Dogs

[Wehwalt]

10 hours ago, Haljo1935 said:

Exactly. 

 

I am not "anti-dog." I am "anti-pet" on a cruiseline that has a no pet policy. And I am "anti-imposter" and all that goes w/it. 

Quite so. I regret that there was a need felt to characterize people who have made their perspectives very clear, deeming them anti-dog or as having a dog phobia. 

Edited April 11 by Wehwalt

[Toofarfromthesea]

11 hours ago, TRLD said:

11 hours ago, TRLD said:

 

As much as some people here would seem to prefer that they did not.  Might have a different view if they had the same diagnosed condition as those with valid service animals.

 

I know several veterans with service dogs due to non visible diagnosed conditions including ptsd and have donated to the organization that trains their dogs. I was more fortunate with my military service.

 

 

 

To be fair, I haven't seen people criticizing legitimate service dogs in this thread - the criticism has been for the fakers.  And you can tell who the fakers are because there is a code of conduct both for the service dog and the owner. And worse yet are the so-called doglovers who help propagate the breaking of the code of conduct by hugging or petting the fake service dog.

 

And understand that I'm not labeling a dog as a fake service dog because the condition they are there for is not obvious.  I know there are conditions calling for the use of a service dog like seizures, diabetes, PTSD, etc.  But as someone who contributes to the training of these dogs I'd imagine you are familiar with the code of conduct for these dogs.  I base my perception that a given dog is a fake service dog strictly on the dog and owner's behavior.  The really sad thing is that the existence of the fakes, and their entitled owners, can cause people who are uneducated about this to look askance at legitimate service dogs just because they are there to help someone with one of those non-obvious conditions.  People with fake service dogs are no better than non-handicapped people parking in a handicap parking spot.

[TAW1963]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

To be fair, I haven't seen people criticizing legitimate service dogs in this thread - the criticism has been for the fakers.  And you can tell who the fakers are because there is a code of conduct both for the service dog and the owner. And worse yet are the so-called doglovers who help propagate the breaking of the code of conduct by hugging or petting the fake service dog.

 

And understand that I'm not labeling a dog as a fake service dog because the condition they are there for is not obvious.  I know there are conditions calling for the use of a service dog like seizures, diabetes, PTSD, etc.  But as someone who contributes to the training of these dogs I'd imagine you are familiar with the code of conduct for these dogs.  I base my perception that a given dog is a fake service dog strictly on the dog and owner's behavior.  The really sad thing is that the existence of the fakes, and their entitled owners, can cause people who are uneducated about this to look askance at legitimate service dogs just because they are there to help someone with one of those non-obvious conditions.  People with fake service dogs are no better than non-handicapped people parking in a handicap parking spot.

Thank you for your statements in defense of those that have properly voiced concerns over imposter (fake) service dogs.  I really like your last sentence: "People with fake service dogs are no better than non-handicapped people parking in a handicap parking spot."  This puts this whole thread in perspective.  Nobody would defend a non-handicapped person parking in a handicap parking spot.  The same should be true for someone taking a imposter service dog on a cruise ship. 

 

I just returned from a 15-day roundtrip to Hawaii cruise on a Princess ship.  We had an imposter service dog on that cruise too, and it was obvious that the dog was not a service dog.  It is not hard to tell on some of them.  This dog was owned by a couple.  At times you would see the dog with the man without the women present, and other times you would see it with the woman without the man present.  Yet at other times you would see the couple hand it off to someone else to hold.  Many, many other passengers were allowed to hug and pet the dog.  It looked like a really sweet dog but it was obviously just a pet.  It could not of been providing a service to two different people. I mentioned this in my post-cruise evaluation for Princess and my wife did as well. 

 

I too absolutely love dogs.  There is nothing better in life than to be greeted by a loving dog when you return home after being away.  They love unconditionally.  However, a cruise ship is certainly not the place for pets.

[Mary229]

7 hours ago, bajae said:

Just wanted to clarify that besides dogs, miniature horses can also be service animals. 

Not on transportation.  On transportation it is dogs and dogs only

 

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

Not on transportation.  On transportation it is dogs and dogs only

 

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals

That's because it is not covered by the ADA, but by the CAA (Civil Aviation Act).

[rwethereyet1969]

I am curious....We are cruising to AK on the K'd from Vancouver.  Does Vancouver, being a non-US based port, make it more likely or less likely to have non-service dogs "pets" on our cruise?  I am not against actual service dogs but I do not want pets wandering the ship or barking in the next room.

 

It's funny because our family loves vacationing at WDW and I am a bit of a Disney parks nerd.  I belong to a well-known Disney discussion board.  There have been several threads over the past several years regarding pets at WDW resorts since the corporate heads decided to allow guests to bring their pet dogs to certain resorts deemed as "pet friendly."  These guests must abide by a set of rules for their dogs and are charged an additional fee.  Of course, predictably, many guests do not follow the rules. 

 

On a recent topical thread, a woman admitted to bringing her pet dog into the food court at a resort "because she asked and the CM said OK."  Said pet owner was not happy when I called her out for breaking the rules and putting the CM in a position that could result in a reprimand.  Of course, myself and others were branded as "dog haters" which isn't the case but it satisfied the poster's need to rationalize why it was OK for her to break the rules.  Hogwash.  She just feels entitled and that she and her dog are more special.  She can't see beyond herself to understand how her actions could impede on others and she doesn't care as long as she gets what she wants.  Sadly, this is true for many in society.

 

If HAL doesn't crack down on pet dogs coming aboard, sadly, this may be our first and only cruise.  If Hal wants to appeal to the pet dog sector, perhaps they could designate certain cruise sailings and certain staterooms as pet-friendly and charge said cruisers an extra fee for the deep cleaning of their cabins after disembarkation.  This would also alert others who do not wish to cruise with pets to avoid these sailing dates.

[chengkp75]

44 minutes ago, rwethereyet1969 said:

If Hal wants to appeal to the pet dog sector, perhaps they could designate certain cruise sailings and certain staterooms as pet-friendly and charge said cruisers an extra fee for the deep cleaning of their cabins after disembarkation.

Its not that HAL, or any cruise line, wants to "appeal to the pet dog sector", but that they want to avoid litigation over confrontation with a "service" dog owner.  And, I don't know if you want the cleaning fee to be charged to service animal owners as well, but that is not legal either.

[cruiser man 60]

19 hours ago, Mary229 said:

Our laws are very restrictive.  It is difficult to ask appropriate questions without being on the wrong side of the law.  

Ok so won’t see them in Europe then or anywhere else except America waters hopefully.

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Its not that HAL, or any cruise line, wants to "appeal to the pet dog sector", but that they want to avoid litigation over confrontation with a "service" dog owner.  And, I don't know if you want the cleaning fee to be charged to service animal owners as well, but that is not legal either.

 

The CLIA spends millions to lobby for its own $$$. I'm surprised that the industry does not spend the same effort to tighten up the loopholes. For the sake of its other 99% pax.

 

It just passes the problem to the innocent pax (who just poop in the elevator?) and the hard working crew (I've got to clean that?). In any case, the company can certainly make a claim in small-claims court for the soiled mattress and bed linen. Even if they are unable to collect, it would discourage the miscreant from boarding again.

 

I have no doubt that the problem will grow worse on some brands if left unchecked.

[Mary229]

2 hours ago, cruiser man 60 said:

 

3 hours ago, rwethereyet1969 said:

If HAL doesn't crack down on pet dogs coming aboard, sadly, this may be our first and only cruise. 

I think anyone making a report should include this message 

[TRLD]

7 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

To be fair, I haven't seen people criticizing legitimate service dogs in this thread - the criticism has been for the fakers.  And you can tell who the fakers are because there is a code of conduct both for the service dog and the owner. And worse yet are the so-called doglovers who help propagate the breaking of the code of conduct by hugging or petting the fake service dog.

 

And understand that I'm not labeling a dog as a fake service dog because the condition they are there for is not obvious.  I know there are conditions calling for the use of a service dog like seizures, diabetes, PTSD, etc.  But as someone who contributes to the training of these dogs I'd imagine you are familiar with the code of conduct for these dogs.  I base my perception that a given dog is a fake service dog strictly on the dog and owner's behavior.  The really sad thing is that the existence of the fakes, and their entitled owners, can cause people who are uneducated about this to look askance at legitimate service dogs just because they are there to help someone with one of those non-obvious conditions.  People with fake service dogs are no better than non-handicapped people parking in a handicap parking spot.

Except the person I responded to posting how maybe the cruise lines could only follow ADA in US waters and restrict service animals movements on ship once a cruise reached international waters as a way to get around the law.

[Wehwalt]

4 hours ago, TRLD said:

Except the person I responded to posting how maybe the cruise lines could only follow ADA in US waters and restrict service animals movements on ship once a cruise reached international waters as a way to get around the law.

Pending presentation of satisfactory evidence to a ship's officer. That may not be the law, perhaps, but it's hardly poochaphobic.

[rbelshaw]

13 hours ago, bajae said:

The assessment factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken;

Having grown up with plenty of ponies, I can't imagine a housebroken one. Perhaps because we never tried...

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

I'm surprised that the industry does not spend the same effort to tighten up the loopholes.

What, you think Congress would carve out a special section of the ADA that says they can do things that other businesses in the US cannot?

 

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

In any case, the company can certainly make a claim in small-claims court for the soiled mattress and bed linen.

I did not say that the cruise line cannot charge a fee for actual damages done by the animal, it just cannot be "simply as a precaution, or just because it is a dog".  They already charge fees for damages that the human occupants make, so charging for damages caused by the occupant's dog would be legal.  You just can't discriminate against the service dog.  DOJ specifically states that just cleaning up after a dog has been in the room (hair, dander) is not allowed for a service animal, any more than if they had to clean up after a wheelchair.

[TRLD]

7 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

To be fair, I haven't seen people criticizing legitimate service dogs in this thread - the criticism has been for the fakers.  And you can tell who the fakers are because there is a code of conduct both for the service dog and the owner. And worse yet are the so-called doglovers who help propagate the breaking of the code of conduct by hugging or petting the fake service dog.

 

And understand that I'm not labeling a dog as a fake service dog because the condition they are there for is not obvious.  I know there are conditions calling for the use of a service dog like seizures, diabetes, PTSD, etc.  But as someone who contributes to the training of these dogs I'd imagine you are familiar with the code of conduct for these dogs.  I base my perception that a given dog is a fake service dog strictly on the dog and owner's behavior.  The really sad thing is that the existence of the fakes, and their entitled owners, can cause people who are uneducated about this to look askance at legitimate service dogs just because they are there to help someone with one of those non-obvious conditions.  People with fake service dogs are no better than non-handicapped people parking in a handicap parking spot.

Certainly one can often spot fakes by their behavior. But in this discussion you have had numerous comments about  examples of it could not be a service dog because of X. In many of those cases they could be a valid service dog. Some, the most excessive cases probably not. 

 

But in this discussion you have comments like it cannot be a service dog because it is in a stroller or carried in a shoulder bag. Those can certainly be an invalid assumption.

 

The law does not require a service animal to be formally trained only that it is trained to perform some action to assist an individual with a diagnosed condition. That enables owners to claim that they have trained it how ever poorly. As long g as the diagnosis exists the problem exists for the cruise line and they cannot ask for proof of diagnosis. As a result there are some legally valid but poorly trained service dogs out there.

 

While it is difficult for a cruise line to prevent fakes. The law does allow some actions if the dog is disruptive. A dog  that that is aggressive to other passengers for example.  A dog that is not properly house broken. Though even a properly trained service dog can have an accident if it's owner does not keep track of time or fails to notice the dogs behavior. Though in those cases the owner would likely take action to make sure it was cleaned up and prevent other occurances.

 

No one hates fakes more than I do. Largely because of the negative impact on those with valid service dogs. The presence of fakes results many of the attitudes in this stream. Oh they must be a fake because I cannot think of what service that dog could perform.

 

 

 

[TRLD]

53 minutes ago, Wehwalt said:

Pending presentation of satisfactory evidence to a ship's officer. That may not be the law, perhaps, but it's hardly poochaphobic.

Depends upon what one considers to be evidence.

 

Following a possible fake around with the intent of gathering evidence could be considered to be harassment. Which creates its own set of legal issues.

 

Reporting incidentally observed inappropriate behavior is one thing. Actively trying to search out and collect such might be totally another.

 

 

 

Edited April 11 by TRLD

[TRLD]

3 hours ago, cruiser man 60 said:

Ok so won’t see them in Europe then or anywhere else except America waters hopefully.

Actually many countries have similar service animal laws. The major difference is in those countries documentation of the service animal status can be required.

 

Though I would expect that you would see the North American focused lines such as HAL still follow US rules for US residents booking under US terms and conditions, even if the cruise is outside of the US. Though I can not say for sure.

[Mary229]

18 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Actually many countries have similar service animal laws. The major difference is in those countries documentation of the service animal status can be required.

 

Though I would expect that you would see the North American focused lines such as HAL still follow US rules for US residents booking under US terms and conditions, even if the cruise is outside of the US. Though I can not say for sure.

The issue these same passengers will have are the veterinarian requirements needed for bringing a dog into Europe even if the animal stays onboard.  I am sure these rules thwart the posers.   The pax with legitimate needs will produce necessary documents 

[TRLD]

13 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

The issue these same passengers will have are the veterinarian requirements needed for bringing a dog into Europe even if the animal stays onboard.  I am sure these rules thwart the posers.   The pax with legitimate needs will produce necessary documents 

Except the veterinary  requirements have nothing to do with or indicate service dog status. People I know with service dogs have had to meet the same country entry requirements for their dogs, as those that were not service animals.

[cbr663]

18 hours ago, cccole said:

This afternoon we were driving thru town and a woman was walking a great dane.  I slowed and commented that it's like walking a pony, sooooo cute.  It reminded me of a case that was brought against a major hotel chain several years ago by a man who was denied access to the hotel for his great dane.  The man said his dog was a service animal but the hotel said "no."  In court the man brought his great dane which freely roamed the courtroom.  The judge said, "no, no, no."  The "service dog" then went over to the jury box and almost put his head in the lap of a juror who was afraid of dogs. The prosecution was instructed to not bring the dog to court again.  A couple more days of lies by the man with the service dog ended in the case being dismissed.  The judge saw the total abuse of someone trying to claim their pet was a service animal.  My husband worked with the lawyer representing the hotel chain and today we laughed at the audacity of someone trying to pass a pet off as a service animal.  But it's really not a joke, it's a sad reflection on people who think the rules don't apply to them.  This was a major hotel chain, maybe HAL should not be afraid of the frauds.  Cherie    

Companies faced litigation often.  Larger companies face it so often that they have entire legal teams on staff.  It's the cost of doing business.  Companies decide all the time which legal challenges they will mediate and which challenges they will gladly take to court as they know that they are operating within the law.

 

Challenging a passenger whom you have valid reasons to believe is fraudulently presenting themselves as having a service animal when in fact they are travelling with a pet should be an easy challenge to win.  I accept that we are currently living in a woke society, but that doesn't negate the risk that is associated with allowing passengers to travel with pets.  The risk is that the pet may cause harm or injury to other passengers and leave the cruise line open to that litigation.

 

[The4OfUs]

A little laugh to lighten the mood! Just got an email and it made me think that maybe the CEO of BarkBox (a monthly subscription box for dogs that includes toys and treats) needs to tackle this problem like he apparently just did for air travel!  https://air.bark.co/  

 

Then again, a 6 hour flight is on par with some of the HAL suites on a 7 day cruise in cost...so maybe not - as my husband said when I showed him, "The audience for that service probably own their own jets"  😂😂

 

[Kay S]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

 

 

No one hates fakes more than I do. Largely because of the negative impact on those with valid service dogs. The presence of fakes results many of the attitudes in this stream. Oh they must be a fake because I cannot think of what service that dog could perform.

 

 

 

Well said.  That attitude "they must be a fake because I think so" can manifest in vigilante behavior, questioning, harassing and reporting the supposed "fakes."  The kids on YouTube call that "Karen" behavior,  "the policewomen of all human behavior."   I am waiting for a Karen YouTube video where an angry cruise ship passenger harangs the hapless owner of a legitimate service that isn't a German Shepherd with  a harness--or too small (or cute) to be a "real" service dog.  Or one where the dog owner tells the "doggie police" it's none of her (or his) business and the "Karen" summons the ship captain.  Those videos often contain the "karma" moment where the "fake" is revealed to be not fake and the accuser looks like an entitled, holy-than-thou busybody.  

 

I have looked, but I haven't found any cruise ship "fake dog Karens," but that might be because a) I'm no good at Google, or b) the problem is not so widespread that there are few opportunities for "Karen at sea" videos.

 

Okay, you can now line up to tell me I'm wrong, uninformed, rude, etc.

[Mary229]

54 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Except the veterinary  requirements have nothing to do with or indicate service dog status. People I know with service dogs have had to meet the same country entry requirements for their dogs, as those that were not service animals.

I am simply saying the extra step may put off the posers.  They try to game the system as long as it is easy 

[Mary229]

32 minutes ago, Kay S said:

Well said.  That attitude "they must be a fake because I think so" can manifest in vigilante behavior, questioning, harassing and reporting the supposed "fakes."  The kids on YouTube call that "Karen" behavior,  "the policewomen of all human behavior."   I am waiting for a Karen YouTube video where an angry cruise ship passenger harangs the hapless owner of a legitimate service that isn't a German Shepherd with  a harness--or too small (or cute) to be a "real" service dog.  Or one where the dog owner tells the "doggie police" it's none of her (or his) business and the "Karen" summons the ship captain.  Those videos often contain the "karma" moment where the "fake" is revealed to be not fake and the accuser looks like an entitled, holy-than-thou busybody.  

 

I have looked, but I haven't found any cruise ship "fake dog Karens," but that might be because a) I'm no good at Google, or b) the problem is not so widespread that there are few opportunities for "Karen at sea" videos.

 

Okay, you can now line up to tell me I'm wrong, uninformed, rude, etc.

I am sure you are right that there may exist a few vigilantes but I think most of us would report only if we had an unprovoked encounter. 

[Wehwalt]

6 hours ago, TRLD said:

Following a possible fake around with the intent of gathering evidence could be considered to be harassment. Which creates its own set of legal issues.

 

 

 

 

Can you refer me to any cases, statutes or regulations on the matter, with specific reference to cruise ships? 

Edited April 11 by Wehwalt