In New York, dogs can take the witness stand at a criminal trial. But at least in New York City, they’re not allowed to go into bars.
NYC regulators recently banned dogs from bars, even those with outdoor seating areas and those that serve only beverages:
[I]t has always been a violation of the city’s health code to allow a dog anywhere near a beer tap. But for years, this has been one of the most widely — and gleefully — violated rules in the city.
Not any more.
Since the health department adopted a letter grade system for bars and restaurants last year, bar owners say, health inspectors are allowing no wiggle room for four-legged patrons….
During inspections, many owners said they were surprised to learn that dogs were not allowed even in outdoor seating areas. Neither does a bar’s dearth of actual food products provide any cover. “Beer, wine and spirits have always been classified as food,” a department spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail. Only service dogs are permitted in spaces that serve food or drink of any kind.
As Thom Lambert points out, this is a ridiculous regulation. Dogs near food service areas do pose some risks. But as anyone who has a dog and a kitchen at home knows, they are fairly easy to minimize. More fundamentally, most people can readily understand the (very small) risks involved and decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a dog-friendly bar or not. Market incentives can and do supply plenty of dog-free watering holes for those who don’t want to take the risk of guzzling beer near canines, or simply don’t like dogs.
One of the major advantages of of private property rights is that they provide outlets for people with a wide range of different preferences. Dog-lovers can patronize one set of establishments and dog-haters another. As Thom emphasizes, this kind of diversity also enables communities to flourish, as well as individuals:
We classical liberals are often criticized for undermining communitarian values by emphasizing individual liberties. In reality, though, a liberal society (in the classical sense, not the welfare-state sense) fosters community by allowing people to associate in ways they find most meaningful. Indeed, one of the great things about a liberal, live-and-let-live city is that it can accommodate so many communities that cater to different preferences and values. Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims, evangelical Protestants, gays and lesbians, and various ethnic groups can create their own little communities to foster shared values…..
I was reminded of this point yesterday when I read that the Bloomberg administration, in the name of “public health,” is cracking down on bars that allow dogs…. How sad for New York City. Nothing builds community better than a collection of spaces — bars, coffeshops, diners, etc. — where neighbors can go to relax, converse, and share their lives. And nothing is more likely to keep people coming back and to get them talking to each other than to allow them to bring their dogs. If you don’t believe me, head down to your local dog park and watch people interact. Nobody’s a stranger at the dog park.
Thom’s point is well-taken. I didn’t know most of my current neighbors until we got a golden retriever and people started coming up to pet Willow whenever I took her for a walk. A space where people can bring dogs has a lot more community interaction than one where they can’t.
Property rights are particularly important for protecting unpopular people and groups against persecution. In this case, however, New York City has undermined property rights in a way that harms a much wider range of people for little or no benefit. Dog ownership is extremely widespread and even many non-dog owners enjoy interacting with man’s best furry friends.
ShelbyC says:
Well, now we’ll be safe from the havoc created by hoards of drunk dogs. They should be at home taking care of their families instead of in bars.
August 29, 2011, 11:50 pmJohn Cunningham says:
the loathsome little pissant, Commissar Bloomberg, plumbs new depths. I would far rather eat with any number of dogs than with
August 29, 2011, 11:58 pmone NY leftie.
Brad says:
I’d much rather they allow dogs and ban kids. Especially in Park Slope, currently under occupation by the forces of the Stroller Mafia.
August 30, 2011, 12:09 amOrin Kerr says:
Where’s a dog supposed to enjoy a Flying Dog Raging Bitch?
August 30, 2011, 12:13 amgooners says:
Boo.
August 30, 2011, 12:16 amG Thompson says:
So where are they supposed to play Pool or Poker, or even dance now?
Cassius Coolidge is spinning in his grave!
August 30, 2011, 12:33 amChristie says:
Portland, where bars are built for dogs and their pets.
August 30, 2011, 12:35 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Wait’ll the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler hears about this.
August 30, 2011, 12:43 amDavid G. Epstein says:
Bloomberg’s an a*****e. A rich one, but still an a*****e.
August 30, 2011, 12:44 amTatil says:
Around here outdoor seating areas of cafes are full people with dogs. I don’t know whether there is a regulation against that, but just not enforced or it is officially OK. Still, I am surprised that NYC has an official rule banning dogs from outdoor seating areas.
August 30, 2011, 12:47 amZiz says:
I wonder if Bloomberg did any studies to quantify the anticipated health improvements.
August 30, 2011, 12:50 amA. Zarkov says:
That’s nothing. In California I was not allowed to bring a cat into a restaurant– in a carrier. I had brought my cat to the U.C. Davis Veterinary Hospital and school. I wanted to get some lunch so went into downtown Davis to a restaurant.
Now the good part. This restaurant has an interior area and an exterior area. The exterior is essentially out on the sidewalk in the open air. The restaurant would not allow me to sit at a table that sat on concrete.
I was furious. They told me it was the law. I asked them them if they had illegal aliens working in the kitchen and they got very upset. It’s ok to break that law, but I can’t sit in the open air with my cat in a carrier.
August 30, 2011, 12:52 amSteve Lafleur says:
Honestly, why blame Bloomberg for this. It was already illegal. The health department just decided they’d start enforcing the law. I’m not defending the law, but it seems ridiculous to blame Bloomberg for this.
August 30, 2011, 12:55 amA. Zarkov says:
The New York lefties are nothing compared to the lefties in San Francisco and Berkeley, the Gog and Magog cities of the Bay Area. Still New York City is no bargain either. Ever since Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in Queens while her neighbors watched, I have held the city in contempt.
BTW her murderer is still in prison alive. If anyone deserved capital punishment it was him. He got that at trial, but the New York Court of Appeals reduced it to an indeterminate sentence.
August 30, 2011, 1:06 amTatil says:
Yes, I am sure they got upset only because they were violating immigration law. There could not be any other explanation.
August 30, 2011, 1:30 amTatil says:
Maybe, you should look into that story again. It is more or less a fabrication.
August 30, 2011, 1:33 amJimbino says:
If the government responsibility and concern for public health has any meaning at all, at least it is to protect me in bars from:
Diseases Acquired From Dogs
* Anthrax
August 30, 2011, 1:38 am* Blastomycosis
* Bergeyella (Weeksella) zoohelcum
* Brucella canis
* Campylobacteriosis
* Capnocytophaga canimorsus
* Capnocytophaga cynodegmi
* CDC groups EF-4a and EF-4b
* CDC group NO-1
* Cheyletiellosis
* Coenurosis
* Cryptosporidiosis
* Cutaneous larva migrans
* Demodex folliculorum
* Dermatophytosis
* Dipylidium caninum
* Echinococcosis
* Francisella tularensis
* Gastrospirillum hominis
* Granulocytic ehrlichiosis
* Leptospirosis
* Lyme disease
* Neisseria canis
* Neisseria weaveri
* Pasteurella multocida
* Plague
* Rabies
* Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever
* Salmonellosis
* Scabies
* Staphylococcus intermedius
* Strongyloides stercoralis
* Trichinosis
* Visceral larva migrans
* Yersinia enterocolitica
Ilya Somin says:
why would I want to lose when I can win? If I think my preferences are better than yours, and can convince the relevant regulatory agency to state the same, score, I win, you lose.
Yes, but you will lose every time the regulatory agency bans your preferences in favor of someone else. The net result is that even those who win in a given case often lose in the long run from a government that has broad power to infringe property rights.
August 30, 2011, 1:42 amIlya Somin says:
If the government responsibility and concern for public health has any meaning at all, at least it is to protect me in bars from:
Diseases Acquired From Dogs [followed by long list]
This list has little meaning without any estimate of the probability of acquiring them from the sorts of interactions with dogs people usually have in bars.
August 30, 2011, 1:49 amSyd Henderson says:
Hey, you’re not supposed to eat them!
August 30, 2011, 1:50 amJimbino says:
Ilha,
Though a libertarian, I do see a legitimate gummint function in securing public health. What would I do if the gummint weren’t trying to protect me from TB, swine flu, plague, hepatitis A, cholera, typhoid, malaria and dengue fever by limiting the freedom of others to walk around spreading disease?
In a lawless society, I suppose I could carry a gun and shoot all the dogs, cats and the “animal lovers” who inflict them upon me in public. Is that what you prefer?
August 30, 2011, 1:51 amClark says:
That’s not important. What’s important is what Zarkov thinks happened.
August 30, 2011, 1:52 amJimbino says:
Ilha, have you ever noticed the hand sanitizers installed for the use of customers at grocery stores? Why the hell do you think they are there?
August 30, 2011, 1:55 amBuck Turgidson says:
I’m often puzzled by Somin’s view on right to privacy–in particular, when it ignores other rights and responsibilities. Yes, people get to decide whether they want to keep dogs or not. They also get to decide whether others get to bring dogs into their privately owned dominions. The problem is, a bar is not a privately owned dominion–it is not simple property. It is regulated and licensed property. If the city decided to ban broccoli (to borrow a recent inane example) from licensed bars and restaurants, it can. If it decided to ban foie gras, as Chicago did, it would be stupid and unfortunate, but it can. If they decided to ban retail and bar sales of alcohol–as many small communities do–they can. It’s a restriction that is required as a condition of a public liquor license, not a condition on private property. To pretend that this is a question of ability to utilize private property is completely idiotic. I am baffled that it can come from a law professor.
Now, I happen to disagree with the wisdom of this regulation. It is my opinion that the regulation is misguided and unnecessary. But that does not make the regulation invalid.
August 30, 2011, 2:01 amLarryA says:
Beause some people think the dirt most of the stuff in the store was raised in will kill them.
August 30, 2011, 2:03 amJimbino says:
No, LarryA, it’s because of contamination from women’s purses, the slobbering kids, and the shit from the kids’ diapers that goes right onto the little seat in the shopping cart. Not to mention the bacteria colonies on the handle from the hands of the mother who has just changed the kid’s diaper and kissed her dog, for chrissake.
August 30, 2011, 2:08 amLarryA says:
And that licensing and regulation is precisely where the government invasion of the bar owner’s private property begins.
August 30, 2011, 2:09 amRoger says:
This is your idea of libertarian property rights? Forcing us all to eat with dogs? If I want to see animals, I will goto the zoo. Animals don’t belong in restaurants, unless they are food.
August 30, 2011, 2:12 amRobert says:
Since I can’t think of an interest group that this crackdown favors, I’ve got to believe this is just for revenue, an excuse to write tickets for the fines.
August 30, 2011, 2:20 amJimbino says:
I never thought I’d find a use for a Muslim. But if one of them ran a bar and kept all the dogs and the dog-masters out, I’d find his bar.
Speaking of useful dogs: in Brazil they have started enforcing the law prohibiting sales of beer and booze to minors. We used to send kids to the corner store to bring back a six-pack. Now we can’t.
But I have trained my dog there to go fetch the six-pack, which works fine, since there is no law prohibiting the sale of beer or booze to a dog of any age. Who said dogs can’t be useful?
August 30, 2011, 2:21 amPeter Gerdes says:
While I agree in this case I think this view of private property as the great protector of individual choice and minority views overlooks the often very large transaction costs involved in establishing multiple variant policies.
For instance suppose some people really do worry about disease contamination from dogs or are allergic and would not be able to eat their meal in comfort if dogs were regularly allowed. On the libertarian view this situation would sort itself out by some bars/restaurants choosing to cater to the dog-averse and others catering to the dog accepting.
But practically how would this happen? Would the no dog restaurants have to hang signs all around their outdoor seating saying “no dogs” despite the aesthetic harms? What if it was only a small minority that wanted dog-free restaurants and it’s only the unusual restaurant that bans dogs. Now dog owners will simply assume they can bring their dogs without checking and the restaurant owners will have to ask them to leave which leaves a bad feeling in that potential customer (when we find out we are doing something that is banned by accident we tend to be angry with the banning agency).
Or what if there is a tiny minority who loses huge amounts of utility from the presence of dogs and a large majority who (having one friend with a dog) will choose the dog friendly place but would lose only minimal utility if dogs were banned everywhere. It’s entirely possible that, given the cost of transit, every restaurant is more profitable being dog friendly even though greater utility would be had if every restaurant was dog unfriendly.
—
The point is that it’s not axiomatic that property rights improve the situation of minorities or that we are better off without uniformizing government regulation. Sometimes merely having a standard is worth the costs it imposes.
August 30, 2011, 2:36 amPeter Gerdes says:
A better way to state this might be that while any given health code law seems trivial and easily left to consumers if you let each business decide on it’s own practices you end up with people trying to parse pages of kitchen practices and everyone is worse off.
August 30, 2011, 2:44 amJimbino says:
The interesting thing is that we could soon have an phone-app that showed all the restrictions for particular restaurants and bars. I know that that would help me, since many times I’ve pulled up famished to a “Mexican Restaurant” in flyover Texas, only to find that no beer is served because the county is dry.
I’d like to use a phone-app to avoid such counties, preferably such states as well, and it would be a bonus to find those restaurants and bars where only the bright, well-educated, scientifically literate, atheist, non-dog owning libertarians like me hang out.
August 30, 2011, 2:46 amterraformer says:
Take the bus and you will be “potentially exposed” to a much longer list.
August 30, 2011, 2:47 amstuhlmann says:
I live in Germany, and in this over-regulated, over bureaucratized land, people regularly go out to restaurants to dine, accompanied by their dogs. The dogs sit quietly under the table, and often you won’t know the dog is there until it and its owner get up to leave. I’ve never heard of any heath problems resulting from having dogs in restaurants, nor apparently have the health officials here.
August 30, 2011, 4:01 amDrew says:
This benefits people who hate tripping over obnoxious dog owners in public spaces. Dogs are often left to roam between tables, effectively take up an extra space, etc.
Now, none of that justifies this regulation. But there’s a clear constituency who benefits, and some fraction of whom probably helped get the rules enforced – people who like to enjoy restaurants.
Restaurants may even welcome it – it allows them to seat more customers, move people faster, attract customers with pet allergies, and avoid health risks. And avoid humoring requests for dog dishes. So this may be embraced or pushed by some part of the restaurant world ad a solution to a collective action problem – a one-off ban is hard to enforce with increasingly entitled dog owned and it makes a restaurant look mean-spirited.
Again, a ban like this seems like an overreach, but lots of good reasons for it notwithstanding.
August 30, 2011, 4:48 amBCakes says:
I love dogs. And a polite dog sitting by its owners feet at an outdoor cafe doesn’t bother be. But, recently, I was inside a bar in Brooklyn at night when a slight young man brought in his pitbull. The dog could clearly overpower the young man, as demonstrated from their wrestling/play.
As a woman (or a human who doesn’t pretend to be able to best a pitbull), I was very uncomfortable. Get a few beers in this kid, have someone accidental kick the dog or hit it with their barstool as they stand to visit the loo, and you’ve got quite a bloody mess at 2am!
August 30, 2011, 6:05 amJay says:
Ilya, did you actually read the article? New York did not “recently ban dogs from bars.” It’s always banned dogs from bars, they’ve just stepped up enforcement lately. And I can’t imagine NY is unique in this — in what states can you bring dogs into restaurants or food stores? I’ve seen encounters in both Texas and Georgia where people have been told their animals can’t be in an outdoor restaurant seating area and in a grocery store, respectively, so this is hardly some bizarre Bloomberg obsession.
August 30, 2011, 6:23 amFloridan says:
How long before we get a Jonah Goldberg column on the “Liberal/Fascists’ War on Dogs?”
August 30, 2011, 7:04 amMarcus says:
I love both dogs and cats and have had plenty of both. I also know to leave my effin dog and cat at home when I want to go out. Your right to walk around a bar with your mutt shedding hair and shitting on the floor ends similarly to your right to smoke: at the lip of my glass and the bottom of my shoes. Leave your effin dogs at home. This goes doubly for your kids.
August 30, 2011, 7:05 amJoe says:
Do many bar owners wish to allow dogs in bars? I know, it’s the principle of the thing. If they want to allow ferrets in there, let them!
Dogs near food service areas do pose some risks
I guess that’s why “Of course, it has always been a violation of the city’s health code to allow a dog anywhere near a beer tap.”
If you want a “space” to bring a dog, allow them in outside areas. Since “bars” were specifically noted, various other types of locales probably allow dogs. I know sports stadiums do, since the Mets have special bring you dog days. Keeping sometimes diseased animals who also shed and aren’t always completely trained from confined heavily populated areas with lots of glass and alcohol among often drunk people does not seem to be a horrible thing to avoid. For both the dog’s and customers’ sakes.
This is a reasonable regulation of a heavily populated area. Now, the smoking ban, I think too extreme.
August 30, 2011, 7:20 amragebot says:
To quote Leon Rippy in The Patriot “A dog makes a fine meal”. Not to put too fine a point on it but a while back some cities with new SE Asian populations passed laws prohibiting eating unaccompanied dogs caught wandering in the area.
August 30, 2011, 7:46 amdearieme says:
Proper pub.
August 30, 2011, 8:02 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f309fSTWYo4
Rich says:
The health department did not just decide to enforce it, Bloomberg is known for putting his nose in everything and personally directing actions against things that offend him. A few years ago some guy in Brooklyn had a custom muzzle loader made for him. Muzzle loaders are specifically exempt from registration in NY and NYC, but Bloomberg had a detective sent to “encourage” the person to register the muzzle loader. The man, IIRC, refused and was harassed for a while till it hit the papers. Bloomberg’s response was something about safety and every gun should be registered…
August 30, 2011, 8:04 amragebot says:
I am active on the board of the homeowners association for my condo and as a result spend some time researching condo issues. There is lots of literature describing the three “Ps” of condo problems; which are Pets, Parking, and People; in that order.
I like well trained dogs, especially ones like a German Short Pointer, Louisiana Catahoula leopard dog, and Weimaraner; but quite frankly I would not take any of these dogs into a bar. While all three of these dogs are able family dogs (as well as superior hunters and guard dogs) one of the biggest training problems I have had with all dogs is them begging at the table.
I will close with this quotation, which illustrates the real problem is often not the dog but the lack of ability of the dogs owner.
“You must be ready to teach and exercise a Catahoula. If not, he will eat your house. The Catahoula will not let you forget that you own a dog.”
August 30, 2011, 8:09 amuh_clem says:
I was about to write something like this, but you beat me to it and expressed it better than I would have. +1.
It’s a valid, constitutional regulation that also happens to be dumb. There are ways for the citizens of NYC to overturn it, and hopefully they will.
August 30, 2011, 8:17 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
No.
August 30, 2011, 8:32 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
.
If the risk of a dog in a bar were that great, than service dogs should be prohibited as well. That they are not gives the game away.
BTW, banning dogs in bars may in fact be more harmful then helpful to overall public health. The problem with “rational basis” regulation is virtually any plausible preventative measures will pass muster even if contradictory.
.
August 30, 2011, 8:33 amMarcus says:
“If the risk of a dog in a bar were that great, than service dogs should be prohibited as well. That they are not gives the game away.”
You don’t suppose the facts that we have hadnicapped access laws or that service dogs are excceptionally well-trained whereas the typical domestic dog is less so has anything to do with it?
“BTW, banning dogs in bars may in fact be more harmful then helpful to overall public health.”
In what way and according to whom?
August 30, 2011, 8:45 amBob from Ohio says:
Exactly.
Dog owners think everyone loves their smelly, loud dumb animals so they can take them everywhere, no matter if others are scared, inconvenienced etc.
Funny how every dog that goes to these places are quiet and just stay under the table. In the real world, that seldom happens. Dogs roam around, get in the way, start barking for no reason.
The pity is that NYC never enforced the law before.
August 30, 2011, 8:47 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’m not really a dog person at all.
If I were to approach a restaurant where people had their dogs at the outside tables, I’d probably eat inside.
It would never cross my mind to think that those people shouldn’t have their dogs at the outside tables.
I hate sharing the planet with control freaks.
August 30, 2011, 8:47 amMej says:
First they came for the smokers, and I cheered because I’m not a smoker. Then they came for the dogs and I cried foul.
August 30, 2011, 8:51 amconiston says:
In England.. you can take dogs into most pubs (which also serve food) as well as bars and outside areas of restaurants. The law here is, I believe, that you can’t have dogs where food is prepared. Where food is served, it is up to the owner. After all you can get dozens of diseases from your waiter or other patrons. Dogs carry few diseases which are communicable to humans.
Re: the pit bull..were you afraid of the dog or the owner? if the dog, then why didn’t you explain to the owner that the rowdiness was making you feel uncomfortable….?
RE: begging…both dogs and children can be trained.
August 30, 2011, 8:54 amMarcus says:
“I hate sharing the planet with control freaks.”
Aye. And I hate sharing it with inconsiderate a-holes who think everyone else wants to hang out with their dogs. Looks like everyone has a bone to pick here.
August 30, 2011, 8:57 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Marcus, you have to eat at the dog-tolerating restaurant and no other? You have to eat outside, you can’t eat inside?
I can’t stand cigarette smoke. It makes me ill. Around here, you can’t smoke inside the restaurant but you can outside. That means I have a choice to make: eat outside and risk breathing smoke, or eat inside. Well, that’s kind of life in a nutshell, isn’t it? You don’t always everything exactly the way you want it. You can’t always get your way.
August 30, 2011, 9:13 amcalvin massey says:
Just another reason to live in Europe.
August 30, 2011, 9:20 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
I love dogs (have 3); but how is this code provision different from one banning smoking in restaurants?
August 30, 2011, 9:23 amJoe says:
One thing that might be lost here from some comments is that in some cases the owner might want to have a dog, sort of a mascot for instance, and if that is the only dog present, it’s a closer case.
August 30, 2011, 9:25 amMarcus says:
Laura, at what point do pet owners have to accept that they cannot have everything their way? Is it only the people whose comfort or what have you is affected or threatened that have to make the choices here? Like I said, I have owned pets my entire life and never had a problem understanding that there are places pets may go, and places they should not go.
August 30, 2011, 9:26 amCalderon says:
If only there were some way to allow some restaurants to allow dogs and other restaurants to ban them. Maybe (and I’m just throwing this out there), let the owner of the restaurant decide whether to allow dogs. I know this is radical, outside-the-box thinking, but it may be worth trying. That way, people who like dogs in restaurants can go to certain restaurants, those who like dog-free restaurants can go to other restaurants, and everyone will be happy.
August 30, 2011, 9:30 amMarcus says:
Agreed. Like with everything, I can definitely stipulate to some rare exceptions. With some exceptions.
August 30, 2011, 9:31 amShelbyC says:
You are perfectly free to frequent bars that don’t allow dogs. However, if you want to prevent me from allowing dogs in my bar, you are a control freak.
August 30, 2011, 9:33 amCalderon says:
Jimbino said:
You are completely correct, Jimbino. You know who also spreads lots of diseases: other humans! When will the government take action by requiring all people to live in hermetically sealed bubbles? At a minimum, only one person should be allowed to eat in a restaurant at a time. And the restaurant should be disinfected after we eat. And we should be served by robots, to avoid contact with human disease spreaders. And the government should ban all talk of the “hygiene hypothetsis.” Otherwise, we might have just have to tolerate some exposure to germs in our daily lives.
August 30, 2011, 9:34 amShelbyC says:
And how ’bout those inconsiderate a-holes that think everyone else wants to listen to country music. I hate the stuff. And just the other day, I was in a bar and guess what they started playing? Why, we should ban playing country music in bars so I don’t have to be forced to listen to it!
August 30, 2011, 9:38 amGiant Frog says:
August 30, 2011, 9:41 amHere.
gooners says:
Also, let’s prohibit any drink names created by combining (noun) + tini.
August 30, 2011, 9:49 amJarbidge says:
Well, the Health Dept. works for him. The buck stops on his desk.
That’s nothing. You should see the list of diseases you can catch from people in bars…
(Many, many years ago, I worked in a restaurant/bar as a busboy/dishwasher. I have no idea if their casual disdain for food safety 101 is widespread or not, but having dogs there would not have made the top 100 list of hygiene concerns. And this place was thought to be one of the nicer places in town.)
August 30, 2011, 9:51 amEx-New Yorker says:
New York is a totalitarian nightmare. For a city that likes to think of itself as diverse and open-minded, it has some of the most draconian thinking in the country. And it’s usually led by some elitist scumbag who has an individual goal (ex-smoker bans smoking, environmental freak cuts Broadway down to 1 lane to provide bike lanes for Korean delivery boys, etc.) The grand and decadent totalitarian states have all been based on socialist ideology. If the thinking that dominates NYC spreads, we can expect much the same results in this country.
August 30, 2011, 9:52 amGlad I moved out.
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Am I misunderstanding here, that the dogs previously were at the outside tables but not the inside tables?
August 30, 2011, 9:59 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Are people banned from smoking at outside tables at restaurants in NYC? I don’t know, maybe they are.
August 30, 2011, 10:00 amParatrooperJJ says:
Make them service dogs and you are good to go.
August 30, 2011, 10:02 amHouston Lawyer says:
Don’t let your family dog anywhere near your kid’s unregulated lemonade stand. You will have two sets of regulators on you for that.
August 30, 2011, 10:04 amCalderon says:
Peter Gerdes said:
This really is not that big of a deal. Restaurants and bars vary on issues such as reservations, acceptable attire, food served, etc. Normally, you find out this information by looking on websites or calling the restaurant. No reason this would be different here. Also, dog-friendly places generally get a reputation for being so, and so potential patrons likely will here through word of mouth whether a place is dog friendly so as to know whether to go to or avoid that place.
Anything could happen, but this does not match up with current reality. No one expects upscale restaurants to allows dogs inside. Generally, people want to sit with their dogs outside. Again, you would be able to obtain information about whether a place allows dogs or not. If somehow, the norm became dogs allowed in restaurants, then dog-free restaurants would become better known for that reputation.
Again, this does not seem to accurately fit in with current reality, where people who have dogs are very attached to them and those who do not like dogs tend to be more indifferent than terrified. Thus, under your utility logic, the current standard would be to require all restaurants to allow dogs. Given the low cost of information about whether restaurants allow dogs (literally a phone call at worst), the cost of allowing individual restaurants to set their own policies is minimal and utility maximizing.
August 30, 2011, 10:20 amToby says:
More than a few bars in NYC, heck, more than a few well known bars in NYC would benefit from the services of a good rat terrier.
Of course, when the terrier goes to work, it might call into question how some of those same bars got the sanitation ratings they did.
August 30, 2011, 10:22 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Yes, that’s a description of the current state of the law, and I assure you that Prof. Somin knows this. The problem is, it doesn’t actually respond to anything he wrote, and simply begs the question.
Why isn’t a bar “simple property,” a “privately owned dominion”? Yes, the government regulates it. The government regulates all property, so how does that distinguish the bar? (Try to move into your home without a certificate of occupancy. Try to build some other structure on your property without planning board approval.) Moreover, saying, “Well, the government regulates it, so therefore the government can regulate it” isn’t very convincing for what should be obvious reasons.
Claiming that it’s a condition of the liquor license rather than a regulation of private property both misses the point and begs the question. Requiring a liquor license in order to conduct sales of liquor on private property is a regulation of that property. Of course that’s a “question of ability to utilize private property.”
Like Buck, you’re responding to a post that wasn’t made. Prof. Somin never said that it was either invalid or unconstitutional, so saying that it’s valid and constitutional is a non sequitur of a response.
August 30, 2011, 10:27 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
AMEN!
August 30, 2011, 10:27 amDjDiverDan says:
Just one more reason (as if I needed it!) never to move to New York. I’m a dog lover, and my 10 year old Golden Retriever is very sweet, very well behaved, and very spoiled. I really enjoy early Sunday Mornings (when it cools down some) taking her to the Dream Cafe in the Quadrangle just north of Downtown Dallas, where they have a dog-friendly outdoor eating area. I can get my Coffee, Popover, and Smoked Salmon & Gruyere Cheese Omelet, and order her a couple of scrambled eggs (in a disposable dish, of course), and I can read my Sunday Paper while Tessie (my dog) relaxes at my side, occasionally getting up to say hi to the people and dogs at adjoining tables, or look at me with big brown eyes, hoping that I’ll give her a slice of my bacon. Hey, if you are afraid of dog-borne diseases (you are much more likely to catch something from that coughing, sneezing baby blowing snot bubbles at the next table – Where can I find a Child-free restaurant?), they you are more than welcome to eat inside, or choose another restaurant.
August 30, 2011, 10:28 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, that’s it, really. DjDiverDan and his dog have this simple pleasure that harms no one. Some people would set the value of this at zero. I am not one of those people. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?
August 30, 2011, 10:32 amFub says:
Correction : everyone except control freaks will be happy.
August 30, 2011, 10:44 amJoe says:
Just one more reason (as if I needed it!) never to move to New York.
Oh. So, NYC is somehow unique in not allowing dogs in bars?
dog-friendly outdoor eating area
Which isn’t the issue here unless maybe if said area is technically a “bar.”
August 30, 2011, 10:57 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
The law makes no exception for a superlatively well trained dog. BTW, betcha a ten spot against a bent bottle cap a service dog is not allowed unless accompanied by the right class of person.
.
August 30, 2011, 10:58 amEx-New Yorker says:
Yes, they are banned from smoking at outside tables. And now, thanks to mayor mcNanny, they are banned from smoking in parks. Probably because second hand smoke kills. LOL!
August 30, 2011, 11:01 amDjDiverDan says:
Roger, NOBODY is trying to force you to do ANYTHING. If you don’t want to eat with dogs, then don’t go to the restaurants that allow them – there are a great plenty of “No Dogs Allowed” Restaurants in every city in America. And, even in those restaurants that do allow dogs, the dogs are almost invariably restricted to a set area. I, on the other hand, am forced to eat with screaming, sneezing, coughing, snot-bubble blowing little rug rats nearly everywhere I go – I even saw one women change her child’s diaper and stuff the dirty diaper on the shelf behind some canned goods at a Walmart – so, Roger, when will the Health Authorities ban children in public places?
August 30, 2011, 11:04 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
It may well be that the presence of dogs and cats reduces the likelihood of high quality disease spreaders like mice and rats hanging around.
The point being that in trying to ban risks that approach being infinitely small, there is a fair chance that you are making things worse.
The mayor really needs to concentrate on the bedbug problem.
.
August 30, 2011, 11:08 amAnon says:
My question is which of these diseases can be acquired from dogs in general but not service dogs? If the issue is truly a health risk then all dogs should be banned.
August 30, 2011, 11:10 amAnon says:
Where in the article does Prof. Somin say that the regulation is invalid or unconstitutional?
August 30, 2011, 11:19 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I don’t understand how Americans tolerate this. I’m not being snarky. I really don’t.
August 30, 2011, 11:19 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
No. In fact, the previous poster beat me to the point I was going to make. If it were actually a health issue, then political correctness would not apply; the ADA does not require (or permit) one to ignore actual public safety rules.
No. Even assuming that this generalization is true, how does that help?
August 30, 2011, 11:25 amJimbino says:
There is a lot of confusion here on the part of self-proclaimed “dog lovers.” We who truly love animals, whether dogs, bald eagles, great apes or children, consider owning one NOT to be an expression of love at all. It is the love of Simon Legree for his slaves and of Miss Dugard’s owner for her: nothing more than self-love inflicted on an innocent creature, and, in the case of bringing
dogs into bars, self-love inflicted upon the public at large as well.As a libertarian, I would love to see a solution that separates the dog-lovers from the dog-owners, as well as one that separates the kid-lovers from the kid-owners. I used to go shopping at night at Alpha-Beta just so I could avoid the kids. Nowadays, you trip over them everywhere, even at Home Depot, but if you ever try talking to one, somebody might call the cops.
Amerikan kids might be more tolerable if we left them free and atheist like god created them.
August 30, 2011, 11:27 amFloridan says:
Sorry, but citing foreign law as a good example is frowned upon here.
August 30, 2011, 11:29 amSarcastro's Little Brother says:
I bet George Vest would have something to say about this.
August 30, 2011, 11:31 amJoeSixpack says:
So, a rabbi, a priest, and a dog walk into a bar, and the bartender says . . .
August 30, 2011, 11:41 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
No, no, no….
a DOG walks into a bar in the Old West. He hops up onto a bar stool. As he approaches, the bartender notices that the dog’s front foot is heavily bandaged. The bartender says to the dog: “what can I get you?”; the dog holds up his foot and replies: “I am looking for the man who shot my paw.”
August 30, 2011, 11:48 amFub says:
Looks like you found a libertarian solution.
August 30, 2011, 11:50 amGiant Frog says:
“That dog’s gunning for the man who shot his paw.”
August 30, 2011, 12:03 pmGiant Frog says:
You ruined my whole day.
August 30, 2011, 12:05 pmTexEd says:
Didn’t read the article but, isn’t it about time that we ended this discrimination against homely women? They can’t all be good looking.
August 30, 2011, 12:13 pmJarbidge says:
For wild animals, who are able to live independently on their own, I get it. But for domestic pets, I’m a little confused on the details of implementing your preferred policy. For example, we took our dog backpacking this summer, and she heard wolves howling for the first time. By all appearances, she wanted to run away and join the circus, or at least get to know her wild cousins. Cruelly, we placed her in restraints (AKA, leashed her) so she couldn’t do that. In your view, would the ethical thing have been to let her answer the call of the wild and get some first hand experience with wolf/dog interactions?
For lineages that cannot survive except in the care of humans, you prefer forced extinction?
p.s. We were backpacking another time and found a lost dog at a remote lake. In my no doubt speciest opinion, he seemed to think that our arrival was the best thing that had happened to him in a long time – in fact, he followed us for three days to the trailhead. Ethically, instead of opening the car door and letting him jump in to return him to a life of servitude (i.e., with the help of the Forest Service we reunited him with his frantic owner) we should have cheerfully waved goodbye, allowing him to be ‘Forever Free’ (well, for some definitions of forever, winter was coming, after all, and I don’t think my bookie is going to give good odds on a Bassett hound surviving a Rocky Mtn. winter on his own).
August 30, 2011, 12:32 pmJarbidge says:
Think of beer as affirmative action in a glass.
August 30, 2011, 12:35 pmShelbyC says:
They can be by the end of the evening.
August 30, 2011, 12:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’m guessing that neither TexEd, Jarbridge, nor ShelbyC is a woman who probably nobody outside her immediate family would say is pretty.
Sometimes I feel kind of gut-punched here. I guess that’s my problem.
August 30, 2011, 12:45 pmDjDiverDan says:
Just like parents think that everyone loves their screaming, obnoxious, germ-infested, stupid and annoying children. So leave them home (and caged, if at all possible) as well.
August 30, 2011, 12:49 pmJimbino says:
It was said that the emancipated slaves couldn’t survive without their masters, but they did. It was said that the Black South Africans were so illiterate and intellectually challenged that they couldn’t adapt to freedom and democracy, but they did.
I don’t know what would happen if we liberated our domestic animals. Now that we’ve freed our slaves and almost our women, I find nothing so bad about prohibiting ownership of animals as well. We have survived the extinction of domesticated Blacks and almost of our domesticated women. Why not see through with the extinction of domesticated dogs and cats?
Every captive pet, whether dog or cat, will be dead in 15 years from natural causes. If we could control the breeding, natural extinction would be possible. We can’t of course, but, once freed, cats and dogs will adapt to the wild, as horses and boa constrictors have.
Of course, there are bleeding hearts out there who no doubt long for the days when the smallpox and polio viruses were extant and there will no doubt be fake animal lovers who will miss ownership of animals.
It took years and some education to rid us of the smallpox and polio pests, and now we’re working on ridding the planet of the malaria parasite. With some education of animal owners, why couldn’t dogs and cats be next?
What breeders don’t seem to realize is that there are a lot of us childfree non-breeders out here who have personally voted against continuation of the human race, and we resent being heavily taxed to support all the pronatalism. Even worse is having to put up with the zoonoses, killing of songbirds, and the other irritations from kept animals, once having decided not to own one.
August 30, 2011, 12:57 pmJoeSixpack says:
A rabbi, a priest, and a dog walk into a bar, and the bartender says “We don’t allow dogs in here. Take him outside.” So the priest turns and starts leading the dog outside. The bartender then yells to the priest, “No, not him. The Jew. We don’t want Jews in here. Take him out. You can leave the dog.” Turns out it’s a Muslim bar!
August 30, 2011, 12:58 pmDonweberist says:
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
August 30, 2011, 1:03 pmgooners says:
Erm…lol?
August 30, 2011, 1:06 pmDonweberist says:
We’re happy about it too.
August 30, 2011, 1:08 pmPublius The Lesser says:
That’s easy to fix. I’ll just go to work for the regulatory agency. Then I can ensure that my preferences are the one’s enforced, and as my influence within the agency grows, I’ll also ensure the agency only hires the “right” people with the “right” attitudes (e.g. they agree with me). Eventually, it won’t matter who’s in change (because we all share the same preferences and even if you change the figureheads at the top, we’ll still keep doing what we want) or what the law says (because we’ll find creative ways to enforce our preferences). I win, you lose.
August 30, 2011, 1:28 pmShelbyC says:
Well, it’s not our fault that Dog is slang for an unattractive woman. How ’bout you get me pack when the subject of pigs comes up?
August 30, 2011, 4:00 pmOpher Banarie says:
Rules like this are the result of the 1% of dog owners who show no concern or desire to control their animals in public. They think it’s “cute” that their poodle eats my chicken sandwich. They like to photograph their dog as it urinates under someone elses table. Remember the old saw about it taking just one rotten apple…? Well, they should stay home with their dogs. Period.
August 30, 2011, 4:24 pmPharmamom says:
Laura, you can’t be too sensitive. Just give it right back to them. I.e., I imagine Tex, Jar and Shelby are the kind of guys who sit at a back table and never actually interact with any of the women. Or perhaps they are those losers with halitosis who insist on having a conversation with you despite your obvious social cues to the contrary. Or maybe they just have really small penises.
August 30, 2011, 4:58 pmMatthew Carberry says:
To be fair this isn’t just a “blue state” thing.
After all, you still can’t serve beers to bears in bars in Boise. Especially when they’re on drugs.
August 30, 2011, 5:02 pmMike says:
Ugh. The entitled dog owner is about the most annoying development of the last decade. Suddenly, everyone’s Zsa Zsa Gabor and just *inseparable* from their dahlinks.
You’re not doing your dog any favors by bringing it into loud bars, and you’re not doing other patrons any favors either. I know it’s hard to believe that not everyone loves Fifi and Fido as much as you do, but it really is OK if you leave ‘em home once in awhile.
August 30, 2011, 5:03 pmMatthew Carberry says:
To be fair this isn’t just a “blue state” thing.
After all, you still can’t serve beers to bears in bars in Boise. Especially when they’re on drugs.
August 30, 2011, 5:04 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Or maybe that particular dog and owner could simply be told to leave, perhaps never to return, just like when any patron violates a business’s conduct rules. “Right to refuse service” and all.
That way only the guilty are punished as opposed to punishing everyone for what “might happen”.
August 30, 2011, 5:08 pma gemologist says:
Jimbino, you forgot all those patrons who might be “allergic” to dog dander. This is a far more pressing concern than “most” of what you enumerated. I have known people who were hypersensitive to dog dander and would develop asthma because of exposure. Asthma, is a protected disability and if triggered by dog dander exposure, than this could be a serious problem. Yikes!
August 30, 2011, 5:21 pmShelbyC says:
It’s only slightly below average, I swear!!! And who told you anyway?
August 30, 2011, 5:22 pmlicrimlawyer says:
My initial reaction was that they wanted to keep ugly people out of bars. (This could be beneficial. After a certain number of drinks, Medusa like Gorgons start to look attractive.) Then, I wondered how they would enforce this edict, and if there would be civil rights lawsuits. Then it hit me. They were talking about canines.
FWIW, I often find members of the species canis familiaris to be more personable than homo sapiens.
August 30, 2011, 5:56 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
And you are compelled to use every slang expression that crosses your path. Because being funny (?) is more important than the thought that Laura might read this and think you think she is an animal that doesn’t deserve to eat at a bar with people.
I don’t think you think that. I think you are oblivious to some people’s feelings and you blurt this stuff out because you do not reflect before you type. But you wouldn’t make n-gger jokes, would you? Why wouldn’t you? Because your black friends might feel that sucker punch and you wouldn’t want to do that to them? Or because inexplicably it’s not the thing to do, you don’t know why? Either way, calling women dogs because they aren’t pretty surely could strike you as not the thing to do if you gave it two seconds’ thought.
I’m not a misandrist.
August 30, 2011, 5:59 pmRobert says:
A Muslim bar wouldn’t allow dogs, either. They consider them unclean, similarly to the way that both Muslims and Jews consider pigs.
For that matter, it wouldn’t be a bar, either, because Islam forbids the consumption of alcohol. Well, if they’re strict observers, anyway (that particular rule seems to be one of the first to fall by the wayside in any religions).
August 30, 2011, 6:00 pmShelbyC says:
Well, I suspect that you did not, in fact, read this and think that you are an animal that doesn’t deserve to eat at a bar with people. You just want to push your own standard of jocularity on me, much like mayor Bloomberg does to bar owners.
August 30, 2011, 6:31 pmragebot says:
Well I for one agree it is burden having to put up with zoonoses; but I am not sure what can be done about it.
I have always found my dogs had a symbiotic relationship with me. One of my favorite dog was a German Shorthair Pointer named Fredric who was an amazing hunter; he was able to run across the flats when I lived in the keys and cut fish out of a school and run them onto the beach. I have owned several Weimaraners and think very highly of them.
My current dogs, Lefty and Pancho, are Louisiana Catahoula leopard dogs. I will close with a wiki quotation about leopard dogs (one of the few truly American breeds dating back to the dogs that escaped from de Soto in the 16th century:
“Catahoulas are very serious about their job if they are working dogs. They make a good family dog but will not tolerate being isolated, so interaction with the dog is a daily requirement. When a Catahoula is raised with children, the dog believes that it is his or her responsibility to look after and protect those children. Many owners will say that the Catahoula owns them and they can be insistent when its time to eat or do other activities.”
August 30, 2011, 6:38 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Shelby, I’m not pushing anything on you. You can do as you please. Go ahead and call me a dog and joke that I shouldn’t eat with people. I will draw my own conclusions about your character and your attitude toward me, as is my right.
August 30, 2011, 6:39 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Look, when people are offended I usually think they should say something rather than sulk in silence. That gives the offender the option of either apologizing or doubling down. The offended person runs the risk, of course, of having their feelings further hurt by the offending person making it abundantly clear that their feelings don’t matter. But at least the offender is given a chance to make it right, which is better than silent resentment.
August 30, 2011, 6:42 pmbrad says:
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
August 30, 2011, 6:46 pmmalclave says:
I guess the dogs weren’t paying enough in kickbacks to the politicians.
August 30, 2011, 7:11 pmRebeccaH says:
In my perfect world, well-behaved dogs would be allowed in restaurants and bars (as they are, or have been, in European establishments forever). However, I would have a sign on the door: “No Politicians Allowed”.
August 30, 2011, 7:27 pmMostlyOdds says:
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. Just because I would not step foot in Chuck e Cheese doesn’t mean I don’t think parents shouldn’t have a place to take their curtain crawlers.
August 30, 2011, 7:37 pmThere goes a bunch of good jokes « The Crawdad Hole says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy: New York City Bars Dogs from Bars [...]
August 30, 2011, 7:38 pmMostlyOdds says:
As a celiac, I go to restaurants that have menus that can accommodate me. If I find myself in establishment that can’t, I don’t throw a fit, I either take myself down the street to a business that can, or if I’m with friends, I have tea (or booze) and cross that establishment off my list of places to frequent. No big deal to me. Either someone wants your business or they don’t.
August 30, 2011, 7:47 pmBuck Turgidson says:
This is not the biggest load I’ve seen here, but it’s pretty close. To follow your logic, there should be neither liquor nor victualizer licensing because this restricts utilization of private property. Of course, once you’ve had tainted meat and methanol moonshine from unlicensed vendors, you might change your tune–assuming you’re still alive. Private contracts generally have minimal direct effect on public welfare–of course, this is not entirely true as contracting to sell explosives to a terrorist is bound to have a rather profound effect on public welfare. But exception proves the rule–the issue in such a sale is the conduct of the parties, not the contract itself. It’s not the contract that jeopardizes public welfare, but how one chooses to act on it.
On the other hand, there are kinds of contracts that have a more direct effect. A contract to provide a meal to single member of the public is not a problem, but serialization of such contract is because it is no longer merely a bunch of individual private contracts but essentially a single public service contract. That, in turn, implicates government interest in protecting the public as a whole from risks–real or imagined.
If you believe that the risk has been exaggerated, you can challenge the regulation. But stop whining about its mere existence and enforcement. The real estate and commodities purchased for resale constitute private property, but ability to serve the public is not.
August 30, 2011, 7:55 pmJarbidge says:
Laura:
1)Making romantic choices drunk that you wouldn’t make sober is hardly a gender specific thing.
2)No one confuses me with Robert Redford. Worse than that, I’m a computer nerd. Here’s a gratuitous geek joke you can tell to get even:
Q: How can you tell you’re talking to an extroverted geek?
A: He’s looking at your shoes.
A great deal of humor is at someone’s expense. Jokes aren’t less funny just because I’m the butt of them.
3)Since this is a legal blog, I have to ask: how do you feel about lawyer jokes?
August 30, 2011, 8:00 pmMostlyOdds says:
As Brad said, he is already gone, as are many other people who are fed up with NY.
August 30, 2011, 8:00 pmBuck Turgidson says:
I feel stupid just for having read this pap. Actually, no–the invasion begins with little things, such as requirements for proper sanitation services, as opposed to, say, open latrines, demands that employees handling any consumables or anything that comes in contact with consumables wash their hands after taking a dump or jacking off, regulations that preclude substances that are likely to cause permanent harm from being served, etc. Barring dogs from bars is very far down the list.
This is a classic example of libertarian idiocy–all regulations are bad, licensing is anti-market, monopoly is a public good, etc. In reality, these ideas are not purely libertarian–they are a product of right-tilt of libertarian utopianism over several generations. When you combine free-market ideas with classic conservative inability to address complex problems (with anything but simplest universal “solutions”–i.e., band-aids) and modern conservative hatred of the Big Bad Government, you get this view of “libertarianism”. Anything that contradicts this view is labeled “statist”. Forget Social Contract–there ain’t no such aminal! Forget public welfare–that’s a godless commie liability!
August 30, 2011, 8:12 pmKelly says:
New York New York, Looks like the city that never sleeps now has a bedtime.
August 30, 2011, 8:13 pmLester says:
Dogs are disgusting. You love you pet fine. But keep it out of my life.
August 30, 2011, 8:36 pmBuck Turgidson says:
You do realize that dog-owners also have a choice to make–leave the dog at home or drink at home.
I am actually among those who don’t think that this makes for a reasonable health regulation. Yet, it does not mean that the regulation is totally unreasonable. Has anyone seen a TV spot for Samsung cell phones, where a woman starts screaming and becomes hysterical after a man (her fiancee? husband?) puts down on a restaurant table his Samsung cell phone with a picture of a tarantula. [This is followed by an older man taking off his show an bashing the phone with it, to which the woman says, "Thank you, daddy!"] Now, I know several people who have a very similar reaction to dogs. Unlike fear of flying, fear of dogs cannot be addressed by the person with the phobia–it requires cooperation of others. If the encounter happens on a street, there are ways to avoid the dog. But once you’re in enclosed confines of a bar, avoidance is virtually impossible. Second, dogs pose many non-health dangers. Even best-trained, best-behaved dogs can be provoked–by a particular movement, by bicyclists (if you’re in an outside area), by other dogs. Again, if an owner is walking a dog on a street, such dangers are generally anticipated and the owner’s whole attention is on the dog. But, in a bar, there is no attention paid to the dog, thus the risk is multiplied significantly. And this is even on the assumption of perfectly trained dogs with conscientious owners–most dogs are not and owners are not.
So let’s stop pretending that this is purely a health regulation. It may not be particularly well thought through, but it is not devoid of rational basis.
August 30, 2011, 8:52 pmBuck Turgidson says:
You can’t smoke a dog. Well, I suppose, you could–but they come out to chewy.
August 30, 2011, 8:54 pmBuck Turgidson says:
Hey, look! Another elitist scumbag who hates OTHER elitist scumbags!
August 30, 2011, 9:01 pmBuck Turgidson says:
In fact, don’t have kids or dogs–the knowledge that you beat the totalitarian statist system should be satisfaction enough!
August 30, 2011, 9:04 pmMary says:
Come to Clearwater Beach, Florida!! Most bars/restaurants are open air and pet friendly! The greatest beach town on earth!
August 30, 2011, 9:06 pmgenes says:
So in NYC you can use Food stamps for beer? No wonder it costs the taxpayer so much.
August 30, 2011, 9:09 pmBuck Turgidson says:
True enough. But I have this simple pleasure in knowing that I will not run into DjDiverDan and his dog in a NYC restaurant or bar. Some people would set the value of this at zero. Obviously, I am not one of those people.
August 30, 2011, 9:10 pmBuck Turgidson says:
More libertarian gibberish: “I get to exercise my rights where I want. You have a choice to do so somewhere else.” No! With dogs, as with smoking, if your “right” is a nuisance to others, your ass gets regulated out because you automatically deprive them of their choice when in proximity.
August 30, 2011, 9:17 pmChris Green says:
I’m certainly not a lefty as commenters who have read my posts can attest. However, I fail to understand what purpose there is there to the comment above. I was the second post I read and this post is a knee jerk reaction to it.
August 30, 2011, 9:30 pmcthulhu says:
If you trained one to bite mayors and health inspectors on command, I’d accept that as sufficient evidence of being a “trained service animal.”
August 30, 2011, 9:52 pmRobert says:
I’m the Robert who gets jokes, even the bad ones.
August 30, 2011, 10:06 pmRobert says:
Is that a cat? Ahoula!
August 30, 2011, 10:09 pmSDN says:
To indulge hypochondriacs like you?
August 30, 2011, 10:11 pmH. says:
This regulation has very little to do with dogs. Rather, it has to do with the fact that in a bureaucratized society, the government expands to the point where democracy no longer works to limit its actions. It does this because the administrative agencies displace the legislative assemblies, and do not answer to the people except on a reactive basis, such as when there is too much unfavorable publicity concerning specific instances of foolishness.
It is the nature of administrative agencies to expand the scope of their authority. It is also their nature to attempt to replace all discretion with rules. The problem is that we cannot vote the administrators out of office, or exercise any real political authority over them, except indirectly on an ad hoc basis.
Dogs in bars? Well, it depends on the dog. And certainly it is the government’s business to protect people in public places from dangerous animals. No tigers in bars makes sense. Making bar owners strictly liable for damages caused by animals in bars makes sense. Creating a rule which applies equally to chihauhuas and pit bulls makes no sense, but there is no structural way to prevent the inexorable logic of administrative agencies from reaching that end.
The one thing we might be able to do is take away their money. That’s the Tea Party answer, and while it is a blunt instrument, how else can we prevent these agencies from micromanaging our lives?
Chesterton observed that madmen can be mad precisely because they are logical. I submit that there is a point where any administrative agency will cross over the line to madness so long as it has the resources to do so.
August 30, 2011, 10:16 pmMargo says:
Amazing and sad how this thread has degenerated into lots of people asserting that their aesthetic tastes need to be enforced on everyone by law. It would be so terrible if they walked into a bar, saw some dogs or children, and had to take the trouble to go somewhere else. So they are perfectly justified in limiting everyone’s options to the narrow band of choices they prefer.
August 30, 2011, 10:26 pmclazy8 says:
If you’re impressed by that list, take a look at the one identifying Diseases Acquired From People. I guess we ought to ban them from restaurants and bars, too.
August 30, 2011, 10:58 pmclazy8 says:
Oh, now I get it, Jimbino. You’re bored and lonely. Well I’m not. Good bye.
August 30, 2011, 11:04 pmSlim W. says:
You know, Bloomberg is an authoritarian freakjob that should be tarred and feathered. However, he’s in the right here:
Look at the list of diseases that someone posted above. That’s just a summary! Some of those parasites cause damage that can never be repaired. This *is* a public health issue.
Dogs eat and roll in poop. Most of us have probably seen it happen. Dogs eat dead animals. No surprise here either. Imagine the nasty stuff that lives inside a dog’s mouth and on his paws. Now imagine that nasty stuff on tables and chairs if just *1* shitty pet owner thinks it’s ok if Fluffy McDiseaseHound eats off his plate? “Oh, look how cute he is!” How many undisciplined pets end up eating off tables? How well does the restaurant help clean the table? In the case of worms like B. Procyonis, it doesn’t even matter – and that worm will eat your brain and kill you dead.
August 30, 2011, 11:15 pmOscAr says:
Reason 345,617,378 to vote Ron Paul 2012
August 30, 2011, 11:23 pmShelbyC says:
knock yourself out. And feel free to mischaracterize what I said as well, I will draw my own conclusions about your character and integrity.
August 30, 2011, 11:23 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I made no claims about what there “should” be. You said that it wasn’t a regulation of private property; I said that it was. Since you have now switched the topic from whether it is a regulation of private property to whether such regulation is justified, I guess you are conceding the original point.
If you would like to debate the new point, I am happy to do so.
And maybe I wouldn’t. Plus, what kind of loony notion is it that licensing has anything to do with safety? How naive would one have to be to think that? Liquor licenses are about rent seeking by politicians and existing liquor retailers. You know what keeps bars from poisoning customers? The desire to have repeat customers. You know what doesn’t? The requirement to pay money to the government for authorization to sell alcohol.
This is a bunch of words strung together, but I don’t know what they mean. What is a “public service contract”? Selling meals to “the public” is merely a bunch of individual private contracts. Even if every member of the public ate there, which of course they don’t, it still would be a bunch of individual private contracts.
Why?
No, I think I’ll keep whining about its mere existence and enforcement, thank you very much.
I don’t know what you mean by “ability to serve the public” is not “private property.” I didn’t say it was. I said that the real estate and commodities are private property, and restrictions on selling them are thus restrictions on the use of that private property.
August 30, 2011, 11:24 pmShelbyC says:
Yes! As I said before, ban that country music in bars so these damn bar owners stop interfering with my right to listen to the music that I want!
August 30, 2011, 11:26 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
This is confused, because it throws around words like “rights” without any clear understanding of the concept. There’s neither a right to take dogs into a bar nor a right to drink without dogs. The right belongs to the property owner, to decide how his property will be used. If you’re unhappy with the bar owner’s choice, then your right is to go to some other bar, or open up your own.
August 30, 2011, 11:31 pmMark says:
For a blog written by, and read by, lawyers I’m kind of suprised no one’s brought up the ADA yet!! If a blind person went to dinner and took their service dog in to a restaurant, this NYC law would be totally unenforceable.
August 31, 2011, 12:01 amthe gemologist says:
In California, you don’t have a “right”, to smoke in any restaurants, bars, or public buildings. Period. This “right”, to be protected from someone else’s deleterious second hand smoke is “law”. The concept of “my rights” as a non-smoker, are based on state law, that ensures that while in “any” public setting, I will be protected from someones “nasty” smoke.
August 31, 2011, 12:36 amH. says:
“Rational basis” is not enough.
Government will ALWAYS be able to find a rational basis for anything it wants to do. Just like you & I can.
The only real questions are how much government we are willing to tolerate and whether we can restrain the government from going over that limit.
I think that it has become almost impossible to restrain the government from doing whatever it wants to, and that one big reason for that is that we no longer believe that respecting property rights is necessary to contain the government’s power.
Another, perhaps related reason is that we have allowed the government’s power to be exercised by a horde of unelected busybodies who find endless reasons for enacting rules regulating everything in our lives and there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop them.
What seems to have happened in our country is that we have lost the understanding that there are certain decisions appropriate to particular levels of decision-making, and that government is only one of those levels and not always the right one. Instead, we seem to look to government for everything that anyone thinks needs doing.
This business of dogs in bars is something that is more properly controlled by the bar owner and his customers, putting aside those legitimate issues of health and safety which are the government’s legitimate concerns.
August 31, 2011, 12:50 amShelbyC says:
How so?
August 31, 2011, 1:08 amMark E. Horning says:
Because people are idiots and can not make rational decisions about risk.
August 31, 2011, 4:17 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
If a racist joke was told in your presence, and you enlarged upon it, how do you think your character would be understood by a black person? Or by anybody, really?
August 31, 2011, 8:35 amAmusey says:
Re: “If the government responsibility and concern for public health has any meaning at all, at least it is to protect me in bars from:
Diseases Acquired From Dogs…”
The real problem is that there appears to be a much greater likelihood of a human catching a disease from another human than a dog. Below is a list of communicable diseases transmitted by humans. Based on this, people should not be allowed in restaurants either. At minimum they should not be allowed to sit in close proximity without germ-proof barriers between them. Unprotected human mingling on public sidewalks needs to be banned completely. Of course, people living together in family units is a health crisis of monumental proportions just waiting to happen!!
PARTIAL LIST OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES FROM HUMANS
August 31, 2011, 9:02 amAcquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
Amebiasis
Anthrax
Aseptic (viral) meningitis
Blastomycosis
Botulism
Brucellosis
Campylobacter enteritis
Chancroid
Chickenpox
Chlamydial disease, genital
Cholera
Coccidioidomycosis
Cryptococcosis
Cryptosporidiosis
Cyclosporiasis
Dengue fever
Diphtheria
Ehrlichiosis
Encephalitis, viral
Giardiasis
Gonorrhea
Granuloma inguinale
Guillain-Barre syndrome
Haemophilus influenzae disease,
meningitis or epiglottitis
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome
Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS), post diarrheal
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis, delta
Hepatitis, non-A non-B
Hepatitis, viral, unspecified
Histoplasmosis
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
Influenza
Kawasaki disease
Legionellosis
Leprosy
Leptospirosis
Listeriosis
Lyme disease
Lymphogranuloma venereum
Malaria
Measles (Rubeola)
Meningitis, other bacterial
Meningococcal disease, meningitis or
meningococcemia
Mumps
Pertussis
Plague
Poliomyelitis, paralytic
Psittacosis
Q fever
Rabies, human
Reye’s syndrome
Rheumatic fever
Rocky Mountain spotted fever
Rubella
Rubella, congenital syndrome
Salmonellosis
Shiga toxin producing E.coli associated disease,
such as E.coli 0157
Shigellosis
Staphylococcal disease, first 28 days
post-partum, mother or child
Streptococcal disease, invasive, Group A
Syphilis
Tetanus
Toxic shock syndrome
Trachoma
Trichinosis
Tuberculosis
Tularemia
Typhoid fever
Typhus
Viral hemorrhagic fevers, such as Lassa fever
and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever
Yellow fever
Mandy Cat says:
Years ago I stayed at a small hotel in the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains. The sign posted at the front desk read:
“We have never had a dog guest who skipped out on a bill, got drunk and started a fight, smoked in bed, played the TV too loud or stole our towels. If your dog is willing to vouch for you, you are both welcome to stay here.”
August 31, 2011, 9:40 amGiant Frog says:
賣黃牛票的人：「黃牛票！黃牛票！來買黃牛票喔！一張350元！」
有一位便衣警察走了過來 。
賣黃牛票的人：「你要買幾張？」
便衣警察：「我是警察。」
賣黃牛票的人：「喔！軍警票一張320元！」
I didn’t know most of my current neighbors until we got a golden retriever and people started coming up to pet Willow whenever I took her for a walk.
Our dog looks like a cross between a bear and a wolf and on the rare occasions when we take her into town people are always asking “What kind of dog is that? Can I pet her?” and we say something like “not if you want to keep all your fingers” because she hates strangers.
That’s almost a joke.
August 31, 2011, 11:23 amShelbyC says:
Depends on the joke, and depends on the person. Really, Laura, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with this analogy.
August 31, 2011, 11:41 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I think I’m barking up exactly the right tree. I said “racist” joke, not “joke referencing black or Asian folks in a nonoffensive way”.
Look, you see nothing wrong with being churlish. I get that now, will ratchet down my expectations, and go on.
August 31, 2011, 1:12 pmHieranonymous Bosch says:
No one has brought up the ADA because it’s a non-issue – the regulation contains an exemption for service dogs.
August 31, 2011, 1:50 pmHieranonymous Bosch says:
No one has brought up the ADA because it’s a non-issue – the regulation contains an exemption for service dogs.
August 31, 2011, 1:55 pmHieranonymous Bosch says:
No one has brought up the ADA because it’s a non-issue – the regulation contains an exemption for service dogs.
August 31, 2011, 2:12 pmHieranonymous Bosch says:
This hasn’t been brought up because the ADA is a non-issue – the regulation specifically exempts service dogs.
August 31, 2011, 2:45 pmrichard40 says:
Steve Lafleur says:
Honestly, why blame Bloomberg for this. It was already illegal. The health department just decided they’d start enforcing the law. I’m not defending the law, but it seems ridiculous to blame Bloomberg for this. Steve Lafleur(Quote)
August 30, 2011, 12:55 am
I still blame Bloomberg. If he had said he was enforcing the law because he had to, but also advocated its repeal, I would have applauded him. Sometimes the best way to get rid if an idiot law is to enforce it. But since he did not also advocate repeal, we can only assume he supports this idiocy.
September 1, 2011, 3:09 pmrichard40 says:
You are the idiot. Almost anything anybody does is going to be annoying or perhaps dangerous to somebody. If we follow your logic big gov will ban practically everything. The owner of the resteraunt is the only one with the right to make these types of decisions. Then the people that own or like dogs can go to places that allow them, and the ones that dont can go to places that dont allow them.
Lots of people are really annoyed by kids too, by your logic they should be banned by gov in resteraunts also. Some religions dont allow pork, and some people have allergies to peanut butter, should all resteraunts be banned by gov from having those? If an owner wants to ban dogs, kids, peanut butter, smoking, or anything else, that is his privalege, If I agree with him I will go there, if I dont I wont.
These busybody yahoos that want big gov to ban anything they dont happen to like sicken me. We used to live in a free country, but with these idiots around we wont much longer.
September 1, 2011, 3:58 pmSam Schulman says:
Steve LaFleur: Bloomberg hates dogs and dog-owners, and as soon as he took office, he made it clear to all departments that they were to start enforcing laws that were ‘on the books’ but had been dead letters, or had been superseded by informal arrangements negotiated between local groups and authorities. One of life’s more inexpensive pleasures became a burden.
September 2, 2011, 2:22 amNot all a-holes hate dogs, but all dog-haters are “bad hats,” to paraphrase W.H. Auden. Bloomberg personally deserves all the blame for this, another aspect of his rule that makes the city unlivable for middle class people without weekend homes at which to leave the dogs and helicopters with which to commute to them. I and my Viszla left the city in 2005, despite the pleas of friends, neighbors, and kindly strangers.
Mike says:
Only if you want to receive a severe beating. Seems more like you’re inflicting yourself on others in public, if you’re able to leave the house, rather than the other way around.
September 2, 2011, 10:44 amPJ Lifestyle » The Week In Blogs says:
[...] http://volokh.com/2011/08/29/new-york-city-bans-dogs-in-bars/ [...]
September 2, 2011, 4:17 pmNotes at Bride of Rove says:
[...] New York City Bars Dogs from Bars [...]
September 17, 2011, 9:30 am