As was mentioned above, you are not allowed to ask. When I told the owner “Your dog damn near hit me” she gave such a good excuse: Oh, he’s just playing.
Some Muslim sects consider dogs unclean and do not want to associate with them. And some people are phobic about dogs.
How much society is rearranged according to a small % of people with very bad allergies is a matter of balance.
Same here. The fact is that nowadays in a lot of place more people want to bring their dogs with them than people who object to it. Numbers rule on stuff like this.
Again you’ve given no general categorical reason except that your opinion differs.
And again I’m talking about cases where there is no law against it from good reason (related to food), and also we restrict lots of things people can do and bring on planes that we don’t in general stores, outside seating at a restaurant, etc. So saying there’s no big deal with people bringing a dog to a department store (I see that more often now at upscale mall we sometimes go to) doesn’t mean everywhere. And people so allegeric that that poses a big problem have to deal with it. That’s reality if you don’t have the numbers on your side, about a lot of things not just this. About how society runs in general.
I just use one of the inhouse cockroaches when I go there.
Again general dogs in restaurants are a health code violation. There are several questions layered on one another here. There’s ‘real’ service dogs, defining ‘real’, people lying about it, establishments not enforcing rules they should enforce (or arguing they can’t because of ‘lawsuits’), then separately from that jumble of questions there’s just plain ‘dog friendly’ policies at a lot more places where it’s not a health code violation. People bring dogs, the establishment welcomes it, some other people have a problem with it.
The second question is easier IMO. If that’s what establishments want to do and most people favor it (true where I live, albeit some dog magazine labelled us ‘most dog friendly town in America’), end story. Lots of people have to ‘lump’ stuff they don’t like about society’s (often changing) conventions. Even if they think they have very good reasons.
The first complex of questions is more complicated and case by case. However, your logic isn’t very convincing to me about my statement, even with the injection of personal authority (I guess it’s supposed to be) about guide dog training. Kids don’t IMO learn to behave by being allowed to misbehave first, or at least that’s only some particular theory of child raising, which is a whole other huge topic. My observation is simply that a) IME kids behave much worse than dogs on average in enclosed public places, not even remotely close b) it’s an opinion/convention that people have a special obligation to put up with the bad behavior of other people’s kids more than any other annoyance, an opinion not as widely shared nowadays seems to me.
Room for lots of YMMV here. Like I said where I live dogs (small kids too though) are legion. People bring them everywhere. Very seldom do they misbehave (dogs that is). I’m thinking people whose sense is different either live in a different kind of place or are haters and focusing on a few incidents. People where I live with unruly dogs don’t bring them inside much. Our dog for example is extremely terrific overall, other dogs might equal but few surpass her sweet and polite disposition toward humans. But she hates other dogs, is big and mean looking, and will bark at and try to get at them in close quarters (her beautiful deep voice is almost never heard otherwise). That would be disruptive, so we don’t bring her places where she might encounter other dogs. Seems most people act similarly with dogs, kids not so much.
To which I’ve continually said, that’s totally fine, I just don’t like that businesses are forced to allow pets into their buildings.
Go back to smoking. Used to be that each business could decide on their own if they allowed smoking indoors. If you didn’t like smoke, you could go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant.
What if it had gone the other way? What if the law said it’s now illegal to force smokers outdoors and the people that didn’t like the smell were told to deal with it/it’s not big deal/stay home?
Also, could you back up your claim that more people want to bring their dogs to restaurants than people who would rather they didn’t? I think you made that up.
Yeah, that does not sound like a bona fide service animal.
Can you grab a cite for that as well?
FDA Food Code allows service animals in restaurants as long as few rules are followed 6-501.115(A) and 6-501.115(B)(3).
My local food code makes no amendments to this aspect. In fact, a while back I asked my health inspector about it and he also confirmed the same thing.
So, again, all you have to do is say your Golden Retriever, Mr Sheddy, is a service animal and it’s now allowed in.
I don’t think smoking is a good parallel. If I brought my dog into Target, no one who did not see her would know she was there. She would be clean and quiet. If someone lights up a cigarette in Target the entire store knows, and everything in the store will soon stink.
It wasn’t perfect, it’s just something I came up with on the fly. However, I’ll go back to what I was saying earlier (in general) I’m sure your dog is a perfect angel that won’t bother a soul, in reality it’s simply not the case. The only time I ever saw a dog in Target, there were employees a few aisles behind cleaning up after it (it peed in three places).
And again, I’m fine if Target says it’s okay, I don’t like that they’re not allowed to say no.
This is why I’ve always said that people who require service animals should fight for stricter laws about them as it would reduce the amount of people that bring their dogs everywhere knowing that people won’t say anything.
I have a blind friend with a seeing eye dog who is militant about this issue. He cannot stand people attempting to get pets treated as emotional support animals or fake service animals and will call people out who attempt to do so. It makes his life much more difficult in that badly behaved dogs will interact with and try to distract his working dog. Owners won’t control them and people get a bad impression of all working dogs.
I know of one acquaintance who managed to get her pet (who may be a legitimate emotional support dog but AFAIK isn’t a service dog) into a state park that specifically excludes animals - so she should climb the peaks with her pooch. Not sure how she managed to bamboozle the park authorities into allowing it, but they did. They’re usually quite strict about this sort of thing.
Oh no, someone wanted to hike with their dog! Seriously, how did it hurt anyone to have a dog in a state park?
They mess with the local wildlife. The natural fauna isn’t going to be as likely to hang around if there’s dogs barking at it. Even if your dog doesn’t chase animals and never barks out of turn, it’s still leaving it’s scent behind.
It doesn’t appear to be common to not allow pets, but it’s certainly not unheard of.
This is incorrect.
You are allowed, per the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ask two questions:
Is this a service animal required because of a disability?
What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?
This seems to focus on the fake (or arguably) service animal issue. But like I said, lots of places now choose to allow dogs, either completely openly or tacitly. I think you have to ‘cite’ stats on how many cases they are being ‘forced’ and how.
You later admitted you came up with that on the fly, and maybe you don’t do so well with analogies on the fly because that one doesn’t work at all. For one thing there’s evidence second hand smoke is a health hazard to everyone, not some very small % of people allergic enough to dogs to be bothered passing one in a store aisle or tables away in a restaurant (whether physically or psychosomatically, I guess it would be the latter in a lot of cases even where it happened).
Then the analogy really just proves my point. In general dogs are allowed now into more business because more customers want to bring them and fewer other people object than might once have been the case. ‘Fake’ service dogs or ‘lawsuits’ are not the main reason. Whereas nowadays most people want to ban smoking indoors. They didn’t used to. You have to live with societies’ conventions and how they change, and if ‘but they should consider how “people” feel’ is not a lot of people, tough luck. That’s life.
But note that the next line states that you don’t have to provide any documentation for the animal, prove that it can do what you say or tell them why you need it. All you have to do is say “yes” to those two questions.
That’s the point of the entire thread. Notice in the title it says “service”, with scare quotes and the OP provided a link to get a bullshit certificate stating that your pet is a service animal.
Do you have a cite for that or did you make it up?
Baxter State park in Maine is not like any other state park. The land was bequeathed to the state with the proviso that it be managed carefully for the wildlife and nature, with human activity being explicitly lower priority. Baxter is much closer to a National Park, and the rule about dogs has been like that since the park’s creation. There is significantly more regulation there than anywhere else I’ve ever hiked, and the experience there makes it worthwhile. I’m glad they are not like that everywhere, but I’m glad there is at least one place like it.
People constantly try to get around the park regulations and the park administration sticks to their guns. Not sure why they allowed it in this case.
I was just on a flight & sat next to someone who was traveling with their support cockateel :rolleyes:
At least that makes sense. Should the airplane lose all engines, at least the cockatiel can flap it’s wings and keep the plane aloft while the pilot guides it to land. What’s a dog gonna do, unless it’s Snoopy?
I see a couple of different discussions here.
First, should pets be allowed more places? I have always had dogs, and like to bring them places with me. But I historically assumed MOST stores/offices/etc (other than pet stores) were off limits. The idea that dogs are currently allowed more places does not bother me at all. But I’m an old dog myself, and am unlikely to change my habits. I’d rather leave my dog happy and comfortable at home, than bring him with, and then have to deal with not being allowed to bring him somewhere.
Personally, I’d probably draw a line at food stores and restaurants. I’m firmly with the people who say the problem is more with the (minority?) poor owners, and that (most?) dogs would barely be noticed. I’m not a big fan of dogs/cats in airports/planes - mainly because of a few yappers I encountered. But even those are probably preferable to a crying baby. I do have sympathy for folk who are allergic. I guess they just have to be careful to medicate before flying… :rolleyes:
A different problem is people using questionable “support” animals. My personal, non-medical opinion is that there are quite a few people who wish to present themselves as meriting special accommodation/treatment. And I think there is some amount of movement by medical professions and other groups to expand accommodations to people with minimal evidence of pathology. (Yeah, I know that some people have disabling pain, or mental illness. But IME, there are also a lot who just have aches and pains and transient moods, that they should deal with without expecting special treatment. Just my non-medical opinion based on meeting thousands of people claiming physical and mental/emotional disability.)
I’m willing to suppose the folk I describe here are a highly visible minority, but I regularly encounter folk who appear to derive secondary gain from presenting themselves as less able than they are. Bringing their pet with them is a very dramatic way to try to illustrate that image and seek special accommodation.