Assistance Dog

[Host Hattie]

Here is an old We are Cunard blog about a diabetic alert dog

 

Devo the dog travels on QM2

[capnpugwash]

It is none of your business what the condition or disability is. This passenger does not need to disclose their personal medical condition(s) and disabilities to you or any other passenger.

 

People with disabilities and service animals have a right to privacy. While some disabilities that may require the aid of a service animal are easy to see, others may be invisible. This does not mean though that they don't exist. Nor does it mean that the person with the disability needs to defend and support his or her justification for the service animal just to appease the questions of others.

 

As for your request for enlightenment, the ADA does not require that service animals wear prescriptive clothing and badges that identify the animal as a service animal. While the ADA requires that a service animal be under it's handler's control at all times, this does not mean that the animal must be on a leash or harness. Voice commands are suitable also.

On one of our cruises a couple traveling with a service dog was the centre of attention nearly everywhere they went. We found it quite inappropriate that total strangers would ask us whether we had seen the dog on board and then provide us with a quick analysis of the gentleman's disability and need for the dog. I no more needed to know this information than I need to know why someone is in a wheelchair or why someone was traveling with a human companion. I can only imagine the stress involved for this couple of having to constantly deflect and respond to inappropriate questions from total strangers.

 

Well that's us told. Just to let you know that the ADA doesn't have teeth all over the known world but is restricted merely to the USA and its possessions. There are a lot of other countries that it doesn't apply to. :) I take it that you know this particular dog and the person it is travelling with, otherwise why would you blindly assume that the person has a disability rather being needy and neurotic. Is it because you haven't met anyone who is willing to lie in order to travel with a little handbag dog? I have, so I perhaps have a different view and I don't think that it is intrusive to discuss the presence of a dog on board when it is travelling in passenger accommodation.

[Thaxted]

Here is an old We are Cunard blog about a diabetic alert dog

 

Devo the dog travels on QM2

 

Thank you for this wonderful story, Hattie.

 

Since in most cases we'll never know why someone has a dog onboard unless we ask intrusive questions, I think that the wisest course, barring an unpleasant encounter, would be to assume the best and to consign whatever doubts we have to silence.

[Salacia]

Thank you for this wonderful story, Hattie.

 

Since in most cases we'll never know why someone has a dog onboard unless we ask intrusive questions, I think that the wisest course, barring an unpleasant encounter, would be to assume the best and to consign whatever doubts we have to silence.[/QUOTE]

 

Thaxed, I agree with you; to do otherwise would be barking up the wrong tree. :) -S.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Salacia

[navybankerteacher]

Thank you for this wonderful story, Hattie.

 

Since in most cases we'll never know why someone has a dog onboard unless we ask intrusive questions, I think that the wisest course, barring an unpleasant encounter, would be to assume the best and to consign whatever doubts we have to silence.

 

Assuming the best and consigning doubts to silence is, of course, politically correct. But that sort of deference does encourage a lot of self-entitled people to try get away with whatever preferential thing they want.

[fourstacker]

Assuming the best and consigning doubts to silence is, of course, politically correct. But that sort of deference does encourage a lot of self-entitled people to try get away with whatever preferential thing they want.

 

or maybe it is jealousy...who wouldn't love the opportunity to take our favourite Polly the parrot or Tiddles the pussy with us on a cruise?

[Thaxted]

Assuming the best and consigning doubts to silence is, of course, politically correct. But that sort of deference does encourage a lot of self-entitled people to try get away with whatever preferential thing they want.

 

I don't think that holding one's peace when one doesn't know how painful the truth may be is "politically correct." Self-entitled people are, alas, a burden to us all, and I wish there were a simple remedy for dealing with them. But in this case, unless we are willing to confront and cross examine everyone we suspect of keeping a dog under fall pretenses, I think an adage from long before the age of political correctness still holds: Silence is golden.

[Thaxted]

Thank you for this wonderful story, Hattie.

 

Since in most cases we'll never know why someone has a dog onboard unless we ask intrusive questions, I think that the wisest course, barring an unpleasant encounter, would be to assume the best and to consign whatever doubts we have to silence.[/QUOTE]

 

Thaxed, I agree with you; to do otherwise would be barking up the wrong tree. :) -S.

 

And our bark may be worse than their bite!

[Salacia]

Assuming the best and consigning doubts to silence is, of course, politically correct. But that sort of deference does encourage a lot of self-entitled people to try get away with whatever preferential thing they want.

 

Perhaps there are some "self-entitled people" amongst those who have legitimate reason/s for having their assistance dogs with them on a cruise... but is the job of passengers to police their fellow passengers? If your answer is yes, please consider that therein lies a slippery slope.

 

However, no one is forced into silently accepting a situation they feel is unacceptable: those who wish to lodge a complaint regarding an dog or vett a passenger's eligibility to have their dog with them can certainly discuss the matter with the Purser's Office rather than interrogating a fellow passenger about an alleged disability.

[fourstacker]

Perhaps there are some "self-entitled people" amongst those who have legitimate reason/s for having their assistance dogs with them on a cruise...

 

I dont think if you were "self entitled" you would have legitimate reasons, thats why you would be called self entitled.

 

Otherwise, you would just be called legitimate....

 

Either you can bring a dog or a pet on is valid as long as your reasons are valid, but i agree I dont think "emotional" is a valid reason, otherwise, I would bring my parrot and cat which give me emotional support. That I think is the slippery slope and I hope Cunard doesn't fall into that trap.

Edited April 29, 2015 by fourstacker

[navybankerteacher]

I don't think that holding one's peace when one doesn't know how painful the truth may be is "politically correct." Self-entitled people are, alas, a burden to us all, and I wish there were a simple remedy for dealing with them. But in this case, unless we are willing to confront and cross examine everyone we suspect of keeping a dog under fall pretenses, I think an adage from long before the age of political correctness still holds: Silence is golden.

 

I would not necessarily recommend talking to the passenger whose pet bothered me - but I would certainly protest to the ship's staff.

[Salacia]

I dont think if you were "self entitled" you would have legitimate reasons, thats why you would be called self entitled.

 

Otherwise, you would just be called legitimate....

 

Either you can bring a dog or a pet on is valid as long as your reasons are valid, but i agree I dont think "emotional" is a valid reason, otherwise, I would bring my parrot and cat which give me emotional support. That I think is the slippery slope and I hope Cunard doesn't fall into that trap.

 

 

Happily for you, you apparently have not witnessed those who gained emotional support from their service dogs. We were talking about dogs on this thread, weren't we? Not parrots or cats. Exaggeration and simplification does nothing to advance the conversation.

 

If you don't think "emotional" is a valid reason, you might not have knowledge of various programs that help War Veterans with a service dog. Personally, I witnessed my neighbor who was best friends with his dog, and went everywhere with is pal (not a certified service dog), even after chemo left the boy paralyzed and blind. He died at age 14 of leukemia. His dog lived 4 years more, and was much cherished for all he had done for his best friend.

 

When emotions stop being a good reason for tolerance and acceptance, we are all in deep trouble. Just my opinion.

 

Salacia

[Salacia]

On our last cruise (not on Cunard) there was a woman on board that had a dog. On the dog's back was a cloth saddle which stated that it was a service animal. That dog went wherever she went. Later we found out that the woman needed the dog with her because she was anorexic. I guess the dog made her eat and swallow her food? :rolleyes:

 

 

Who told you that the dog was with her because she was anorexic?

[Salacia]

 

And our bark may be worse than their bite!

 

Thaxed, Sadly, that certainly seems to be the case. -S.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Salacia

[BlueRiband]

It is none of your business what the condition or disability is. This passenger does not need to disclose their personal medical condition(s) and disabilities to you or any other passenger.

 

People with disabilities and service animals have a right to privacy. While some disabilities that may require the aid of a service animal are easy to see, others may be invisible. This does not mean though that they don't exist. Nor does it mean that the person with the disability needs to defend and support his or her justification for the service animal just to appease the questions of others.

 

As for your request for enlightenment, the ADA does not require that service animals wear prescriptive clothing and badges that identify the animal as a service animal. While the ADA requires that a service animal be under it's handler's control at all times, this does not mean that the animal must be on a leash or harness. Voice commands are suitable also.

 

On one of our cruises a couple traveling with a service dog was the centre of attention nearly everywhere they went. We found it quite inappropriate that total strangers would ask us whether we had seen the dog on board and then provide us with a quick analysis of the gentleman's disability and need for the dog. I no more needed to know this information than I need to know why someone is in a wheelchair or why someone was traveling with a human companion. I can only imagine the stress involved for this couple of having to constantly deflect and respond to inappropriate questions from total strangers.

 

I have to disagree with you 100%.

 

Nobody here is complaining about legitimate service animals. Rather they are complaining of those who claim a household pet is some "therapy" or "support" animal. I live in New York and see far too many animals brought on the subway and into food stores in blatant violation of safety and sanitation laws. (Or maybe I'm just jealous that I don't have a cute dog or am not clever enough to use ADA laws to take little Fluffy everywhere.)

 

Household pets are not trained and disciplined service animals. Pets often get nervous and hyperactive in an unfamiliar environment as on a ship.

 

So if somebody brings an unruly animal on board I'm supposed to presume it's legetimate and not "hurt their feelings"? They sure don't care about how their animal is affecting everyone else. (And that not even starting on the allergy issues.)

 

When Pigs Fly

[4boysnana]

I have to disagree with you 100%.

 

Nobody here is complaining about legitimate service animals. Rather they are complaining of those who claim a household pet is some "therapy" or "support" animal. I live in New York and see far too many animals brought on the subway and into food stores in blatant violation of safety and sanitation laws. (Or maybe I'm just jealous that I don't have a cute dog or am not clever enough to use ADA laws to take little Fluffy everywhere.)

 

Household pets are not trained and disciplined service animals. Pets often get nervous and hyperactive in an unfamiliar environment as on a ship.

 

So if somebody brings an unruly animal on board I'm supposed to presume it's legetimate and not "hurt their feelings"? They sure don't care about how their animal is affecting everyone else. (And that not even starting on the allergy issues.)

 

When Pigs Fly

 

 

I agree with you. I don't care why the person has brought the hound or what excuse they have used I don't need to have a pet sharing my vacation. I am tired of the self indulged few who think we will all love to have fido around.

Yesterday at the grocery store there were two dogs. These were not service dogs, which I would welcome. One guy was strolling and not shopping with a huge dog. The other was a pit bull pulling on the leash with all his might. I mentioned it to the manager to no avail.

Why don't people leave the dogs home? Sorry, I would not welcome a cruising neighbor that barks.

 

4boysnana

[GUT2407]

I have to disagree with you 100%.

 

Nobody here is complaining about legitimate service animals. Rather they are complaining of those who claim a household pet is some "therapy" or "support" animal. I live in New York and see far too many animals brought on the subway and into food stores in blatant violation of safety and sanitation laws. (Or maybe I'm just jealous that I don't have a cute dog or am not clever enough to use ADA laws to take little Fluffy everywhere.)

 

Household pets are not trained and disciplined service animals. Pets often get nervous and hyperactive in an unfamiliar environment as on a ship.

 

So if somebody brings an unruly animal on board I'm supposed to presume it's legetimate and not "hurt their feelings"? They sure don't care about how their animal is affecting everyone else. (And that not even starting on the allergy issues.)

 

When Pigs Fly

 

If it's an emotional support pig it probably can, even with a seat of its own.:eek::D:eek::D

[Salacia]

Several comments have been made about dogs in subways, grocery stores, etc. I'm wondering how common it is to encounter dogs on Cunard ships? My personal experience (albeit limited to twelve QM2 voyages) is that I have not encountered any dog in passenger areas. Reading this thread, one might get the impression that Cunard has gone to the dogs !

[fourstacker]

Happily for you, you apparently have not witnessed those who gained emotional support from their service dogs. We were talking about dogs on this thread, weren't we? Not parrots or cats. Exaggeration and simplification does nothing to advance the conversation.

 

If you don't think "emotional" is a valid reason, you might not have knowledge of various programs that help War Veterans with a service dog. Personally, I witnessed my neighbor who was best friends with his dog, and went everywhere with is pal (not a certified service dog), even after chemo left the boy paralyzed and blind. He died at age 14 of leukemia. His dog lived 4 years more, and was much cherished for all he had done for his best friend.

 

When emotions stop being a good reason for tolerance and acceptance, we are all in deep trouble. Just my opinion.

 

Salacia

 

they are actually titled "Service Animals" because they don't have to be dogs but can be pigs, (as I have personally witnessed) and in fact - our friend Mr Google states

 

There are many other animals that perform services for humans that are "service animals," including horses and other beasts of burden, carrier pigeons, sleddogs, parrots, hunting dogs, cats and racing animals.

 

So if we are talking service animals lets talk about them all.

 

And I still stand by my statement that "emotional support" animals are really just an excuse to bring along your favourite pet there will always be people who want to skirt the rules.

[fourstacker]

Several comments have been made about dogs in subways, grocery stores, etc. I'm wondering how common it is to encounter dogs on Cunard ships? My personal experience (albeit limited to twelve QM2 voyages) is that I have not encountered any dog in passenger areas. Reading this thread, one might get the impression that Cunard has gone to the dogs !

 

but I thought that was what started this whole discussion...wasn't there an "incident" on the QM2 and also the original op whom mentioned she had seen a poodle on the QV? Or did you not read back that far?

[brigittetom]

In 18 trips on the QM2, I've only seen one......a giant, well behaved Standard Poodle. I only saw him on the last day at Guest Relations, so I have to guess that he was staying in the Grills. This one would be hard to miss. :)

[capnpugwash]

I've seen 4 or 5 and I think 3 of them were legitimate, the others were just lapdogs.

[david,Mississauga]

I have seen in the terms and conditions of several lines (not sure Cunard specifically) that only certified service dogs are permitted; therapy dogs, and service animals of any other type, are not; and that is it the passenger's responsibility to supply proof of licensed training and certification or the dog will be denied boarding. Yet the occasional threads from various cruises reporting yappy lap dogs that snarl at other passengers, leave puddles and piles about the ship and are fed from the dining room table show how much teeth the rule carries.

 

Several months ago there was a thread on the Holland America forum about a dog which caused considerable annoyance to many passengers. The owner explained to some of her fellow passengers her need for this "comfort dog" (yes, the woman's need for emotional support is nobody's business) yet she left the dog in her stateroom for up to 12 hours whilst she took shore excursions. Passengers complained about the constant barking. The dog was taken to the lido where it was held up to the table and on one occasion it left a "deposit" to entertain passengers during their lunch. It also snarled and lunged at some passengers throughout the ship.

 

Written complaints to the purser and captain - and also e-mails to head office - were not responded to. There were other issues on board that cruise and the captain agreed to a meeting. When questions were asked on the subject of this disruptive dog, his response was: "Next question?"

[Salacia]

I've seen 4 or 5 and I think 3 of them were legitimate, the others were just lapdogs.

 

Interesting, thanks. Considering the number of Cunard cruises/voyages you've experienced and the limited number of dogs you've seen on board, I'd venture a guess that the problem is very limited.

 

Also noted is that Brigitte commented that saw a dog (well behaved) once during 19 Cunard voyages.

[Salacia]

but I thought that was what started this whole discussion...wasn't there an "incident" on the QM2 and also the original op whom mentioned she had seen a poodle on the QV? Or did you not read back that far?

 

Yes, thanks, I read this thread from the beginning - starting with the title of the thread "Assistance Dogs".