January 24, 2007
This could be a bar fight if Democrats get their way

KING-5: "Dogs shot dead after biting officers"

State Senate Democrats Jacobsen, Kline, Murray, Poulsen: SB 5484 "Allowing dogs in bars"

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 24, 2007 03:17 PM | Email This
1. I don't know how it became acceptable for people to carry their effing livestock around a grocery store, but the practice seems to be becoming "mainstream." It makes me sick.

As I have posted elsewhere: I have yet to meet the dog that didn't spend a good part of his/her day licking his bunghole. After which said butt licker then proceeds to apply the same crappy tongue to the rest of their fur. Anyone who would eat after petting a dog may as well just get down on all fours, lift old Fido's tail and entertain him with a big sloppy wet one. This goes for anyone who would eat food prepared buy someone who does not wash their hands after petting a dog.

By the way currently I own five dogs.

Posted by: JDH on January 24, 2007 03:14 PM
2. I think dogs are already legal in bars in Enumclaw.

Posted by: Doc-T on January 24, 2007 03:28 PM
3. I think the Senator is refering to four legged dogs ...or at least dogs theat were born with four legs. Being that the percentage of blue healers in Enclaw is decidedly above average the number of three legged dogs in Enumclaw is likewise well above average. i don't know what it is with healers and hay mowers but they have a hell of a time staying away from the sicle bars.

Posted by: JDH on January 24, 2007 03:37 PM
4. People bring their dogs into grocery stores and Fred Meyers in Monroe regularly. I bring in a rat or ferret on a leash in my pocket and people go nuts when they decide to climb up on my shoulder to look around.

Discrimination based on species.... I can just see the lawsuits now. Dogs allowed in bars but not cats, rats, or ferrets. Someone pass the popcorn this one is going to be a good show.

Posted by: Monroe Parent on January 24, 2007 03:42 PM
5. well, can is be any worse than current illegal immigrant food workers who cant read the "wash hands" signs and spread hepatitis & other bugs?

animals are animals. you want to eat with hair balls flying about, it's your business. i prefer not.

say--is this the liberals' further push of the "Enumclaw incident" to "promote more tolerance & acceptance" for animals in our food systems as well as our private love lives?

aren't we used to this? Our WA Legislature routinely "skids along the carpet" itching its rump like a dog on our collective WA taxpayer heads & wishes.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 24, 2007 03:58 PM
6. Calcutta here we come! hail the 3rd world! enlightened! I'm waiting for the freekin bison in our shopping malls.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 24, 2007 04:05 PM
7. I guess they must have solved ALL the problems in Olympia already if they have time to work on this kind of nonsense.

Posted by: The Firewalker on January 24, 2007 04:12 PM
8. I guess they must have already solved ALL the problems in Olympia if they have time to work on this kind of nonsense. What's next? Dogs in school?

Posted by: The Firewalker on January 24, 2007 04:13 PM
9. What about cats? Can we bring cats?
What if I am alergic to animals?

So I can't smoke in a bar, but you can bring your hairball that makes me wheeze.

Only in Washington!

Posted by: Eric on January 24, 2007 04:31 PM
10. Dogs should get the right to vote, and since their owners are the only ones who really know them, they should be allowed to help them fill out their ballots...

I mean really, it's all about the dogs. Most of them don't even have healthcare insurance. And heaven forbid, any self flushing porta potties in Seattle.

I just cannot imagine what next will come from their brew nights...


Posted by: gs on January 24, 2007 04:33 PM
11. Now I would think a bison at the mall would be entertaining! As to dog attacks like this, well I have pretty much had my fill of people allowing their dogs to go unrestrained. This last summer, we lost one of our cats to an attack by two pit bulls. These same two dogs are still showing up periodically, have killed and injured and chased other animals. Animal control appears powerless to do anything about them, though they have responded promptly when the dogs are sighted.

More recently, a nice looking hound of some sort has been showing up frequently. It barks at people and craps in the yard - what fun!

Posted by: Peggy U on January 24, 2007 04:33 PM
Washington Libs will start a legal defense fund for the pit bulls decrying that they were "taunted" as young pups.

"Chris" Gregoire and Greg Nickles will exact legislation to create a bridge and or a tunnel, in that spot so that Labs can bypass the bull traffic.

Posted by: John Bailo on January 24, 2007 04:54 PM
13. To clarify some items above - not all dogs you see are inappropriate. Many are service animals but it may not be obvious depending on the role the animal serves.

Most of us are familiar with Guide Dogs for the Blind, but service animals today perform many other functions too.

Service animals are allowed in stores, schools and restaurants, including bars. This also includes guide dogs in training. During their first 18 months or so, these dogs are being raised by designated raisers (often teenagers working under the direction of the sponsoring organization). Service dogs in training are also generally permitted in the same locations. This is both state and federal law.

Regardless, many organizations do not abide by the law. A relative who has successfully raised Guide Dogs for the Blind, was denied permission to have the dog accompany her to her public high school. (The dogs in training are required to have a wide variety of real life experiences since this is the real life they will have to work within.)

While I do not understand the purpose or need for the "dogs in bars" proposed law, I am posting these comments here because some of the animals you see may, in fact, be service animals.

I do not understand the bringing of toy puddle in handbags into stores either. (And I have 4 huge dogs so big that fitting just one in the backseat of mid-size car is hard.)

Hitting dogs is a very ineffective way to stop a dog fight. To them, its just an escalation of the fight so you are telling them to fight harder. Surprisingly effective way stop a dog fight - throw water in their face. (From a puddle, from a water bottle, from a squirt gun.) It often acts like hitting the "reset" button and throws them off. Other methods require contact with the dog and knowing a lot about dogs (such as the alpha roll, etc) and are not recommended unless you know what you are doing.

Posted by: Ed on January 24, 2007 05:05 PM
14. We have truly went to the dogs now. Do we actually pay these people to pass these laws?

I am a dog owner whose dog (choc lab "Hank") goes to work we me daily. Well I sure as heck dont need "hank" with me in a bar. I doubt he would have much fun anyway.

If I am drinking at home alone, thats fine, it gives me someone to talk too, but out being social, I just can't buy it.

I wonder what the bar owners think.... Oooops that isn't the point is it, it's about Doggiee Freedom.

What a waste of taxpayers money..

Posted by: chris on January 24, 2007 06:07 PM
15. I say pass it.

But for goodness sakes, add a rider to the bill that allows bar owners decide if they want to allow smoking in their bars too.

Posted by: redkittyred on January 24, 2007 06:40 PM
16. First comes a law allowing dogs in bars. Next comes legislation in Olympia to publicly fund treatment of alcoholic dogs.

I never realized the number of people requiring service dogs. The bums oops - housing deprived - with filthy mongrels in grocery stores and fast food establishments as well as Paris Hilton wannabes of all ages, shapes and sizes with pint-sized pooches wherever they go. Never question the validity of these dogs - that's a no-no under current dictates and political correctness.

Why shouldn't a valid service dog have to be registered and properly identified? It's said that such action might violate the rights of service dog owners. If that's the case then it's time to stop requiring the disabled to display legally registered identification on their vehicles in order to use handicapped parking and exclusion from parking meters.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 24, 2007 07:01 PM
17. If Harry Truman were alive he'd say something like: "Some of those S.O.B.'s in Olympia want to make sure their mothers can get into bars."

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 24, 2007 07:21 PM
18. I am under the impression that a service dog must possess the proper doc's to stay in a hotel that doesn't allow dogs.

I don't think that we should allow non-signed dogs in grocery, department, or tavern.

Service dogs provide a wonderful service to those they serve, and should be allowed.

But to allow dogs in pubs is ridiculous.

Posted by: chris on January 24, 2007 07:48 PM
19. Greyhound walks into a bar.

Bartender says "Why the long face?"

Posted by: Hinton on January 24, 2007 07:52 PM
20. Oh, boy, am I getting a visual on this one. Leapt straight from bulls in a china shop to drunken great danes in a bar!

Posted by: katomar on January 24, 2007 07:57 PM
21. And then, what comes next? Dogs playing poker.

Posted by: Peggy U on January 24, 2007 08:18 PM
22. I am under the impression that a service dog must possess the proper doc's to stay in a hotel that doesn't allow dogs

I became curious about this after witnessing a housing challenged woman with her filthy dog at the beer cooler of a market screaming at the manager. Something about "HE'S A SERVICE DOG! THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO TELL YOU! YOU CAN'T ASK ME ABOUT MY DOG AND I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU *XX#X%X!"

Here's some info from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice per their Q&A regarding service animals.

All a person has to say is their pet hyena, Gila monster, Norwegian rat, whatever is a "service animal" and they're in the door. Many of these animal lovers claim that the animal provides security from their anxieties or some other similar "diagnosis."

There's a woman in Seattle who makes the news periodically suing local motels that try to exclude her and her "service dog." Good source of income for her and Fido. By the way, it's often pointed out that Fido's "service skills" aren't known but heck, that's nobody's business.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 24, 2007 08:34 PM
23. ok--fair is fair.

will dogs now be allowed into certain religion-followers' stores? i doubt it. more lawsuits a-comin with a twist. just like the refusnik cab drivers in reverse.

my new WA state bill allows any male human to now urinate on any public fire hydrant. equal rights. bums can. why not me?

tax-planning: have your dog pull the winning native casino slot machine arm. he's your dependent. you're his fiduciary managing his winnings & estate.

screw the bicycle lanes--change them all into off-leash lanes. libertee! diversitee! equalitee! (i.e. chaos)

honestly, it's the owners choice. dont like it, dont visit the place. but--big picture--why is this legislated? waste of time.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 24, 2007 09:29 PM
24. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. It doesn't make dogs mandatory in taverns, the owner will make the final call based on what his customers want.

This is the freedom to let the shop owner decide. It is the smoking ban in reverse. It's what the smoking ban should have been. You Libertarians out there should love it. So should the conservatives.

If dogs in a tavern bother you, go to another tavern. It's your choice.

Posted by: G Jiggy on January 24, 2007 10:06 PM
25. Wait? I thought this was already legal. They let the Yellow Dogs in to the Montlake Ale House for Drinking Liberally?

Democrat Legislators in Olympia, using our tax dollars ever so wisely. Unreal.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 24, 2007 10:50 PM
26. The service dog is the biggest scam around. A seeing eye dog is one thing, however, it's definately gotten out of hand. I had a girlfriend that would babysit a "service dog" in training. The purpose of this service dog was to be a companion to a "disadvantaged youth". During the two years of training, she just strapped the vest on the dog and we could take it anywhere. Now for some reason about 70 to 80 percent of the dogs in this program never make the cut and actually become service dogs. As turned out to be the case with the dog she watched. However, my girlfriend still had a service dog vest that she would use whith her own dog whenever she wanted to take it shopping.

Posted by: Mark D on January 24, 2007 11:44 PM
27. whatever happened to that fad with the Viet potbellied pigs? no talk of them? what--no WA potbelly pig lobbies? (or have they morphed into legislators?)not a p.c. "clean" animal for some religions?

how about NW native animal symbols? can i bring my raven or eagle to the pub? slap that big 'ol salmon on the bar. imagine ravens pecking at the bar's peanut bowl!

again--legislators with too much time, money and self-importance.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 25, 2007 07:01 AM
28. jimmie #27. Simple answer. It would offend Muslims.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 25, 2007 07:43 AM
29. Seattle City Council endorses dog houses for drunk dogs. News at eleven.

Posted by: Emil Sick on January 25, 2007 12:17 PM
30. If there is currently a law or regulation against dogs in bars, then that law or regulation just needs to be repealed in order to allow dogs in bars.

However, if there isn't any legal restriction currently, then why do bar owners need to go to the government in order to get permission to allow dogs in their bars?

Since when is it assumed that something is illegal unless the government gives us permission to do it?

Posted by: Ken on January 26, 2007 01:51 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?