Ranchman’s becomes first eatery in Canada to allow dogs on patio

[albertGQ]

This wouldn't be an issue if we would just exterminate dogs

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Sooooo..... Don't go to said pub? Vote with your wallet!

Why do people think it is their right to be at a certain establishment?

because it is.

But on a side note: If the regulations are tight and strict enough I'm going to say I just folded my cards. I just read teh city of Dallas's requirements for Dog friendly patios and its pretty solid. I myself would not go but lets see how it transpires.

[woob]

Wow.. Was honestly not expecting this kind of discussion when I came into this thread. What a bunch of Nancys on their high horses.

Rerun, I'd thank every post in here of yours if I could. I'm glad to see such a proud dog owner who's also very level headed. I hope you're able to get down there this weekend and enjoy a nice cold one with your best friend. I might have to pencil that plan into my weekend schedule as well.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Tell that to dog owners who have had a dog give up their lives protecting them while performing hazardous and down right life threatening duties (police work, military, etc.)

The dog is not interchangeable. These people have an extremely close bond between them and their canine partner (and yes... I say partner!).

Read this:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joint...litarydogs.htm

Take the team from the start:

One Dog

One Trainer

Take the dog away and replace it with another dog and you would still get a team at the end of the training.

Take the trainer away and replace him/her with another human and you would not get the same team at the end of the training.

[Bigtime]

Rerun: Requesting a picture of your dog on the patio wearing sunglasses with the caption "Deal with it" on it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

because it is.

But on a side note: If the regulations are tight and strict enough I'm going to say I just folded my cards. I just read teh city of Dallas's requirements for Dog friendly patios and its pretty solid. I myself would not go but lets see how it transpires.

Umm no, it is not. You have no RIGHT to eat at Ranchman's. Where you got this idea from I do not know, but it is incorrect.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Why not just dispense with the baloney and let my dog onto the patio. Health wise, for those who are concerned with dog germs, there's no difference.

The only person it affects is me who may or may not be able to find a table next to the fence. If I can't I'm SOL and I have to go on to the next place to look for a fence table.

If you're even considering going to Ranchman's let alone eating food there, you're not a person who's overly concerned about germs or ambiance.

If this discussion was replaced by "respectable restaurant/pub allows dogs on patio" then you'd have something worth talking about.

[schteve_d]

Heck, I still think a bar/restaurant owner should be able to decide if they allow smoking or not. We are far, far, far too regulated these days and this is coming from an ex-smoker. The owner decides and it's advertised for all to know whether or not you can smoke, whether or not dogs can come in. If you don't like being around smoking, don't work there and don't patronize the joint. Simple enough. I'm not kidding either.

[Jason14h]

Heck, I still think a bar/restaurant owner should be able to decide if they allow smoking or not. We are far, far, far too regulated these days and this is coming from an ex-smoker. The owner decides and it's advertised for all to know whether or not you can smoke, whether or not dogs can come in. If you don't like being around smoking, don't work there and don't patronize the joint. Simple enough. I'm not kidding either.

We just had this exact same discussion over lunch and beers! I am also a non-smoker, and while I am happy for no smoke, I am 100% against establishments being forced to be non-smoking. I will just choose to not go to these places!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

We just had this exact same discussion over lunch and beers! I am also a non-smoker, and while I am happy for no smoke, I am 100% against establishments being forced to be non-smoking. I will just choose to not go to these places!

I think bars should be able to declare themselves "smoke friendly". All patrons would then know it was a smoking bar and vote with their feet.

PS: I know this will not happen

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

because it is.

But on a side note: If the regulations are tight and strict enough I'm going to say I just folded my cards. I just read teh city of Dallas's requirements for Dog friendly patios and its pretty solid. I myself would not go but lets see how it transpires.

I had to jump into this debate upon seeing this little gem. You honestly think it is your "right" to patronize any private establishment you'd like? No, I don't believe any 28 year old (based on the age of your dog...) could possibly be that naive.

Tell me, is it your right to patronize, oh lets say...Augusta National? Do you think you're "entitled" to play a round there if you'd like? How about a local example, do you think it is your "right" to use the Calgary Petroleum Club? Assuming you're not a member, why don't you head down there right now, go on in and then come back and tell us how it went?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think bars should be able to declare themselves "smoke friendly". All patrons would then know it was a smoking bar and vote with their feet.

PS: I know this will not happen

Unlike dogs, exposure to smoking is an actual proven health hazard. This is one practice that we should never turn back the clock on.

I'm glad that nowadays you can enter a licensed establishment, stay a couple of hours, and not come home smelling like a cigarette factory, and have your life shortened by a few days.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Unlike dogs, exposure to smoking is an actual proven health hazard. This is one practice that we should never turn back the clock on.

I'm glad that nowadays you can enter a licensed establishment, stay a couple of hours, and not come home smelling like a cigarette factory, and have your life shortened by a few days.

But some people like that, I don't I hate smoking, and hated smoking in bars. But I have no problem with a smoking bar.

PS: I am also happy I can go for a pint and not stink.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Unlike dogs, exposure to smoking is an actual proven health hazard. This is one practice that we should never turn back the clock on.

I'm glad that nowadays you can enter a licensed establishment, stay a couple of hours, and not come home smelling like a cigarette factory, and have your life shortened by a few days.

Well doesn't that just make you a hypocrite.

Spend all day defending Ranchman's right to be able to have dogs because people can choose to go there or not, only to instantly say that it should only be your personal opinion that matters.

Ever consider that it is your right to not frequent establishments that allow smoking, just as others can choose to not go to Ranchman's because they have dogs?

This is all a moot point anyway because of the no smoking laws but that's still wildly hypocritical.

[Kswiss]

The idea is stupid, regardless if I go or not...

Originally Posted by Burninator

Then why do you care?

[Dion]

[moon]

Seems like a stupid idea but if they want to do it go ahead. I likely wasn't going to go there anyways and certainly won't go now.

As a dog owner I can't think of why anyone would want to go to a patio with their dog and certainly have no idea why you would want to eat with others and their dogs.

Seems like a lot of people would be the d-bags trying to prove a point about dogs and creeps that can't go 5 seconds without their dogs.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well doesn't that just make you a hypocrite.

Spend all day defending Ranchman's right to be able to have dogs because people can choose to go there or not, only to instantly say that it should only be your personal opinion that matters.

Ever consider that it is your right to not frequent establishments that allow smoking, just as others can choose to not go to Ranchman's because they have dogs?

This is all a moot point anyway because of the no smoking laws but that's still wildly hypocritical.

Not really. Smoking can kill you. Nobody should have to be exposed to it... particularly the staff.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'll see your pic and raise you....

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I had to jump into this debate upon seeing this little gem. You honestly think it is your "right" to patronize any private establishment you'd like? No, I don't believe any 28 year old (based on the age of your dog...) could possibly be that naive.

Tell me, is it your right to patronize, oh lets say...Augusta National? Do you think you're "entitled" to play a round there if you'd like? How about a local example, do you think it is your "right" to use the Calgary Petroleum Club? Assuming you're not a member, why don't you head down there right now, go on in and then come back and tell us how it went?

I know you may think other wise; but no place of business in the country of Canada can turn you down for service as long as you are of good character and fit to the establishments code. So yes it is a right in this great nation.