Has Seabourn gone to the dogs?

[Vineyard View]

I honestly do not care what the gender of the owner is, nor what the nationality of the owner is. I don’t care if the dog is cute or not. I don’t care if the owner is in the entry level cabin or owners suite.  If the dog is allowed to sit on furniture, and poops on the carpet, then it seems to me to not be a service dog, and/or the owner is not a responsible owner. Having been in the company of good friends and dogs involved with Canine Companions, I would suggest these behaviors are not acceptable. Then let’s wonder, based on these reported observations, who know what else is occurring (for instance, how is that poop/pee controlled in other areas including the cabin.  Then add go into eating venues on a closed environment such as a ship, there is an inherently wrong situation taking place. I don’t know how ADA plays on an internationally registered ship/company - maybe sailing to the USA is the determining factor (?). I just think that a door may have been opened by Seabourn on this decision that could set precedent,  and create issues moving forward. And yes, we are huge dog lovers. But that is not the point of what is occurring IMHO. 
 

[lincslady]

Many thanks  for the best summary of  the situation.  She is due to dock in Miami later today at the end of the crossing.

[expattraveler]

Also an animal lover; however, I unfortunately developed an extreme allergy to cats and to a lesser extent dogs later in life. If I come into contact with furnishings where cats and/or dogs have rested or have been allowed to sleep I end up in an hospital emergency rooms on a nebulizer. When you cannot breathe it is not a pleasant experience.
 

This trend of  “service” animals is becoming a bit over the top. It’s like the hanging of disabled tags on the rear view mirror when multiple 20 something’s jump out to go to get their Starbucks.

Just saying…..

[Catlover54]

3 hours ago, Vineyard View said:

I honestly do not care what the gender of the owner is, nor what the nationality of the owner is. I don’t care if the dog is cute or not. I don’t care if the owner is in the entry level cabin or owners suite.  If the dog is allowed to sit on furniture, and poops on the carpet, then it seems to me to not be a service dog, and/or the owner is not a responsible owner. Having been in the company of good friends and dogs involved with Canine Companions, I would suggest these behaviors are not acceptable. Then let’s wonder, based on these reported observations, who know what else is occurring (for instance, how is that poop/pee controlled in other areas including the cabin.  Then add go into eating venues on a closed environment such as a ship, there is an inherently wrong situation taking place. I don’t know how ADA plays on an internationally registered ship/company - maybe sailing to the USA is the determining factor (?). I just think that a door may have been opened by Seabourn on this decision that could set precedent,  and create issues moving forward. And yes, we are huge dog lovers. But that is not the point of what is occurring IMHO. 
 

 

This law firm references applicability of the ADA for ships sailing in U.S. waters (and also inclusion of "service" dogs).  See post #48 for more discussion about service dogs.

 

https://www.rivkindlaw.com/do-cruise-ships-have-to-comply-with-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-ada/

 

That does not mean that that is *all* that is relevant or that it is the "determining" factor, without more  (I am not writing a legal brief, but find  'conflict of rights' topics intriguing -- if anyone has litigated this kind of issue on a ship, please chime in).

Nor does it mean that even if the dog is technically a "service' dog, he can repeatedly sit on furniture meant for humans (unless that is required for his "service" -- unlikely here), much less poo ectopically.  However, we only have reports of one poo that was not placed in an appropriate location, and the dog might, per the interpretations, get a pass by people in charge for one violation, but not for  a pattern and practice of problem poo).

 

Cruise ship staff need to follow all rules that apply to their ship to avoid getting sued by lawyers such as these, but also use  judgment as to whether or not a dog is behaving in a manner that is outside the dog's "service" job description and is annoying and distressing pax.  From everything we have heard 14th hand, e.g., about the poo (at least one, anyway) and furniture sitting, and people upset, there is a problem that needs to be addressed by competent staff, with adequate pax communication (at least to the limits of what is allowed to be discussed) before it escalates out of control and people who have major problems with dogs for whatever reason cancel bookings.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Catlover54
Typo

[mancunian]

I would not like to be the occupants following in the owners suite.   Just imagine -the dog has likely been sitting on all the furniture and likely the bed too.

[kjbacon]

Even though most of you now admit that this is a service dog, the atmosphere here is no better. This conversation is disturbing from which disabilities you think are deserving of a service dog or which breed of dog you think should or shouldn’t qualify as a service dog. It’s hard to believe this group is so self righteous and/or hung up that there is actual discussion as to whether or not SB should have to allow the disabled on board.  Hopefully if you or yours should end up in like shoes, you will be treated with the kindness and respect that you have not shown. And the excuse that the dog had an accident or sat on a chair is just that, an excuse.

[lincslady]

Read post no.76, which sums it up perfectly.  If  indeed  this was a service dog, it was not being looked after responsibly by its owner.

[markham]

How about this point of view which relates to the “better late than never” and “here’s some common sense”:

 

So this woman likes to travel and has special needs. And Seabourn is an expensive vacation choice for those who enjoy predictability comfort and cleanliness when they do so.

 

What to do?

 

Seabourn can apologize to the Sojourn passengers and crew for any/all poor communications and inconvenience. It can also recommend a range of airlines more suitable for carrying this couple. And set out some an acceptable policy so as to avoid this foolishness going forward.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!

[lincslady]

Markham - this reads as if you think/know that this lady was essentially wanting to get to Miami/the USA in the pleasantest and easiest way possible. This is what some people thought all along, if it is so.

 

 

[markham]

I have been doing some informal research.

 

It seems that US law requires cruise lines going there to accommodate legitimate service animals. They and their owners can use ships’ public areas including dining rooms. Another line’s HD said they have a designated padded and absorbent relief area. 
 

This leads me to ask how can the HD minimize  the inconvenience to others and damage to their reputation. I guess they could request a code of conduct be agreed by the dog owner. Including putting a protective cloth on any chair the animal sits on. And therein lies the rub. Some owners, like some parents and other adults, are oblivious to the distractions they cause. 
 

Still, it will be interesting to see just how Seabourn handled and will manage this situation. Silence on their part in my opinion is hardly an option.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!

[lincslady]

I think we can all appreciate that trying to get your pet to another country unless it can be taken in a vehicle is a very difficult and expensive procedure.  Sadly, although this animal might  have been designated a service dog, the owner was not able/willing to look after it properly herself, and perhaps  should have had a human companion with her to make sure that rules were obeyed.

 

It seems, however, that this is not the first time this passenger and dog have been on board a Seabourn ship, so one can only hope that Seabourn Head Office can make some responsible decisions about  them for the future, as otherwise their reputation will certainly be affected.

[SLSD]

6 hours ago, lincslady said:

I think we can all appreciate that trying to get your pet to another country unless it can be taken in a vehicle is a very difficult and expensive procedure.  Sadly, although this animal might  have been designated a service dog, the owner was not able/willing to look after it properly herself, and perhaps  should have had a human companion with her to make sure that rules were obeyed.

 

It seems, however, that this is not the first time this passenger and dog have been on board a Seabourn ship, so one can only hope that Seabourn Head Office can make some responsible decisions about  them for the future, as otherwise their reputation will certainly be affected.

In the reading I did on this issue, I read that the dog can never be left alone.  The owner cannot leave the dog alone in his/her suite for example.  That seems to imply that the dog will be in dining areas--unless the owner takes all meals  by room service.  I also read as Markham did that service dogs are allowed into restaurants.  

 

I doubt that most of us would object to a "seeing eye dog" being onboard. I think the issue here is some skepticism that this dog is a true service dog (understanding that there are many types of service dogs) .  Perhaps he is.  But, some doubt.  

 

Even though I come from a family with people with profound disabilities/special needs (and one service dog among them) , I find myself being among the doubting.  I keep thinking that this woman (as people report she had had this dog onboard twice) found a way to transport her dog trans Atlantic at a good price.  Perhaps if the dog had not been on furniture and had not pooped on the floor outside the elevator, people would look more kindly on the situation.  If the woman herself appeared confused, perhaps she should have traveled with another person as her companion as well.  

 

I don't think any of us would begrudge a true service dog aboard a Seabourn ship.  There just seems to be some doubt here--perhaps unfounded/perhaps not.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by SLSD

[Flamin_June]

I wouldn't want to be accused of opening the door to the the issue of whether or not one could bring an owl on board, but I find this whole thread to be an absolute hoot. I'm amused by the way people are going bats about the the poor  little doggie, but do recall how many posters agree that the Colonnade can be a zoo. I remain grateful that Seabourn are not yet marketing any  zebra crossings.

[purpleally]

12 hours ago, kjbacon said:

Even though most of you now admit that this is a service dog, the atmosphere here is no better. This conversation is disturbing from which disabilities you think are deserving of a service dog or which breed of dog you think should or shouldn’t qualify as a service dog. It’s hard to believe this group is so self righteous and/or hung up that there is actual discussion as to whether or not SB should have to allow the disabled on board.  Hopefully if you or yours should end up in like shoes, you will be treated with the kindness and respect that you have not shown. And the excuse that the dog had an accident or sat on a chair is just that, an excuse.

I don’t admit it. It does not add up to a service dog

[Cantara24]

2 hours ago, Flamin_June said:

I wouldn't want to be accused of opening the door to the the issue of whether or not one could bring an owl on board, but I find this whole thread to be an absolute hoot. I'm amused by the way people are going bats about the the poor  little doggie, but do recall how many posters agree that the Colonnade can be a zoo. I remain grateful that Seabourn are not yet marketing any  zebra crossings.

 

FJ, I to see the humor in this thread, but … please do not draw incorrect links to various discussions on non-related matters. It is an issue, clearly not for all.

 

IMHO the fault here lies with Seabourn Management both seaside and shore side for their lack of transparency or ability to get a grip. Go no further than the penultimate paragraph on the Service Animal statement on their website. They criticize the Australian authorities for their stance whilst remaining completely vague on their policies. To me that paragraph speaks “finally! someone is taking the heat off of us, yahoo!”

 

Cheers!

[johng75370]

3 hours ago, Cantara24 said:

It is an issue, clearly not for all.

Just like reports of cigar smoking on Venture, if Seabourn relaxes animal policies for “special customers” that’s a serious issue given its impact on both health and the cruise experience for the other passengers.  Unlike other issues I’ve heard raised about Seabourn, this one really does deserve being addressed head-on by the company because of how much of a trust issue it represents.  

 

However, those who were onboard did not seem harmed or outraged (more “meh”), so hard for those of us at home to be either.  Can’t speak for them, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten.  Was waiting for reports of people onboard discreetly looking at the bottom of their shoes with curious looks on their faces, but that didn’t happen.  I’ll be on Sojourn in 11 days - roller lint/hair brush already packed 🙂

Edited November 19, 2022 by johng75370

[D999]

13 hours ago, Flamin_June said:

I wouldn't want to be accused of opening the door to the the issue of whether or not one could bring an owl on board, but I find this whole thread to be an absolute hoot. I'm amused by the way people are going bats about the the poor  little doggie, but do recall how many posters agree that the Colonnade can be a zoo. I remain grateful that Seabourn are not yet marketing any  zebra crossings.

Hope I meet Fido on board one day and get their take on some of their fellow passengers ….

[cruising.mark.uk]

17 hours ago, D999 said:

Hope I meet Fido on board one day and get their take on some of their fellow passengers ….

Absolutely right.  Although this thread has made me laugh out loud on occasions,  my main conclusion is that I'd much rather cruise with this dog than I would with some of the uncaring, self-centred and entitled posters on here.  How do they survive in everyday life if the mere sight of a dog on a cruise ship gives them palpitations like this?

[GUT2407]

3 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Absolutely right.  Although this thread has made me laugh out loud on occasions,  my main conclusion is that I'd much rather cruise with this dog than I would with some of the uncaring, self-centred and entitled posters on here.  How do they survive in everyday life if the mere sight of a dog on a cruise ship gives them palpitations like this?

Anonymity often shows someone true colours

[markham]

Your anonymity is telling.

 

As for mine, you might want to rethink. My TA has communicated with Seabourn on my behalf in terms of what my own known shipboard contacts have reported. The bottom line is that there were obvious lapses caused by shipboard staff and the owner. 
 

Seabourn need not go to the dogs with dog hair on public seating area chairs and dog excrement. Owners can rest the dog on a floor mat and exercise them around an excrement pad. Wouldn’t you do this at your own home?

 

Bear in mind the ship is also a home to a few hundred people and they might have different standards of behavior than certain pet owners.
 

Simple as that.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!

[cruising.mark.uk]

Hopefully, most of the 'few hundred people' on the ship will have better standards of behaviour in terms of how they view their fellow human beings than some of the posters on this thread.  If not, and if the unpleasant and entitled mindset which come across loud and clear in many of the posts is representative of the type of people who cruise on Seabourn, then I think the line has a lot more to worry about than whether or not it allows dogs on board.

[Lord Haw Haw]

Just curious, if the service dog must go everywhere with the owner does that mean they can go in the pool?

[Isklaar]

2 hours ago, markham said:

Your anonymity is telling.

 

As for mine, you might want to rethink. My TA has communicated with Seabourn on my behalf in terms of what my own known shipboard contacts have reported. The bottom line is that there were obvious lapses caused by shipboard staff and the owner. 
 

Seabourn need not go to the dogs with dog hair on public seating area chairs and dog excrement. Owners can rest the dog on a floor mat and exercise them around an excrement pad. Wouldn’t you do this at your own home?

 

Bear in mind the ship is also a home to a few hundred people and they might have different standards of behavior than certain pet owners.
 

Simple as that.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!

 

Our friends who were on Sojourn have written to their TA and direct to Seabourn.  

[kjbacon]

5 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Absolutely right.  Although this thread has made me laugh out loud on occasions,  my main conclusion is that I'd much rather cruise with this dog than I would with some of the uncaring, self-centred and entitled posters on here.  How do they survive in everyday life if the mere sight of a dog on a cruise ship gives them palpitations like this?

You summed it up well. Some of these posters are out of the range of normal with their hang ups but the nasty and selfish attitudes are shocking. Not one of them has yet to offer anything of substance to suggest that this is not a service dog, other than they don’t want it to be. Or maybe that only blindness is a good enough disability for them? SB does not allow pet dogs, only service dogs, and still they know best.

[Catlover54]

5 hours ago, Lord Haw Haw said:

Just curious, if the service dog must go everywhere with the owner does that mean they can go in the pool?

 

No.  Cruise lines that accept "service" dogs (either voluntarily, or to comply with the requirement to do so if they cruise in U.S. waters, which I noted previously), do not allow dogs in the pools.  The justification is "public health" concerns.