Finally, bars in New York are being prohibited from allowing animals to be on the premises:
The health department issued 469 violations for live animals in food-service sites from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, though the agency did not provide a breakdown of the different kinds of offending animals. During inspections, many owners said they were surprised to learn that dogs were not allowed even in outdoor seating areas. Neither does a bar’s dearth of actual food products provide any cover. “Beer, wine and spirits have always been classified as food,” a department spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail. Only service dogs are permitted in spaces that serve food or drink of any kind.
The idea that smelly, panting dogs who shed hair and are likely to assault customers at any time should be imposed on paying patrons just because of the selfishness of a few “dog-lovers” always seemed strange to me. As usual, these “doggie-parents” are equally cruel to other humans and to their own animals. Can you imagine a dog who’d actually want to be stuck in a bar rather than run around in a park?
Since bars have outlawed smoking on the premises for health reasons, it made no sense to keep allowing animals in. Each of us surely has their own vision of whether it’s more exasperating to have a smoker or a dog hanging around while you are trying to relax. I passionately dislike dogs and have a dog-phobia, so my answer is clear. For those who don’t hate dogs, a smoker’s presence can be a lot more annoying. Smoke makes one’s hair and clothes stink and can aggravate existing health conditions, such as asthma and others.
In terms of health, however, the damage inflicted by second-hand smoke is cumulative. A dog (or any other animal) can spread germs or assault a customer instantly. This is why I believe that if you ban smoking in bars to make the environment more customer-friendly, it makes no sense whatsoever to let the dogs in.
Clarissa's Blog 
Huh, animals have been banned in Montana and Seattle establishments for a long time. The only ones that are allowed are service animals. I’m glad this is done in NY now.
Of course, I knew people in Missoula who misrepresented their pets as service dogs, but they learned not to do that in front of me, because I’m that type of person who tells them it’s a violation of the law that’s worth a $1,000 fine and/or a year in jail.
LikeLike
Totally agree. I’m asthmatic and although smoking doesn’t have any effect on me, I am hugely allergic to animals, especially dogs. Being near one, especially inside, sets my asthma off AND makes my eyes stream AND makes me itch all over if I come into contact with it / its hairs. Although I actually love dogs and am happy to be around them in theory, I can’t believe that dog-owners are often so self-involved as to not realise that they’re causing hugely unpleasant reactions for the many, many people around them who are allergic.
LikeLike
“…dog-owners are often so self-involved as to not realise that they’re causing hugely unpleasant reactions”
Or just perversely delighted at being able to rub their selfless devotion to a dumb animal in a pet-less person’s face? I have been castigated a number of times in the US for the ‘selfishness’ of not owning one and ‘giving it access’ to ‘the love in my heart’.
I like dogs well enough — especially ones of thickly-coated retriever or shepherd variety — but I object very strongly to drool and unwashed doggy-smell. This, according to some, is a hanging offence.
LikeLike
I don’t think that there are any germs that dogs spread to humans (parasites are a different story, but fairly hard to acquire with minimal exposure). However, I don’t think animals — other than service animals — should be allowed in restaurants or stores. I never used to see pets in these places until after Paris Hilton started carrying her mini dog everywhere.
The last time I was in Italy, I did see far more dogs in outdoor cafes than on previous trips.
Off topic,but have you seen the mini service horses? They are amazing.
LikeLike