I thought Dogs weren't allowed?

[Ragoczy]

11 minutes ago, PopeyeDaSailor said:

 

Come on, you've seen people with little toy dogs that are clearly violating and abusing this.  And I would never say anything to a person with any dog unless that dog is violating my person space, safety or doing something they should not (think eating off table, peeing on deck, etc). 

 

The cruise line can EASILY address all these issues with these simple mandatory rules:

 

1.  Any person(s) boarding with a service dog will need a medial note from a doctor which explains the exact need of the animal.

2. The animal and passenger will have to register with the ship's doctor and the animal will be given a service vest (if one is not present) with a registration number so the ship's medical crew can easily look up in case of an emergency (common sense).

3. The animal at all times when in public areas MUST wear their service vest with the above registration number regardless of any "outfits" their owners want to dress them up in.

 

All of these rules can be dealt with way before sailing, so they shouldn't be a problem to handle. 

 

If the animal violates any of RCCL's policies (spelled out by SargassoPirate's above post) they and the passenger can/could be removed.

 

 

 

Fake service dogs are far more of a problem, and a real danger, to legit teams than they ever will be to you.

 

There are already easy rules: If the dog causes a problem in a public space. If it is barking, lunging, urinating, defecating, etc. It can be removed. That's the law.

 

Your "easy" rules, create more hoops and difficulties for the disabled to jump through before they can exercise the simple, civil right of going out in public. 

No one should have to turn their personal, private medical information over to complete strangers just to go on a cruise. It's none of your business.

 

Here's a better rule: If the dog's not actively causing a problem as I describe above, mind your own business and leave people alone.

But, please, do, tell the disabled more about the easy rules they should follow before you'll graciously allow them to share public space with you.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Ragoczy

[PopeyeDaSailor]

21 minutes ago, Ragoczy said:

 

Fake service dogs are far more of a problem, and a real danger, to legit teams than they ever will be to you.

 

There are already easy rules: If the dog causes a problem in a public space. If it is barking, lunging, urinating, defecating, etc. It can be removed. That's the law.

 

Your "easy" rules, create more hoops and difficulties for the disabled to jump through before they can exercise the simple, civil right of going out in public. 

No one should have to turn their personal, private medical information over to complete strangers just to go on a cruise. It's none of your business.

 

Here's a better rule: If the dog's not actively causing a problem as I describe above, mind your own business and leave people alone.

But, please, do, tell the disabled more about the easy rules they should follow before you'll graciously allow them to share public space with you.

I think you're arguing to argue.  I agree with you and if you read my post I never said I would bother a working service animal or question it unless they did what I posted above.  Going out in public is a lot different than being at sea on a cruise ship.  No one is trying to deny you and anyone with a service animal.

 

LOL at turning over your private medical records to "strangers".  I work in IT and understand the importance of HIPAA and privacy.  But I also understand the importance of the medical team on a cruise ship.  Let's say a passenger has seizures and their service animal is there to help them.  Well assume the passenger has a seizure and another passenger/crew member finds them laying unconscious next to the service animal.  Should the passenger/crew ask the animal what their medical condition is?  Does your service animal speak English?  OR ... if they have a service vest on with a number and the ship's doctor has your medical records (safely on file) they can QUICKLY administer the correct medical treatment without guessing or translating your animals bark.  If anyone in my family needed a service animal I would WELCOME these requirements, not fight them.

 

 

[MTLCRUISER72]

On 11/27/2018 at 12:26 PM, mizLORInj said:

On Norwegian Escape recently we saw a little dog with its owner in an upcharge restaurant.  Owner was staying in the Haven (suites section).   For me it's a cleanliness thing so I hope the suite was disinfected top to bottom before the next guests came in.  I also wonder what the other Haven guests thought of this.   

Also, what if someone is allergic to dogs?   

 

 

On 11/27/2018 at 2:15 PM, jordanaire said:

Exactly! Absolutely nothing happens. The owners of these dogs could care less about the health of any other passenger.

 

X2 I'm allergic to most dogs, if there was a previous dog in my cabin on a prior cruise I would be very upset. What about my rights?

 

 

 

[Ragoczy]

1 hour ago, PopeyeDaSailor said:

I think you're arguing to argue.  I agree with you and if you read my post I never said I would bother a working service animal or question it unless they did what I posted above.  Going out in public is a lot different than being at sea on a cruise ship.  No one is trying to deny you and anyone with a service animal.

 

LOL at turning over your private medical records to "strangers".  I work in IT and understand the importance of HIPAA and privacy.  But I also understand the importance of the medical team on a cruise ship.  Let's say a passenger has seizures and their service animal is there to help them.  Well assume the passenger has a seizure and another passenger/crew member finds them laying unconscious next to the service animal.  Should the passenger/crew ask the animal what their medical condition is?  Does your service animal speak English?  OR ... if they have a service vest on with a number and the ship's doctor has your medical records (safely on file) they can QUICKLY administer the correct medical treatment without guessing or translating your animals bark.  If anyone in my family needed a service animal I would WELCOME these requirements, not fight them.

 

 

I'm arguing because of what I have to deal with on a daily basis due to crap like your suggestions. I read the original post I replied to and it clearly laid out what the poster thought were things worth loudly confronting a handler over, and then I laid out exactly how he wasmisinformed on several of them, which would result in those following the advice to loudly confront legitimate handlers. Don't do it.

I work in IT also, don't pull an appeal to authority logical fallacy here. Your hypothetical situations are entirely meaningless. It is up to the person with a disability to gauge the risk and necessity of disclosing their medical information to who THEY choose, not who you think they should to meet your made up situations. Many do, and many have conditions that are private, personal, and do not require medical intervention, so should not have to disclose their private information to strangers.

It does not matter what you would welcome, as you're not the one affected. Leave people alone.

[Edited to correct that I had conflated this with the original post I responded to.]

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Ragoczy

[Ragoczy]

20 minutes ago, MTLCRUISER72 said:

 

 

X2 I'm allergic to most dogs, if there was a previous dog in my cabin on a prior cruise I would be very upset. What about my rights?

 

 

 

Conflicts of rights like this are a very real thing. I'd suggest asking the ship ahead of time (and hotels, as there are not special rooms for service dogs) if there had been a dog in previously and ensure you get a room that meets your needs.

 

[Biker19]

🍿

[HBE4]

Lol. I hope some people here have emotional support animals for some of their anger issues. 

[Ragoczy]

Just now, HBE4 said:

Lol. I hope some people here have emotional support animals for some of their anger issues. 

 

Would you be angry if someone came up to you every day and questioned your need for a medical device? Why do you need that?

Would you be angry if people were constantly offering "easy" solutions to their own problem with you having the audacity to go out in public with your medical device? Solutions that only made their own lives easier, yet made your own more difficult?

Would you be angry if people, to avoid the horror of seeing a dog in a grocery store, demanded that you carry papers and show them everywhere you went? 

Possibly some people should have support animals to deal with their inability to empathize with others.

[PopeyeDaSailor]

32 minutes ago, Ragoczy said:

I'm arguing because of what I have to deal with on a daily basis due to crap like your suggestions. I read the original post I replied to and it clearly laid out what the poster thought were things worth loudly confronting a handler over, and then I laid out exactly how he wasmisinformed on several of them, which would result in those following the advice to loudly confront legitimate handlers. Don't do it.

I work in IT also, don't pull an appeal to authority logical fallacy here. Your hypothetical situations are entirely meaningless. It is up to the person with a disability to gauge the risk and necessity of disclosing their medical information to who THEY choose, not who you think they should to meet your made up situations. Many do, and many have conditions that are private, personal, and do not require medical intervention, so should not have to disclose their private information to strangers.

It does not matter what you would welcome, as you're not the one affected. Leave people alone.

[Edited to correct that I had conflated this with the original post I responded to.]

 

 

Man you're bitter, cheer up.

 

LOL at half your post.  Yeah it's up to the person to disclose and gauge risk, until someone sues the cruise line because a doctor mistreated them.  I don't care what you private or personal condition is, if it requires a service animal then it should require medical conditions be handed over to the ship "stranger" or as we call him doctor.  You're sailing at sea with limited access to medical treatment and you're complaining about informing the ship's doctor of your condition that requires you to have an animal nearby?  That's silly. 

 

This whole thread was about people abusing the use of "dogs" to bring them on a cruise, not an attack on your service dog.  I never once said to "question or confront handlers" but laid out a logical set of things that would make a service dog on a cruise clearly spelled out.  It's you that go your panties in a bunch over three simple easy things to do.  If your animals has a vest on then it's pretty clear it's a service dog and anyone that questions that would be stupid.

 

So as Sergeant Hulka said in Stripes .... "LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS".

Edited December 19, 2018 by PopeyeDaSailor

[BillOh]

On 12/17/2018 at 6:19 PM, John&LaLa said:

 

I've seen many questionable dogs the last few years,  and I've never seen a guest confront the owner.  Never. 

 

I would probably just roll my eyes and walk away, but if I tripped on that leash as another poster said, and the owner yelled at me, that might be too much.  And if there were no more ports left on the cruise, I might. 

[John&LaLa]

1 minute ago, BillOh said:

 

I would probably just roll my eyes and walk away, but if I tripped on that leash as another poster said, and the owner yelled at me, that might be too much.  And if there were no more ports left on the cruise, I might. 

 

They do have a brig you know?  And confined to cabin as well. 😉

[BillOh]

3 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

They do have a brig you know?  And confined to cabin as well. 😉

Any day on a ship is better than a day at work.    That post did make me think of the one time, many years ago, pre-back surgery, I was in a local mall and a guy in a wheel chair went by me, he had 5 Yorkie puppies on long leashes, they all wrapped around me and I almost fell on all of them.   They supposedly were service dogs in training.

[HBE4]

25 minutes ago, Ragoczy said:

 

Would you be angry if someone came up to you every day and questioned your need for a medical device? Why do you need that?

Would you be angry if people were constantly offering "easy" solutions to their own problem with you having the audacity to go out in public with your medical device? Solutions that only made their own lives easier, yet made your own more difficult?

Would you be angry if people, to avoid the horror of seeing a dog in a grocery store, demanded that you carry papers and show them everywhere you went? 

Possibly some people should have support animals to deal with their inability to empathize with others.

 

i wouldn't be so angry that I threatened someone on an internet forum.

 

I would be angry at the people that fake the need to have a service animal so they can bring their pet with them on vacation. I actually know someone that wanted their pet to be called a "service dog" so Insurance could pay for it. Thus ruining it for those that truly need it.

 

Your judgmental anger is seriously misdirected. You're not helping your cause.

Edited December 19, 2018 by HBE4

[Ragoczy]

2 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

i wouldn't be so angry that I threatened someone on an internet forum.

 

I would be angry at the people that fake the need to have a service animal Thus ruining it for those that truly need it.

 

Your judgmental anger is seriously misdirected. You're not helping your cause.

 

Who'd I threaten and how? By saying that I'd respond to my wife being "loudly confronted" with a response of my own? Is it really your contention that someone should *not* respond to that?  They should just take it? Really? 
 

 

[HBE4]

5 minutes ago, Ragoczy said:

 

Who'd I threaten and how? 

 

I didn't say that was directed at you. There was a post that may have been deleted by now that said they would throw the pet and their owner over board.

 

Hence, my comment about people with anger issues.

[Ragoczy]

3 minutes ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

 

Ragoczy, virtually everyone posting on this thread believes in service animals. Virtually everyone objects to fake service animals, because they impact “you”, the one with a true service animal. 

 

Please accept our empathy for what it is. You are too defensive here and not, I fear, seeing our AGREEMENT with your rights. 

 

I haven't argued, I think, with anyone who's in agreement. I've argued with one guy who thinks it should be okay to accost others over normal service dog behavior, and another who thinks there should be a bunch more hoops the disabled should have to jump through before being allowed on a ship.

I'm opposed to both.

 

Fake service dogs are far more of an issue for legit teams than anyone else. There's a very real risk of an attack that will ruin a dog with years of training and thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars invested in that training. That's entirely aside from the risk of losing a partner -- not just if the service dog is killed, but if the attack makes it then unsuitable for the work. The results are devestating. Never mind the fact that an untrained dog can distract a service dog and put the handler's health at risk.

However, taking normal, acceptable service dog behaviors and listing them as signs of a fake is just as detrimental to those handlers. Creating situations where there are more hoops to jump through is just as detrimental. Suggesting someone confront people over those behaviors is just as detrimental.

Before my wife gets on a boat, we have to get an import permit from every country involved. Then we have to take the dog to a vet the week of the cruise. Then, possibly, drive halfway across the state with the forms to have them stamped by the US government. Then have copies of all that paperwork for the embarking, the ship, each port, and return. Then *hope* that there isn't some problem -- that someone at the airport or the ship or the foreign port isn't completely ignorant of service dog laws and decide to make things harder for her. Maybe ask her to show off the dog's tasks like she's a circus act, even though that's illegal. 

But, yeah, let's also add the experience of being loudly confronted because she let someone pet the dog or decided to have some fun and dress him up. Let's include the added embarrassment of having to disclose her personal medical history to a doctor she doesn't already have a relationship with. 

So, yes, when someone suggests either of those things, I'm going to suggest that those people are ignorant of the facts and lack the empathy to comprehend what people who require service dogs already have to deal with on a daily basis. 

[Ragoczy]

8 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

I didn't say that was directed at you. There was a post that may have been deleted by now that said they would throw the pet and their owner over board.

 

Hence, my comment about people with anger issues.

I apologize for that. 

[PopeyeDaSailor]

Ragoczy let's start over (olive branch).  I get why you would be upset over someone questioning your service dog.  I'm, sure it stinks what you and your wife have to go through.

 

I thought my cruise rules made common sense and I was suggesting them to make it clear to other passengers that the animals was indeed a service animal and not to be bothered thus allowing you to not be harassed.  Those rules would also make it difficult to those that abuse the service animal rules from falsely bringing animals on board. 

 

My wife is a vet and she deals with trainers that train service dogs.  Those trainers are not happy when people abuse the service dog definition in public because it undermines their work.

Edited December 19, 2018 by PopeyeDaSailor

[Ragoczy]

20 minutes ago, PopeyeDaSailor said:

Why are my posts being deleted?  There is nothing wrong with them?

 

As I said before it was deleted ...

 

Let's start over Ragoczy ... I get why you would be upset over someone questioning your service dog.  My wife is a vet and she works with several trainers that train service animals (Golden retrievers).  Those trainers HATE it when people try to pass off their toy dog as a service animal. 

 

Me posting common sense rules the cruise line could do to alleviate other passengers from hassling you only makes sense and in no way are taking a shot at what you already have to go through.

 

I don't appreciate being labeled or called a "bigot" because I suggested these things.  You need to look up bigot before throwing that word out and labeling somebody.

 

 

 

Okay, let's start over. 

 

Your common sense rules are more hoops for my wife. There are already rules, laid out by law, which give an establishment, including ships, the right to remove or exclude an animal. Those do not include the silliness of allowing the dog to be petted or dressing it up, as my original post called out.

 

The dog has to be well-behaved and under the owner's control. Establishments have the absolute right to say the dogs can't be on the furniture, for instance -- unless that's required for the dog's task, such as DPT for a handler who can't get down on the floor. They can require the dog be leashed and specify the length of that leash, unless being off-leash is required for the task.

So the original picture in this thread, of a dog sitting alone in a chair, is a good indicator of a fake. As is the retractable lead in the casino. 

However, the general public confronting those handlers (or causing a public scene of objection, as suggested in the post I originally responded to) is a horrible idea. The general public do not have the knowledge necessary to handle the situation and make that determination. Ship staff can ask the question, and should, but it's a touchy subject even for them. 

The dog that runs into a room and then out again without its handler may not be out of control -- it might be trained for PTSD work and is checking out the room so that its handler knows it's safe.

Your "easy common sense" is not. And that's the general consensus and feeling of most handlers I talk to. Insisting that your judgment of how to resolve a problem is somehow better than those who deal with the issue every day of their lives; that because you, in a hypothetical thought experiment that you know full well you'll never have to fulfill, can claim that's the solution you'd want, while brushing off the objections of someone who lives it every day?

How would you label that?

Maybe take a step back and consider that, possibly, those with service dogs know a bit more about how your "easy common sense" will ultimately impact them than you do.

[edit]
To be fair, before I had to deal with this -- and it's me who does, because my wife doesn't speak -- I likely would have thought your suggestions were fine. That's the danger of the hypothetical and unintended consequences. Even after having to deal with these things, I was in favor of a registry system -- then I talked to others and they pointed out the cost, the entryism, barriers that such a thing would present to them, as many people with disabilities don't have the same resources I do. 

If those most affected by the problem don't support the solution, it's probably a bad solution.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Ragoczy

[Kingofcool1947]

On 12/16/2018 at 6:22 PM, SherriZ366 said:

I'd have to really restrain myself from throwing little Fluffy overboard and making the owner follow.  LOL 🤣

 

Wow.   

Edited December 19, 2018 by Kingofcool1947

[HBE4]

9 minutes ago, Kingofcool1947 said:

 

Wow.  And a emoticon cuts no ice.

 

Lol. Thanks for clearing that up.  I guess i missed it when scrolling on my cell phone without my glasses on.  

[pacruise804]

On 12/15/2018 at 6:10 PM, cgncruiser said:

Despite that this statement is utterly nonsense , here is an "Emerald & Suite Guest Service Dog" , Right now in Rhapsody casino. "Service dog" on the long leash, waiting for any guest to pet him…..as his "master" plays the bandits

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know a lot about dogs and/or leashes, but this leash doesn't look that long to me - nor like a retractable leash.  While the "master" does appear to be in the casino (holding the end of the leash, almost out of view), he does not appear to be playing any machine or waiting for guests to pet his dog.  It seems like a lot of assumptions 😞 

 

18 hours ago, ownedbypets said:

We just got off of Oasis and there were 2 dogs on board.  One was a service dog, she stayed right next to her owner, wore her vest and was not being pet by any passangers.  The other was a small yorkie who sat on her owners lap while riding around on a motorized scooter.  When she wasn't on the ladies lap she was in a stroller being pushed by another person.

 

Was the small yorkie not in a vest?  Was she being pet by others (which as previously mentioned the owner may have approved).  If the owner was in a motorized scooter, they may have been following the rule of leashed or carried.  Maybe the stroller was to keep a leash from tangling in the scooter wheels.  Again, it seems like a lot of assumptions.

 

If the existing guidelines - no barking/biting/threatening - are being followed, I see no reason for me to report an animal or its handler to guest services.

[Kingofcool1947]

On 10/18/2018 at 6:39 PM, Merion_Mom said:

 

Good owners are the ones who leave their pets at home.

 

Hope you don’t mean owners with service dogs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_dog

[Kingofcool1947]

On 11/18/2018 at 1:27 PM, Merion_Mom said:

 

 

Are you KIDDING?!?!?!?  which ship?  Even RC cannot be so stupid to believe that THREE dogs are needed for "support."

 

On 11/24/2018 at 8:18 AM, dadofjessie said:

 I totally agree!!!

 

Must need a lot of therapy if she needs three therapy/comfort dogs in the casino!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_dog

Edited December 19, 2018 by Kingofcool1947

[ownedbypets]

47 minutes ago, pacruise804 said:

 

I don't know a lot about dogs and/or leashes, but this leash doesn't look that long to me - nor like a retractable leash.  While the "master" does appear to be in the casino (holding the end of the leash, almost out of view), he does not appear to be playing any machine or waiting for guests to pet his dog.  It seems like a lot of assumptions 😞 

 

 

Was the small yorkie not in a vest?  Was she being pet by others (which as previously mentioned the owner may have approved).  If the owner was in a motorized scooter, they may have been following the rule of leashed or carried.  Maybe the stroller was to keep a leash from tangling in the scooter wheels.  Again, it seems like a lot of assumptions.

 

If the existing guidelines - no barking/biting/threatening - are being followed, I see no reason for me to report an animal or its handler to guest services.

  

I guess I didn't give enough details. The yorkie was not wearing a vest, which I know is not required.  The woman in the motorized scooter was handing the dog for others to hold when she was in the suite lounge and when the dog was in the stroller someone else was pushing it around without the lady in sight. A service dog has a job to do and stays with the person that has a need for their assistance. The dog was also being fed from the table and the woman was all over the ship without her dog around her.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by ownedbypets