No dogs allowed

If the vacation cottage owner has friends who have allergies who she also plans to invite to her cottage, then that is not unreasonable. She may love dogs fine, but if her best friend can't handle dog dander, it's just not feasible to have to do a major cleanup before that friend visits.

What may seem like simple sneezing and watery eyes is often far miserable than it looks. I am thankful my allergies have abated some over the years, but I have been the guest in homes where shutting the cat or dog in a room for two hours before the pet got cranky was all the concession I got (as a kid, when I had no say in where I stayed). It's less of an issue now that most allergy meds are non-drowsy but when your choice is to either to literally be wheezing for breath or to be knocked out, it's not that pleasant. (I don't mean to derail the discussion, just trying to explain the difficulty of allergies.)

I do understand that it's frustrating to have a pet you consider family excluded, but there are people who can only love dogs and cats from afar, and sometimes a homeowner has to take that into consideration with their pet policy.

Amy--this is a good point. I hadn' t even thought about the allergies of future guests. A similar point was made by Linda, which I inadvertently deleted as a result of multitasking beyond my ability. Here's what Linda had to say:

Hello! I think one important facet of this discussion is that some people are allergic to pets - dog hair, cat hair, etc. Even if the cottage were cleaned after each visit by folks who brought pets, it would be impossible to remove all the allergy-triggering hairs. So the comfort of one group, those allergic to pets, may well be at odds with the comfort of another group, pet-owners, both in this particular situation and in many others. I think the issue of bringing small kids is a bit different, because no one is actually "allergic" to toddlers ;)

I would like to add a third vote for the allergy camp. Even if the cottage owners vacuumed very carefully, it's very difficult to get all of the dander out of the house. I know it's seen as rude to ban pets, but guests' health comes before other guests missing their pet. It's not the end of the world to leave the pet at home or have someone watch it. Do our life choices really need to be forced on others, even if they may get sick and be miserable from it?

Don't get me wrong: I like dogs and cats. But my grandma is so allergic, that even if I've held a cat briefly she starts wheezing and sneezing. That's not fair to her.

Oh, and it really sounded like the people in Sunday's column complaining about not being able to have their pets at the cottage were really throwing a tantrum. Sheesh! Grow up!

Robin says:> Even from the POV of pets (dogs, really) it's not good to take them everywhere. For one thing, a house may not be dog-proofed. For another, sooner or later you *will* need to leave your pet, for some reason or another, so it's good for them to get used to being at other people's houses, be taken care of by others, etc.

Although I understand the frustration of people who are forbidden from taking there dogs to certain vacation homes, I think it would be wise to look at another side of the coin. As a person with severe animal allergies, it means a lot to me when I can find a cottage to rent that is "pet free". This means that my vacation will not be one wrought with puffy eyes and an itchy throat. I do not expect every place to cater to my allergies. Why would anyone else expect every place to cater to their wish to bring along their dogs?

Okay, good call from everyone on the allergy issue--let's consider that topic settled and move on. Feelings on how to generally exclude people politely (see point 2 in my post)? Or on the way children (and dogs) are often, shall we say, unappreciated in public? Or how you've managed to teach your child (or dog) how to behave in unfamiliar situations?

As a dog (and cat) owner, I wouldn't even think of bringing my dog on vacation with me - in fact, it wouldn't occur to me that the dog would be welcome at a cabin I rented. I guess if I wanted to take him with me, I would specifically look for a pet-friendly environment.

I think the policy of "all or nothing" is wise - as you said, you are banning all pets, not just "yours!" Less likely to hurt feelings.

Now that I think about it, I do remember being in a bar in Spain on a Sunday afternoon and this is where families congregated after church. Kids were well behaved. I don't have kids so I was unaware that there are a lot of places where children are banned - but I can tell you that I do not appreciate going out for a nice dinner or to a movie and having to listen to screaming children - or having them run like banshees around the restaurant or up and down the movie theater aisle. I think that parents should take them out if they are not going to behave - I can see trying to acclimate them to the environment but guess what - if it's not working, then you have to take them out.

First of all, my bias is that I *love* the doggies. I occasionally work as a house-sitter, taking care of other people's home and pets while they're away, and spending quality time with dogs is the fun part of the whole deal.

However, this isn't just about the dogs. It's first of all about someone's cottage that they, you know, *own*, right? And the complaint of someone who is an invited *guest* in that cottage. Guest and Owner, as in, "they have some basic, possibly arbitrary, house-rules here, and if we want to be their Guest, we will abide by them" and "provided they respect the house rules, they are our guests, and as their hosts, we will do everything reasonable to make them feel welcome and well cared for."

These are the fundamentals of the Guest/Host relationship everywhere, aren't they? Even with the world-wide variations of the house-rules and the duties implicit in "welcome and well cared for", isn't that the foundation of the whole thing? So whining about what the Host won't allow in the Host's own house just seems wrong to me, whatever the house rule may be. It makes me wonder what kind of house guest the complainer might be in general.

Also, in the particulars of this case, since the sister and husband participated in the cleanup and renovation of the cottage, it sounds like they feel they have a continuing share of proprietary interest in the house that was not bought out by any number of dinners, concerts, and cash payments. This kind of unspoken family dispute may only be using the dear doggies as a token or flashpoint over a deeper resentment. You know how it is that a dog will express his territorial claim upon a tree, right? Well, in this case, perhaps the entire dog is being employed in that same way.

Ah, the dog debate. Keep making more and more rules that good dog owners obey but hate and what do the bad dog owners do? Disobey the rules. Sometimes I think it's like the gun debate - keep making more and more restrictions on guns and responsible gun owners jump through the hoops and obey them but the seedier element is still buying sawed off shotguns with the serial number removed on a street corner (or where ever one buys those things). The 'bad' people inevitably result in more and more rules that the good people follow but it doesn't result in taking guns of the street or poop off the beach.

For the record, though, my dog is well aware he's allowed on the furniture at my house but not at my parents' house or my parents' beach house. He's smart.

Robin says: I think you've nailed a fundamental societal dynamic.

Regarding socializing with dogs: I sometimes think that people who live with dogs are so accustomed to dealing with them that they don't realize how unsettling regular-dog habits can be to those of us who don't live with them. What is endearing doggy enthusiasm to a dog owner is to me a sort of assault I have to try to gracefully fend off. I'm sure I'm a bit uptight for feeling this way, but I just can't not fret over having my favorite skirt jumped up on, or being licked all over by doggy tongue. I don't want to be licked by doggy tongue. Sure, it's what dogs do, but that's one of the reasons I don't have a dog.

Robin says: It's not what well-trained dogs do; if you really can't keep your dog from jumping and licking, it should be leashed or crated when non-dog-lovers come around. People deserve to be left alone if they want to be, and dogs deserve to be only in the company of those who appreciate them.

I do not enjoy dogs. I live in a pet-free building, not because I have allergies but because I cannot comfortably live in a building with dogs. For me they are scary, regardless of how kind their owners insist they are. It's a phobia that goes back to an afternoon in fifth grade when I was cornered by a doberman whose owner insisted that her dog wouldn't hurt a fly. Her dog managed to get free from his runner and for twenty fear filled minutes he kept me with my back pressed to a tree barking and growling in my face, his teeth bared. His owner finally heard him barking and found us and despite my hysterical crying she insisted he wouldn't have hurt me. Perhaps the owners of the cottage are concerned, not only for the interior of the home, but the legal ramifications posed when they allow a dog owner to stay on their property and that dog then bites a neighbor. Children may bite but seldom, if ever, with the same damage a dog, even a well behaved one, can do to a person.

Robin says: What a horrible experience! The doberman's owner was right--if he was going to bite you, he'd have done it already. But way to MISS THE POINT! The point is that a little girl was terrified. What an idiot the owner was.

You might want, at some point, to think about working through this phobia. Dogs are everywhere; being scared of them is like being scared of bicycles. This wouldn't require some long course of psychoanalysis, just a few sessions with a cognitive therapist--or dog trainer, who would be cheaper!--who can get you used to being in the same room with dogs and also teach you when you SHOULD be afraid of them and when not.

On children and manners - you said it, Robin. Children need practice with their manners in different environments. My 4 year old and 2 year old are able to attend church, the ballet and concerts. They eat out in restaurants other than Chuck-E-Cheese. When we decided to have kids, we had 3 choices: 1. We could either live in a vacuum, stay home all the time and do nothing. 2. We could only do family-friendly things (ala the above mentioned restaurant). 3. We could teach our kids how to behave in different situations through practice and by slowly taking away our magic bag of tricks. (The magic bag of tricks is literally a black bag with all the kid accoutrements - goldfish crackers, raisins, crayons, juice boxes, quiet toys, books, etc). Just this weekend, we attended a new church without the magic bag. I wasn't sure that this church would welcome fish crumbs! My son asked for the magic bag during the service and when he found out that it wasn't there, he just dealt with it and read one of the kid bible books provided by the church. A lot parents say that their kids can't sit through church or a performance. I disagree. They can with practice and diminishing prompts. Don't try to take them to Swan Lake at the Wang on your first try. Start with a children's ballet and then move on up to a regional company's performance. Start them early (age 3 for the ballet, age 2 for church). Talk to them about how to behave during the service or performance. Oh, and even though it's against the rules, it's not a bad idea to slip them a lollipop during Act 3.

Robin says: Awesome! I hope you're an inspiration to many. Yes, you start with the easy things and then build up from there, with constant reinforcement.

In reference to Melissa's post- dogs can also be taught this way also. I have los of friends who permit me to bring my dog because he is small- a chihuahua- and very well behaved. When I do bring him somewhere, and i still always ask before, I bring my own "magic bag" with two dogs toys, some treats and a bowl to give him water in. Replicating the sorts of distractions he has at home keeps him in good behavior.
If I remember correctly- this sister who wrote to you helped alot with the upkeep of the summer house, making it almost a "family" house. I would never consider telling someone I shared a property with not to bring their pets when I already knew they had them. If it was due to allergies, I would have made this expressly clear. I had terrible allergies as a child, and I would suggest to the kind readers who commented about terrible allergies to go and get allergy shots. I got them, and now I able to play with cats, roll in the grass and dust my shelves without sneezing and scratchign my eyes out. Like you said to the person witht he canine phobia- pets are everywhere and with their increasing popularity will only become harder to avoid. Don't let your allergies hold you prisoner!

When I read Terry's comment, I was reminded that we parents have to be wary of some of the same pitfalls as do dog owners. Namely, becoming acclimated to behavior at home which is not seemly when out and about. At least I know I do.

Two things help me handle when my two four year olds are being considerably less than adorable in public. The first is empathy for innocent bystanders; it's really worthwhile to take a step back and imagine what impact my children are having on a social dynamic.

The second is effort. Once I realize they've gone too far or I've been too lax, I try to minimize any further detrimental impact by first removing them and then quietly insisting that they behave well after a time out. If that doesn't work, they know the next step is to go home. I've only had to do that a couple of times because that's the last thing my kids want.

All this is real work, but so incredibly worth it. Having kids who are (mostly) well behaved in public, interested in other people and good humored makes for some seriously fun times. As with retirement savings, the earlier you start the greater the rewards.

Robin says: Beautiful!