Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

It is agains the law in Mexico to bring pets to restaurants


Recommended Posts

A little research brought me to Gringal's own post from last year, that she spent an awful lot of time researching, with a direct link to the law. http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/093ssa14.html

Pertinent clauses: 5.2.8 and 5.8.6:

5.2.8 Todo lugar de almacenamiento debe estar libre de fauna nociva o mascotas, mohos o suciedad visible, se debe establecer un sistema de control preventivo efectivo así como limpiarse periódicamente y lavarse al final de la jornada.

5.8.6 Todas las áreas del servicio deben estar libres de fauna nociva o mascotas, excepción hecha de los perros guía, contar en puertas y ventanas con protección a prueba de insectos y roedores, presentar comprobante de fumigación preventiva de los últimos 3 meses proporcionado por la empresa responsable y donde conste el número de licencia expedida por la autoridad correspondiente.

A rough translation of 5.8.6 is "All service areas should be free of harmful wildlife or pets". And I don't see how there can be any discussion of what a "service area" is... wherever there is restaurant service, period. Kitchen, tables, indoors, outdoors, whatever.

Moderator, this would be a good page and bit of text to pin to the top of the Furry Friends section, to end the debate once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, anotherJim said:

If the translation is accurate, it seems the key word in that law is "harmful". ) If your pet is not considered harmful, it is not prohibited by the law regardless of what you consider a service area.

Harmful wildlife. (Rats, skunks, etc.)  OR pets (a pet, by definition, is not "harmful"..  Pretty clear to me.   How about asking someone like Spencer what that means, fer hevvins sakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, anotherJim, like Gringal says: it doesn't mean "harmful pets". It means "harmful wildlife" and it means "pets". No wonder legal wording gets so convoluted. And if you do look at the translation, the way Spanish is strung together, the phrase is actually "wildlife harmful or pets". Another translation of nociva is dangerous. Not too many dangerous "pets" tagging along with their owners anywhere.

I see you have 2 posts as of this moment. What was your last user name on this board, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, anotherJim said:

You're stretching real hard to make it mean what you want it to mean.  Obviously wildlife can be harmful so the harmful must apply to both wildlife and pets, not just to wildlife.

I agree with ComputerGuy on the translation based on the grammar.  The Spanish adjective "nociva" is in feminine singular to modify the noun "fauna," which it follows.  If it were modifying "mascotas" it would follow that noun and be in the feminine plural form "nocivas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jim, under your definition one would have to wait until a pet proved to be harmful, giving all mascotas access to restaurants until they actually did something dangerous or harmful, at which point they would be asked to leave, just like a disruptive human. Otherwise, how can we prove a pet is harmful or dangerous, you see what I mean? And what would that be: pooping? getting up on a table? barking? stealing food?  And who decides at what level it becomes harmful... only after a dog has bitten somebody? That's a pretty big scope of definition, and completely unrealistic no matter how you view it.

The law is clear. Those who insist on bringing pets to eateries will continue to deny it. Right on, bdlngton: your lesson proves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComputerGuy said:

No, anotherJim, like Gringal says: it doesn't mean "harmful pets". It means "harmful wildlife" and it means "pets". No wonder legal wording gets so convoluted. And if you do look at the translation, the way Spanish is strung together, the phrase is actually "wildlife harmful or pets". Another translation of nociva is dangerous. Not too many dangerous "pets" tagging along with their owners anywhere.

I see you have 2 posts. What was your last user name on this board, please?

ComputerGuy, you somehow concluded that since I had posted only twice that I must have posted previously under a different user name.  Wrong.  I simply committed the sin of suggesting an alternative interpretation of the law that you and Gringal quoted.  You both are probably correct but why did you open the post if you didn't want discussion.  I see that you have 643 posts and many of them have been unpleasant.  Why did you decide to attack me.  Newbies are not welcome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...