Opinion---Dogs on Board?

[greatam]

Just slightly OT

 

I wanted so badly to fly my 5 dogs (4 Labs and a Bullmastiff) on Concorde. Just thought it would be a real hoot. And had a lot of miles to waste (still do but no place to spend them)

 

AF allowed dogs of any size in the cabin as long as they paid full price.

 

Then they had the wreck. No more AF Concorde, no more flying dogs.

 

Will my guys miss it? They don't have a clue.

 

Would I like to take them on a cruise? The oldest one (13+ years) would be OK and behave and I would love to have OD (means overdrive NOT drug OD) with me. Could I sneak him in as a "service dog" or "emotional support dog". Probably. My husband committed suicide about 1.5 years ago. OD has been my lifeline and support since then.

 

The rest of them-they would probably have a better time laying on my bed with a dogsitter.

[CPT Trips]

 

 

One last thought - do you folks that are so against emotional support animals feel the same - be it a little old lady with a fluffy dog in a pink stroller - or one of our heroes that have been wounded and need a support animal for their PTSD? I welcome your feedback.

 

A person with PTSD may well have a service animal that performs a wide variety of tasks and is much more than emotional support. I don't favor changing ADA to recognize emotional support dogs regardless of the cause of the PTSD or other psychiatric or psychological problem.

 

Explains the difference between service and emotional support. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/treatment/cope/dogs_and_ptsd.asp

 

Lays out the many and varied tasks a PSTD service animal might be trained to provide. http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html

Edited July 2, 2014 by CPT Trips

[ducklite]

 

"Sharing of opinions doesn't bother me one bit" that's what I love about Cruise Critic! I also totally agree about having no issue with officially trained service animals. There will always be those folks that will try to cheat the system and that's so wrong, but there are also those that have a valid reason to bring their emotional support dogs.

 

I guess my feathers are a bit ruffled (I am strong and can take negative comments), but you all should see both sides of every issue. Yes, my 90 year old mother is one of those that has a pink dog stroller that she pushes her 5 lb Yorkie in (just as sturdy as a walker). They look forward to their after dinner walks. Mom also has extreme anxiety and a strong emotional attachment to her dog and usually chooses to stay home if the dog can't come along. It's so amazing to see how calm Mom becomes with her dog in her arms or nearby!

 

Would we personally take the dog on a cruise or somewhere she is not welcomed - no way!! Would we want her in a cabin or hotel room where the next person might have an allergic reaction - never!! Would we ever walk away and ignore an accident - no - that's gross! Would we allow her to disturb others - another no.

 

So on our next cruise with mom the dog goes to her granddaughters house and mom will suffer emotionally for the week (anxiety meds are too dangerous for her) - HAL, unlike RCCL, doesn't allow emotional support dogs. This most likely will be mom's last cruise - something that she has always enjoyed - she really loves room service on her balcony. lol

 

Sorry to ramble on and on - but I just wanted to make my point that if RCCL allows emotional support animals on board as well as service animals then it's their call. Of course we can state our opinions here on Cruise Critic - that's what our open forum is all about.

 

One last thought - do you folks that are so against emotional support animals feel the same - be it a little old lady with a fluffy dog in a pink stroller - or one of our heroes that have been wounded and need a support animal for their PTSD? I welcome your feedback.

 

 

As much as I appreciate their service, the dogs that are "support animals" are pets, regardless of who they are "supporting." They are not specially trained and do not perform a task. Again, if it is allowed for one person to bring on a pet, it is a slippery slope. Why not grannies pooch in the pink stroller or the kid with ADHD's German Shepard? Where does it end.

[ducklite]

If an emotional support dog is trained to the same degree as a service dog regarding its behaviour in public then, personally, I would have no objection to it.

 

However if someone is allowed to bring a dog that is noisy, unruly, or threatening, that is not toilet-trained, and who is allowed to eat in the dining rooms, then I would be making a complaint and would not cruise with that cruise line again.

 

 

They are not trained to perform any task. That is why they are not service dogs.

[ducklite]

A person with PTSD may well have a service animal that performs a wide variety of tasks and is much more than emotional support. I don't favor changing ADA to recognize emotional support dogs regardless of the cause of the PTSD or other psychiatric or psychological problem.

 

Explains the difference between service and emotional support. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/treatment/cope/dogs_and_ptsd.asp

 

Lays out the many and varied tasks a PSTD service animal might be trained to provide. http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html

 

 

All of those actions are more for a physically challenged person who might also have PTSD. An able bodied person could do all of that without the dog. In those scenarios, the dog is acting as a service animal for a physically challenged person, the PTSD is just an added challenge.

[ducklite]

I need to correct something I posted yesterday. Recently the ADA began allowing miniature horses under the category of assistance animals. There are caveats though. The horse must be fully housebroken, and must be able to operate within the space and weight confines of the place it and the owner are visiting. There are a few other odds and ends of that co docile to the law, but suffice to say, it's not going to be easy to get a miniature horse to meet all of the criteria.

[jkspringtexas]

Good morning everyone. Well, we are now on page 5, and after much discussion it seems to me that we have agreed that service animals are not a problem, it's the issue of emotional support animals and especially those folks that obviously abuse the system.

 

By law, hotels, airlines, cruise lines and business owners will continue to follow the guidelines of the ADA regarding this issue. I feel that if any business makes an exception to the ADA guidelines and allows emotional support animals, then so be it. It will then be up to the individual consumer to decide if they want to use that business or not if the possibility of encountering someone with an emotional support animal is present.

 

Thanks everyone - although I didn't start this thread - it has been interesting hearing your comments and experiences.

[ducklite]

Under the ADA and in about 25% of the states, it's illegal to misrepresent that an animal is a service dog. I'd like to see the law enforced and people prosecuted. It should quickly resolve that problem once people are fined several thousand dollars and/or tossed in jail for up to six months.

[CPT Trips]

All of those actions are more for a physically challenged person who might also have PTSD. An able bodied person could do all of that without the dog. In those scenarios, the dog is acting as a service animal for a physically challenged person, the PTSD is just an added challenge.

 

No, that's not correct. Reading parts 3&4 of the second link really clarify the issue. Yep, the link is lengthy but reading it all it all demonstrates that the trained dog performs tasks that mitigate various non-physical aspects of this disability. The "cover me" command and clearing and lighting a room before it is entered are good examples of work that have nothing to do with physical disability. There are a host of others.

 

While a person with PSTD and no physical disabilities might be capable of performing these tasks, PSTD at times renders him or her unable to perform the task, thus requiring the service. It is way beyond just emotional support.

[ducklite]

No, that's not correct. Reading parts 3&4 of the second link really clarify the issue. Yep, the link is lengthy but reading it all it all demonstrates that the trained dog performs tasks that mitigate various non-physical aspects of this disability. The "cover me" command and clearing and lighting a room before it is entered are good examples of work that have nothing to do with physical disability. There are a host of others.

 

While a person with PSTD and no physical disabilities might be capable of performing these tasks, PSTD at times renders him or her unable to perform the task, thus requiring the service. It is way beyond just emotional support.

 

Given this scenario, the dog is a service dog. The owner can adequately answer the two determining questions:

 

1. Is this dog trained to perform a task related to the owners disability? (yes)

2. What are the tasks the dog is trained to do? (Turn on lights, alert to strangers, retrieve medications)

 

The training is the key word. A dog who only provides support by sitting on a lap or doing something that any well mannered dog would typically do is not a service dog, not protected under the ADA, and should not be given accommodation in a public place. Doing so dilutes the value of a true service dog.

Edited July 2, 2014 by ducklite

[ducklite]

I should also add that I think accommodation needs to be made for legitimate service dogs in training, as without exposure to mass transit, public places, crowds, etc., they can't be properly prepared to do their job.

 

Obviously the dog needs to be fully housebroken and have passed a "Canine Good Citizen" type assessment first.

[cruisead]

Under the ADA and in about 25% of the states, it's illegal to misrepresent that an animal is a service dog. I'd like to see the law enforced and people prosecuted. It should quickly resolve that problem once people are fined several thousand dollars and/or tossed in jail for up to six months.

 

Just read an article in a NY newspaper about people like Ivana Trump, Richard Belzer and others who claim to have emotional support dogs and take them everywhere in NYC. Recently, Ivana brought her Yorkie into a NYC restaurant and it caused a problem when it was allowed to sit on a table and eat off a regular plate. She said it's her emotional support animal, and therefore legal. So see, I really think people need to be educated as to the law and that emotional support animals are NOT covered under the ADA.

[TravelerThom]

Just read an article in a NY newspaper about people like Ivana Trump, Richard Belzer and others who claim to have emotional support dogs and take them everywhere in NYC. Recently, Ivana brought her Yorkie into a NYC restaurant and it caused a problem when it was allowed to sit on a table and eat off a regular plate. She said it's her emotional support animal, and therefore legal. So see, I really think people need to be educated as to the law and that emotional support animals are NOT covered under the ADA.

I wonder what the New York Health Department thinks about this:confused:

[iancal]

I am very much a dog lover. Been around them, or had one all my life.

 

But I clearly understand the distinction been humans and animals even though some people seem to treat their animals like children. Yuk-I feel very sorry for these people.

 

So if dogs are OK with some, how about cats, birds, snakes, gerbils, turtles...what have you? And what about the diseases that some of these animals might carry, not withstanding fleas.

Edited July 2, 2014 by iancal

[alexspepa]

 

But I clearly understand the distinction been humans and animals even though some people seem to treat their animals like children. Yuk-I feel very sorry for these people.

 

 

please don't feel sorry for me...I am quite happy being the sap for my dog that I am.:)

[jocap]

The OP said from Tampa to Harwich.....it is extraordinarily difficult to admit any animal into the UK, so the pooches would have to have much more than documents from a Dr or service dog provider. Unless all the rules are followed, the dogs wouldn't be allowed into the country.

[TravelerThom]

The OP said from Tampa to Harwich.....it is extraordinarily difficult to admit any animal into the UK, so the pooches would have to have much more than documents from a Dr or service dog provider. Unless all the rules are followed, the dogs wouldn't be allowed into the country.

Among the rules at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69502/pb13582-bringing-pets-to-uk-120229.pdf is a requirement to have a veterinarian treat the dog for tapeworm 1-5 days before its arrival in the UK and record the treatment (with exact times) in the dog's passport or Official Health Certificate. This thread started on the RCI boards, does RCI even have veterinarians to perform this? I suppose that if the cruise stopped somewhere in Europe before landing in Harwich, it might be possible to get it done in one of the previous ports, but that would likely be a major hassle.

 

Thom

[donaldsc]

People should try taking their "service" dogs to China or Korea. We all know what can happen to service dogs in those countries - they get served.

 

DON

[jamessemaj]

Under the ADA and in about 25% of the states, it's illegal to misrepresent that an animal is a service dog. I'd like to see the law enforced and people prosecuted. It should quickly resolve that problem once people are fined several thousand dollars and/or tossed in jail for up to six months.

 

This would be far down my list of dog owner prosecution. First would be loose dogs and attacks on humans. I won't mention the pit bull controversy, except I just did.

[CPT Trips]

People should try taking their "service" dogs to China or Korea. We all know what can happen to service dogs in those countries - they get served.

 

DON

 

Shame on you! Not the least bit humorous. Ethnic and racial stereotypes in a discussion like this are way worse than OT.

[ducklite]

This would be far down my list of dog owner prosecution. First would be loose dogs and attacks on humans. I won't mention the pit bull controversy, except I just did.

 

Totally different issues.

[jamessemaj]

Totally different issues.

 

Dog issues are dog issues, although I admit this is far off the original thread, but that is where you went and I followed.

Edited July 3, 2014 by jamessemaj

[SeagoingMom]

All the folks that made the distinction between service animals and companion animals are correct. The former must be accommodated, but not the latter. Just because someone claims their animal is a service animal doesn't tie the hands of the business. They don't need to just blindly accept the assertion.

 

Under ADA, there are two permissible questions that may be asked when it is not readily apparent what service the dog provides. In the case of a guide dog or a dog pulling a wheelchair, it's readily apparent, so don't ask. But a dog on a regular leash or in a shopping cart . The business gets to ask 1- Is the animal required because of a disability? And 2- What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

 

The service animal must also be housebroken and kept under control regardless of the service it provides. If the animal isn't, then it can be required to leave.Case law is clear that businesses can exclude animals that don't meet these tests. Admittedly, that is difficult one to implement on a cruise.

 

Really, I think it comes down to cruise lines not wanting to be bothered with keeping the, what they consider, few cheaters off. Cruise lines are not the only public accommodation that avoids confronting those who fraudulently claim that their animal is a service animal.

I'm pretty sure some of the posters on this thread could figure out a way...:eek:

[donaldsc]

This would be far down my list of dog owner prosecution. First would be loose dogs and attacks on humans. I won't mention the pit bull controversy, except I just did.

 

Shame on you! Not the least bit humorous. Ethnic and racial stereotypes in a discussion like this are way worse than OT.

 

It was not a stereotype post. We all know that some cultures eat stuff that are culturally forbidden to us. I should also point out that we eat stuff that is culturally forbidden to other cultures. For example, eating beef is part of the American tradition. A person of the Hindu faith would find consumption of beef to me ethically anathema. Many people in Europe consume horse meat and in fact older and unwanted horses in the US used to be exported to other countries where they were slaughtered although I believe it is now illegal in the US to export horses for this purpose.

 

You can not define a culture as either good or bad based on what it eats as long as the people who live there do not break their own cultural norm.

 

It might have been a bad taste post but it was definitely not sterotyping. I realize that Wikipedia is not the font of all human knowledge but this is a quote from Wikipedia -

 

"Dog meat refers to the flesh and other edible parts derived from dogs. Human consumption of dog meat has been recorded in many parts of the world, including East and Southeast Asia, West Africa, Europe, pre-Columbian America.[2] Dog meat today is widely consumed in China,[3] Korea,[4] and Vietnam.[5] Dog meat has also been used as survival food in times of war and/or other hardships.[6][7]"

 

DON

[OzKiwiJJ]

I have actually been to a restaurant in Shanghai that had dog on the menu. :eek:

 

No. I didn't order it :D