people to keep their dogs tied up. Just what is the great benefit that would be delivered by changing the ban? Do the "rights" of dog-owners to bring their pooches along with them somehow supersede those who don't wish to eat with dogs? Is the ban really harming anyone? The ban is in place - what is the justification for modifying social behavior in this instance?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go have my wig powdered.

[RedScare]

It's really not the rights of dog owners that is the issue here. It is the rights of restaurant owners to run their business and cater to their customers as they see fit. If the restaurant owner wishes to cater to dog owners, he should have that right. You, of course, have the right not to patronize the restaurant, just as I have never entered a child-centric pizza place. By your resoning, every activity that may offend or annoy a potential patron should be regulated. I reject that reasoning as selfish and narcissistic.

I can understand (though I may disagree) with the reasoning behind the no-smoking ordinance. Dogs are a different story altogether. And, please remember that I am not arguing for the right to take my dogs into restaurants (too much trouble), but merely that the process of deciding what should be regulated should not be based on a customer's "preference". There is no need to keep repeating it. I understand completely that you are advocating for regulations based on your "preferences".

[Daniepwils]

It should be up to the owner of the establishment, period. That goes for everything, even smoking (as much as I hate cigarettes).

As for the people asking why anyone would want to bring their dog to a restaurant/bar/etc. Well good dog owners take their dogs on a run/walk daily and it would be nice not to have to lock him/her in the car while we go enjoy lunch or what-not.

Here is a perfect example:

I live downtown, and there is a Starbucks a block from my house, but they don't allow dogs (and I don't feel safe leaving my dog outside tied up while I go get a hot chocolate from Star Bucks). So they lose my business every day I have my dog with me....There is another coffee shop (I won't say where downtown), but the owner lets you bring your dog in and order, and even gives the four legged friends a doguccino (basically a cup with whip cream to lick ) even though it is against the law.

[samagon]

Do the "rights" of dog-owners to bring their pooches along with them somehow supersede those who don't wish to eat with dogs?

Is the opposite true?

As Red says, the point is about the restaurants rights (and then your and my rights to choose where to eat based on what a restaurant caters to).

I don't think this would be as far reaching as you imagine. I compare a lot of things to Irvine Ca. as I've spent a fair bit of time there. For all of the laws that there are in Ca. and Irvine, there is no law banning dogs from restaurant patios. Do you know how many restaurants actually allow dogs to be on the patio with patrons? Less than here in Houston where it is illegal. So it isn't like a person who doesn't like eating in the same area as dogs would no longer have a place to eat peacefully on a patio, it would simply be that some establishments would allow it, while others still wouldn't.

What I think needs to happen is not an all or nothing kind of deal, but a softening of the law to make a process for a business (restaurant, bar, or cafe) to have a license to allow leashed dogs to sit on the patio, if you don't buy a license, it's still illegal, but if you do buy a license, it's legal, but there are extra things the health inspector may check for on his visits, such as: are there special bowls for the dogs; are the waiters washing hands after each visit to a table with a dog; are all dogs being kept on a leash and out of walkways (IE under the table); things like that. The restaurant would probably have to get more expensive insurance too, to cover for a higher calculated risk.

this would work out for everyone, city gets more money, restaurants get to choose, and you and I also get the right to choose.

[dudemeister]

Several cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, Austin, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, and even Dallas along with many European cities have allowed dogs on restaurant patios. And guess what?

Nothing happened and any supposed "health risks" have yet to materialize in those cities from legally allowing dogs on restaurant patios.

It should be up to the individual business owner to decide.

[TheNiche]

Nothing happened and any supposed "health risks" have yet to materialize in those cities from legally allowing dogs on restaurant patios.

Prove what you just said.

[RedScare]

Prove what you just said.

The proof is that the cities still allow it. If there were risks, the cities would immediately outlaw it.

By the way, Texas law used to bar dogs (other than service animals) from dining areas. A few years back, they changed the rule to allow cities and counties to allow dogs under certain conditions. This change is what prompted Dallas and Austin to relax their rules. Despite the misgivings of Subdude, it is probably only a matter of time before Houston changes with the times.

http://www.dailypuppy.com/articles/texas-health-code-on-dogs-in-restaurants/91926b77-749d-0694-79d7-6890113bb87b

[Subdude]

The proof is that the cities still allow it. If there were risks, the cities would immediately outlaw it.

C'mom, that hardly constitutes 'proof'. Plenty of risky things aren't 'immediately outlawed'. Talking on the phone while driving is clearly risky, yet relatively few localities have made it illegal.

[barracuda]

The municipalities that allow dogs in restaurants specify health and cleanliness rules in their ordinances (e.g. - keep on leash, food employees not allowed to pet or handle dogs).

That said, here is a list of diseases that are transmissible between dogs and humans. But unless it's something obvious, like rabies, most people would probably never suspect that their illness was transmitted from a dog.

http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health/zoonoses_dogs.aspx

[TheNiche]

The proof is that the cities still allow it. If there were risks, the cities would immediately outlaw it.

Well that's convenient. By your logic, the U.S. Constitution never needed amending because if something were a problem, it would've already been addressed. We'd still have slavery and the three fifths compromise.

I find it bizzare that your position and Subdude's are so structurally similar.

[RedScare]

Well that's convenient. By your logic, the U.S. Constitution never needed amending because if something were a problem, it would've already been addressed. We'd still have slavery and the three fifths compromise.

I find it bizzare that your position and Subdude's are so structurally similar.

Actually, I find it bizarre that you and Subdude have both chosen to intentionally misstate my comment. Not that I care. The writing is on the wall. The State has changed their rules to allow this activity, and cities are moving in that direction. Houston will follow. I really do not care if the two of you agree with my reasoning or not. The City will make its decision without reading any of our opinions.

[TheNiche]

Actually, I find it bizarre that you and Subdude have both chosen to intentionally misstate my comment. Not that I care. The writing is on the wall. The State has changed their rules to allow this activity, and cities are moving in that direction. Houston will follow. I really do not care if the two of you agree with my reasoning or not. The City will make its decision without reading any of our opinions.

You do care. Otherwise you would not have responded. And as for your speculation that Houston will follow suit, that is a distinct possibility (and personally, I think that samagon's comment is the optimal middle ground); however, that you are making this observation does not provide any intellectual justification that would support it.