Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Dogs in Coffee Shops (NOT!)
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm #812065
CountingCoupMemberLets ban babies, they make noise, spit up all over everything, have no bowel control, how about kids, they put their hands on everything, invade everyones space, then there are the Old people, they are so slow you always have to walk around them, their eyesight and hearing are going bad, etc… Here’s a better idea, let’s ban self centric people who think the world around them needs to exist for their own comfort level!!! You could gather up all the cheese in the greater Seattle area and not have enough for the whine in this thread ~
August 22, 2014 at 4:54 pm #812066
wakefloodParticipantHow much cheese does it take to pair with a big serving of hyperbole and “self centric” hypocrisy?
Just asking…
I don’t agree with everything folks are complaining about on this thread but self-centrism is a more fair comment about those who feel that disrespecting an establishment’s wish, or even societal convention by assuming their desires have primacy when it comes to their pet. Leave it at home or outside. How big of an inconvenience is that?
August 22, 2014 at 5:01 pm #812067
JanSParticipant^^^^^^ I second that….
August 22, 2014 at 5:39 pm #812068
CaitParticipantFor the record I completely agree with that – dogs aren’t meant to be everywhere all the time.
August 22, 2014 at 6:52 pm #812069
B-squaredParticipantHere Here, CountingCoup!!! My thoughts exactly! The self-centric folks who insist that their dogs accompany them everyone and don’t give a gnat’s a$$ about anyone else, or the law in most cases, need to get on the clue bus. I am all for naming the stores/restaurants that allow the dog-centric folks welcome access to their establishments so that those of us who wish to, can avoid them. And if it is a restaurant or grocery store, it seems to me that the King County Health Department can be notified.
August 22, 2014 at 10:11 pm #812070
blblParticipantIf a restaurant or grocery store welcomes dogs into their establishments, they need to be shut down.
August 22, 2014 at 10:21 pm #812071
SueParticipantbibl, the problem is that there is no real requirement in WA of what designates a “service animal,” so if someone says their pet is a service animal, the establishment has to take them at their word because there are no papers for such animals, nor requirements for anyone to disclose their disability.
http://www.hum.wa.gov/FAQ/FAQServiceAnimal.html
From that page:
“Q. How can I tell if an animal is really a service animal and not just a pet?
There are no legal requirements for service animals to be specially identified. Some, but not all, service animals, wear special collars and harnesses. Some, but not all, are licensed or “certified” and/or have identification papers. If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. A public entity cannot require any proof of a person’s disability, or identification or certification of the service animal’s status.”
So, either a great deal of people in West Seattle are legitimately disabled and have service dogs, or some of them are lying about it. I don’t have a service animal, but as someone who has been accused of not being disabled when I use my handicapped placard because I “don’t look disabled,” I would never confront someone if they say it’s re: a disability. You just don’t know. However, that being said, I don’t frequent certain businesses that are overrun with “service animals.”
August 23, 2014 at 1:59 am #812072
blblParticipantSue, just because there is no requirement to identify a service animal does not mean it is ok to allow animals. It is still illegal to bring a dog into a restaurant or grocery store. If the restaurant or grocery store does not enforce that rule, then they should be shut down by the health department.
The establishment has an obligation to inquire into the medical service that the animal provides, and if the service is not an approved medical service, or if the person is simply lying, then the animal should be removed.
August 23, 2014 at 3:32 am #812073
metrognomeParticipantblbl — it is NOT illegal to bring a dog guide or a service animal* into a store, just as it is not illegal to use a wheelchair for mobility in the store. It is a violation of state and federal law to require a (potential) service animal user to provide proof of their disability or that of the dogs ‘legitimate’ status as a service animal, just as the store cannot require proof that a person has a medical condition that requires use of a wheelchair or scooter.
At most, per Grill v Costco, a federal lawsuit decided in this district, employees can inquire if the animal is a service animal and ask what tasks it performs. The owner can answer in a way that does not disclose their disability, e.g. ‘the dog alerts me to my medical condition.’ Documentation, such as paperwork, a special vest, etc. cannot be required.
*A 2011 change in state law, pursuant to a change in federal disability civil rights regulations, defines a ‘service animal’ as only a dog or in some instances, a miniature horse; no more service monkeys, snakes or pigs.
The problem is that some dog owners who don’t require service animals due to a disability have figured out how to scam the system, just as lots of drivers without qualifying disabilities have figured out how to scam the state disability parking placards and get free parking at meters. Those dog owners know that, if challenged about their dog, all they have to say is, ‘I have a disability and this is my service dog’ and, presto chango, end of conversation.
Here are the pertinent parts of state law regarding service animals; there is much more in other sections of RCW 49.60. I’ll post some other cites in a following comment so as to avoid waking the spam filter.
Use of dog guide or service animal — Unfair practice — Definitions.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.218
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.
August 23, 2014 at 3:40 am #812074
metrognomeParticipantHere are the other two pertinent cites related to service animals and public accommodations:
Interfering with dog guide or service animal.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.91.170
Removal of a dog guide or service animal.
August 23, 2014 at 4:49 am #812075
blblParticipantmetrognome, re-read my posts, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I never said it was illegal to bring a service dog into a restaurant or grocery store. It is illegal to bring a dog into a restaurant or grocery store and, as has been stated many times here, service dogs are an exception to that rule. While it is a violation of the ADA to require proof or even inquire into why or how a person is disabled, it is perfectly appropriate to ask what medical service the dog provides, which is what I posted and what the health department suggests. If I see a dog in a restaurant or grocery store that does not appear to be providing a service, I have and will inquire. If the establishment refuses my request to do the same or ask obvious offenders to leave, then I won’t go back to that establishment.
August 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm #812076
JoBParticipantWhat metrognorme said..
“The problem is that some dog owners who don’t require service animals due to a disability have figured out how to scam the system, just as lots of drivers without qualifying disabilities have figured out how to scam the state disability parking placards and get free parking at meters.”
people scam the system… and they think it’s ok because they get away with it.
how do we change that without bullying those whose dogs actually do provide a medical service?
I don’t know.
but i do know that our assumptions about who is and isn’t scamming the system are often wrong.
legally, even though neither of my dogs is certified.. i could take them with me into public spaces like groceries because each of them provides a different medical service for me.
i don’t.. and i don’t think i would even if my two were unflappable … but i could… and perhaps there will come a day when i wish i had.
it’s a far more difficult call than you might imagine…
August 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm #812077
wakefloodParticipantI absolutely get that, JoB. Which begs the question, how do we make legitimate service dogs identifiable from the non-service dogs?
Is there a good reason to not require a service dog to wear something? A vest, a collar, something?? And couldn’t we make some entity responsible for confirming the legitimacy (easily) and dispensing said identifying item to the owners?
Wouldn’t that also help prevent folks from assuming it’s ok and messing around with those dogs when in public, like some folks do when they see a friendly looking one?
I’m sorta’ stumped that we can’t solve something that seems pretty doable.
August 23, 2014 at 5:49 pm #812078
JoBParticipantwake..
again.. it’s more complicated than you think
neither of my dogs would qualify for certifiable service dog training
one can react in a hostile way to other dogs
the other reacts in a hostile way to humans :(
yet.. each dog recognizes a different set of precursors to impending collapse for me and thus have become important partners in my self care.
that qualifies them as service animals…
it’s a difficult call at best…
and as easy to scam with a physician’s certificate or using the valid status of another as your own as disabled parking has been…
i know people who see what they assume are people getting away with scamming the system as a problem
but the truth is that it’s actually a bigger problem for those of us who legitimately qualify and bend over backward not to scam the system…
i don’t know if it is a blessing or a curse that my mobility issues have finally become severe enough that i no longer get hassled for parking in a handicapped spot with handicapped plates…
but it is a relief not to be continually attracting the stare of shame.
it’s bad enough to be ill enough to need services..
worse to be condemned for doing so.
August 23, 2014 at 5:52 pm #812079
wakefloodParticipantAnd I should add that I get that there will always be people who game the system but we can at least make it hard for them. At least you know when you identify someone who’s not legitimate, they’re a certfiable a$$.
August 23, 2014 at 5:59 pm #812080
JoBParticipanti have often wanted to carry a card with me that says
“mental handicaps don’t qualify for handicapped parking”
my friend who spent big bucks and countless hours to have her dog certified has a similar card she would like to hand out to those think their dog is a fashion accessory suitable to wear every place they go…
hers is not forum friendly ;-)
August 26, 2014 at 3:55 pm #812081
auParticipantDogs are not people and its rather disgusting that some are comparing dogs to small children.
Are you a dog? NO.
And JoB, STOP thinking for me. I don’t assume all dogs have fleas, never said that.(but with the amount of flea products on the market I know fleas are always a challenge) Why you chose to single me out by name and talk in a condensing snarky way towards me I am unsure. You make way too many assumptions about me. My opinion does NOT make me superior nor do I feel my rights trump anybody else’s. I’ve come on this thread to talk about dogs in public places. I’m not here for anybody to tell me what I think or how I feel.
Also, this isn’t about your allergies to perfume. That would be a whole other thread.
This is about dogs. This is about a seemingly shift in where we feel dogs should be allowed. Observing that dogs are a different species than humans is not blaming anybody. Its an observation. I also never said dogs should be entirely banned in public.
Personally, I feel dogs being a completely different species than humans, do not necessarily belong in close proximity to us while eating or gathering food items at the grocery store or market.
August 27, 2014 at 1:53 am #812082
JoBParticipantau..
i merely point out that your assumptions cause you to make some unsupportable assertions that could be offensive to others.
they are offensive to me.
as is your depiction of my life threatening reaction to fragrance as “allergies”…
unworthy of note after you not only brought up the allergic reactions of people to pet dander
but publicly trounced me for not being more sympathetic to people who encounter allergic triggers in public.
I find it just a touch insensitive to insist that your issue is worthy of attention but anyone else’s is insignificant.
as for your latest “argument” concerning flea prevention measures…
it’s almost impossible to escape contamination by fleas in an urban environment that includes as much natural wildlife as ours does..
and this has been an especially difficult year for fleas.
unless you believe that hapless pet owners purchase flea prevention products to preventatively stash them in cupboards …
which would of course be a total waste of some pretty big consumer dollars…
the profitability of flea preventatives on the market indicates that pet owners purchase and use a wide variety of flea preventative measures… all to your benefit.
I am not so much in favor of dogs in coffee shops myself…
there are simply too many pet owners who are as inconsiderate of their fellow citizens when it comes to where they take their pets as they are when it comes to where they take their children or how they drive or …
but assuming that the puppy you see in the window has no reason to be there and is the source of your flea bites is not likely to be a winning proposition…
did you know that rats carry fleas and our urban environment is full of them?
now .. if you would like to talk about people who brush their food trash to the floor in coffee shops and groceries attracting rodents…
i will gladly join you in condemning their behavior.
but the guy who brings his pet rat into the coffee shop with him probably gives that rat better medical care than the person standing behind you in line …
just saying…
August 27, 2014 at 3:21 am #812083
auParticipant“i merely point out that your assumptions cause you to make some unsupportable assertions that could be offensive to others.”
I have made zero assumptions about anything. Its a fact dogs and humans are different species. Its a fact dogs get fleas. Commenting that I am aware of the challenges of fleas is not any sort of argument for or against anything. Its an observation.Its a fact some are very allergic to dogs. Its a fact that dogs aren’t allowed in certain establishments. Should this change? That’s what I thought the conversation was about.
I am finished here.This topic has turned into some bizarre ramblings. Many false assumptions are being made in my name. I do not appreciate that at all.
August 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm #812084
JoBParticipantau..
and to add insult to insult you characterize my comments as bizarre ramblings…
geee thanks…
August 27, 2014 at 5:20 pm #812085
CaitParticipantJeeeeze, people. Pissy, much? Some of us are annoyed by dogs. Some of us are annoyed by kids. I think we all have a point.
August 27, 2014 at 6:00 pm #812086
PLSParticipantWow, lots of emotion and perspective here. Let’s get back to the basics and maybe solve this simply: it is against WA law for a non-service dog to be in the coffee shop.
“The simple answer to the question is ‘no’ except for service animals,” said David Gifford of the State Department of Health. “Animals (or) pets are not allowed in food establishments in Washington State – and bars are defined as food establishments.”
“Each local health jurisdiction has its own enforcement policies,” Gifford said in an e-mail. “However, in general, the first time an establishment violates this provision it would normally be given a warning to discontinue this practice.
“Subsequent/repeated violations could result in: re-inspections (which in many jurisdictions include a fee); administrative hearings (also usually accompanied by a fee); and/or permit suspension (which means the business must temporarily close).”
He referenced Chapter 246-215 of the Washington Administrative Code. That code adopts the language of the Food and Drug Administration Food Code which states:
6-501.115
Prohibiting Animals.
(A) Except as specified in (B) and (C) of this section, live animals may not be allowed on the premises of a food establishment.
(B) Live animals may be allowed in the following situations if the contamination of food; clean equipment, utensils, and linens; and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles can not result:
(1) Edible fish or decorative fish in aquariums, shellfish or crustacea on ice or under refrigeration, and shellfish and crustacea in display tank systems;
(2) Patrol dogs accompanying police or security officers in offices and dining, sales, and storage areas, and sentry dogs running loose in outside fenced areas;
(3) In areas that are not used for food preparation and that are usually open for customers, such as dining and sales areas, service animals that are controlled by the disabled employee or person, if a health or safety hazard will not result from the presence or activities of the service animal;
(4) Pets in the common dining areas of institutional care facilities such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, group homes, or residential care facilities at times other than during meals
August 27, 2014 at 10:53 pm #812087
singularnameParticipantNot sure where this falls under service dog rules-n-regs, but observed today in Bartell’s: Dog wearing red “service dog” vest carrying its own leash in its teeth, at times a full aisle away from owner, who thought this was just a bit (i.e., a LOT) too adorable for me to completely buy it was/is truly a service dog but more a need for attention. And yeah, customers were having to completely detour or do dance steps around it.
August 28, 2014 at 12:20 am #812088
Spring ChickenMemberAnyone can buy a “service dog” vest or official looking ID card for their dog on eBay or Amazon.
August 29, 2014 at 5:44 am #812089
CaitParticipantUgggh that’s really sad that people would do that – buying OR selling them…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.