Suburbanites Saving Seats At Pritzker: The New Dibs?
Could Palin Put Kirk Over the Top? More Importantly: Would She?
Oprah's Leaving Chicago?
Strollergate 2009: Doubts Raised
Abortion Notification Law Cleared
In case some of you may have forgotten, that's Emmy in the picture. Depending on the time of day she's the smartest mammal in our household. She's unusually happy today, because yesterday the City Council inched closer to allowing her the right to join us for meals at outdoor cafés, a notion that flies in the face of common sense, sanitary concerns, arguments posited by a former alderman and the director of food protection for the city's Department of Health, and their own soundbites nearly three months ago.
The ordinance, approved unanimously by the Committee on License and Consumer Protection yesterday, goes before the full council next Wednesday. If approved, the ordinance goes into effect January 1, 2008, when city residents and their dogs can take advantage of the balmy Indian summer which January in Chicago is known. Dog expert Steve Dale, quoted in the Tribune, said that taking a dog to an outdoor café is "a great experience ... part of the Chicago experience. The majority of people in Chicago have a dog [and] consider their dog a member of the family." Now, we were born and raised in Chicago and this is not part of any "Chicago experience" that we can remember. For us, the "Chicago experience" entailed rooting for a baseball team the rest of our family hated (we came to our senses); being told to shut up whenever we questioned why our neighbor who worked for Streets and San never actually went to work; getting the stink eye when our girlfriend asked for ketchup on her hot dog; hanging out at Brickyard Mall and Harlem Irving Plaza working on our layabout skill set; and being told that our cousin's summer school graduation ceremony was a classier affair than when we graduated from Lane Tech in a thunderstorm that made what passed through the area last week seem like a summer shower.
The family dog didn't take part in any of that. You know why? Because we set up boundaries for the family dog. Emmy gets to do way more than our family allowed the family dog, like go to the beach and even accompany us to the neighborhood coffee shop on the weekends. And even that is because it's on the way home during the morning walk and the owner - as a dog lover - allows it. But just as we wouldn't bring a child to a bar (a brewpub is a different matter), we wouldn't bring a dog to an outdoor café to eat. Sanitary issues aside, we have to respect our surroundings, no matter how well behaved other pet owners think their dogs might be. If this ordinance passes into law, it doesn't mean that dog owners suddenly have carte blanche to bring their dogs wherever they damn well please. It'll ultimately be up to the restaurateurs to decide how they'll honor the ordinance, and if they don't want your pets, they'll let you know. Just as you'll have the right to not go anywhere that won't allow your pet to sit next to you outside.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is truly a bizarre ordinance, but it may have a positive effect for people like Matty - instead of overeating at restaurants, people will hand part of their meals down to their dogs and keep the poundage off themselves (while adding it to their pooches).
BTW, nice to know another Chicagoan likes ketchup on their hot dogs.
well said, chuck.
i don't know why dog owners presume everyone loves dogs. i can't tell you how many times i've been walking on the street or laying on the beach or riding my bike and have been jumped on by a dog. and in those situations, i can't tell you how many times the dogs owner has laughed it off or made a feeble excuse for that behavior, rather than correcting it or apologizing for the paw prints/drool/god knows what else that ends up on my trousers or skirt.
there are sooooo many irresponsible owners of spoiled dogs in chicago, i can't stand it.
the moral of the story - these are the types of people that will make this law a public nuisance. i love seeing the water dishes outside businesses in the summer - a nice gesture -but this cafe law is something completely different. if i wanted to eat with animals, i would eat in a barn.
god, who comes up with these ideas? it's like proof positive that we have all lost our minds.
ps - emmy is very cute!
I love dogs, but I have to agree that there are likely to be many owners who will feel entitled to behave badly under this law. Sigh.
And an aside to Mr. Sudo: It helps your case more when your articles are better edited. This sentence doesn't even make sense: "...no matter how well behaved we our other pet owners think our dogs might be."
just as chicagoans abuse flip-flops from april to october, so will they abuse this ordinance. any guesses as to when the first customer/business owner dustup will be? i call may.
Please cite one, one, medical journal article that supports the idea that dogs in an outdoor dining establishment have posed a health or sanitation hazard anywhere in the world.
Just what I need when I eat: A fucking slobbering dog next to me, hair shedding and landing on my table. DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS, QUIT TREATING THEM AS SUCH.
Well, in any case, it gives us another issue to insult each other over while the mayor, aldermen and their pals continue to rob us blind.
Let's think about this rationally. I'd be willing to bet that most of the dogs who would accompany their owners to an outdoor eatery are pretty chill and well-behaved. Otherwise, it would be a giant pain in the ass for the owner and everyone else. If a dog acted up and started disrupting other customers' meals, the owner and the dog would be asked to leave, just like a disruptive patron would be.
I am a lifelong dog lover who became allergic to dogs in my 20s. When I know I am going to be around a friend or family member's dog, I take prescription allergy medicine in advance so I can breathe and play with the doggie. My allergy can be mild or very severe leading into asthma, depending upon the dog, length of time I'm there, other seasonal allergies, etc. - I'm not a scientist so I just take the pill so I can breathe.
Bringing your dog with you everyplace is not a right. Dogs are not children, they are animals. Animals do not have the same rights as humans. If everyone was a little more considerate of this, we'd all be better off. Note to cafe owners, when the dogs show up, you loose me.
I completely agree with guest #9. When did the belief that animals have rights become to pervasive in our culture. Dogs are property, and just like you can't take you chainsaw or whatever everywhere, you should be allowed to take your dog to places where people might be harmed.
This is why I don't understand the whole MIchael Vick thing. Dogs don't have rights. It is just like, you can't burn down your house, and if you do you are charged with arson but no one is upset for the house.
As a protest, Hot Doug will be expanding his encased meats menu to include dog Dogs.
I hear he will be calling it "The Michael Vick."
Here are my problems, even if there is little documentation that dogs cause a public health hazard:
Dogs shed. Yes, humans shed, too, but dogs shake themselves off, which often cannot be controlled by the pet owner. Some dogs also shake saliva.
Dogs eat feces. Dogs sniff feces. It gets on their face. Dogs lick their asshole as a way of cleaning themselves. Dogs lick people. Most humans do not eat feces or sniff feces. In this instance, I become worried not only about the dog, but about the waitstaff. A waiter pets a dog, who licks the person's hands. The waiter forgets to wash his hands when serving food. There is an E.coli outbreak attributed to the lack of handwashing, but the waiter may have obtained the E. coli from the dog. We may never know.
Despite what people think, dog's saliva is full of bacteria. That is well documented.
Who is going to ensure that the dogs have their proper vaccinations? The Health Department or Animal Control? What if a dog doesn't have it's vaccinations?
People have allergies.
Sure, you may think your dog is very well behaved and can do no wrong. You love your pet, but what happens when two dogs bark and fight, disrupting other people's meals?
What happens when I trip over a leash in an already crowded patio setting?
What happens if a dog bites a child? The dog owner? Legally, what is the restaurant's liability?
Do we limit to what type of dog can sit in a restaurant? Or is that dog discrimination? You can bring your Bichon Frise with the cute little bowtie that sits in your purse, but what if someone wants to bring that pit bull mix or german shepard?
And before you make the argument that Seeing Eye dogs are allowed, why shouldn't other pets be allowed too? Well, Seeing eye dogs perform a service, and are very well-trained (trained for many years under rigorous conditions), and are very well-controlled. I can take exception to them.
I like dogs. I grew up with them. But, besides the lack of documentation that dogs pose a public health hazard, give me a compelling reason why dogs shoulde be allowed in restaurants.
Personally, my dog is a huge spaz, no way he's coming to eat with me. I love the fella, but holey moley...
But come on guest #10, are you really comparing a dog to a house?
Yeesh.
Oh and Chuck,
She is a beauty.
The majority of dog owners will keep their pets under control. However there will always be a Brad or Kaitlyn who thinks their precious Black Lab pup Wrigley can do no wrong, and will allow it to run amok. If I see a dog at an outdoor cafe I will keep walking.
These places lose my business as well.
I don't buy the argument put forth by 10, as I believe we should not be cruel to animals. Yet I don't want to eat with the beasts, partly for the reasons put forth by Sparky.
My point is that these worst-case scenarios are not based in fact and amount to hysteria. Allow me to demonstrate using Sparky's post:
Dogs shed. Yes, humans shed, too, but dogs shake themselves off, which often cannot be controlled by the pet owner. Some dogs also shake saliva.
Come on, there aren't many breeds of dog that have a lack of saliva control. And unless these dogs are physically standing on the table, they don't pose a threat to the cleanliness of your food. Barring all dogs because of a hypothetical scenario is irrational.
Dogs eat feces. Dogs sniff feces. It gets on their face. Dogs lick their asshole as a way of cleaning themselves. Dogs lick people. Most humans do not eat feces or sniff feces. In this instance, I become worried not only about the dog, but about the waitstaff. A waiter pets a dog, who licks the person's hands. The waiter forgets to wash his hands when serving food. There is an E.coli outbreak attributed to the lack of handwashing, but the waiter may have obtained the E. coli from the dog. We may never know.
Apparently, a waiter not washing his hands is a dog's fault.
Despite what people think, dog's saliva is full of bacteria. That is well documented.
Also well documented -- bacteria live on every surface.
Who is going to ensure that the dogs have their proper vaccinations? The Health Department or Animal Control? What if a dog doesn't have it's vaccinations?
If a dog's just sitting there, this is completely irrelevant.
People have allergies.
True. Stinky perfume makes me sneeze. Others are allergic to cigarette smoke.
Sure, you may think your dog is very well behaved and can do no wrong. You love your pet, but what happens when two dogs bark and fight, disrupting other people's meals?
What happens when two jock assholes start fighting? Better ban men too.
What happens when I trip over a leash in an already crowded patio setting?
What happens when I trip over a person's belongings in an already crowded patio setting?
What happens if a dog bites a child? The dog owner? Legally, what is the restaurant's liability?
None. It would be the same as if a man suddenly went nuts and starting harming someone.
Do we limit to what type of dog can sit in a restaurant? Or is that dog discrimination? You can bring your Bichon Frise with the cute little bowtie that sits in your purse, but what if someone wants to bring that pit bull mix or german shepard?
Breed doesn't matter, individual dogs matter. Dogs of any breed can be mean, just as people of any background can be.
I like dogs. I grew up with them. But, besides the lack of documentation that dogs pose a public health hazard, give me a compelling reason why dogs shoulde be allowed in restaurants.
We're talking about outdoor sitting areas, not going in the restaurant.
Really, I don't mean to pick on you, Sparky, but if you just replace a few words, none of these arguments hold up.
Dan: Why, then, are there health department restrictions concering animals in food areas in the first place? Do you think that is a case of over-reaction? And why do some business owners decide to ban dogs from inside their stores? Clearly, there is some cause for concern.
10, i hate when houses burn down, especially historic ones. but come on. a dog's alive, a house isn't.
#18 -- Again, my point is that there seems to be a tendency to jump to the most illogical, unlikely conclusions when it comes to any kind of legislation. I'm willing to bet that the law will be very clear as to what can and cannot take place -- dogs must be on a leash, disruptions can be a fineable offense. It might not even be mandatory for restaurants to abide by. But people read "dogs" and "restaurants" in the same sentence, and all of a sudden, we all have E. Coli and dog spit all over us. It's ridiculous.
Guest #6:
Bull Acad Natl Med. 2007 Jan;191(1):67-78; discussion 79-81.
Just got to PubMed and type in Canine and public health. You will find thousands of articles discussing the public health issues of pets. Will you find tons of articles about specifically dogs in restaurants? No...because that is a given subset of public health.
Outdoors is the same as indoors when it comes to restaurants because servers do the same job in both places, handling your food. As for tripping over purses and coats, well, those things don't move around unexpectedly. And the fear that humans can also get out of control or be gross, yes, this is true. But as much as you love your pets (and I love animals of all kinds), and as well-trained as they may be, they are still animals. They don't have the same level of cognitive reasoning that most humans do.
But all that being said, I believe restaurants have the right to choose for themselves whether they will admit animals, and I would choose to not give my business to any that did allow them.
Guest #2: I totally have the same problem. I can't stand when people let their dog jump all over me when I'm walking down the sidewalk. I have no problem with you having a dog, but pick up its poo and don't let it jump on me!
It's bad enough people have to bring their dogs to PetsSmart & Petco. I mean c'mon, taking your dog shopping?
This brings to mind the hullabaloo about the coffee house that doesn't allow children (which I support). But I'll support it when it's amended to allow me to bring my pet goat.
Dan: I am not trying to be smart ass, but my point is there seems to actually be a point to fearing about dog-related health issues. Otherwise, why are there laws concering this topic? Have you researched these laws?
"Please cite one, one, medical journal article that supports the idea that dogs in an outdoor dining establishment have posed a health or sanitation hazard anywhere in the world."
'Service de Parasitologie, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, 7 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 94704 Maisons-Alfort.
A wide range of parasites can infect carnivorous pets. Some are more significant than others, owing to their prevalence, their pathogenicity for animal hosts, or their capacity to cause human disease. This article focuses on roundworms (Toxocara spp.) and tapeworms (Echinococcus spp.), which are emerging public health hazards in France. When humans ingest infective Toxocara eggs, the eggs hatch and release larvae that can migrate anywhere in the body, causing a disease called visceral larva migrans. Common target organs are the eyes, brain, liver, and lungs, with a risk of permanent visual, neurological and other tissue damage. Epidemiological studies have identified geophagy and pet dogs (particularly puppies) as the principal risk factors for human toxocarosis. Childrens' play habits and their attraction to pets put them at a higher risk for infection than adults. Eggs of the dog tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus hatch and release embryos that migrate to various organs and form voluminous cysts, causing a disease called cystic echinococcosis. Human alveolar echinococcosis is caused by the larval stage of the fox tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis, which usually develops in the liver. Larval growth is slow, resulting in an asymptomatic phase of several years before diagnosis. Left untreated, the condition may be lethal. In central and eastern European areas where Echinococcus multilocularis is endemic, dogs that have access to rodents should be considered as potential hazards for humans. Rational measures for preventing animal and human infection include pet owner education and regular deworming of dogs and cats. Education of pet owners should focus on prevention, and will include personal hygiene, clearing up pet feces regularly to reduce environmental contamination, and minimizing exposure of children to potentially contaminated environments. Because puppies, kittens, pregnant and nursing animals and hunting dogs are at the highest risk of roundworm or tapeworm infection--and are therefore responsible for most environmental contamination and human disease--antihelminthic treatments are most effective when they are initiated early and target these animal populations. Various guidelines for the treatment and control of parasitic infections in carnivorous pets have been proposed in the United States (by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Companion Animal Parasitology Council) and in Europe (by the European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasitology). In France a non profit organization (CEPHA, Comité d'Experts en Parasitologie Humaine et Animale) was recently created to participate in the prevention of parasitic zoonoses associated with companion animals.'
doggo,
haha, that's the same article I cited! I probably should have put the title. pretty nasty stuff, huh?
Dan, I must agree - what is ridiculous to me is when a special group of people (dog owners) or in this case, the animals themselves, get special privileges at the expense of others' basic rights (not having to sit next to an animal when one is eating.)
BTW? I never thought I would have to claim eating in an animal-free zone in a restaurant as a basic right, but apparently, that's how far into insanity we've drifted.
Also, I'll be the one to say it: I have ZERO FAITH that those owners who would be inconsiderate enough to bring a dog into a restaurant area/patio would be responsive to bad behavior. These are the same owners who think that their dogs jumping up on and barking at strangers is funny or playful or pleasant for the other person.
Is it really so wrong to ask that certain places be free of animals? If dogs are allowed, then why not ferrets, cats, hamsters, pet snakes, potbellied pigs. Your logic falls in on you too, you know, Dan.
I reiterate: if I wanted to eat with animals, I would eat in a barn. Patios of restaurants are not appropriate places for animals. PERIOD. I can't believe I even have to say that here!
And PS - I love animals, by the way. I've had dogs and cats my whole life, and even was a member of PETA at one point.
#23 -- No worries, you're not being a smart ass. To answer your question, no, I haven't researched those kinds of laws. But dog owners eat food around their dogs every day, so I have a hard time imagining that enacting this ordinance will result in even a modest increase in health problems. Dog-related health problems don't happen unless a dog isn't behaving itself.
We can agree to disagree. Hell, I think this law isn't even necessary. And I don't even own a dog! I just think people are overreacting to the perceived dangers of this, that's all.
This is why I don't understand the whole MIchael Vick thing. Dogs don't have rights. It is just like, you can't burn down your house, and if you do you are charged with arson but no one is upset for the house. -guest 10
Guest 10 that's a pretty lame view. Dogs do have rights and abusing them is against the law. Needlessly hurting animals is not only despicable it's a sign of being mentally disturbed. That said I love dogs but I don't want to eat with them. Our dog didn't get to hang out at the dinner table, salivating and looking pathetic when I was growing up.
"haha, that's the same article I cited! I probably should have put the title. pretty nasty stuff, huh?"
Yeah, mo, it's no joke. I could cite more. To assume that every dog that shows up at an outdoor cafe is healthy is simply ignorant. Domestic pets can be, and are, disease vectors for illnesses that afflict humans. What about Lyme disease? West Nile? Or even Rabies?
Not to mention the whole crotch-sniffing thing.
Oh, I also meant to say, guest 10, are you being sarcastic? I hope so. Because while animals don't have the same level of cognition or same level of rights as humans, they're still alive. They're more than just possessions. I'm just saying I don't want to eat around them. My pets weren't allowed near the food when I was growing up. And the difference, I think, between dogs in eateries and an owner eating with his dog at home is that strangers are being exposed to other people's pets. You may know that your dog has his teeth brushed every morning, has his shots, and has never bitten a single thing other than a milkbone in his life, plus has been dewormed, defleaed, and has never given poo a second look, but I don't know that.
But Dan, I do agree with you that people get hysterical about certain things and try to legislate insane things, which I don't agree with. Which is why I don't think dogs in restaurants should be banned. But, as a comparison to this argument...if animals posed no health concerns at all, why not let them in hospitals? Why not let them in grocery stores? (God, they don't, do they??)
What specific rights do dogs have? Seriously? Is there any law that incorporates them into a statute? No! The only laws governing animals pertain to how they are treated by their OWNERS.
Obviously a dog is alive and house is not but my point is that there are laws governing how one treats property. Sure, burn down your house, but you are going to jail. Abuse your dog, go to jail. Both are your property. Dogs don't have rights. It is rhetoric.
Side note: I would be way more upset if someone was abusing an endangered species.
I would like to see babies banned as well, unless of course, they are riding the dog on a doggie saddle. Then I'm ok wth it.
All I know is that Betty the beagle and Lucy the Dog are very excited about this, and will do their best to terrorize everyone on the patio and eat all of their food!
Oh wait, they wouldn't do that, because I'll have them on a short leash the whole time, and will take care to keep them out of other people's hair.
I like this ordinance and that's partially because most people already bring their dogs to the patio and this just keeps the eatery owners in the clear. But it's mostly because I like taking my dogs out with me when it's nice outside.
At the same time, I can see the point of folks against this, since I do believe the majority of people won't watch their dogs or take responsibility for them.
Kind of like parents that bring their kids to a restaurant and let them run haywire all over the place.
Dan: Fair enough in point 27, and I do wish more emotion would go into more boring issues that have a far greater influence on our lives in this city (TIF law, for instance).
I guess it comes down to this: Any cafe that lets in dogs loses me and at least a few of my friends. Whether that means anything in the long run I do not know.
Guest 10, the way you stated it just now makes more sense. The part of the older post that says "no one is upset for the house" is what derailed your point, I think. And your comment about Vick makes it sound like you don't care if animals are abused.
So...even if the government law is not specifically written to protect the animal (rather than punish the abuser), I think in terms of social laws, an animal would have the right not to be abused, whereas a house or other property would have no such right (by it's owner, anyway).
Oh, and abusing domestic animals is just as horrendous as abusing endangered species. Any animal abuser should be imprisoned for a very long time.
Mo: Please explain to me what in the hell a "social law" is. And who makes them.
And I kind of don't care if dogs are abused, if they aren't my dogs. And Vick was punished.
Guest 10, I had a whole post written out to explain myself, but I decided to delete it because you're not worth the time. Anyone who is ok with animals getting abused in a monster.
IS A MONSTER
What specific rights do dogs have? Seriously? Is there any law that incorporates them into a statute? No! The only laws governing animals pertain to how they are treated by their OWNERS.
Wrong,
Illinois Law:
Cruel Treatment (70/3.01)
No person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal.
Here's the point that everyone is missing:
"If this ordinance passes into law, it doesn't mean that dog owners suddenly have carte blanche to bring their dogs wherever they damn well please. It'll ultimately be up to the restaurateurs to decide how they'll honor the ordinance"
So no, this is not going to mean that every restaurant with outdoor seating will be over-run with dogs. But it does allow those places who ALREADY want to let their patrons eat with their dogs do it in the clear. So nobody's forcing you to eat with dogs - if the restaurant allows dogs and this offends you or makes you sad, don't eat there. Nobody's infringing upon your rights - nobody's FORCING you to eat anywhere.
matt, regardless - this is insanity. i'm all for gay marriage and the right to bear arms. be a born again evangelical christian who blocks the gay pride parade, or be a sex worker. i support all of this. but this - THIS - is the type of thing that makes me think the fabric of civilization is unraveling.
again - former PETA member here (and lifelong vegetarian) but it seems like we're giving more privilege and deference to spoiled lincoln park pooches and their egomaniacal owners more rights these days than the working poor of our city. are aldermen really wasting their time on this - a clear assault on common sense?
"Dog doo is the caviar of rats!"
Navin: thanks for making my point.
The way that law is written governs the PERSON's behavior not the dog's.
It's not like there is anywhere a DOG BILL OF RIGHTS saying that they can be taken to restaurants and be free from abuse.
My Mastiff is 135 pounds and professionaly trained.
I ask her to sit and she sits, I ask her to stay and she stays. She doesn’t bark except when
she “reads” that I am fearful. As far as going to the bathroom she is a “camel” as far as self control.
If you pet my dog she likes it. If you don't she keeps to herself.
Now would you rather deal with my dog or a “Baby on Board” Baby? Be honest, I’m not talking me, I’m talking my dog.
I can't bring my cat? I say we picket these restaurants until they support the equality of all mammals. That's right - I'm against fish being able to come to restaurants - I think it would just be too traumatic when I eat their cousins.
The world must be ending, I'm agreeing with Navin AND Spook in the same day. Watch out for the coming apocalypse...
And yeah, I'd rather sit next to a dog than a kid most days.
Spook, for every dog that behaves as well as yours, there are a dozen that don't.
For every dog that is professionally trained, there are many that are not.
For every dog that a child can pet, there is a dog that will bark or growl or jump when an attempt to pet is made.
Can you necesarily tell the difference by looking at the dog? I can't. Not always, at least.
I wish every dog could be like yours. Unfortunately, they aren't.
And unfortunately too many dog owners in the city think that everyone should be a dog lover.
I was out with my boyfriend having a drink, and a person had a dog on a retractable leash. She wasn't paying attention. We are both highly allergic. The dog came up to my boyfriend and licked his arm. He immediatley broke out in welts. The owners attitude was arrogance and surpise. No apologies for not controlling her dog. We had to leave because his hives were so bad. There are many owners who have this same attitude. Was it my boyfriend's fault because the woman couldn't control her dog?
I would rather deal with your dog than a screaming baby. But I would rather deal with a well-behaved baby than a well behaved dog. It's a dog.
Navin: thanks for making my point.
What point? You said there was no LAW protecting dogs except from how they are treated by their owners. You're mistaken, it's up there for you to re-read again if you like. Animals are obviously not equal to humans but we have laws like this because it's sick to needlessly inflict cruelty on animals for your own pleasure.
Excuse me but I will respond accordingly to the important dog question, once I get over the shock and "applaudness" that Julene McCoy
would denigrate and cheapen this debate by even in jest raising concept of a cat
shame shame shame!
"And yeah, I'd rather sit next to a dog than a kid most days."
Further proof that we are a society of selfish idiots.
Cats are smarter than that, Julene. Why would they want to be among the plebeians, dealing with the mosquitos and table scraps? :)
Oh pipe down!
Please tell me what benefit do ferrets, cats, hamsters, pet snakes, potbellied pigs, CATS,
And to the world or society?
Do they aid the blind, like Dogs?
Protect the citizens from criminals
aid and help the elderly, burned, the autistic?
Do they find lost people?
Identify the dead?
Heard and protect sheep from wolves?
Pull sleds?
protect homes
are they assigned important secrete duties at fire houses?
Indeed numerous dogs benefit human kind more than the majority of people represented on this post every will!
And they can’t hang out in a bar of all places!
They can't hang out at resturants?
Come on People Wake Up!
And by the way speaking of germs and disease, I saw a “Baby on Board” couple
get on a crowded train with their turbo stroller, Washington to Logan Square. The baby stroller rubbing against my leg like poison ivy contained a child doing guest what? Eating its fat boggers! 25 whole minutes of it excavating the snotty tunnels of its nose and then feeding itself in pure bliss. Well guess what? My Dog doesn’t eat boggers! And did they parents tell their baby not to eat its boggers? No they didn’t. I couldn’t even concentrate on my book, it was so gross!
Humm, I wonder what else a "baby on board" with that type of liberty to eat its boggers
put its stubby little hands? Perhaps in its pants probbling digging eating? Touching chairs, tables at resturants? Oh and guess where they were headed off into the sunshine? Lula’s with their snoot eating baby! Probably emboldened after reading a baby on board article!
Disgusting.
But to show that I can be fair, I am for mandatory training for all dogs. I am against gang bangers with pit bulls just as I am against yuppies with “Goldens” I hate when they call them that! and Labs!
Maybe part of this ordinance or whatever should also mandate a registration fee akin to the vehicle city sticker for all chicago-residing pets over 25 lbs
A tag that costs $75 per year to pay for: The agency that makes the tags, the new city dept. that enforces it and other bad dog related complaints, the collective guilt of all dog owners for the free feces removal and slobber/hair besmirchment by/on the rest of us who have to put up with you
Maybe they'll have a few dollars left to fork over to the RODENT CONTROL department
Poor Spook. Had to breath the same air as a baby and the evil yuppies. I hope you washed the cooties off after, buddy.
Is is just me, or do many adults in Chicago still act like they are living in the high school clique system?
While cats weren't sent down to the 9/11 site to find bodies it should be noted that cats are not as useless as you make them...
Here in Chicago, when there are cats around there are less rats (in my experience, yours may be different). In China, domesticated cats are used because it keeps the Black Spitting Cobras away. Luckily in Chicago we just have rats.
But obviously, there aren't Cat9 Units in the CPD.
Either way businesses that allow pets into their stores do not get my business. But if some business owners want to cater to dog lovers that's cool. Just like I don't go to Sushi restaurants because it does not compliment my taste pallet. Businesses cater to different people, sometimes in a niche market.
Does anyone opposed to this realize that the statute would only allow dogs OUTSIDE at sidewalk cafes?
There is nothing sanitary about eating at a sidewalk cafe, yet you do it anyway.
-You're sitting outside where there are flies and other insects landing on the table, on your plate and on your silverware.
-Rats, squirrels, and birds are picking up your food scraps overnight and while you're eating.
-You're sitting 5 feet away from cars, trucks and buses and their exhaust.
-Your shoes and baby strollers are tracking dirt into the restaurant from the street and sidewalk.
Also, for years many restaurants allowed dogs in their outdoor seating areas without incident. This only stopped four or five years ago when the city told restaurants they would be fined for doing so.
Whatever man, Pontiac Grill on Damen in wicker park has allowed dogs in their outdoor seating for YEARS. no problems there. Dog owners are usually VERY AWARE of their pups and wont let the dogs sit there being a nuisance. most dogs just slide under the table and pant for a while as their owners eat. They arent RUNNING around or CRYING or THROWING THINGS or SCREAMING like babies and toddlers (in strollers, even, which Chicagoist completely thinks belong in BONGO ROOM).