Reasoned concerns about the presence of dogs (and other pets) in museums regarding issues of museum liability, consideration of visitors and care of collections appear to have led to a rather silly debate regarding the behaviour of children versus pets.  I have both a dog and a child and find the whole comparison rather absurd.  Children, even at barely one year of age, show an appreciation of things in a museum that will only deepen as they grow up.  That will not happen with a dog and or other pet.  Some museums might be places where pets would be acceptable but most are not.  Arguing that pets should be welcome in a museum is more about self-indulgent, anthropomorphistic "me-centered" behaviour than about common sense.  The bottom line is that certain behaviours are appropriate in a museum and some are not.  Underlying the prohibition of certain behaviours are a host of very good reasons that cannot simply be dismissed.  Those reasons that support the prohibition of pets were very well laid out in the initial posting that stimulated this argument. 

 

I direct a museum that happens to have a very broad audience that includes many people who have never visited a museum before.  So we are constantly telling our visitors that, in the museum, they may not eat ice cream, drink pop, or have pets.  We kindly tell them that those are not appropriate museum behaviours and try to help them learn how to visit a museum.  So I am amazed and appalled that some museum employees think that they should be able to bring their pets to work.  At the museum I direct, it is very clear that pets cannot be taken into the building by visitors or staff.  Any staff person that defies that rule will receive a letter of reprimand and, if they continue to defy the rule, will eventually be looking for employment at a place where pets are more appropriate!