Dining With Dogs

By Amy Fernandez

Life in New York seems to get more complicated and confusing every day. The city’s love/hate relationship with animals stands as a prime example. For instance, despite ongoing bitter opposition, our new mayor continues his ridiculous crusade to ban carriage horses from Central Park. Meanwhile, up in Albany the New York State Legislature reached an unusual determination last week, a rare unopposed 60-0 vote unanimously extended the rights of New York’s canine population.

Essentially, this long overdue measure will finally acknowledge reality by legalizing the ubiquitous custom of smuggling contraband canines into bars and restaurants. Needless to say, this phenomenon has never been limited to the Big Apple. But its sky-high canine population and plethora of dining spots have kept this issue in the news. Nationwide, city and state agencies generally follow FDA protocols that prohibit animals in food service establishments. However, these are voluntary guidelines not federal regulations. Legislators in several states, notably Florida and Colorado, have removed dog bans from their local government health codes.  There are plenty of documented health hazards associated with eating out, but dogs don’t rank very high on that list.

The New York bill will allow food service establishments to set their own policies regarding dogs on the premises. In large part, it is based on similar legislation passed in California in January that eliminated the statewide ban on dogs in restaurants.

So far, California diners seem to be safe and well despite the presence of four-footed patrons in some establishments.

The New York measure will restrict dogs to outdoor dining areas (where they already congregate in abundance). They must be leashed, supervised, utilize a separate entrance, stay well clear of food preparation areas, and may not share dishes with fellow (human or canine) patrons. Based on my experience, that rule is going to cause the most trouble.

It’s likely that more states will begin to enact similar legislation simply because these archaic, pointless dog bans have become harder to defend in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, defends it by emphasizing that dog owners regard their pets as family members. That’s true, but more notably, dog lovers represent a major voting block. The State Assembly is currently reviewing its version of the bill but the word on the street is that it’s a done deal.

So, keep that in mind when you start making those plans for Westminster 2016!

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=78350

Posted by chesliepickett on May 20 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.