I like Gina's idea of dog-friendly neighborhoods where everyone is OK with the idea of pets in grocery stores including the urine-soaked cartons of crackers on the corner display.

Disclaimer: I work for both a day practice and emergency practice in Portland. I love pets of all kinds. I went to a breakfast joint this morning with a patio that allows dogs and has cooked dog food options on the breakfast menu.

I think we're confusing a bunch of issues in this article. I regularly see well-behaved pets and ill-behaved pets in locations around town (to be fair, there are also well-behaved and ill-behaved kids AND parents in these same locations). It doesn't matter if they're service animals or not. "True" service animals tend to be trained to behave appropriately but with the confusion in defining a service animal, all I have go off of is behavior. The word on the street in Portland is that if you want to bring your pet into a store, you just have to announce it's a service animal and the store security stops questioning, ill-behaved or not.

I don't want ill-behaved animals freely in public locations. I don't want to have to worry if the dog is lifting it's leg on something in the grocery store. I'm not a germ-phobe, I just think it's fairly gross in general and inapppropriate. I see dogs lift their legs all the time in the PetSmart and in our veterinary practices. It happens. I don't want it to happen on a display of apples I might choose to buy. How do we regulate against ill-behaved pets if we can't say a food store is off-limits to them?

The local farmer's market is now off-limits to pets because ill-behaved pets (and really, let's call it ill-behaved owners!) couldn't make good decisions about whether their dogs could handle that level of crowd and tasty temptations. It's a  frustrating situation because I have no problem with well-trained service animals accompanying owners, but I draw the line at a pet free-for-all. How do we enable stores to force owners to vacate a premisis if their pets are misbehaving if they pull the service-pet card with abandon?

Shameful indeed.  Disallowing that student to come to the classroom with a service animal was a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  One of the reasons why I'm such a big fan of Commerce Bank (now TD Bank) is because they are very dog friendly -they even give your dog treat from behind the counter (or in the tube at the drive thru). 

I've been guilty of bringing my pet dog to public places such as bars and movie theaters.  I walk in as though we belong there, and usually get through without any trouble.  The few times I've been asked to leave, my respose has been "You can't kick out a service dog without good reason." ...then they leave us alone!  I didn't say my dog was a service dog, just that service dogs can't get kicked out.  I was deceptive/sneaky, but I didn't lie! :)

Then there's this story to contend with. A certified service dog for an autistic child. He performs functions. He has been extensively trained for his role. And he is denied access to the son's school, despite legal challenges (the case is still in the courts). Idiocy and fear have so far prevailed. And it's a problem why? Because we have no clear way of dealing with service dogs in this society. This, after decades of service animals in our midst. It's shameful.

Personally, I think well behaved dogs (and maybe cats and other critters) should be allowed EVERYWHERE in public and ill behaved ones should be removed (along with ill behaved children) but the size and breed of the dog does matter, even in smaller communities.  Here's one I've been following in Killeen, TX.  "Della can detect when I am going to have a seizure ... We did not know that Della would do this until after I had my first seizure with Della present on May 20, 2009. The last time I had a seizure prior this one was in April 27, 2005. So when I started working with Della I had no idea that she could do this or that my seizures would ever start again."  Heather had acquired Della in January for entirely different reasons but maybe humans and critters find each other for a reason or maybe critters are just smarter than we humans in some ways :)  Where was that fine line between an SD and a pet again?

Uh, that should be "which is where the busyness of the bank matters"

Brooke, a bit of 'advice' from someone who's taken big dogs into banks - it depends on the size of the bank and the town and how busy the bank is, a lot more than anything else.  Admittedly, usually the dogs I've taken in have been (sorta) unassuming greyhounds, and many people feel sorry for them, but even when I've taken in my shep and lab mixes, in smaller towns, with smaller banks (and especially when it's summertime), the tellers and managers usually are happy to see - and pet, which is where the business of the bank matters - my dogs.  I just walked in the first time, on a hot summer day, and said, "I was afraid to leave him in the car - I hope you don't mind."  And they didn't.  It helped that they knew me without him, but still, the heat excuse (and it really was hot) worked fine, and for the next year that I frequented that branch, in that town, it didn't matter what the weather was.  I would never have tried it in the neighboring big town, even in the same bank branch, but it was a nice break in the day for the people in the other one.

Brooke, have you tried it? Particularly with the BC or the beage/basset cross? Or are you just assuming? Granted, the more your dog looks like an Official Scary Breed, the more likely you are to have problems regardless of your dog's behavior, but it appears you haven't any actual basis for assuming your non-Scary Breed dogs would be given a hard time.

Does the Yorkie/Silky behave badly, or are you jsut resenting it for the sake of resenting it, because it's small? Remember, even if they do ban your dogs based on size alone, it's not this woman's fault. She's not the one doing that.

As for why she brings her dog in with her--I bring my dog into the bank with me because I have her with me wherever I can, and she's allowed in the bank. BOTH the banks I do business with--and one of those banks, I chose when I needed a different bank for a particular account that had to be in a bank on my side of the state border, and of the two convenient and suitable choices, one had a sign up banning my dog, and the other one didn't.

I voted with my feet and with my dollars.

And why is it that people with big dogs blame the owners of small dogs, and not the businesses doing the banning, when small dogs are allowed and big dogs aren't?

Something that annoys me: I go inside the bank to do my banking business. At least three times in the past year, I've seen the same lady come in the bank with her dog, which is either a huge yorkie or a silky terrier. On a leash, and walking on the floor and in her arms. If I were to do the same thing with any of my dogs (border collie, pitbull, ridgeback and beagle/basset) i'm sure I'd be summarily tossed out. But because hers is smallish, she seems to get away with it. Dog has nothing IDing as therapy/service, and when I asked the bank people they had no idea why she did it.

Just really annoys me.

I am trying to dig up the resources I used to have. Sadly, you may be right about it not being a felony. It is a misdemeanor in many states. Florida has really tough punishment and protection laws. Almost any state that has a SD law in the books probably also has one for faking.

I am shooting off emails to people who are more learned in the federal law. If/when I get any answers, I will let you know.

I'm thinking these guys are up to speed on the SD topic.  It's a misdemeanor in a few jurisdictions.  See VII. Wrongful Impersonation of a Person Needing a Service Animal.  If you're in Florida, see this great discussion of the topic involving a very knowledgeable police officer.  Thanks for reminding me to update my notes on this topic.  Hope you can find a cite for those felony laws.  IMO, some of the conduct I've heard of probably should be a felony and I could bootstrap it into one but I can't find any laws that make it inherently a felony.

"Calling your "pet" dog a Service Dog (SD) and taking it out into public with you gaining the same rights as a person with a disability (PWD) is a felony."  I keep hearing that from some segments but, so far, no one's been able to point me to a law that says that.  Any chance you can?  If you don't have the citation, perhaps you know if it's federal or state and, if state, which state?  (If so, I can probably point you to who to make your report to.)

Calling your "pet" dog a Service Dog (SD) and taking it out into public with you gaining the same rights as a person with a disability (PWD) is a felony. It carries heavy fines and, in some cases and states, imprisonment. Yes, a national identification law would make things easier for the businesses. But the regulation of that will be difficult to implement. Many of us train our own dogs (such as myself) and our "certification" is when we take off the "In Training" tab from the dog's cape. Saying we have to get our dogs certified puts the burden on us for rights we are allowed, not priviliges we have earned.

The main definition of a Service Dog is that it can do at least one TRAINED task. Carrying a backpack is not a trained task. Even alerting to a glucose drop is not a trained task if the dog naturally does it. The training part in this is in teaching the dog how to alert. The alert does no good unless it is consistent.

Then there's the definition of a person with a disability. The Supreme Court has done a marvelous job of eliminating almost everyone from being eligible under the ADA. Thanfully, congress stepped in and mostly fixed that and the definition is a little clearer. Being disabled according to your state's disability ruling does not automatically qualify you as disabled under the ADA and visa versa. And having a disability does not automatically grant you the right to take your pet with you everywhere.

And that brings up the 3rd point. It is the person with the rights, not the dog. My SD is, basically, a piece of medical equipment. Businesses would not hesitate to allow someone to bring in a wheelchair or oxygen tank. And goodness knows what crap my wheels have been through!

Identifying a SD from a "pet" is often quite easy.

There's the cape and patches. Yes, they are available on the internet to anyone. They will be put on straight, not duct taped into position. The cape will be clean and the dog will not care in the least that it is on.

Very few real SDs would be carried in a purse or bag. It isn't professional. And don't get me started on the concept the dog needs to be *that* close.

Behavior of the dog. The dog will act as if walking down the meat aisle is a normal occurrence. Yes, there will most likely be a few verbal comments from the handler but the dog will not be going bonkers over the smell. In a restaurant, the dog won't table surf and rarely will floor surf (sniff the table and crawl around eating stuff off the floor). The dog will get under the table or lay beside their handler and most often will take a nap.

Behavior of the handler. Most of us with Real SDs know what we are talking about. We can quote you the regulations of our state and the federal laws. Most of us carry a copy of those laws. Most of us act calm but probably will sigh a lot when asked about the legitimacy of our companion. Yes, there will be some who will be jerks. They could have been jerks before their disability or this is the 4th time that day they've had a confrontation. We talk to our SD as we choose between the jam or the jelly. We know where that dog is every moment. Our SDs are our companions, helpers, best friends, and oh so much a part of us.

Not much will make me madder than when I hear about a faked SD. Or a business that has had a bad experience with a faked one. However, there's not much I can do about yet. Yes, it is a felony, but just who exactly do I report it to?

"I think another issue that the article doesn't really address is that some dogs do not have adequate training or care to be brought into these public spaces. Other dogs do -- but there isn't a way to admit only trained, cared for dogs."  The article may not address it but most jurisdictions have laws that do; usually one can be required to register and/or post a deposit and is responsible for any damage done by the service animal and they can be "evicted" for poor behavior.

"It's sort of like seeing a perfectly able person..."  That kind of statement always makes me think of an old advice column on hidden disabilities (arthritis, heart conditions, pain, ...) I copied and plastered to the inside of my back windows after being confronted while I was transitioning from cane to walking without one, post strokes, and still easily fatigued.  Just because someone "looks" perfectly able doesn't mean they are.  Many, many disabilities are not readily apparent to observation.  Those dangling blue tags make it possible for the disabled to do for themselves so at least approach nicely if you feel you simply must ask someone if they "really" should be parked there.

Houston has several areas that are becoming more dog friendly, allowing dogs in all sorts of establishments.  Many places require a "good behavior" certificate for entry.  Thrills me because even many who have service dogs are willing to go through the program to get the certificate and it's improving dog behavior and expectations in these areas.  Maybe the answer to bad behavior is this rather than banning.  If it's possible to take the dog in and the behavior rules are clear, it's also easier to evict and banish for poor behavior.

Service dog user here. All of the things people are meantioning in the comments would be much less of an issue they would actaully enforce the law and bussiness owner would look up their rights.

Misbehaving "service dogs" are legally allowed to be kicked out of bussinesses.

I think calling a non-service animal a service animal just to take it into places it wouldn't otherwise be allowed is terrible.

There are people with disabilities who have a definite need for these animals and who have put in enormous amounts of time training them, and sought professional help to ensure that their dog is stable and well trained, who have difficulty bringing there dogs into some public places because not everyone is educated about service animals and their legal right to be where their person needs them. And these people with disabilities are going to have their lives made more difficult because spoiled pet owners want to bring untrained little Foo Foo in the store with them and they are willing to lie to do it. When untrained Foo Foo lunges at a toddler or jumps up on a table to grab food off of it or pees on the floor, you can bet the business owner is going to start automaticlaly thinking, "Oh, no, not another dog." when one enters his or her establishment.

I don't have anything against taking dogs into public places - I've taken my dog into everyplace I could think of where dogs are allowed to socialize him. But lying and calling the dog a service animal when it isn't? That's low.

I think it would be an excellent idea to combine AEB's concerns with zandperl's concerns. If a person cannot or will not control and train their companion - child or other pet - then they can't bring it out in public. That's a great incentive to socialize, socialize, socialize, to make a more considerate - and sensible - world!

Right now, it's quite a challenge to socialize a dog properly for certain kinds of environments, because they are not allowed into those places to become socialized.

Every problem I do have with my dog comes from a lack of socialization during the nine months before she became mine. All of the improvement in her behavior since then has been because of patient, relentless socialization. Unfortunately, the fact that there are so few places that I can take her, means that she doesn't get to all the places I could take her, as often as I would wish. I can take her to the bank, for instance--but not if I'm going grocery shopping. Or to Staples, which has no reason to ban her. Or to Borders or Barnes & Noble, both of which have "cafes", meaning that she cannot be present in any part of the store. I could go on and on.

zandperl: I have to agree - why should a pocket pet be allowed in cabin when my lab has to ride cargo?

If it were up to me, your Lab wouldn't be riding in cargo, but in the cabin. From a size issue, you might have to purchase a seat, but why shouldn't you be allowed to?

And why would you want, instead of demanding safer, less alarming accommodations for your dog, to instead relegate my fifteen-pound dog (who would not fit in anyone's pocket) to scary, unsafe cargo space--where if anything goes wrong, she will dehydrate and experience a blood sugar crash much faster than your much larger dog?

Sitting beside a smoker (yes, even when they are not smoking) triggers my asthma. Why don't we relegate the smokers to cargo, along with all the pets because, after all, health takes precedence over everything else, right?

Sf weekly had an article about questionable service animals.  Granted, it is an alternative newspaper that strives to be edgy and controversial, but I think they have a point.  I wish there was some kind of regulatory agency that monitors service dogs, but as the article points out, the ADA ruling is pretty vague, and the Justice Department is not about to tackle it.  It is frustrating for people who do have trained and well-behaved service animals to be lumped in with those who, although they may truly need their animals, have put not put in the effort to make the animal's behavior acceptable in a public setting.

Europe is said to have more lenient laws about pets (especially dogs) in public spaces.  Are the animals better trained, or the society less litigious and sanitation-paranoid?  Although I've heard that poop-scooping is not the norm...

Ah, timely topic.

A friend of ours has a very disturbed, manic and unbalanced dog who he absolutely adores. The other day, he sent me this link to the "United States Service Dog Registry" which allows people to print free fake service dog licenses for their dogs. No testing, no training, no money required!

It was quite disturbing, knowing that our friends psychotic dog is about to go wherever he wants because of this one website. I wonder how many people will be brave enough to question the badge?

I assume as more people find out about it, the problem will escalate, ruining it for many well-behaved dogs whose owners are brave enough to venture into stores with them.

I'm guilty of taking Socks into non food establishments.. and takeout fast food restaurants that have tables to eat  outside.. We keep a bowl, and zip bags with food in the car.. and we clean up after ourselves..

I started taking him at eight weeks old.. and he behaves better than some of the humans.. I find more, and more places have no pet sign hanging up than before.. Socks was brought up shopping at Joann's. We ran into a problem last week We were politely escorted to the door, and shown the pretty sign.. I'd hate to go back, and get thrown out again, but would love to advise them that he is a therapy dog, and I'm schizophrenic... As you mentioned, there is a fine line of invading the privacy of a disabled person.. We've frequented Home Depot, and Lowe's where they also have signs, and have never been questioned..

Oh too, too funny! Wouldn't I just love to live in a world where dogs are welcome on patios! My dogs are all better behaved than 90% of the children you find in restaurants. My dogs don't run around, crashing into other tables and chairs - or shriek at the top of their lungs. (and I'm supposed to approve. No. My child never did that when she was small, why should I put up with other's?) And the one dog friendly mall in town has ended that because people took advantage. Ah, to live where it's warm and not be reduced to walking the aisles of Petsmart when we are going stir crazy with a foot of snow on the ground!

As my doggy friends agree, going out to dinner or for a drink with my best frind at my feet - it doesn't get any better than that.

I think too many stores and towns probably worry if they open their doors to more pets in public spaces they would would be opening their doors to more problems with the people who do not socialize their dogs or do not pay attention to them in public.  I live in a city that does not even allow dogs at large public outdoor events (festivals, any gathering with large groups of people).  I hate that I cannot take my well beheved dog, but when I see people who do bring their dogs (before they are asked to leave) I see why the city does not want them there.  Often these dogs are jumping on other people at the end of their leash while their owners were blissfully facing the other direction. It is the same old problem we read/complain about all the time.

AEB brings up a great point.

Children's behavior can go from annoying to hygeine issues.  I was at a restaraunt last weekend, and two boys (probably middle-school aged) were shooting spit-wads at each other.  Their father ignored them as the spit-wads flew past their table and onto neighboring tables, including mine.  Thankfully, it didn't land in my food.  The waitress got the manager to come over & reprimand them when the father ignored her pleas for them to behave.  The boys filed out muttering about how "embarrasing" it was that the manager came over.  Really?!?

I would much rather have had a dog lying calmly at the man's feet than have to worry about his children's germ-laden spit wads flying into my food.  Actually, I'd rather have had the dog lying calmly at his feet and the kids sitting calmly in their booth. 

I think it would be an excellent idea to combine AEB's concerns with zandperl's concerns.  If a person cannot or will not control and train their companion - child or other pet - then they can't bring it out in public.  That's a great incentive to socialize, socialize, socialize, to make a more considerate - and sensible - world!

I generally agree with most of the posters here (including the immune system comment,) and I said as much on a related blog, but I want to go one step further:  Why is this the question raised before the question of how people's children are allowed to act in public?

It may seem like we're talking about tiny issues here, but we're not.  Children cause far more issues in stores and restaurants and other public places than dogs do and children use tax dollars at a far higher rate than dogs do. That means that my tax monies are paying for the education of the children of Mr. and Mrs. So and So across the street, who apparently couldn't give two pigeon craps about how they behave in public.  

Not all children have these issues, of course, but it seems about every day I'm in the store, some rugrat is blindly running around creating a hazard to himself and others.  And about every other time I'm in a restaurant, some screaming toddler is completely ignored by her mother.  This in and of itself is merely extremely irksome and I will allow that screaming toddlers do not necessarily make screaming ax murders later in lifel; However, children who do not receive quality education from the schools we build and staff for them and from their parents will certainly have less rewarding, less fulfilling and more problematic lives than those who do.  And we will suffer for it.  

I would never bring my pet in a store or other similar public setting. But it's not about hygeine--it's about consideration for others. And if consideration is the driving force behind our concerns, then shouldn't we choose to yell about things that have the biggest impact on our lives?  

I don't argue about the germ issue.  Dogs vs. snotty kids is a no-brainer.  But I do have an issue (as a grocery store worker) with some dogs: 

Like others here, I have issues with the training of animals.  I know a specially trained service dog is not going to lift it's leg on a display of bread.  I have assurance that a properly trained service animal will not react to strange circumstances unpredicatably and possibly aggressively.  I know if there are several animals within vicinity of each other, there won't be any incidents.

Unfortunately, these animal visitors are actually very scarce.  It's the "pocket" puppies that I worry about.  The snappy spoiled completely untrained purse dogs that (mostly) women bring to the store and expect everyone to treat like their baby.  The dog should be entitled to the courtesy bologna and cookies like children.  They should be able to sniff/lick every product in sight.  Oh my little poo-poo lifted his leg?  Well there must be something wrong with that food for him to do that!  (and then they don't even clean up the mess)

I personally don't think it's safe for other customers as these dogs typically can be very unpredictable.  They don't react well when there's other dogs around (with the food stimuli), and the owners typically have very little control of these monsters.

Of course there's always exceptions to the rules, and I don't have a problem with the pocket dogs coming in in their designer soft sided fully enclosed carriers, or if they are securely leashed, well behaved, and properly attended to. 

All these scenarios are also certainly possible with owners of larger dogs, but in my experience, the owners of such poorly behaved larger dogs tend not to stress themselves with bringing them to the grocery store.

I would love to see "dog friendly" neighborhoods and stores.  I think it would encourage more people to take the time to socialize and train their pets properly.  On the upside of that thought, I know most outdoor cafe's here now allow calm animals to join their owners at the table. 

zandperl: I have to agree - why should a pocket pet be allowed in cabin when my lab has to ride cargo? 

Houlahan said "There's apparently no real difference between having a dog or cat in-cabin and having pet owners in the cabin."

I beg to differ with this comment.  I had a flight earlier this year where I was sneezing throughout the entire thing, and it was only when deplaning that I saw the woman sitting in front of me had a foo foo dog in her purse.  This was the only time to date that I had allergy problems on a flight.  This isn't just a matter of my convenience, it's my health.  I also have asthma triggered by allergies (and by dogs more than most other allergies) and things could have been a lot worse for me.  Yes we all have to live together, but when it's a matter of one person's personal choice vs. another person's health, the health should win out.

Dogs are already in the cabins of planes.  Service dogs, SAR dogs, and countless pets in underseat carriers.

A little dog or cat in a carrier still has fur.

The FAA's position on allergies in cabin is, other passengers carry in pet dander and other allergens on their clothing, and that can't be controlled.  There's apparently no real difference between having a dog or cat in-cabin and having pet owners in the cabin.  This is one of the most common-sense things I've ever seen published by a bureaucracy.

It sucks to have severe allergies to anything, but the world cannot stop around you.  You can't make your neighbors cut down their trees, ban perfume in public, ban smokers from coming inside with stink on their clothes, tell people what they can eat in public.

As much as I would love to take my dogs EVERYWHERE,people do have allergies and there are places they should be able to enter w/o concerns about that. True, I think a couple of dogs spread out in a well-ventilated store,especially if in one's purse or even a stroller  may not seem like much of a threat,but if you ever had an asthma attack, you might have more concern for someone to even have to THINK about that while shopping.

As an MD I have had to write letters for people with dogs they had for therapeutic purposes that truly weren't service dogs.As stated above,the dog has to perform a speciific TASK . Indeed, one of my patients used to bring her rather untrained Rottie to my office bec he helped "stabilize" her if she felt too weak to walk.(a cane would have sufficed and been easier to control!)..but I welcomed him nonetheless. If dogs are functioning as alert dogs,they should have some certification and some sort of identification.

I could well argue that during a time when I had a lengthy illness, my dogs were a crucial part of my recovery .Had I had to lose them to go for example, into public housing, I can promise,my recovery would have ben prolonged significantly. Some days they were the only reason I had to get out of bed and on those really bad days,the three of them slept on my bed as long as I was resting..asking for little .

I do heartily agree that a kid with the sniffles makes me MUCH more uncomfortable than a healthy dog ever would. I am looking forward to the day we can have dogs on trains and gasp, even the cabins of planes...as long as those with allergies would be protected somehow.

Having been refused seating at an outdoor restaurant patio because of the terrible disease risk posed by my impeccably-trained dog -- WHILE SPARROWS AND PIGEONS ACTUALLY SHIT ON THE TABLE IN FRONT OF US -- I got a big amen.

What percentage of American homes have dogs and cats actually in the kitchens while food is prepared?

Cats on the countertops (not in my house, mind you -- we do have some standards)?

Most of us seem to survive.

Yet every time my husband's former boss stayed home to care for her kids' latest turbo-cootie acquired from daycare, she'd bring it back to the office and spread it through the population like Typhoid Mary.  I knew that if Daisy was out of the office today, I'd better not make any appointments ten days from now.

Don't get me started on rug monkeys nose-high to the salad bar.

KateH: Yeah, I've never met a "Typhoid Fido." ;-)

On Sarah's issue: If "Canine Good Citizenship" was actually regulated, we'd have a built-in way of distinguishing "appropriately" behaved dogs from those who would pose more of a threat. [I think] I'd love to see this happen. Any thoughts?

And, of course, I agree with Gina wholeheartedly. Why can't some developer try something smart for a change?

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Dr. K., in saying "As you might expect, I have no trouble accepting that pets be allowed in stores where food is sold. In fact, I lobby for it whenever I get the chance. After all, that sniffly kid with his hands all over the deli meat samples? That’s where the real danger lies. I’d welcome a poop on aisle five over that kind of health threat." I just don't get the huge difference between humans and OTHER animals - since we ARE animals.

Okay, that doesn't mean that some other animals, such as flies, cockroaches, and other disease-carrying critters ought to be crawling around on the food, but “Foo Foo-the-purse-dog” isn't going to be crawling around on the food.  I'm more concerned with the human animals handling the food, and whether they are washing their hands after bathroom breaks and if they have a heavy germ load from an infection that they might be spreading onto the food.  And, frankly, horrible as it sounds to some, the weakening of immune systems by excessive cleaniness is also something that concerns me.  It's a hard line to walk between exposure to germs to build up a good immune system and exposure to either more lethal or too many germs that could cripple an immune system.

It has been shown that kids who grow up with animals CAN (not always) have stronger immune systems than kids who don't.  If they don't, that usually relates to their genetic makeup, with their parents (etc.) not having strong immune systems.  That could be because older generations also didn't interact enough with animals.  Sadly, not all humans are good caregivers to animals, but just imagine a world where zoonotic diseases and allergies were lessened drastically because everyone grew up interacting well with more kinds of animals. 

I wonder how that might decrease crime, especially personal crimes, if more humans and other animals spent more time together in more places.  And how it would impact depression levels, too, since we all know that happiness is a warm puppy, a soft bunny, or a capering ferret!

I think another issue that the article doesn't really address is that some dogs do not have adequate training or care to be brought into these public spaces. Other dogs do -- but there isn't a way to admit only trained, cared for dogs. That's a different issue from the food safety issue (where people who are concerned are concerned about all and any dogs), but it does ruin things in places that were initially dog friendly (many farmer's markets, for instance).

The solution is goats.  Or you might say they have a similar problem.  Sometimes a goat is a farm animal, sometimes a working animal or specificlly a pack animal, and sometimes a pet, and sometimes livestock.  It doesn't seem to matter much to those who don't have goats, but the law changes based on which category the goat is in.

In some neighborhoods, farm animals are not permitted but pets are. If your goat is determined to be livestock, crossing state lines is a bit trickier than if you have non-breeding working animals, or pack animals.  If the goat is carrying your load for fun it is not a service animal that carries it because of your need.

With goats, the determination is left up to the enforcement officer or the judge. Judges are easier to deal with but a bit more time consuming (like 30 days in the cooler time consuming)

I fall back on the old constitutional rule that if it isn't prohibited, then it is permitted.  Kids use that rule alot too. "You didn't say I couldn't feed the goat hot dogs and peanut butter."

So I am planning to take my little herd to Disneyland next trip, since I am nearly certain there is not a sign saying "No goats". 

Oh I picked up a 3yr old and a 4yr old last weekend from a Goat Packing company. Before I went to get them my wife asked me if I had thought this through. I asked her if all of a sudden she thought I was stupid...  of course I hadn't thought it through. Would I really go 10 hours round trip in the minivan to pick up 400 pounds of goat on the hoof if I had thought it through?

No one ever said that goats weren't allowed in minivans...

When I see a foo foo purse dog in a place where no dogs belong, I confess that my first and primary response is awwww a puppy! I don't worry about hygeine when I see pets in a place where food is sold. I am a little curious about people with allergies when a dog is being brought into a small closed location, and stays for a while (i.e., a coffee shop, as opposed to the bus or the library). The weather around here is so nice that there's often shaded outdoor seating, where dogs are perfectly welcome (sometimes indicated by water bowls). I've seen service dogs wait outside too, even though they would have been allowed inside! I think one of the issues the article fails to address that would be relevant in many areas is transportation. If you're running errands on foot, you have good reasons for bringing your dog with you: the dog may make you safer or feel more secure (and you don't have to be handicapped to benefit from a dog's super-senses!), companionship, not wanting to take the dog on a totally separate walk later, etc. When someone has walked half a mile to get to a shop, they just don't have anywhere else to put their dog. But it's in everyone's best interests for more people to forgo or minimize automobile transportation. I suspect this is at least part of the scenario in Portland.

Under Florida law, service animals have the same definition--they should not be primarily pets. But Florida requires no certification, or dog attire. So, any animal may potentially be a service animal here. I've gone into drugstores with my dog and only oncve been asked. Actually, since I have had dogs, they are actually service animals to me.

Also, many people leave out the area of psychological service animals, although there is plenty of research and info around supporting this concept. For instance, people who have survived trauma, especially interpersonal trauma like attacks, rape, and other horrible things use service animals to protect them. Some dogs even feel when their human companion is having PTSD symptoms, like extreme stress or anxiety, or a flashback, and will direct the human into a safe spot and keep her there until the state passes. This is quite well-documented now. They are different from therapy dogs who go into hospitals, etc., and who do require certification.

I'll give links to this at another time.

Oh, and by the way, Phyllis DeGioia's post is about a service-animal issue today on the PetConnection blog.

When I read the NYT piece, I thought: Wouldn't it be GREAT if certain neighborhoods were designated dog-friendly, with a different set of ordinances and the understanding the if you live here, you'd bettter be prepared to see well-mannered pets with their people EVERYWHERE. From a public-policy standpoint, it would make sense: Like developing an area to attract arists, or tech firms.

With dog-lovers, you get lively, walkable and safe neighborhoods. No, it shouldn't be a dog park writ-large. Basic rules for non-aggression and picking up apply. But I'd rather have a dog-friendly street-scape than many others. There was once a park-like area on the edge of the UCDavis Medical Center campus that had become a thug-friendly open-air drug- and hooker market. We started using it as a dog park, and .. voila! it was safe. We drove the bad folks away, and walking our dogs to and from make the whole area safer.

People would pay a premium to move to such an area, in the same way they do to live in areas with great schools and kid-friendly parks.

We need to stop thinking that the only "right" kind of family to support with amenities is mom-dad-two-kids. I never have fit that, and I would indeed move to another city if it offered a recognition and incentives for me to have a more dog-friendly lifestyle.