Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


So This Dog Walks into a Bar
February 4, 2007 12:47 PM   Subscribe

Washington State Legislature to Allow Dogs in Bars. And some people are just not happy about it. Dogs in bars. What's the big deal? Is it a health issue? In more civilized places, like Paris, they have been doing it for years - plague free.
posted by tkchrist (129 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Lots of really irritating women in NYC have these little dogs that they carry around in designer purses and it makes me throw up a little in the back of my throat.

Dog as fashion accessory = BAD
posted by Afroblanco at 12:53 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


I'm just looking for the man who shot my paw.
posted by gwint at 12:55 PM on February 4, 2007


Maybe they should have said, "DiMaggio."
posted by StopMakingSense at 12:56 PM on February 4, 2007


Now dogs can grab a beer at the local bar while smokers stand outside, sadly peering in the windows.
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:59 PM on February 4, 2007 [6 favorites]


Since I've moved to Philly, I've noticed plenty of dogs in bars.
posted by wfc123 at 12:59 PM on February 4, 2007


Animals. In Eating and Drinking establishments. What is this, the 14th century?
posted by b1tr0t at 1:03 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


(ob)A greyhound walks into a bar. bartender asks, "Why the long face?"
posted by Rumple at 1:06 PM on February 4, 2007


Animals. In Eating and Drinking establishments.

Humans are animals. What is the problem?

How about letting bars decide if they WANT to do it. The law could state that bars post "Dogs Allowed" or "Dogs not allowed" and if you don't like dogs you go somewhere else.
posted by tkchrist at 1:10 PM on February 4, 2007


NYC beer bar guide with notes on dog-friendliness. At one of the mentioned places, dba, the dogs belong to the bar/owner.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:10 PM on February 4, 2007


This is effectively a done deal in San Francisco.

My local lesbian sports bar even has doggy snacks throughout the bar.
posted by vacapinta at 1:12 PM on February 4, 2007


another place where you can step on dog shit
posted by dminor at 1:14 PM on February 4, 2007


If you have the Animal Planet channel, sit down with your dog (at a bar or at home) and watch the Puppy Bowl, and vote for the MVP (Most Valuable Puppy).
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:18 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


(The Kitty Halftime Show is about to begin).
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:19 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


A lot of bars in seattle are dog friendly to begin with. Norm's in Fremont, and I was just at the 9lb hammer down in georgetown, both allow dogs (and norm's is known for it).

Granted, I feel it shouldn't be forced legislation. Let the bar owner decide if they want dogs on the premise, since a dog would bring in a different atmosphere. Also I would want to be able to reject dogs on a case by case basis, if they have temperment problems, aren't house trained, or wont shut up. Right now it is a privilege for a bar owner to you let your dog in, if it is 'law', then I can see some self entitled Seattle-ites get very upset when I ask them to leave because their 'cutie little foo foo terrier' is biting my other patrons.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:25 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Everything that makes a bar good (smoke, crowds and very loud noises) are not good for dogs. Therefore, bars with dogs either aren't that great or they're cruel to the pets.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:25 PM on February 4, 2007


Dogs, okay. Irish? Never.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:29 PM on February 4, 2007


Bookhouse- You can't smoke in Washington bars anymore.

And that is the basis for my complaint. I can't light up a smoke in there, but they're just fine with me having to listen to a fucking lapdog yap on and on while I'm trying to enjoy my beer?
posted by Clamwacker at 1:34 PM on February 4, 2007


A lot of bars in seattle are dog friendly to begin with. Norm's in Fremont, and I was just at the 9lb hammer down in georgetown, both allow dogs (and norm's is known for it).

Granted, I feel it shouldn't be forced legislation. Let the bar owner decide if they want dogs on the premise, since a dog would bring in a different atmosphere. Also I would want to be able to reject dogs on a case by case basis, if they have temperment problems, aren't house trained, or wont shut up. Right now it is a privilege for a bar owner to you let your dog in, if it is 'law', then I can see some self entitled Seattle-ites get very upset when I ask them to leave because their 'cutie little foo foo terrier' is biting my other patrons.


Actually, it's currently illegal in WA for bars and restaurants with liquor licenses to let dogs in. All this bill suggests is to let the bar owners decide for themselves.
posted by duffell at 1:34 PM on February 4, 2007


Everything that makes a bar good (smoke, crowds and very loud noises) are not good for dogs

Yeah, and then they start taking whisky shots and you warn them about their liver but do they listen?
posted by vacapinta at 1:34 PM on February 4, 2007


Hitler loved dogs.

There. It needed to be said.

Look, I've been a dog owner for years, and I love my dog, but I've found this entire North American obsession with treating the things as surrogates for children as somewhat unsettling and strange.

Keep the dogs out of bars. First of all, some people are genuinely afraid of dogs. It's a phobia that will not go away. And these people should not be told to "get over it." Human rights supersede doggy rights.

People are also allergic to dogs. Dogs are also dirty.

Look, I'm a dog owner, all right? But I suppose what I find offensive is the general cavalier attitude displayed by dog owners to the rest of the population here in North America. Dogs should be leashed in the city. Period. If you want a dog and want it to run free, go live in the country.

But don't bring pets in bars.

And, like I said, Hitler loved dogs.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:39 PM on February 4, 2007 [7 favorites]


There used to be a number of places that let dogs in on the sly here in Seattle. For years and years. And there were rarely problems. Certainly nothing to warrant the anti-reaction you see. Not "alergis" or attacks or disease problems. And then one by one these places met with selfish assholes like Erica C. Barnett who were squeaky wheels and narced on them to health departments. These places got fined. Seriously endangered their ability operate and they had to tell loyal customers who had been bringing dogs in for years - they couldn't anymore. That's pretty fucked up.

What it IS is irrational fears. People allow themselves to be governed by their fears. And they want the rest of us to conform to their neurosis.

There is no rational reason for not permitting bars to make this allowance on their own. Not health reasons. Nothing. Allergies? People have all sorts of allergies. People are allergic to peanuts. That allergy can kill people. But they don't ask restaurants to not serve OTHER people peanuts.

The other issues people seem to bring up are either aesthetic or material (taxes). And those arguments don't hold water either.

The material argument. If can be called an argument. The idea that dogs should be allowed in certain private establishments because those establishments must be specially licensed (liquor licenses) by the state making them quasi PUBLIC establishments is idiotic. The argument being dogs have no right to be there because they don't pay taxes and people who hate dogs DO. Fallacious in the extreme. The OWNERS pay taxes first of all. We have schools. Children don't pay taxes? Parents do. In fact people who DON'T have kids pay for these as well. Should we close schools until those that attend them pay taxes?

But this argument is irrelevant because bars are PRIVATE spaces. Not public. The law proposes to let these spaces decide for themselves - and thus let the market (and litigation if there are problems) determine what the public will tolerate.

The aesthetic argument is... well... dogs make poopy or they shed hair. First of all: SO DO PEOPLE. And if a dog takes a shit and you step in it it is the fault of the owner. It is not the dog that is at issue. It is the responsibility and obligation of the owner that is at issue. PEOPLE litter too. It is an extension of the same problem. If you drop a beer bottle on the sidewalk on your way home and leave it it is no different that allowing your dog's waste to stay on the sidewalk. This is selfish behavior.

And frankly the type of people who are irrational and selfish about dogs in bars are the one's leaving the rest of US to clean up after THEM. They are the litterers, the line cutters, the cell phone talkers. Rude. Passive aggressive. Ill mannered cretins.
posted by tkchrist at 1:40 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


But don't bring pets in bars.

Don't go to bars that allow pets. Problem solved.
posted by tkchrist at 1:41 PM on February 4, 2007


i'm sure bar business is down since the smoking ban went into effect. allowing dogs into bars is a way to lure pet owners back into the bars.
posted by brandz at 1:45 PM on February 4, 2007


I'm guessing in France - the bar owner can't be sued when someone's dog bites another person - or claims like the dog was startled by the TV and bit his own owner - I'm sure any bar owner is going to have his liability insurance raised. It's like your kids - if you're a stranger, I don't want to look at your kids pictures or your dog.
posted by jbelkin at 1:45 PM on February 4, 2007


That's the problem with French bars -- nobody ever cleans up the dog poop.
posted by uosuaq at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2007



But this argument is irrelevant because bars are PRIVATE spaces. Not public. The law proposes to let these spaces decide for themselves - and thus let the market (and litigation if there are problems) determine what the public will tolerate.

Couldn't the exact same argument be made about smoking?
posted by zabuni at 1:50 PM on February 4, 2007


Has anybody asked if the dogs want to go into the bars now that they can't smoke?
posted by srboisvert at 1:51 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Granted, I feel it shouldn't be forced legislation.

What the fuck. READ the article. It isn't forced. How you gonna FORCE people to bring dogs to bars? WTF. The law is to allow bars to decide.

If a bar or cafe wants to let dogs in they can. If people don't like it they can go someplace else.

First of all, some people are genuinely afraid of dogs. It's a phobia that will not go away.

So what? And if people are afraid of dogs? People have all sorts of phobias. I knew a lady that went APE SHIT when she saw the color magenta. So we should ban certain colors from public spaces? When will this shit end?

I know people who HATE black people. They live in utter total fear of black people. This is an incurable phobia as well. I know a woman, my wifes Aunt, that post 9/11 goes completely unhinged when she sees somebody she thinks is Arab. She cannot control her self. She is mentally disturbed. I am completely serious. So. We let people who are mentally disturbed run our fucking lives?

And don't give me the "Dogs don't have rights." as some sort of counter argument. PEOPLE who own dogs have rights. And the 100 million dog owners in the US constitute a majority over the Phobia minority, anyway.

It is a liberty issue. We are letting the state coat us in nerf. We are letting the precious delicate few run our lives based on their irrational fears. I say NO to this. However small. No matter how insignificant the liberty may seem or the restrictions ot our liberties may be. I say no more. And if you had any principles at all you would too.
posted by tkchrist at 1:53 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


Couldn't the exact same argument be made about smoking?

They did. And I was against the smoking ban for that reason.

But the comparison doesn't hold. You cannot control the negative health effects of smoke. And. You CAN demonstrate the negative health effects of being in proximity to a lit cigarette. There for even one person smoking will effect every patrol. Whether they like it or not.

You cannot demonstrate that every dog is dangerous simply by their proximity to somebody. Even due to allergies. And smoke is indiscriminate. you may not need an overt allergy to die from the effects of second had smoke.

If you are allergic to dogs... likely you KNOW it.

There are lots of factor that have much more impact to a persons health in a bar above and beyond the presence of a dog. And those factors we cannot control but we except.
posted by tkchrist at 2:01 PM on February 4, 2007


And frankly the type of people who are irrational and selfish about dogs in bars are the one's leaving the rest of US to clean up after THEM. They are the litterers, the line cutters, the cell phone talkers. Rude. Passive aggressive. Ill mannered cretins.

It is a liberty issue. We are letting the state coat us in nerf. We are letting the precious delicate few run our lives based on their irrational fears. I say NO to this. However small. No matter how insignificant the liberty may seem or the restrictions ot our liberties may be. I say no more. And if you had any principles at all you would too.

Jeez. Lighten up, Francis.
posted by erskelyne at 2:03 PM on February 4, 2007


Jeez. Lighten up, Francis.

Why?
posted by tkchrist at 2:09 PM on February 4, 2007


Because you're foaming at the mouth.
posted by foot at 2:10 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


I say Yay to dogs in bars. I wish we could be like the French and bring our dogs everywhere, but even I get a little freaked out when I see people carry their dogs into the supermarkets.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:11 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


And I'm one of THESE:

Lots of really irritating women in NYC have these little dogs that they carry around in designer purses and it makes me throw up a little in the back of my throat.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:12 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


I personally think dogs are disgusting creatures, and people who treat them as children have psychological problems. Few things in this life give me more stress than pretending someone's yappy, drooling dog that won't stop trying to sniff my balls is cute. Exceedingly well-trained and well groomed dogs are an exception.

Dog owners are usually a reflection on their pets - I saw a woman on Friday at the airport who seemed to think that people wouldn't mind that barking rat shitting on the floor. Some poor bastard has to clean that floor for a paycheque.

My backyard was my refuge of sanity. I could sit back there with as much liquor, smokes, and grilling red meat I could endure. Nope, dumb poodle on one side likes to bark at me on one side, and big, dumb, dog of a redneck likes to bark on the other. The dog of the redneck shut up since I started feeding it bones, the other one just looks out the frickin' window.

The only time I want dogs in bars or resturants is if they are on the menu - I've heard the meat is exceptionally tasty and rich.
posted by Deep Dish at 2:12 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


Because you're foaming at the mouth.

I use a topical ointment for that.

So what. Anything worth talking about it worth talking about with zest. Gusto. Pep. Moxie. Dare I say passion. Howz about you all debate instead of ad hom?
posted by tkchrist at 2:14 PM on February 4, 2007


If you are allergic to dogs... likely you KNOW it.

I'm not allergic to them -- I just don't like the little fuckers. Yapping, pissing, humping my leg. They're almost as bad as kids.

And I don't want those in my bar either.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:15 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


The only time I want dogs in bars or resturants is if they are on the menu - I've heard the meat is exceptionally tasty and rich.

It's not bad. It's a bit stringy. Not as good as monkey.
posted by tkchrist at 2:16 PM on February 4, 2007


My argument still stands -- bars with dogs most likely suck.

(Actually, everything I said about what makes a good bar -- smoke, crowds and loud noise -- are things I hate in bars. That's why I don't go to bars. Also, I'm above the age of twenty-nine, which ought to be the cut-off date for caring about bars.)
posted by Bookhouse at 2:16 PM on February 4, 2007


And I don't want those in my bar either.

Ok. Again. So don't go to THAT bar.
posted by tkchrist at 2:16 PM on February 4, 2007


If two dogs in a bar happen to get into a fight, is it permissible to wager on the outcome?
posted by b1tr0t at 2:19 PM on February 4, 2007


bars with dogs most likely suck.

And you are wrong. We used to go to a tiny bar in West Seattle for years that allowed dogs. It was warm. Homey. There were board games comfy chairs and couches. Mostly an older clientèle who didn't like to leave their old dogs alone. And for over 9 years never a problem. If a dog was a problem that person was asked to leave. There. Simple huh?

Then a knew place next door went in. Upscale. Loud. A pick-up spot. They used the dog thing to lodge complaints and thus fines against their neighbors. So the bar I went to had to tell their long time customers to leave the dogs at home. Over night the atmosphere changed and half the people stopped going. The place went out of business soon after and the new upscale No Dog place moved in.
posted by tkchrist at 2:22 PM on February 4, 2007


This can hardly be new. Every time I pop into a singles bar, I think to myself "goddamn, this place is full of dogs!"
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:30 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dog owners are usually a reflection on their pets

I would rephrase that to: "Dogs are a reflection of their owners."

And you are right. This is the problem. That we let a few assholes ruin life for the rest of us.

If they own dogs or not.

It's interesting that several of the regular Metafilter Civil Liberties types are coming down on the side of NOT letting people decide for themselves on THIS Civil Liberty issue. That is sad and very telling.
posted by tkchrist at 2:30 PM on February 4, 2007


Dogs are the most emotional species I know -- most seem to alternate between one neurotic frenzy and another. So they're just like drunks, and would be perfect in a bar.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:48 PM on February 4, 2007


>>Ok. Again. So don't go to THAT bar.

A good argument for smoking to be allowed in bars where everyone's cool with it. There ought to be some kind of alternative for adults of like mind, and there isn't. If you don't like a dog-filled bar, don't go into it. If you don't like smoke-filled bar, same thing.

But of course, that makes too much sense.
posted by SaintCynr at 2:56 PM on February 4, 2007


The dogs and smoking comparision is a bit of stretch, seeing as how smoking is harmful to everyone, and dogs are harmful to, well, almost no one, if they're well behaved.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:59 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


The frustrating thing is, you go to places (be they countries or cities or whatever) that are dog-friendly and it's not like there's dog shit and hair everywhere. In fact, generally since the dogs are 'out and around' more my experience is that they tend to be better socialized, better trained, and there are better de facto social norms in place that make sure that the vast majority of dogs aren't an issue in the slightest.

But you go to the 'burbs, where it's pretty much yards or dog parks and that's it in terms of where dogs are allowed, and the dogs are ornery, suspicious, poorly trained, and generally not the sorts of things you'd want in a coffee shop/bar/store/restaurant. Neither the owners nor the dogs have the proper social skills for close-quarters interaction.

I'm betting most of you who are complaining live in the burbs, and the blase or outright excited about it are the city and country folks. Just a hunch.
posted by wolftrouble at 3:04 PM on February 4, 2007


I personally think dogs are disgusting creatures, and people who treat them as children have psychological problems.

I think that children are disgusting creatures, and people who feel the need to make stupid little replicas of themselves have narcissistic personality disorder.
posted by papakwanz at 3:26 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]



posted by wolftrouble


Does that comment count as eponysterical?
posted by papakwanz at 3:32 PM on February 4, 2007


Another vote for "disgusted by inconsiderate asses who bring their dogs into places where food is served."

My major peeve at the moment is that this is a clear violation of Health Code here in NYC, but narcissistic people do it anyway, because they couldn't possibly leave Pookie tied up for a few minutes while they grab coffee. And then they get upset when people remind them - however politely and diplomatically - that this is both against the law and generally against the explicit policy of the restaurant they happen to be patronizing.

It's gotten so bad that the manager at my local Starbucks has given up enforcing his own's store's stated policy. He says some people claim, with a straight face, that this is their "emotional-support animal," thus trying to take advantage of a law intended to support people with legitimate needs and trained service animals. And he doesn't have the time or the energy to explain the law to them.

Well, guess what? If you're so fucking sensitive that you need an accessory dog to get you through the day, maybe you're better off not leaving the house at all. And if you're so inconsiderate of not merely the needs and desires of others, but the common-sense laws of the place you choose to live, maybe you need to live somewhere else, or be prepared to deal with the fact that not everyone's OK with your selfishness and will confront you on it.

What dog owners need to understand - and don't get me wrong, many many dog owners, like KokoRyu above, do get this - is that their pet is an imposition on the others with whom they share public space, and that bringing them with you everywhere you go is simply not appropriate. Specifically where food-service establishments are involved, it's unhygienic, it's inconsiderate, and it's illegal. And I have yet to hear the argument that will convince me that the "needs" imposed by your preference outweigh the desire of everyone else to enjoy what should be theirs without question.

In short: those of you who think you get to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want badly need to grow up.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:42 PM on February 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


Furthermore, tkchrist, you're out to lunch if you think this is a civil liberties issue. And your use of "civilized"? Unless I am terribly mistaken, that word does not mean what you think it means.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:45 PM on February 4, 2007


The George and Dragon in Fremont was friendly about my chocolate lab, though we sat outside at one of the picnic tables.

I'm trying to imagine either of my current dogs in a bar, and my mind boggles. But I'd never try to bring them. Flake the lab would have been in heaven with all the people and attention.
posted by maxwelton at 3:47 PM on February 4, 2007


And I have yet to hear the argument that will convince me that the "needs" imposed by your preference outweigh the desire of everyone else to enjoy what should be theirs without question.

So...are you for or against having bars where dogs are allowed and other bars where they are not?
posted by vacapinta at 3:54 PM on February 4, 2007


It's important to remember that while this will be a bill in the Washington state legislature, the smoking ban was an initiative, meaning that enough people had to sign the petition to get it on the ballot. Then a majority of voters passed it into law.
posted by faceonmars at 4:04 PM on February 4, 2007


Actually, it's currently illegal in WA for bars and restaurants with liquor licenses to let dogs in.

That seems like a bit of an odd law - any idea what the reasoning behind that is?
posted by Artw at 4:27 PM on February 4, 2007


Whenever I see dogs in a bar, I look at my watch and time how long it takes for someone to step on or trip over them.
posted by Human Flesh at 4:44 PM on February 4, 2007


I still remember hunkering down out of the rain in a little coffee shop having just moved to Vancouver, and watching an owner come in with two dogs -- leashed, but not to the owner. To each other, like some kind of cafe-going-Cerberus.

It was weird, but you get used to it. Most are extremely well trained/behaved. That being said, the problem should be obvious: those dog owners who think their dogs are well-behaved but aren't, much like some people's kids.
posted by dreamsign at 5:11 PM on February 4, 2007


is that their pet is an imposition on the others with whom they share public space

Anti-Bush t-shirts are an imposition. The color blue is an imposition. Black people are an imposition.

Every fucking thing is an imposition on some fucking idiot.

In short: those of you who think you get to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want badly need to grow up.

Yes. Exactly. People LIKE YOU.

What we are saying is those bars and Cafes that decide to allow dog in, CAN. Where no it is illegal. And those bars that decide against it will not allow dogs.

An alternative which is far more "civilized" and fair.

As it stands now it is a tiny selfish minority, morons like adamgreenfield, who have irrational fears and stomp their feet to get their way that are the problem.
posted by tkchrist at 5:45 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]



That seems like a bit of an odd law - any idea what the reasoning behind that is?


It used to be health codes when dogs were used in farming, etc. But there is no practical reason for it any longer. IE: Plague has not broken out in Paris due to dogs in bars.

Now it's more about a vocal minority... actually, I think it's a class issue... who want impose their will on other adults.
posted by tkchrist at 5:49 PM on February 4, 2007


those dog owners who think their dogs are well-behaved but aren't, much like some people's kids.

Yes. And this is easily enforced. Since you can take away a persons dog without the legal fuss of taking away a child.

People have obviously NOT read the article. It is currently illegal to have dogs in bars or cafes in Washington. The law would make that up to bars themselves. There is no serious outcry to stop this legal change. BTW. Not a single health official. Not a single bar or restaurant. No group of concerned citizens. Only a couple of cranky op/ed writers who's real problem isn't the proposed law change. Their problem is either dogs in general. Or. Bad dog owners. Same with 90% of the people who are against it in this thread. Not one of them has presented a cogent argument against the law change. Other than "I hate dogs." or "I want MY way."
posted by tkchrist at 5:56 PM on February 4, 2007


So...are you for or against having bars where dogs are allowed and other bars where they are not?

vacapinta, it depends on what the law provides and allows. If the law is such that the decision whether or not to permit dogs in is at the discretion of the owner, how could I complain? I'll simply patronize the establishment that suits my needs at the moment. Which, eight or so times out of ten, is gonna be the hound-free one.

But in situations like the one obtaining here in NYC, where the law appertaining to restaurants and food-service establishments is already quite explicit? Then I expect people to comply with that law.

I find it inconceivable that anybody finds this unreasonable. Should there be any kind of organized civilization a hundred years from now, I have little doubt that they'll look back on our dog-shitty sidewalks and accessory hounds the way we regard the manured avenues of the nineteenth century.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:00 PM on February 4, 2007


Dogs in bars? Next thing you know, they'll be sitting around tables playing poker...
posted by nightchrome at 6:07 PM on February 4, 2007


Nobody's posted dog police yet?
posted by Burhanistan at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2007


If you want a dog and want it to run free, go live in the country.

Negative: many rural counties have leash or confinement laws. Loose dogs are a threat to people, wildlife, or themselves if bitten by rabid wild animals.

Living in typical suburban residential areas (with smaller lots), most people have only one dog. When city dwellers buy an acreage in the country, the first thing many seem to do is to get two or three bowsers that proceed to bark their little dog brains off at anyone that passes by.

One new homeowner in our more-or-less rural development brought a pack of five medium-to-large canines (including a Rottweiler), and posted "Beware of Dog" signs in their front yard. This herd would come galloping & baying around the corner of the house, pulling up just short of the yard's Invisible Fence (which uses battery-powered collars). I'd rather see a six foot chain-link, thanks.

Just in case those batteries wear out, I carry pepper spray as a precaution. Nothing like a nice quiet walk in the country...
posted by cenoxo at 6:32 PM on February 4, 2007


Without IMG tags, this thread has no teeth: Smokin' Dog Poker.
posted by cenoxo at 6:37 PM on February 4, 2007


Hot, rich chicks carry little dogs in their Prada bags - I have no problem with.

Everything else is just completely absurd.

Disgusting dogs in an area where people eat & drink? It's a slam-dunk. Out-enzie.
posted by wfc123 at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2007


If the law is such that the decision whether or not to permit dogs in is at the discretion of the owner, how could I complain?

You JUST did. Make up your mind.

That is what the article was about. To change it FROM being illegal to being up to the discretion of the establishment owner.

Which, eight or so times out of ten, is gonna be the hound-free one.

Exactly. And you called ME selfish?

This is the entire point. People are saying "I don't want dogs in my bars. GREAT. Go to bars that don't allow dogs. And allow those of us who don't mind dogs to go to the few places that will allow dogs. As it stand we don't have that option.

And shit covered sidewalks, like litter covered sidewalks, are the fault of people. Not dogs.
posted by tkchrist at 7:03 PM on February 4, 2007


I'm really surprised that this is even an issue. I don't think I've ever seen a dog in a bar. Ever. I don't think I know anybody that would ever bring a dog to a bar.

As long as we don't start having problems with dogs biting people while they're on an alcoholic rampage, I'm fine with it.

Just as long as I can bring my cat in too. Hey, you can bring pets on planes now. People with allergies be damned!

But the "In more civilized places, like Paris" comment was asinine.
posted by drstein at 7:13 PM on February 4, 2007


The dogs and smoking comparision is a bit of stretch, seeing as how smoking is harmful to everyone, and dogs are harmful to, well, almost no one, if they're well behaved

I don't think that's it. Second hand smoking isn't a direct health issue in a quantifiable way. It makes breathing harder for some people, but that could even be qualified as an "allergic reaction", since some portion of people have the same trouble in response to various animals. For most people, second hand smoke just smells bad and maybe makes you cough a bit, and is generally unpleasant - but slobbery beasts whining or yapping could be an irritant as well. I think both of them are annoyances for non (dog people/smokers) and indulgences for the (dog people/smokers).

But there is a difference: when smoking is legal, any bar has dozens of people lighting up continually, anywhere you go, and no bar will ban smoking because it's a direct loss. Dogs, on the other hand, are much less central to the bar culture, and will generally be a random occasional event. If not having smoking bans meant that every now and then, one guy would have a cigarette, or if pro-dog rules meant that every single bar in town was overrun with mutts, then we'd have a good analogy.
posted by mdn at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2007


Bartender: We don't get many dogs in here.

Dog: At these prices, no wonder.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:21 PM on February 4, 2007


op: "in more civilized places, like paris..."

sez who? by what metric is paris more civilized than seattle? i acknowledge that it's been there longer, looms much larger in history and more people have visited it, but i don't agree that this is all of "civilization".

dogs in bars, two problems: 1) somebody brings in a pitbull, it attacks one of the smaller humans, probably a woman, and seriously injures/disfigures her. anything in the name of canine rights, eh? 2) periodically, dogs will shit right there in the bar. you call this civilized? there is one bar here in rural oregon i visit where the owner lets her dogs in, but they're great dogs. not all dogs are great dogs. i'm not gonna accept your dog as a great dog sight unseen.
posted by bruce at 7:38 PM on February 4, 2007


For all you people willing to accept dogs in bars. I hope the next time you are at the bar a big old St. Bernard turns your way and leaves ten ounces of drool in your lap.
posted by notreally at 7:47 PM on February 4, 2007


As far as loose dogs in the country goes, in many states one can shoot a dog caught in the act of attacking livestock.

My sheep would much prefer that the dogs hang out in bars.
posted by rfs at 7:47 PM on February 4, 2007


I haven't seen a dog in a bar in France, though I've seen them many times in restaurants comfortably ensconced under the table, lapping from a bowl of water. Nobody ever seemed to mind and perhaps because of this they were remarkably well-behaved. But don't get me started on the sh__ on the sidewalks!
posted by faux ami at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2007


My favorite bar in LA allows dogs AND smoking (oh, and Morrissey on Sunday afternoons).



And all three exist peacefully. Who would've thought? What a beautiful world.

Service sucks, though.
posted by Kloryne at 8:10 PM on February 4, 2007


Dur. Link was supposed to be for The Cat and Fiddle
posted by Kloryne at 8:12 PM on February 4, 2007


J.H. Christ tkchrist, talk about an oddball thing to rally behind.

This is sooooooooooooooo stupid. Really. Seriously. This is stupid. You have posted 15 times under your own post.

So I assume you're okay with dogs in restaurants, in shopping centers, in malls, in grocery stores, in dentist's offices, in hotels, in discos, in clubs, in theaters, in taco trucks, in hot dog stands, in video arcades, in utility offices, in banks, in television studios, in newspaper printing presses, and in hospitals. Right?

Or is it JUST bars?

Let's save some time... are there ANY public places or places of business that dogs should be banned? Or should every establishment, regardless of their business, be able to have dogs?

What about other domesticated creatures? Is it okay to take cats? Goldfish? Ferrets? Ball pythons? Trained goats? Parrots?

So, to be brief:

1. Should dogs (specifically) be allowed in any kind of business?

2. Should any domestic animals be allowed in any kind of business?

3. Should wild animals be allowed in any kind of business?
posted by Ynoxas at 8:19 PM on February 4, 2007


Let's save some time... are there ANY public places or places of business that dogs should be banned?

I believe tkolar's argument rests on the fact that bars are not public places.
posted by vacapinta at 8:39 PM on February 4, 2007


There will be cool people who slouch into a quiet local pub to watch whatever game's on or to page through a book. If they want their lab or Irish setter or whatever flopped at their heels, or chilling out underneath the table, why not?

I just wish there were a way to allow that without allowing terrible pet owners to bring their tiny teacup rats into jammed, smoky meat-market bars where everyone's judgment is severely impaired. That shouldn't be allowed because it's really not a good situation for dogs, even if the first is okay.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:45 PM on February 4, 2007


I like dogs, but I'm afraid of children. It's a phobia that will not go away. I'm allergic to them. They are dirty. And damned if they aren't everywhere!

Can someone talk to Washington about this?
posted by miss lynnster at 9:33 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Washington is a puzzling state. Bars kick out smokers and call in the hounds? I love dogs more than I love most people, so my priorities are likely skewed here. If this ever shows up on a ballot, I'll probably vote yes on it. Making it up to the proprietor of each establishment only seems fair. And if it leads to more dog in my day, I'm all for it.

But here's the thing - as much as your hound may like to join you at the bar, it's not his first choice. Sure, it beats sitting in the truck and staring at the last door he saw you vanish behind, but there's stuff he'd rather be doing. Your dog would rather be outside chasing and running and jumping and swimming. You know how a dog cooped up too long shakes and leaps and runs laps when they see someone coming to let them out? It's cuz they're gonna splode if someone doesn't through a stick this goddamn minute. If we could harvest the latent energy of the nation's Labrador retrievers, the peak oil crisis would vanish.

If folks don't feel they get enough time with their dogs, there are better solutions than making him hang around and watch you drink. He would choose a walk or a swim or an hour or so of chasing a slimy tennis ball before a trip to the bar every time. Though it may not seem possible at times, it is possible to tire your dog out. When they've had plenty of exercise, their behavior and health both improve. I've even heard that this may be good for the dog owner too!
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:54 PM on February 4, 2007


Anti-Bush t-shirts are an imposition.

An anti-Bush shirt has never jammed its nose into my crotch, either.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:54 PM on February 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Don't go to bars that allow pets. Problem solved

Don't go out to bars. Why should you be allowed to drink, when dog owners clearly deserve priority over you to enjoy a relaxing beverage?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:00 PM on February 4, 2007


At least they aren't letting horses in yet.
posted by mazatec at 10:03 PM on February 4, 2007


the 9lb hammer down in georgetown ... allow(s) dogs

not anymore, according to this PI article. the owner cites multiple pooping events.

As a dog owner who sports a scar on my upper lip earned when I startled a dog at a bar by straddling it and attempting to hug it, I'm dead-set set agin canines in drinking establishments. I'm drunk, the dog's owner is drunk, and the next thing you know, we're in a fistfight and his dog is piling on. Hypothetically, mind you.

Also, when drunk, I am most certainly NOT going to pick up my dog's poop, and I am damn sure not the only one.
posted by mwhybark at 10:05 PM on February 4, 2007


I thought the shit on the sidewalks in Paris was from the French people, not their poodles.
posted by papakwanz at 10:08 PM on February 4, 2007


I startled a dog at a bar by straddling it and attempting to hug it

PSA: One of the rudest things you can do is to pin a dog down so it can't escape (esp by the neck) and squeeze. Dogs can be taught to tolerate hugs, and some can even grow to enjoy it if it's associated with good things, but don't ever do it to a strange dog. Invite them into your space but don't barge into theirs uninvited. If you stop and look at the dog when you're hugging it, nine times out of ten it's not happy.
posted by hindmost at 10:33 PM on February 4, 2007


I assure you that the effective slicing technology of the canine toothe is much superior to language in teaching the lesson you cite.
posted by mwhybark at 10:42 PM on February 4, 2007


Dogs in bars? Yessss! Soak it up, haters!
posted by squirrel at 10:45 PM on February 4, 2007


Only a few people in the thread are mistaking the legislation for some kind of dog-permitting mandate. People are just taking the opportunity to gripe about dogs, and this is why 9 out of 10 bars are going to forbid them on their own. And, incidentally, why that 1 in 10 will probably opt the other way: dog-people clientele. Though one dog in every bar isn’t much of a problem. Try having one bar and ten dogs, when it’s the only place in a dog-heavy neighbourhood that allows them.

I mentioned the Vancouver situation just to point out that it’s not as bad as people here seem to think – many dogs will be well-behaved, but you’re going to get some uppity dog owners who are sure that their little precious is well-behaved but is in fact far from it. That’s for the dog and business owner to work out, not some fault of the legislation.

However, be aware that dog ownership is, in some (weird) places considered a quasi-human rights issue. So while legalizing it doesn't create a mandate, it’s a step in that direction. It was the case in Ontario’s past that “no pets” policies were left up to the discretion of landlords, but several years ago now it was made completely illegal (and not due to seeing eye dogs or the like, which were already protected). So now it is illegal to have a “no pets” building in Ontario, which, having moved around other parts of Canada, still blows my mind. That being said, the dog lobby in Ottawa/Ontario is insanely powerful (and borderline insane) so YMMV.
posted by dreamsign at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2007


Don't go out to bars. Why should you be allowed to drink, when dog owners clearly deserve priority over you to enjoy a relaxing beverage?

That was dumb. Blazecock I expect better.

The point is clearly that PRO dog pubs or Cafes would be in the minority. And those that wish to drink sans-canine could readily do so. While those of us that might enjoy a cup of coffee or a beer while out for last walk with our dogs should have at least one place to go.

Is that so bad?

It would be simple matter of posting a sign. "We allow dogs" or "We DON'T allow dogs"

If you object please stop pretending it's peoples safety you have in mind. There are a million other things for more deadly and common to object to as related to bars and alcohol that reflect much more acutely on potential dangers.

As a dog owner who sports a scar on my upper lip earned when I startled a dog at a bar by straddling it and attempting to hug it

So, Mike? Did that dog have to get shots. You never know what it could have caught from you. ;-)

It's funny. The predominant arguments now are either "I REALLY REALLY don't like _____." Or. "People have bad judgment when they are______ ."

Again, almost nothing to do with dogs themselves nor the matter at hand which is the proposed voluntary allowance of dogs in cafe and bars.

I was at the Comet Tavern on two separate occasions where a person took a shit. NOT in the bathroom. Neither of those people cleaned it up to my knowledge (and I think a certain somebody here may know who a certain somebody who committed said act - but I name NO names... coughlarrystienercough).

When I worked at the Off Ramp I was bit on the arm by a girl. It required stitches.

So with these abhorrences in mind, by the logic of many of you, we should not allow people in bars either.

How many here hate the idea of dogs in bars (even though they wouldn't have to go to THOSE bars *sigh*) but were also against the smoking ban. I'd like to see the logic behind the inconsistency.
posted by tkchrist at 10:53 PM on February 4, 2007


I have always had a pet dog or two. But they are not the cleanest animals, they tend to be very protective of their owner and their space, and if you allow some you must allow all. So that means not only Pinky's little... whatever (I forget what you have) but also Luther the biker's deranged 120 lb dog that he found guarding a crack den. This will end in lawsuits. By people that were bitten by dogs.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:58 PM on February 4, 2007


I startled a dog at a bar by straddling it and attempting to hug it

A person would likely react badly to the same.

How do you think I got bit at the Offramp?

Hmmmmm. That sounded nasty. The Offramp being not a reference to part of the anatomy but rather a bar.
posted by tkchrist at 10:59 PM on February 4, 2007


and if you allow some you must allow all

no you don't. A proprietor can kick out anybody for any reason they like. Perhaps you have read signs "reserving the right" to do so. And they could do the same for a dog.
posted by tkchrist at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2007


Ok. BSG is on. Gotta go.
posted by tkchrist at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2007


You think you are going to tell Luther that his dog can't come in, but Pinky's whateveritislittledog can? Luther would shoot you in the face, man.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:06 PM on February 4, 2007


I have always had a pet dog or two. But they are not the cleanest animals...

This comment illustrated perfectly the point someone made above about people here who live in cities, such as I, having a completely different visual in their heads.

Actually, I dont have to visualize. I have a 110-lb dog and I can name at least 5 local bars where I have taken her and let her go. She is well-behaved and clean (she is groomed and washed regularly) and gentle and sticks by me. Other people have medium dogs who are also extremely well-trained. Others are indeed carrying around little poodles or chihuahas. Its all very, well....civilized.

So all these other visuals of hard-to-control dogs or rabid pit bulls or whatever. Sorry but that dog and its owner would be quickly thrown out. Allowing dogs is not the same as saying you MUST take in every dog. They, and their owners can be thrown out just like rowdy bar patrons are thrown out.
posted by vacapinta at 11:10 PM on February 4, 2007


On non-preview: So yeah you can continue to make hypotheticals. I'm explaining how it actually works.
posted by vacapinta at 11:13 PM on February 4, 2007


Keep telling yourself that. Its only a matter of time until your dog is triggered by something and kills everybody in the bar.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:15 PM on February 4, 2007


Luther would shoot you in the face, man.

And it would bounce off my adamantium exoskeleton, maaaan. And I would then punch Luther in the brain and eat his dog then take over his crack business and have all his bitches, maaaan.

People tell Luther to leave every day. I told Luther to leave when I bounced. It's easy. "Hey Luther. Leave!" See?

If Luther is gonna shoot you over his dog he is as likely to shoot you over noticing his scar or not liking the Vikings or not voting for Bush or becuase your hair is too long. Or short. Or... not really a valid argument. Or. OK. Actually it's argument against ANYTHING that offends Luther. Let's base everything we do on if it may offend a crack dealer. Cool.

C'mon. Next fictional scenario? BSG is on.
posted by tkchrist at 11:16 PM on February 4, 2007


Now you are just being silly. Clearly you do not want to have a rational discussion about the issue of whether or not dogs should be allowed in bars.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:19 PM on February 4, 2007


So, Mike? Did that dog have to get shots. You never know what it could have caught from you. ;-)

Not to my knowledge, Todd. We made up, even. My point is that hosed persons don't treat each other with rational courtesy; adding dogs to the brew seems ill-advised or possibly trouble-seeking. Although the last time I was in the Comet I met a delightful pit pup who had taken to sitting on the barstools.

Whatever the heck happened to El S., anyway? Hain't seed hide nor hair nor bus for many's the moon.
posted by mwhybark at 11:21 PM on February 4, 2007


Whatever the heck happened to El S., anyway?

Potty training? I dunno. Though I saw Larry a couple of years ago and he looked positively... conventional... and SOBER.
posted by tkchrist at 11:24 PM on February 4, 2007


Its only a matter of time until your dog is triggered by something and kills everybody in the bar.

Well then problem solved! I can just sick my dog on Luther!
posted by vacapinta at 11:25 PM on February 4, 2007


Honestly, I actually love that in Europe people bring their dogs everywhere & take responsibility for them. I've seen European dogs behave far better than kids in restaurants (they definitely spread less disease!).

If all people learned to properly control their animals the way a good dog owner should, this would probably be a much smaller issue. It's bad owners that end up making the well-trained dogs of the world unwelcome. Not the dogs. (My puppy is in advanced obedience now... that Dog Whisperer guy is so totally right!)

posted by miss lynnster at 11:31 PM on February 4, 2007


How do you know Luther will be there? What if your dog kills everybody in the bar but Luther comes in after that with his dog and his dog is bigger than your dog? Allowing dogs in bars can only lead to disaster. What next, allow them to have their own tables? Legalize gambling so they can play poker? You dog people clearly can't see beyond your own selfish desires.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:32 PM on February 4, 2007


Clearly you do not want to have a rational discussion about the issue of whether or not dogs should be allowed in bars.

With you? No. Maybe with Luther.
posted by tkchrist at 11:33 PM on February 4, 2007


Oh, here's pictures of my dog, the vicious 110-lb beast. (I need to put her on a diet)

I always do ask if they'll allow my dog. And then I wont let her off-leash unless I have cleared that as well. Usually I drop by a bar in the middle of taking her on a long walk. It allows me to take a quick break and grab a beer and allows her to rest too. Thats it.

She does nothing more usually than curl up at my feet and take a nap.
posted by vacapinta at 11:38 PM on February 4, 2007


Fluffy. Happy looking dog.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:42 PM on February 4, 2007


I dont have a dog (although I like them) - can someone who has a dog please explain the appeal of bringing one to the bar with you? What kind of bar situation do you picture taking your dog to? I can kind of see the appeal of a relaxed pub environment, but my experience with most bars (admittedly limited) is that they're often very loud and crowded. I just cant feature it as the kind of thing a dog would enjoy.
posted by supercrayon at 12:36 AM on February 5, 2007


Fuck dogs. I want to bring in my pet lobster on a blue-ribbon leash, à la Gérard de Nerval.

They are "peaceful, serious creatures, who know the secrets of the sea, and don't bark".
posted by exlotuseater at 12:49 AM on February 5, 2007 [3 favorites]


1. post article about obscure and location-specific issue
2. try to enforce personal opinion in thread by posting 22 (!) comments
3. get frustrated and stomp off

i guess i'm late to this party, but this is an awful post. not for its links, which were fine i guess, but for the poster's ridiculous over-moderation of this thread. if you are opinionated about the subject at hand, so be it; post your opinions freely.

but this strikes me as the very epitome of axe-grinding: repetitive, hostile and vehement argument by someone who's already made up their mind and who seems to think the rest of the world is blind and/or stupid if they disagree.

i guess it's one thing if you get caught up in a passionate argument in someone else's post, but tkchrist you've come off here like you posted this just to pick a fight with whoever might disagree with you. bad form, sir.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 2:04 AM on February 5, 2007


Holy crap, tkchrist. I had completely forgotten Larry's name until you mentioned it here. Small world.
posted by litlnemo at 2:25 AM on February 5, 2007


I don't really think I'd want to take my dog to most bars, but shouldn't someone that knows their area and their patrons, and who pays the staff and the mortgage, be the person that gets to decide who or what is allowed in their own place? Why is that a problem?
posted by The Monkey at 2:32 AM on February 5, 2007


they are not the cleanest animals, they tend to be very protective of their owner and their space

Dogs are naturally very clean animals, it's when they're badly-managed and badly cared for that they become otherwise. And people who think that their dogs are "protecting" them when there is no danger don't understand the first thing about dog behaviour and appropriate dog management.

Frankly, if dogs were allowed to be more a part of daily life here as they are in much of Europe, perhaps people would learn a bit more about them, more people would learn how to manage them properly, and more people would stop having such ludicrous ideas about them. I'd rather see dogs in bars than drunk people in bars, but maybe that's why I don't generally go to bars in this country.
posted by biscotti at 5:14 AM on February 5, 2007


WTF is the big deal? A nearby mall encourages people to bring leashed dogs. You get an occasional mess (rare), easily cleaned by a responsible pet human. Mostly it's smiles all around, and it goes a long way to socialize both the dog and the shoppers. Hell, the other day I met a Rottweiler there that could just about run for mayor.

(full disclosure -- I volunteer at a humane shelter, runnin' the big ol' dogs and hanging out with 'em afterward. Never underestimate the value of face time with dogs, both for the dog and the human bean.)

Maybe this belongs in MeTa, but:

Stage-managing your threads, on the other hand...that's like trying to run your children's lives after they've grown up. Threads are like arty rounds downrange, not guided missiles; if you don't like where it goes once it's launched, you should've refused the fire mission. gyobfw and all that. There's already enough backstage string-pulling w/r/t Matthowie and jessamyn w/o FPPers trying to control the give-and-take of threads.
posted by pax digita at 6:20 AM on February 5, 2007 [1 favorite]


...perhaps people would learn a bit more about them, more people would learn how to manage them properly...

But that's just the dang point, biscotti. I have no desire to learn more about dogs, or to manage them. I'd rather they left me alone.

And this goes way beyond hygiene. For a nontrivial percentage of a city's residents, dogs (especially larger dogs) do not connote rambling joyfully through the park or yapping playfully at your feet: I can't find it at the moment, but there was a scholarly paper released a few years ago that documented much lower rates of support for dog-friendly legislation among African-Americans, the reason of course being that dogs had been used as weapons against them well within living memory.

I can't tell you exactly why I myself dislike dogs the way I do, but that's surely a part of it. They have a bit too much potential to terrorize in them - yes, even one currently "well-behaved." That doesn't mean it's rational to recoil from a poodle, of course, but it's equally irrational to expect that everyone is going to bring to an encounter with a dog a particularly happy set of experiences or associations.

So, as usual, I hew pretty close to my default position: in private space, you can do whatever you like, as long as you're not harming anyone else. In public space, very much including public accommodations like bars and restaurants, you're going to have to make space for other peoples' needs and desires. And for better or worse, bad memories.

PS, I second everyone who's expressed dismay at the tendentious way you've used this thread, tkchrist. Your clear desire to stir shit up started with the tags, and has continued through most of the umpteen comments you've made. Bad show.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:52 AM on February 5, 2007


This is just tk's style, folks. Be thankful that his hundred posts or so were mostly on point.
posted by EatTheWeak at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2007


I have no desire to learn more about dogs, or to manage them. I'd rather they left me alone

I don't mean non-dog-owners should learn to manage dogs, I mean dog owners should. If people actually trained and managed their dogs properly, people like you who don't want anything to do with dogs might find that their presence was less intrusive. Dogs who are properly socialized, trained and managed are much more calm, pleasant and less intrusive to be around, especially to people like yourself. Just like children.

And Poodles can be just as unpleasant and dangerous as any other breed of dog, it's rational to recoil from any dog who doesn't behave properly, regardless of size or breed.
posted by biscotti at 7:25 AM on February 5, 2007


"I like dogs, but I'm afraid of children. It's a phobia that will not go away. I'm allergic to them. They are dirty. And damned if they aren't everywhere!"

Actually, I'd rather see children banned from bars. I can't count how many times I've seen people bring kids under 10 into bars. many of them babies & toddlers. I've seen car seats in bars with babies in them. The parents were tipping back a cocktail. god forbid anyone tell SuperMommy that she can't bring her BAAAYYBEEE into $business!

I once questioned why kids were allowed into separate bar areas that many restaurants have, and the responses were just vile. More "MYOB" and "I have babies! I have RIGHTS!" and "Do you know how expensive babysitters are!?" comments than I could shake a stick at.

Dogs in bars woul probably be more well behaved.
posted by drstein at 9:29 AM on February 5, 2007 [1 favorite]



you're going to have to make space for other peoples' needs and desires. And for better or worse, bad memories.



Everyones needs and desires? What about racism and sexism? Have you not read anything above? Or do you mean just YOUR needs and desires.

Why should the entire world conform to your fears and prejudices. Can we not have one frigg'n refuge from them? Just one?

eattheweek is right. I have carefully carved out this pissy sarcastic niche and to abandon my cantankerous net persona would be... inauthentic? But perhaps I was over exuberant.

Live and learn I suppose. Next time I guess I will let the peanut gallery squeal as they may.

I must note that people, my self included, do a great deal of projection.

In almost every scenario in this thread the bars are imagined as raucous and fraught with danger.

Jeebus. What do you guys DO? Play Dalton in Road House? What kind of bars and cafes do you hang out in? I know that MWhybark frequents places more like the MosEsley Bar from Star Wars. But the rest of you... what is MetaFilter overrun with Biker gangs all of a sudden?

I tell you what I see in my tiny little head when I visualize a place that allows dogs. It's allot like places that used to allow dogs on the sly before the whiners took over the world. It's like this:

At 8pm in the soft glow of the spring evening air my wife and I walk through our neighborhood with our dog. The smell of Rhododendron wafts delicately in the air. On our way around the corner we see our friends, neighbors and their dogs, gathered at tour local cafe. They toast us lifting an inviting cool glass of Lillet. Stop they say. So we go inside sit down for nice quiet drink as the dogs settle at our feet and sleep and Edith Piaf sings "Quand il me prend dans ses bras, Il me parle tout bas. Je vois la vie en rose."

Now is that so bad? Seriously. Can we not have this one place?
posted by tkchrist at 10:25 AM on February 5, 2007


I wholeheartedly agree with tkchrist, across the board, on this issue.

Further, I would rather have dogs everywhere than human children and especially the parents of same, almost all of whom seem to feel that because they have chosen to further burden this Earth by spewing forth unnecessary beings into this already-strained world that I and everyone else is supposed to give up all rights and privileges in favour of THE PRECIOUS CHILDREN.

The main reason I hate going out to shopping areas, or restaurants, or movie theaters, or pretty damn near anywhere else is because these places are filled with screaming, ill-behaved children and their appallingly rude, insanely permissive, anti-disciplinary, incredibly self-entitled parents. It infuriates me that these people think that I have to change my behaviour and be the person THEY think I should be simply because their own children are present, especially when they dont seem to give a ripe fuck about anyone else's children, just to add insult to injury.

I've seen with my own eyes parents who have shoved other peoples' children out of the way so that their own children could take their place, whether at a store display or in line for the zoo or what have you. Ive gotten into more nasty arguments with parents over their children in public than I care to think about. I've never - and I mean never - had this problem with a dog owner, and I've traveled prodigiously all over the US and to several other countries.

Finally, the dog hatred, mostly spewed forth by people who apparently know pretty much nothing at all about dogs or the proper care of dogs, has seriously disturbed me. If I had a choice, I'd rather be surrounded by dogs than humans. Dogs are not dirty by nature; nor are they violent or wild. Dogs know more about living together peacefully than humans do. They are friendly, clean, loving, caring, and loyal animals and will behave extremely well if you have socialized and raised them properly and treated them kindly.

Just like human children.

There are no bad dogs. There are only bad people. I dont hate human children for the same reason: I hate their parents instead, because there are no bad babies. There are only bad parents. To the people here who claim that those who love their dogs and treat them like children have psychological problems, I can only say one thing: I hope you never have children of your own. The very thought terrifies me.

In my experience, dogs are just better people than most humans, and I'd much rather hang out with them, and those who love and understand them, than those who do not.

This thread kind of justifies my opinion. And yeah, Paris is more civilized. In fact, most of western Europe is more civilized than the United States.

One last thing before I depart this troubling thread forever:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi.

'Nuff said.
posted by perilous at 10:57 AM on February 5, 2007


I'm in Washington, and I love this proposed law. Because I'm all for defacto segregation of the entitled types who insist we love their special pets as if they were Christ's personal cross-species love-children. This then creates other spaces where those people aren't. It's a win-win.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:12 AM on February 5, 2007


op: "in more civilized places, like paris..."

sez who? by what metric is paris more civilized than seattle? i acknowledge that it's been there longer, looms much larger in history and more people have visited it, but i don't agree that this is all of "civilization".


Seattle, for instance, has a Nordstroms.
posted by Artw at 1:25 PM on February 5, 2007


We don't just have a Nordstroms, we spawned Nordstroms. What did Paris ever do for fashion?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:18 PM on February 5, 2007


I'm pretty sure Jean Enersen has shop lifted in Paris, too.
posted by tkchrist at 4:12 PM on February 5, 2007


I'm pretty sure Jean Enersen pre-dates Paris.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:13 PM on February 5, 2007 [1 favorite]


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi.

Yeah... ummm, about that? Ever been to India?
posted by miss lynnster at 6:00 PM on February 5, 2007


« Older After the death of the policeman Filippo Raciti du...  |  The Haun's Mill Massacre:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments