The New Museum of the Dog | Hacker News Reader

The New Museum of the Dog

nationalreview.com

21 pointswholeness32 comments

From their website: “Out of courtesy to our neighbors, only service dogs and invited demonstration dogs are allowed in the museum” :-(

All dogs are service dogs when you're not allowed to challenge it.

I’m sure the following statement will lead to my e-crucifixion, but:

As much as I love dogs (RIP to my passed, canine buddy), I think the “take your dogs everywhere” thing is out of control now. Maybe that’s not that dangerous of a sentiment, but I shouldn’t have to dodge your dog in the supermarket.

At what point do we as a society start pushing back on this?

Service dogs are a real thing that people with certain disabilities actually need. As such, I really hope the answer to your question is "never."

I recently went to the hardware store, and there were five separate people with dogs. I'm going to guess that the number that were actual service dogs was either zero or one, and my money is on zero.

Sure, people should be able to take a service dog everywhere. It does not follow that people should be able to take any dog everywhere.

In the US, many hardware stores and lumber yards actively encourage paying customers to bring their dog, even if it is not a service dog: http://www.sittingforacause.com/blog/dog-friendly/the-only-l... In my experience the store employees at Lowe's/Home Depot (Seattle) are often very friendly to my dog when I bring her, and it seems to brighten these employee's day...

Hardware stores don’t serve food, therefore there are no rules preventing dogs from entering. It’s not like a dog could damage the floors or merchandise either.

I suppose not. The worst they could do is go after the birds that had figured out the motion-activated doors, and where the bags of birdseed were.

Menard's in the midwest has an entire grocery section. So does Rural King which encourages pets in the building.

why can't i take my dog anywhere? He is more well behaved and cleaner then many people and children. Typically alleged sanitary/health issues wrt. dogs presence are obviously moot once you take a look say at France where dogs are welcome in restaurants for example and nobody is dying from cholera/etc..

A couple of reasons:

- some people are allergic

- some people were mauled by dogs in the past and a strange dog can trigger their PTSD

- some dogs are unpredictable and may shit/piss on the floor if they get scared

- some dogs bite

- some small kids/toddlers don't (and shouldn't) know how to handle strange dogs and may do something (like pull the dog's ears or something) to set the dog off

- some dogs bark for no reason and become a nuisance

Your freedom ends when other people's freedom starts. I'm sure your dog is the most well behaved (everyone's dog is, of course) but we live in a society and we should put people first. The whole dog thing is out of control in the US. Don't mention France, they don't even come close to the concentration of dogs in the US. If you let people bring dogs everywhere, you reach state in the Silicon Valley episode (search for it) when you realize you're living in a kennel. For example: https://i.redd.it/y180b44x5oi31.jpg.

The other problem IMO is that a large number of dog owners are irresponsible and thus ruining it for everyone. Stuff like not obeying leash laws, not picking up the poop, leaving their dogs alone in the apartment to bark all day long, etc.. Last year there was a case of someone who took their dog hiking in a national park nearby. No dogs allowed, of course but as you said, his dog was more well behaved than humans! The dog was unleashed and it was attacked by a mountain goat and thrown off a cliff. I guess the owner couldn't show the dog's `Emotional support animal certification` to the goat in time to save his life.

> - some people were mauled by dogs in the past and a strange dog can trigger their PTSD

America, where dogs come with trigger warnings but guns don't (pun intended). Guns have special open carry laws to protect their display.

I didn't realise some US states permit open carry.

This Wikipedia article claims 26 states permit open carry, with another 19 having local restrictions or licensing requirements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...

the quality of your arguments is basically baseless (or more precisely your imagination seems to be the base) fear mongering best illustrated by using the unreal comedic SV episode instead of real offices of real dog friendly companies (Google for example).

To address most of your other "arguments" - dogs can be muzzled when appropriate/prudent and trained. People btw - not.

>Don't mention France, they don't even come close to the concentration of dogs in the US.

about 2x difference on per capita basis.

An office you go to every day is not your average crowded public place.

And maybe Google employees (who are conscientious enough to have a six figures a year job) have perfectly behaved dogs and might be able to handle bringing their dogs to the hardware store - but we are talking about the general population here. Theres also probably a large overlap between people with poorly behaved dogs and people that take their dogs to inappropriate places.

https://charlestoncitypaper.com/Eat/archives/2016/10/20/holy...

>"We love dogs. Most of us have dogs. I have three myself, but over the past six months we have had employees bit five different times by dogs visiting the brewery. The latest incident, which occurred last week, consisted of a guest's dog biting one of our bartenders in the face. I have to look out for my staff."

Why just not require muzzling in anxiety inducing environments like that tightly packed venue? It is pretty established requirement in Russia for example for taking dog on a bus, etc.

Why bother, really? It's way WAY easier to enforce a no dogs policy than a muzzle policy. Look at how hard it is to get people to leash their dogs. They keep the dog leashed for a while then let it run for like 5 minutes then back in the leash, no big deal, right? Same as with a muzzle. Just take the muzzle off for 2 minutes so I can feed this to the dog, no big deal, what's the problem, boss? Way easier and less litigation risk to just refuse entry.

I wonder have you ever had a dog? Because it sounds like you don't understand about leashing and dont know anything about muzzling really. Basically it sounds like you're pulling it out of thin air of your imaginary reality, "inventing reasons" as the other guy replying to you put it.

I'm glad we finally reached ad hominem. Thanks, It means a lot.

Dogs are banned in most or all national parks where large wildlife is present. In Glacier National Park, for example, they’re banned because they can easily turn a grizzly sighting into a grizzly attack.

This smacks of inventing reasons. Certainly some people are allergic. Of the rest...

> some dogs are unpredictable ; some dogs bite ; some dogs bark ; pull the dog's ears... set the dog off

Well, hello? If my dog did or reacted to any of those, I would heavily restrict the places I thought it was suitable to take it. It's entirely on the owner if those behaviours result, anyway - presuming the dog doesn't have an advanced illness affecting continence. Once again, it's on the owner or handler to judge appropriately.

> some small kids/toddlers don't (and shouldn't)

Shouldn't? I am puzzled by this. Surely it is appropriate for all children to be exposed to safe and predictable animals, and to learn appropriate behaviour with animals? One of the training habits I have with my dogs while they're very young, is to often take them to the local school at home time, and the local town shopping centre at peak times. Puppy learns huge amounts of unpredictable small humans aren't harmful, but are very friendly if rather clumsy. Children and parents learn that puppies can be well behaved and trained too, and don't react at all to having ears pulled...

If there is a parent obviously uncomfortable with the large puppy, well I keep the dog away from those folks. It's not compulsory for everyone to like animals or dogs, or to come over and pat it.

> large number of dog owners are irresponsible

That's the problem, and should be the target of any corrective measures and restrictions.

That all said I am a bit puzzled with taking the dogs everywhere. Some pubs welcome dogs and I might take them there, shops don't, so the dogs don't accompany. As is described in this thread just doesn't happen in the UK. A couple of small employers have welcomed dogs in small amounts - because someone senior had a mutt, nearly all workplaces I've encountered don't.

> Well, hello? If my dog did or reacted to any of those, I would heavily restrict the places I thought it was suitable to take it. It's entirely on the owner if those behaviours result, anyway - presuming the dog doesn't have an advanced illness affecting continence. Once again, it's on the owner or handler to judge appropriately.

> If there is a parent obviously uncomfortable with the large puppy, well I keep the dog away from those folks. It's not compulsory for everyone to like animals or dogs, or to come over and pat it.

That's you. Lots of people I meet (for example in my building's elevator) think it's completely acceptable to keep the dog on a long leash, have it jump strangers and have a laugh about it. Just the other day a neighbor's dog charged at me out of the blue, with its ears pulled back. I saw it when I turned around, the dog surprised me and the owner was just looking at the whole thing. Luckily the dog was leashed. He also thought it was funny, because <quote> "he never does that! You must be nervous or something" and just brushed it off.

You sound responsible. A lot of people with dogs are not. We move with a speed matching the slowest of us. I would like to drive my car really fast. I got my drivers license in a country with standards way higher than the US. My car is well maintained, I never consume drugs or alcohol, never drove tired and never use my cellphone, I am 100% focused on my driving and drove hundreds of thousands of kilometers on three continents. But Jimmy likes to shave in the car on the way to work in the morning and hit a construction crew so now the speed limit is 45 MPH. Get it?

Service dogs are carefully trained animals that work for people. They aren't pets with a "wink wink nudge nudge" label.

There's an obvious difference between a seeing eye dog, and someone stretching the truth so they can bring their pet into the mall and bypass "no pets" policies in apartment buildings.

If you can't defend and enforce that difference, then protections for people who really need service animals will erode quickly.

I suspect you're arguing against one of those straw man "moral panic" things that the media likes to harp on about rather than a real issue. This smacks of "PC gone mad" or "needles in Halloween candy" to me.

Maybe one day they'll have service robots and what they lack in furry warmness, they may make up in being able to converse in English.

The thread inspired by my off-the-cuff comment is impressive. I don’t advocate dogs should be allowed in supermarkets, restaurants or anywhere really that they can cause health issues, but a museum devoted to their species and their owners should maybe figure out a way to allow them.

I'm with you. Service dogs are fine. They are highly trained and don't cause any ruckus (and they are pretty rare). But there is a rise in "emotional support" animals. These dogs are usually not trained and you're starting to see lots of them. I don't dispute people get benefit from these animals but they can be annoying to others.

Those in a position of relative power (e.g. airline employees) are not allowed to ask "what disease do you have that merits this animal?" but they are allowed to ask "what services does this animal provide?" There is a clear and obvious distinction between those questions, and the answer to the second question will clearly identify those who require exceedingly well-trained and expensive service animals. People who want to carry their dogs onboard without paying a fee are less likely to have an answer.

Only a small subset of people are going to lie about their dog being a service dog. Letting them in with the legitimate service dogs is probably a reasonable way to avoid hurting people with legitimate need.

> Only a small subset of people are going to lie about their dog being a service dog.

Clearly you don't live in California. Fake "service dog" harnesses are very common here. Many people claim their pets are emotional support animals as an excuse to take them everywhere.

I was sorry to see it leave Saint Louis. Used to live across the street from the St. Louis County park that housed it for years.

But Saint Louis still has the Bowling Hall of Fame and gained the Chess Museum. Road trip anyone?

In case any cat people are looking for a museum dedicated to cat art, there's an excellent one in Amsterdam.

https://www.kattenkabinet.nl/

Their broad permanent collection includes some extremely rare artworks about cats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com