Denver should loosen its leash on restaurants
As though yesterday, I remember the mud splattered green boots, glowing embers on the old stone hearth, a large dog sleeping on the floor while his master enjoyed a late afternoon pint, something savory simmering in the kitchen, and an ale headed my way. There is no equivalent in the U.S. to an English country pub in autumn. There are a number of reasons for that but let’s talk about the presence of the big dog. He was a sheep dog of some kind and wasn’t the only canine I’d seen in such an establishment.
English law does not forbid dogs in pubs or restaurants so long as they stay out of the kitchen. Proprietors determine whether to allow dogs and of course patrons are free to forgo a dog friendly pub for one that is canine free.
A famous saying on laws, sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill, goes like this: “In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.”
Note the differences in these four approaches. In the first, the law tells citizens what they cannot do but leaves them otherwise free. In the second, the law determines what citizens are allowed to do. The law is neither followed nor enforced in the third example. Finally, the state acts capriciously without regard for the law in the last.
This week I found myself thinking about the law and dogs in light of the Denver Department of Public Health’s decision to rewrite its ordinance on offleash dogs. To their credit, the Board of Public Health has held several public meetings and will continue to hear from stakeholders before announcing the final regulations later this year. Dog owners have voiced concerns about the draft which appears heavier handed than current law. If finalized, the new ordinance will likely shut down the one Denver restaurant that has an off-leash area while discouraging other restaurants from accommodating dog owners in the future.
Currently, restaurants may allow leashed dogs on their patios. Off-leash dogs are allowed in dog parks and on private premises. For the past few years, The Watering Bowl has complied with the law by allowing off-leash dogs on its fenced patio but not in its restaurant. Patrons can bring food and beverages from the restaurant to the patio but are not served directly. The owner secured some 24 permits to make this happen. Nevertheless, the city tried to shut down the res- taurant four years ago for allowing off-leash dogs. An administrative court ruled in The Watering Bowl’s favor and the restaurant remains open for now.
The incident reminds me of when the Denver Health Department claimed Prost Brewing Company violated a law forbidding dogs in establishments that serve food. Prost doesn’t sell food only beer and had been allowing patrons to bring dogs into their food-free establishment for years. The regulators justified their decision by declaring beer to be food.
In both cases dogs were prohibited even when permitted.
The city appears to be taking another shot at The Watering Bowl. New rules would allow restaurants to have an offleash patio but kids, food, and drink would be verboten. Why would patrons use an off-leash patio if they cannot bring their kids, food, or drinks? The Watering Bowl would be drained of patrons before long.
Rather than prescribe what restaurants and patrons are permitted to do, the city should simply forbid dogs from areas of food preparation, as they do in the UK and the European Union, and allow restaurants, bars, and breweries to determine canine policy. People can choose to eat there or not. Establishments with poorly executed dog policy will lose business. Best of all, a simple ordinance would avoid ambiguity, heavy handedness, and capricious enforcement. Everyone wins.
Now let’s talk about serving steak and kidney pie.