The debate surrounding dogs in restaurants is very interesting to me. I’m a dog owner who takes our dog on road trips with us. I understand both sides. I do.
First of all, let me explain to people who do not own dogs, like dogs or don’t take their dogs in public: Business owners including shopkeepers and restaurant owners would not allow dogs if it wasn’t good for their bottom line. It’s just a fact of life.
Next, dogs have to be leashed and very well behaved. This typically means years of obedience training, and owners have to be beyond vigilant. Tether your dog as far from the flow of traffic as possible.
Finally, there are compromises. There is a restaurant chain called Lazy Dog. Locally, it has locations in Oak Brook, Vernon Hills, Naperville and in other suburbs. Here is what those restaurants do.
No dogs in the dining room. They are seated on the patio, which is covered. There is even have a separate entrance for the patio. Dogs have disposable (paper) dishes, including water bowls.
More Top Picks Best Electric Cargo Bikes
At the host stand, there is a notice explaining the restaurant’s dog policy: There are dogs on the patio, and if you want to sit there, understand that there are dogs. If you do not want to be near dogs, you will be seated in the dining room.
It seems to work for those restaurants, and it might work for others, too.
Help restaurants thrive and diners enjoy their experience. Try the middle ground.
— Mary Pytko, Westchester
Let restaurateurs decide
Throughout our decades of traveling around the nation and the world, we have appreciated the warm and friendly pub atmosphere in places where diners are allowed — even encouraged — to bring their canine companions inside. I appreciate the hesitance of some to embrace this practice, which is often banned by health codes that, ironically, don’t bar humans with lesser-apparent personal hygiene standards than the average pooch. Allergies are a concern, but anyone so sensitive to pet dander would likely be uncomfortable walking down a city street among folks with dogs.
We recently did a road trip around the shores of Lake Superior, and, in northern Minnesota, we enjoyed a wonderful experience at a local microbrewery where nearly every table had canine companions. This was the only opportunity we had on our trip to dine in, as we are loath to leave our pup in the vehicle. While there was mild concern about winding up in a spider web of leashes or overly exuberant dogs, it was a delightful experience!
Bottom line: Successfully allowing pets in restaurants should come down to management, both by restaurateurs and pet-accompanied patrons, with the primary responsibility for pets’ behavior resting with the pet owners. Fido needs to behave or be gone — banished to the car, etc. Any restaurant should have the option of either allowing or not allowing dogs to accompany their patrons. Clearly, finer dining establishments will be striving for a different atmosphere than corner pubs.
But the decision of whether to allow canine companions should rest with the restaurant — and the decision of which establishments to patronize should be left to the pet owners.
As a pet owner, I know where I’ll feel most welcome.
— David L. Wolf, Presque Isle, Michigan
Dog was obstruction
I had dinner at a sidewalk table of a well-known restaurant recently. Behind me, a patron had brought his large dog. (I estimate it was over 50 pounds.) It was too big to sit under a chair or table.
The dog lay just behind my chair. A couple of times, it moved to inspect another dog, grazing my chair, as well as my dinner companion. Servers had to step over the dog while toting trays of food. When I rose to leave, the owner had to pull his dog away so I could move.
This is wrong. If dogs can’t be placed out of patrons’ ways, then restaurants should prohibit them. I won’t be returning to the restaurant. Why should I pay for this type of experience?
— David Williams, Chicago
A source of conflict
Kudos to Laura Washington for her column opposing dogs in restaurants (“Dogs belong outside, not under my feet at a restaurant,” Oct. 1). Pet owners and their dogs have so many lovely venues to enjoy each other in the city. Must we introduce yet another potential source of conflict into our community during these harried months of 2025?
— Robert Cohen, Chicago
Advice for dog owners
First, I agree that dogs are the least of our problems in Chicago. However, if pet owners want to rally for something kind for their dogs, I have a suggestion.
Admittedly, this observation pertains to my neighborhood of Streeterville, where I live and ride my mobility scooter. I am not a dog owner, but I enjoy seeing them on their walks.
High-rise apartment and condo buildings are ubiquitous in Streeterville. Almost every one of them prides itself on being dog-friendly.
Unfortunately, “dog-friendly” seems to extend only to where you can house your dogs. Not only do they need to be potty-trained indoors, but they also need to be physically able to hold it until their owners can get them blocks away once outside to do their business.
As I ride around all these dog-friendly buildings, many with lovely green spaces right outside, I see signs everywhere saying, “Keep dogs off.” As a result, I have seen poor animals do their best but not make it one more block.
I suspect if you were to ask the dogs what they want, the answer would be unanimous: Please be a diligent pet-owner citizen who is always picking up behind me. Then perhaps we can call on people to open up all those green spaces closer to home. After that, eat at the restaurant without me. You know I’ll just beg.
— Linda Finley Belan, Chicago
Animals aren’t human
Upon reading Laura Washington’s column objecting to allowing dogs in restaurants and the letters in last Saturday’s edition voicing similar viewpoints and other experiences, I thought I would add my two cents’ worth of opinion on the matter, as I also am very much against dogs in restaurants.
However, the problem to me is much broader than just allowing pets in restaurants. As a society, especially in wealthier communities, we have become very anthropomorphic, as we ascribe human characteristics to animals. We see this in people bringing their pets to every event, for example, dragging a dog along on a leash through the crowds at a street festival, though the dog may wish he were home. Or the need to feed their pet with gourmet food, as if the animal would really appreciate it, but would be just as happy with a dog bone. Or the birthday parties for an animal. Or the dressing-up of their pets for the holidays. All these things seem to be done for the benefit of the animal owner to make them feel good and happy, but I don’t know if it benefits the animal. To me, it does not seem to benefit society as a whole but becomes more of a nuisance.
More Top Picks Umpire Gears
I say: Let animals be animals. Treat them well, but please do not pretend they are humans.
— Mario Caruso, Chicago
Dogs’ effect on bushes
Reading last Saturday’s letters to the editor regarding dogs in restaurants, I totally agree with Laura Washington’s recent column. It’s a big “no” for me.
While we are on the subject, let’s talk about the destruction of the beautiful hedge planted around the “Cardinal’s mansion” on North Avenue.
People allow their dogs to relieve themselves on the bushes, which kills them. The bushes are brown and dead where the dogs have had their way. A tug on the leash would prevent this. Imagine the expense of this landscaping. Around this private property, there is a parkway filled with mature trees, the perfect place to walk a dog.
Everywhere in my neighborhood, there are “no dogs” signs that are ignored. Well-groomed private properties are ruined by dogs’ behavior. Just stop.
— Wendy Smith, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].