Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Crack down on dogs in local businesses?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 18, 2008 at 4:10 am #586989
gambaruParticipantHas there been a recent crack down on local businesses allowing dogs in their establishments? As a West Seattle dog owner, there are a limited few spots where my k9 buddy can come in with me. On Friday after work, my dog and I walked to such a place to meet a co-worker for a drink. It’s something I typically look forward to doing. My dog and I get a nice walk in, socialize, and there is plenty of good cheer and pats on the head for my mutt. However, Friday was a different story. The manager came over and said I had to fib and say the dog was a service dog if we wanted to stay. She seemed worried about being reported. Not wanting to cause trouble, my group moved on to another dog-friendly place: The C & P, which in the past advertised themselves as doggie welcome. In fact, they even show patrons with their dogs on their website! Unfortunately, when we arrived, there was a sign on the door, “Service Dogs Only”. Anyone know whats going on? I have always loved that Seattle is one of the most dog-friendly cities in the country- or at least it was… I’m really sad it is changing.
May 18, 2008 at 4:32 am #624771
AnonymousInactiveCould it be customer complaints? There was a dog thread on here awhile back with some pretty strong sentiments against this. Said they would refuse to patronize any place that allowed this. Some simply had allergies, others found it disgusting.
Unfortunately, as with all things dog, (off-leash, failure to pick up after, etc) some negligent owners ruin it for the rest of us.
May 18, 2008 at 5:03 am #624772
AnonymousInactiveI went to C&P about 2 months ago and asked if they allowed dogs, but they told me “service animals” only. It seemed to me that this policy had been in place for a while.
May 18, 2008 at 6:43 am #624773
charlabobParticipantThe definition in Washington State for service dog is very reasonable and flexible. (This is from the state human rights commission.)
I checked a while back to see if “disabled” had the same stringent meaning it has for parking permits and it doesn’t. If having my hypothetical not yet existent dog makes me safer in a public setting, and my dog doesn’t creates problems for others, that’s enough to qualify my dog for service and me for disability.
“10. What exactly is a “trained guide dog†or “trained service animalâ€?
A trained guide dog is a one that is trained for the purpose of guiding blind persons. Or it could be a dog that is trained to assist hearing-impaired persons. They don’t have to use a harness or other special equipment.
A trained service animal is any animal that is trained to help the disabled person. As long as the trained animal helps a disabled person achieve success at work or at home it may qualify. Sometimes the training needed can be just for basic needs. However, the law does not protect an animal in training as a service animal.
For example: A dog that is aware of when its owner is about to have a seizure and warns the owner. The training may be to obey verbal commands of the owner and is house broken.
There is no requirement for animals to be formally trained or certified.”
May 18, 2008 at 10:38 am #624774
littlebrowndogParticipantIt’s not as casual as all that, but people abuse it all the time by simply saying “My dog is a service animal.”
You must have a disability that qualifies as a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act. To do that it must qualify as “a substantial handicap” that significantly impairs one’s ability to function in key life areas. It must be documented and a physician or other relevant health care professional must have diagnosed it. And the dog must have been trained to perform tasks that mitigate the disability. A simple statement like “I am very nervous about being out in public” or “I have borderline diabetes” does not constitute a disability under the ADA.
In most situations you cannot be required to provide proof of your disability or that the animal is a service animal. The only things that can be asked are “Do you have a disability?”, “Is that a service animal?” and “What tasks does your animal provide you?” Airlines are an exception; they can ask for written proof of your disability and medical necessity for a trained service animal. If ever you end up in a legal battle of some sort, such as being denied access although having a disability and a service dog, then the documentation becomes necessary. Some states have formal certification of service dogs; we don’t. That has its pluses and minuses, including opening up the possibility of abuse of the law.
I have a major disability and I have a highly trained service animal. I love dogs as much as if not more than anybody else here. I spend virtually every weekend with hundreds of other dogs competing in agility, plus take classes with other dogs several times a week. I drive 80 miles roundtrip at least once a week to provide my dog with a safe off-leash experience out in the country at a dog ranch. He gets walked 2-3 miles a day (on leash). And no, I don’t manage to have the time to do all this due to not working; I fit in all of this around my work. I wish our country was as dog-tolerant as some European countries. But I am infuriated by people who claim they have a disability when they don’t and claim their dog is a service animal when it is not.
May 18, 2008 at 10:55 am #624775
littlebrowndogParticipantOh, I should add that it isn’t directly in Washington State law that your disability must fall under ADA criteria. It is in subsequent interpretations of the state laws and ADA pertaining to service animals when there has been challenges due to denied access and it has then been more clearly stated the types of disabilities to which it applies. Federal law applies in each state; therefore, the federal law trumps any state laws pertaining to the matter. That is why I can travel to other states that require certification and when challenged not have to provide it—because the federal law does not require certification. Some states, like New Mexico, that have required certification in the past, have modified their laws now specifically to fall into line with the federal laws. But read the ADA definition of disability, and read the interpretations that say the dog must be performing tasks that mitigate the disability. For instance, a psychiatric service dog trained for somebody with a phobia of going into public (and it must be a genuine, diagnosed anxiety disorder—you must be willing to have the diagnosis, label and stigma of mental illness)must be trained to do things that migch include orienting the person to reality as they begin to decompensate, provide stress-reduction tasks,scan the area for danger and communicate the danger to the person, clear the path in crowds, etc.
http://www.deltasociety.org/serviceinformationbasic.htm
Delta Society has the national technical assistance program for service dogs.
May 18, 2008 at 12:01 pm #624776
littlebrowndogParticipantSorry for the successive posts, but I am mulling this over and want to address in advance the likely responses as I’m leaving in a few minutes for an agility trial and won’t get a chance to see your responses until later.
You may say, OK, so that’s the definition of service animal. But what harm is done by claiming my well-behaved dog is a service animal so that they can accompany me to public places like in Europe or even local places?
It’s like the whole issue about “well-behaved” dogs off leash in public places. You say your dog is well-behaved, and I will take your word for that. But people who have ill-mannered, poorly trained dogs also make the claim their dog is a service dog. They take their dogs inside places and then the dog urinates, defecates, jumps up on, barks,intimidates, resource guards, and even bites. Now shopkeepers, hotels, etc. will challenge me and my service dog because of their bad experiences. They may even deny access to their place of public accommodation. Sure, legally I have recourse, but filing that claim and getting it heard can take weeks and months, sometimes even years. In the meanwhile I am unable to access the restaurant, shop, hotel, taxi, etc. That is not fair to me, and can constitute quite a hardship for me.
Don’t think that the poorly behaved dogs are just an urban legend, either. You guys all know of people whose dogs are aggressive or otherwise misbehaved who frequent the off-leash parks even. Even when walking our dogs on leash at Alki we have other people’s dogs on leash lunge at our dogs at times.
May 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm #624777
JimmyGMemberA food establishment (espresso places included) can get in trouble with the Health Department if they find dogs in the business. Service dogs being the exception.
If you have a favorite coffee shop or restaurant why put the owners in the uncomfortable position of trying to keep a customer versus getting a fine from the Health department?
My dogs do just fine leashed out front of my local espresso joint. They got to walk there and they won’t die outside waiting for me.
May 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm #624778
charlabobParticipantLBD, thanks for the clarification — must be the difference between Wa. and ADA regulations. I called (a couple of years ago) to ask if the person and the dog had to be certified in some way. (Ironically, I was asking on behalf of a friend– had no idea I’d ever really want to know.) At that time, the state office said no certification was necessary, but you obviously have done a lot more research and your info is current.
I imagine the place I won’t mention, where I go to hang out comfortably with other folks’ dogs, has the service dog requirement — it also doesn’t serve food (you order out) so that also makes a difference.
If a crackdown really does occur, the b and i just have to get our own damned dogs so I can quit living vicariously.
(In California (and at the now infamous Alki Cafe) people with dogs just ate at the outdoor tables with their dogs tied to the chair leg.)
May 18, 2008 at 10:54 pm #624779
JoMemberJimmyG is right.
I’m suspecting instead of a customer complaint, the health inspector came around, saw a dog in a shop, and then issued warnings to all businesses in the vicinity. It’s simply against the law to bring an animal (of any kind) into an establishment that sells food. It’s a health issue, not a canine prejudice issue.
Charlabob said: “it also doesn’t serve food (you order out) so that also makes a difference.” If you serve any food at all, whether on premises or ‘to go’ the health department says, ‘no animals.’ The only exception is a service dog.
So, I guess find a place with an outdoor patio and keep your dog close, or tie it up outside while you’re inside.
May 18, 2008 at 11:09 pm #624780
JimmyGMemberI think if you really, really, really can’t have a meal, drink a beer, or sip a cappuccino without Fido inside the business with you, then you need to be willing to step up to the plate and pay the fine the establishment may be levied against them for your dog.
My guess is the fine is a couple of hundred $$. I think that’s the stand up way to handle it.
May 19, 2008 at 1:04 am #624781
JanSParticipantJo…to clarify things…that particular establishment doesn’t serve food period…on premises or “to go”. They have menus from other local establishments, and you can order food from those places to bring into this place, if you’re hungry. Definitely guarantees you a varied offering…
May 19, 2008 at 1:05 am #624782
JanSParticipantso…perhaps the new outdoor “porch” could be for the pups…they’re there..but not….
May 19, 2008 at 2:20 am #624783
gambaruParticipantIt’s not really about HAVING to have my dog with me. It’s just nice to have the option every now and then to have a place to go to where the dog can tag along. I didn’t feel comfortable pretending my dog was a service dog at all, which is why we attempted to go to C&P. I am in no way advocating “impersonating a service dog”. The first establishment does not serve food, but still was forced to enforce the “service dogs only” policy inspite of previously allowing dogs and obviously still allowing them under the table. (Pardon the pun.)I really enjoyed taking my dog to both of those places. The doggie-friendly niche definitely caused them to stick out in my mind as different from the rest and kept me coming back. I’m disappointed those days are over.
On another note to add to the convo on resturaunts and health codes, Norm’s in Fremont is named after the owner’s dog, they welcome dogs, have a picture wall of dogs who frequent the bar, their logo is a dog, and they serve food… they must have had to get special permitting? Might not be a bad idea for the formerly dog-friendly spots in West Seattle. I know I for one would make a point to visit those spots…
May 19, 2008 at 3:55 am #624784
barmargiaMemberI can’t help but notice a lot of places in West Seattle are getting less and less dog friendly.
May 19, 2008 at 6:51 pm #624785
dazzelspaceMemberAs expected – most – if not all dog owners have no clue as to why their pets have no place in local businesses. (nor do they care.) The same attitude is displayed by cat owners who leave their kitty outside all the time – so the kitty can use a neighbor’s yard as a toilet and hang-out. Try and explain any of this to cat and dog owners – even though all the laws and conventions and manners of common courtesy are NOT on their side… and you will be met with arrogance and self-righteousness… and then they’ll accuse you of *hating animals*. I also love the neighbors who leave the plastic bags of dog pooh in MY trash or recycling containers. It is an issue of manners, courtesy, and respect for others. Laws and Health Regulations are not optional. Manners are though. I’d love to find just one pet owner who showed any concern for others!
May 19, 2008 at 9:36 pm #624786
AnonymousInactiveVincent, excellent post!
May 19, 2008 at 10:00 pm #624787
KayleighMember<<I’d love to find just one pet owner who showed any concern for others!>>
Really? You mean there aren’t any at all in West Seattle? Tragic.
How would parents feel if childless people posted anti-kid rants in the same vein as the anti-animal rants?
(Yes, I know many of you don’t hate dogs/cats but just wish ________, and that *your* kids are perfectly behaved in public, and that kids are humans and dogs are not.) We get it.
May 19, 2008 at 10:22 pm #624788
KayleighMemberHey, cinnamon, do you get mad about people who swear in public too?
You trolls are so transparent.
Get a life.
May 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm #624789
littlebrowndogParticipantDazzelspace-
I wrote the near rants in response to people saying their pets are service dogs in order to gain access for them to public places. BUT…I am another exception to the idea of pet owners not understanding why people might object to their pets being allowed everywhere. I would love to see a change in laws about that, so that people could bring well-mannered dogs into certain types of establishments (not all). I understand people with phobias, people with allergies, religious beliefs about the role of dogs, and people who just plain don’t like dogs. I am really understanding of the value of the relationships we have with our pets, but I think you are mistaken in your assumption that all of us are fanatics who are so self-indulgent that we cannot comprehend the perspectives of others. My dog can legally go anywhere, but I always scan for signs of people moving away from him and then try to make sure I don’t come close to them. On airplanes the first thing I do is check with my seatmates to confirm they don’t have allergies, fears, or just plain dislikes as it would be completely reasonable in my mind for them to ask to be re-seated and I would take no offense. There is a restaurant of a certain religious persuasion that I would love to visit but don’t because that religion views dogs as undesirable and most of their employees and customers are of that religion. So even though I feel really strongly about my legal right to take my dog everywhere and anywhere, I do understand that some people are not comfortable with that and try to be sensitive to it when it doesn’t interfere with my needs. Heck, I go to the Farmer’s Market sometimes and my husband and I take turns sitting along the sidewalk and holding my dog (and his service dog also) rather than taking them into the market even though we have every right to do so. So if a person who has every right to take a dog everywhere can be understanding of the feelings of others, I think it is a gross mis-statement to say that others with pets do not have the same understanding. Not all of them do, but I know lots who do.
May 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm #624790
charlabobParticipantCats live with us and dogs have (and will again, when my current campaign of whining and wheedling succeeds — directed at the current cats and the current hubby.) If you think you own a cat, it’s only because the cat allows you your delusions.
I empathize and sympathize with people who don’t want them around everywhere. I’d like dogs to be welcome in more places, because I think they’re a civilizing influence. What does this make me — a talking dog?
I really dislike “everyone who A’s is B” statements. “I have yet to see any dog owner who isn’t an a-hold….” just doesn’t work, as an argument or as a reality.
The place that will not be named, but we are all taking about seemed, this Sunday, to be less dog friendly than usual. Many of Tuxedo’s people were there, but he wasn’t. I’m with you, JanS — hoping that the outdoor space will be open to four-legged visitors.
May 20, 2008 at 2:21 pm #624791
SueParticipantMy husband was talking to the owner of one of the local coffee shops that previously allowed dogs in – and he confirmed that yes, there had been a crackdown, which is why they’re not allowing it.
May 20, 2008 at 9:02 pm #624792
gambaruParticipantThanks Sue for answering my original question. LOL, how long did it take for us to get back to it?
May 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm #624793
charlabobParticipant35 — The shortest distance between two points is never through an internet forum; the most interesting path? Maybe :-) Shortest ….nah!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.