Service Dog

[Jane2357]

We are animal lovers, esp. dogs, and think service dogs are wonderful. But. Some people who just can't leave Fido behind are claiming them as service dogs. They are of course a small minority, the same percentage of people, who are inconsiderate and selfish, that is found in the general population. Our last cruise an Elite member had a large hairy mix which accompanied her into the evening event each night. This dog was not well trained, would not sit still, begged for food, and was also pretty slobbery. I really don't think it was a true service dog, or it had been allowed to forget it's training. In fact, it pretty much acted like any normal dog around food. But, no one asked the owner to leave the dog at the door. :confused:

Disgusting and I would NOT be sitting in any proximity. The rich have found that there are many Drs and Vets that with the right amount of money are willing to say that their pets are Service Dogs. I know of people that do this. They have no disability, have no need of special service. I will not be quiet if I can hear a dog yapping in a cabin and h e double l - NO! I won't be sitting next to one on a plane or in a cruise ship dining room.

[NLH Arizona]

Disgusting and I would NOT be sitting in any proximity. The rich have found that there are many Drs and Vets that with the right amount of money are willing to say that their pets are Service Dogs. I know of people that do this. They have no disability, have no need of special service. I will not be quiet if I can hear a dog yapping in a cabin and h e double l - NO! I won't be sitting next to one on a plane or in a cruise ship dining room.

It has nothing to do with how much money a person has, it has to do with if their doctor is willing to write a letter saying the dog is needed as a comfort/companion dog, which BTW there are a lot of doctors (a vet can not make a dog a comfort/companion dog) who will do it for their patients without charging them or just charging them for an office visit. And yes, it is a crime that they would do this, but it is just as much a crime to say that only rich people do it - people from all walks of life do this. I'm with you, however, if there is a yapping dog next to my cabin, I would run down to guest services as fast as I can, because no "service dog" would ever behave in that manner and hopefully the person is kicked off the ship for lying.

[ghstudio]

It has nothing to do with how much money a person has, it has to do with if their doctor is willing to write a letter saying the dog is needed as a comfort/companion dog, which BTW there are a lot of doctors (a vet can not make a dog a comfort/companion dog) who will do it for their patients without charging them or just charging them for an office visit. And yes, it is a crime that they would do this, but it is just as much a crime to say that only rich people do it - people from all walks of life do this. I'm with you, however, if there is a yapping dog next to my cabin, I would run down to guest services as fast as I can, because no "service dog" would ever behave in that manner and hopefully the person is kicked off the ship for lying.

 

A comfort/companion dog has no protection under ADA.....that has been made extremely clear by the US Justice department in their 2010 revision. In fact, no letter or documentation is requred under the law....so getting a doctor's letter is not necessary and perhaps is a telling sign that a person is "stretching the truth".

 

If that is the basis for bringing a dog on board then Celebrity should refuse to let the dog on board and they will be violating no law. You may ask the two questions in writing and if the passenger signs false information, they are subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Celebrity should state that they take violations seriously and will prosecute if someone is violating the law (obviously they would word it differently...but you get the idea).

[NLH Arizona]

A comfort/companion dog has no protection under ADA.....that has been made extremely clear by the US Justice department in their 2010 revision. In fact, no letter or documentation is requred under the law....so getting a doctor's letter is not necessary and perhaps is a telling sign that a person is "stretching the truth".

 

If that is the basis for bringing a dog on board then Celebrity should refuse to let the dog on board and they will be violating no law. You may ask the two questions in writing and if the passenger signs false information, they are subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Celebrity should state that they take violations seriously and will prosecute if someone is violating the law (obviously they would word it differently...but you get the idea).

If you look at one of my previous posts, I clearly stated that comfort/companion dogs are not under ADA regulations and by stating that a comfort/companion dog is a ADA service dog it is a crime. People are getting letters from their doctors stating that they need their dog because of anxiety and then these people tell stores, airlines, cruise lines, hotels that they have a service dog and since most establishments are afraid to ask any questions, they let them in.

 

Celebrity, along with others, are afraid that they will be sued, thus they let companion/comfort dogs onboard, because the person tells them it is a service dog. Of course, Celebrity and other cruise lines should state that they take violations seriously, but they won't because they are afraid of (1) being sued or (2) bad press.

[ghstudio]

If you look at one of my previous posts, I clearly stated that comfort/companion dogs are not under ADA regulations and by stating that a comfort/companion dog is a ADA service dog it is a crime. People are getting letters from their doctors stating that they need their dog because of anxiety and then these people tell stores, airlines, cruise lines, hotels that they have a service dog and since most establishments are afraid to ask any questions, they let them in.

 

Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform

 

The key here the dog must be TRAINED to do work or perform task. That's why you are allowed to ask the second question.....and if the answer is "they sit on my lap and comfort me if I become anxious", they fail the test and the dog should not be permitted on board.

 

I know celebrity will never be proactive, but I can hope that if there is an annoying dog on board, they would take some action and not hide behind a law that does not apply.

[NLH Arizona]

Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform

 

The key here the dog must be TRAINED to do work or perform task. That's why you are allowed to ask the second question.....and if the answer is "they sit on my lap and comfort me if I become anxious", they fail the test and the dog should not be permitted on board.

 

I know celebrity will never be proactive, but I can hope that if there is an annoying dog on board, they would take some action and not hide behind a law that does not apply.

I know all of this, but as I said all the person has to do is say it is a service dog and that they have a letter stating it and, wrongly, Celebrity takes them at their word, as do many other establishments. Let's face it, a person who tries to circumvent the laws isn't going to be honest, because after all they know what they are doing is wrong.

 

Hopefully if their is an annoying dog on board, people complain, because that is the only way Celebrity or any other cruise line, hotel, airline, etc., will ever do anything. And even then, I doubt Celebrity will do anything because they are afraid of being sued or getting bad publicity.

[ghstudio]

I know all of this, but as I said all the person has to do is say it is a service dog and that they have a letter stating it and, wrongly, Celebrity takes them at their word, as do many other establishments. Let's face it, a person who tries to circumvent the laws isn't going to be honest, because after all they know what they are doing is wrong.

 

Hopefully if their is an annoying dog on board, people complain, because that is the only way Celebrity or any other cruise line, hotel, airline, etc., will ever do anything. And even then, I doubt Celebrity will do anything because they are afraid of being sued or getting bad publicity.

 

Celebrity should have a form and require that the passenger sign it. The form should have the two legal questions. There is no requirement under ADA that there be any letter...and Celebrity therefore should not accept a letter as proof that the dog falls under ADA. They should just make the person fill out the form and sign itl....with a note on the bottom just above the signature that signing the form with incorrect information may be a crime and may be prosecuted. The form should be signed by only the passenger who needs the dog or their legal guardian.....not by their doctor or vet.

 

This isn't difficult for anyone who really has a service dog. It just makes those who are "stretching the truth" perhaps think twice about their being "special".

[NLH Arizona]

Celebrity should have a form and require that the passenger sign it. The form should have the two legal questions. There is no requirement under ADA that there be any letter...and Celebrity therefore should not accept a letter as proof that the dog falls under ADA. They should just make the person fill out the form and sign itl....with a note on the bottom just above the signature that signing the form with incorrect information may be a crime and may be prosecuted.

Well I just learned a lot. Emotional support animals are allowed on Celebrity cruises with documentation from doctor, social worker, etc.

[ghstudio]

Well I just learned a lot. Emotional support animals are allowed on Celebrity cruises with documentation from doctor, social worker, etc.

 

I guess that's a business decision ....it has nothing to do with ADA.

 

My guess is that the Celebrity policy was put in place before the clarification of the ADA rules and no one has questioned it or even looked at it since the policy was put in place.