canine-loving LTHers

an LTHer made a good point that my post may inadvertantly call attention to restaurants providing an admirable but illegal dining experience. I have therefore deleted my original list of restaurants, and would encourage the moderators to delete this post entirely if they see fit.

After the ordinance allowing dogs into cafes take affect January 1, 2008 (assuming, as is very likely, that it will pass the full city counsel this month), I will post some ideas on dog friendly spots. The ordinance to allow dogs was sponsored by Aldermen Eugene Schulter and Brendan Reilly. Also, Rep. Fritchey was helpful in getting state approval to allow Chicago to make its own rule on this matter.

Until January 1, 2008, in order to keep the "law-breakers" safe, I will refrain from comment. Sitting outside having a burger with my GSD might be a nice way to spend part of New Year's Day.

I have read that Brasserie Jo also is canine friendly and will provide some "steak tartare" for your four-legged friend. I have been meaning to investigate this for a while, but never seem to be able to set aside the time.

I'm thinking about fostering a pack of Huskies to take them out to celebrate January 1st.

Kennyz wrote:an LTHer made a good point that my post may inadvertantly call attention to restaurants providing an admirable but illegal dining experience. I have therefore deleted my original list of restaurants, and would encourage the moderators to delete this post entirely if they see fit.

See, here's where my head is at. I thought, until I read the second post in this thread, that this was going to be a discussion of places where you can EAT dog (certainly an "illegal dining experience"). Imagine my disappointment.

This seems like a real stupid question, but in all the reports I've heard first- or second-hand, I've never heard it specified that the new legislation will allow dogs only in outdoor locations. I hope to gosh that this is so, and it sure seems like a no-brainer that it would be so, but I haven't personally heard confirmation that it is so. (I'm sure there's a website where I could find all legislation before the city council, but it's easier to ask here.) They're not contemplating letting dogs inside restaurants, are they?

riddlemay wrote:This seems like a real stupid question, but in all the reports I've heard first- or second-hand, I've never heard it specified that the new legislation will allow dogs only in outdoor locations. I hope to gosh that this is so, and it sure seems like a no-brainer that it would be so, but I haven't personally heard confirmation that it is so. (I'm sure there's a website where I could find all legislation before the city council, but it's easier to ask here.) They're not contemplating letting dogs inside restaurants, are they?

The new ordinance allows dogs only outside.

A few points for those who might be concerned:

1. The new plan is business-friendly in that it allows the business owner to make the decision to allow or not to allow dogs. The idea is that if dogs are a genuine problem, the market and the business can make that decision. The aldermen supporting the proposal believe that it should be left to market forces to make that determination.

2. Cafes that allow dogs will have to pay a license fee of $250 every two years.

3. The cafes will be required to check the rabies tags (for some serious dog owners, that might be a necessary hassle, since working dogs can have three or more collars that are regularly used -- two training collars, a buckle collar, and then some sort of safety collar, and we will have to remember to bring the collar with the tags).

4. Dogs will not be allowed to share food. I don't expect that one to be honored too often.

5. The tables will have to have hand-sanitizers.

6. Dogs are barred from chairs and tables.

If people have additional questions, contact your alderman (or PM me and I might be able to get the answer).

One additional point (since it was raised on the Tribune's food blog): A business owner cannot just set up an outdoor cafe and do business on the sidewalk. Any business that takes up sidewalk space must be specifically allowed by ordinance. If you go through the minutes of Counsel meetings, you will find all sorts of references to that sort of thing. If you have a complaint about a particular cafe that takes up too mich of the sidewalk, etc., call your alderman

In other countries they allow dogs inside restaurants (at the owner's discretion) and no one seems to get upset about it. But when I've seen dogs inside places, they are small, well behaved, and you'd never know they were there unless you looked. Usually they hang out under the table, snoring.

This feel-good legislation, if it gets approved, will last until some Doberman and a German Shepherd square off for the hand of a recently-arrived Labrador in heat and they all get into it in the ensuing fray. Or someone notices fleas jumping into their potato soup from the nearby mongrel. I agree with David H. though, I was expecting to find out where doggies are being 'wokked.'

Cogito wrote:This feel-good legislation, if it gets approved, will last until some Doberman and a German Shepherd square off for the hand of a recently-arrived Labrador in heat and they all get into it in the ensuing fray. Or someone notices fleas jumping into their potato soup from the nearby mongrel. I agree with David H. though, I was expecting to find out where doggies are being 'wokked.'

You got a problem with German Shepherds? Bring it on!

I'm more worried about the fleas from the patrons. Who's checking them?

In all seriousness, if you don't like to dine near dogs, don't go to cafes that allow dogs. Nothing compels you to dine there. That's the beauty of the new ordinance. It is up to the business and the diners, and it is not up to the government to make the decision.

Further, it is not at all feel-good legislation. It is the opposite. The law as it stands now is broken routinely as a matter of policy. This acknowledges reality and sets up a reasonable framework. Chicago has been mocked for some ridiculous legislation in the past few years. This is a welcome change.

DML, where did I say I don't like dogs? Reading is a skill, isn't it? I love dogs, and most other pets, so.... All I was trying to say is that there are situations that will come up where customers are going to get bit or even mauled by a big dog, because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Carry on.

This is one of those issues that is going to provoke strong opinions on all sides. Civility, please, everyone.

This feel-good legislation, if it gets approved, will last until some Doberman and a German Shepherd square off for the hand of a recently-arrived Labrador in heat and they all get into it in the ensuing fray. Or someone notices fleas jumping into their potato soup from the nearby mongrel. I agree with David H. though, I was expecting to find out where doggies are being 'wokked.'

This topic has veered so far from my original intent, which was to generate restaurant suggestions for dog owners looking to dine with their pets. I realize that veering is a risk one takes when posting on a public message board.

Perhaps there's some merit in to having a thread that discusses the merits of this ordinance, but I think it belongs in Other Culinary Chat.

My apologies to dog lovers for generating a discussion that will now likely be cluttered with offensive, nonsensical haranguing.

Cogito wrote:DML, where did I say I don't like dogs? Reading is a skill, isn't it? I love dogs, and most other pets, so.... All I was trying to say is that there are situations that will come up where customers are going to get bit or even mauled by a big dog, because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Carry on.

First, as someone who is relatively tied in to both the "dog" and "restaurant" worlds, I've never hear of a case like that in Chicago. Nobody has testified in any of the hearings on the ordinance to any case of a dog attack in a cafe. Former Alderman Natarus did ramble on about the possibility, but after doing so the voters got angry and tossed him out.

Second, how is the new bill going to change the possibility of a dog bite? The current law is openly ignored. This sets up a framework where the restaurant owner must check rabies tags and puts other safety requirements on the restaurant owners. Currently, the practice is illegal, the illegality is ignored, and as such there is zero functioning oversight.

I have no problems with dogs at outside cafes. But this does remind me of something I witnessed a few years ago at a nameless sidewalk cafe.

Table with several guys and one big dog get up to leave. Owner of dog goes to untie leash from the cafe fence where he's been tied. He asks his friend to unsnap the dog from his leash to make it easier to untie him. Friend, brainlessly, takes the dog off the leash, but fails to hold on to the dog. Dog walks up to the nearest table and proceeds to eat half of another diner's entree in about two bites.

It was amusing because it wasn't my food. The dog owner quickly realized what was happening, apologized and threw a few bills at the diner whose dinner was eaten, and hurried off while scolding his friend.

If dogs can legally attend restaurants, does that imply that cats, pythons, pot-bellied pigs, etc., can be expected to gain entrance also, under the doctrine of fair-play and non-discrimination? I'm hoping the answer is "yes." Nothing could be more fun except perhaps a picnic at the zoo.

When I was 11, I went to France to visit an exchange student who had stayed with my family that year. I was completely shocked and amazed that they brought their miniature apricot poodle into the restaurant with us, and could not WAIT to write letters to all my friends and tell them.

I was even MORE blown away when we got halfway back to their house and they realized they'd forgotten the dog at the restaurant. when we got back to the restaurant, the host was playing with her and laughing. Completely blew my 11-year-old mind.

Anyway, that story was pretty pointless. I support this legislation, not only because of that experience (it just wasn't that big of a deal to have the dog there...until they forgot to bring her home, of course), but because so many restaurants ALREADY do it. I realize one doesn't pass legislation to accomodate the current state of affairs, but my point is, it's been going on for years without a problem.

Once again Chicago's City Council tackling the important issues of today's world..

I am pleased to report that the City Counsel today PASSED the dogs in cafe ordinance. It will take effect January 1, 2008.

I have posted a note in the events section of this site regarding a dinner with dogs event to take place September 10 (endorsed by the City Counsel).

Oddly enough I witnessed such an attack in Innsbruck Austria a couple of summers ago. We were eating outdoors and an Italian family had a large German Shepherd basically sitting on a bench with them. As the waiter reached over the table the dog attacked him and bit very hard on the upper arm--there was blood. We asked the waiter what he was going to do (namely sue) just to see what he would say, and he said no way. It was almost a point of pride. As I recall, in a lot of Euro cities, dogs are allowed inside many types of establishments if they have muzzles on. Nothing like bringing your dog to the bank.

DML wrote:I'm more worried about the fleas from the patrons. Who's checking them?

Indeed. Furthermore, my greyhound smells better than some restaurant patrons I have had the bad luck to be dining near (speaking of which, as long as the city is passing all these ordinances, could they pass one making it illegal for women to dump half a bottle of musk on themselves? Lordamercy, ladies, are you not aware that you reek to the skies?)

hopefully this will play out well!

Suzy Creamcheese wrote:...as long as the city is passing all these ordinances, could they pass one making it illegal for women to dump half a bottle of musk on themselves? Lordamercy, ladies, are you not aware that you reek to the skies?

Men too! This morning the #50 Damen was such a cacaphony of smells it was just amazing.

As with many of this city's legislative efforts, this one has produced the opposite of what most of its proponents hoped for. This summer, restaurants that used to be wonderful places for my dog and I to dine together are now off limits because management fears fines and citations.

Hello food trucks, good bye elote carts!

I'm not following, Kenny.
If they want dogs, then they can get the license.
Prett easy.

Also, Chicago's ordinance was passed in 2007 or 2008. Why would you just see it impact now?

DML wrote:I'm not following, Kenny.
If they want dogs, then they can get the license.
Prett easy.

But the license comes with a cost, a licensing process, and a list of rules to follow. The path of least resistance is very clear: say no to dogs.

DML wrote:I'm not following, Kenny.
If they want dogs, then they can get the license.
Prett easy.

Yes, exactly. Restaurants used to just open up their patios to anyone who wanted to dine with a dog. Now they must purchase a $450 license, subject themselves to ramped-up enforcement measures since the legislation passed, and risk $1,000 fine for each violation, like not scrubbing down the leg of the chair where a dog may have been tied.

Whatever the intention, the net result is that it used to be easy find places to dine with my dog, and now it's a PITA.

eatchicago wrote:

DML wrote:I'm not following, Kenny.
If they want dogs, then they can get the license.
Prett easy.

But the license comes with a cost, a licensing process, and a list of rules to follow. The path of least resistance is very clear: say no to dogs.

The cost is cheap, the licensing process is pretty simple (at least in the 42nd Ward) and the rules all seem pretty reasonable.
Prior to the ordinance, no dogs at all were allowed, ever.
Now owners have a choice.

DML wrote:

eatchicago wrote:

DML wrote:I'm not following, Kenny.
If they want dogs, then they can get the license.
Prett easy.

But the license comes with a cost, a licensing process, and a list of rules to follow. The path of least resistance is very clear: say no to dogs.

The cost is cheap, the licensing process is pretty simple (at least in the 42nd Ward) and the rules all seem pretty reasonable.
Prior to the ordinance, no dogs at all were allowed, ever.
No owners have a choice.

Those are words. What I describe is reality.