Dog-friendly Portlanders in peril

Came across this article in the NY Times this morning. This is, after all, one of the main reasons I moved to Portland, precisely because (I thought) it was so pet-friendly. However, I understand the issues here are broader. Discuss!

September 3, 2009
Oregon Wants ‘Dog Friendly’ to Be Less So

By WILLIAM YARDLEY

PORTLAND, Ore. — Star stopped to scratch herself beside the carrot ginger soup.

“Look at her; she’s the calmest dog you’ve ever met, isn’t she?” Lawrence Sax said of Star, his 8-year-old Australian shepherd mix, as he held her leash at a Whole Foods Market here. “Everybody I know loves her.”

Mr. Sax had apparently overlooked the glare of Stefan Koprinkov.

“I love animals,” Mr. Koprinkov, who had to step around the dog in his search for cheese pizza, said later. “But it’s wrong for animals to be in the store.”

Mr. Koprinkov is not the only person who thinks so. In the last year, the food safety division of the Oregon Agriculture Department has received more than 600 complaints about animals in food stores, and a disproportionate number of them have come from the Pearl District of Portland, an affluent, dog-passionate procession of newer condominiums and shiny retail shops at the edge of downtown. Whole Foods has had complaints; the Safeway a few blocks away has had even more.

“Usually they’ll hold off and not make a complaint until they’ve seen a dog urinate in the grocery store or jump up and try to swipe a pack of meat,” said Vance Bybee, the head of the food safety division. “Or they’ve seen dogs pooping in the aisle, that sort of thing.”

“That sort of puts them over the edge,” Mr. Bybee said.

In response to the complaints, Oregon is about to begin an unusual campaign, distributing posters and pamphlets to about 4,500 retail stores that sell food. The message is this: Animals, except those trained to help the disabled, are not allowed.

The campaign, however, is not likely to make the problem go away, state officials and dog owners say, particularly in a neighborhood like the Pearl District, where many people who are not physically disabled consider the company of their pets therapeutic and insist on taking them just about everywhere. Some banks put water bowls by their front doors, and dog day-care facilities take time to serve pets the specially packed lunches their owners make for them.

“Portland is dog crazy,” said Andrea Schneider, who lives in the Pearl District and runs pdxdog.com, a social network for dog lovers. “If you don’t understand that context, you’re not going to get this.”

Ms. Schneider confessed that she had in the past taken her golden retriever, Ellie, who is not a service animal, into places where animals were prohibited, fearing leaving the dog on the street. She said she took Ellie to Safeway, too, thinking dogs were allowed. When an employee politely stopped her, she said that “it was a surprise” but that she understood.

The federal Food Code, based on language from the Americans with Disabilities Act, describes service animals as aiding people with physical disabilities and performing certain tasks the disabled person cannot, like those provided by Seeing Eye dogs. The code says, too, that a service animal is not considered a pet.

Yet the disability law also limits the extent to which a private business can question people about their disabilities and the service an animal provides, and there is no requirement under state or federal law that an animal be licensed or somehow labeled as a service animal.

A new poster created by the state says, “Animals that provide support or companionship are not regarded as service animals.” Still, the limits on questions a business can ask could leave the door open to interpretation and abuse.

“It’s this weird gray area,” said Caitlin Lomen, working in the deli at Whole Foods. “Like when you see little Foo Foo in someone’s purse, you know that’s not a service animal.”

A co-worker, Carl Anderson, joined the conversation, saying: “Some people are kind of grossed out by it, but it’s a comfort thing for a lot of people, to have their dog with them. Who am I to judge someone else’s needs?”

“Unless they’re jumping up and eating out of the salad bar,” Mr. Anderson added, “we try to roll with it the best we can.”

The Pearl District is a recently erected confection in a city often regarded as ahead of the curve in so-called New Urbanist thinking. Streetcars whisper by. Yoga is popular in Tanner Springs Park, described by a sign at its entrance as “a habitat garden created on reclaimed industrial land.” Dogs are not allowed in that park, but some owners let them run free at a dog park nearby, where the area’s developer, Hoyt, provides bags for poop and empties the trash cans that fill up quickly.

“Livability perfected” is printed on the back of the business card of Tiffany Sweitzer, the president of Hoyt, which began developing the area in the 1990s. Ms. Sweitzer said that dogs were initially not a priority for the project, which is built on old railyards, but that they had become central to its identity. Her family dog, Scout, is featured prominently in advertising.

Ms. Sweitzer said she once tried to promote a condominium building as dog-free. “You couldn’t believe how many people called me and said, ‘What are you doing?’ ” she said.

Mr. Sax, with Star at Whole Foods, is not a condominium owner. He said he was living in a hostel after having moved up from Los Angeles a few weeks ago. He produced a card identifying Star as a service animal. The card is sold at activedogs.com for less than $30; the Web site notes that it “is not a certifying agency, nor do we hold any responsibility for information that you have us put on your ID badge.”

Mr. Sax, 57, said Star helped him because he did not “see that well,” though he is able to shop for himself. As far as he is concerned, Mr. Sax said, “I’m legal.”


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company