So , are dogs allowed on cruise ships now ?

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

I drive Uber/Lyft about 1,000 rides a year to pay for our cruises. Anyway, rideshare drivers are forced to pick up riders w/ service dogs. I have my rules though... 

1. the dog must be trained. I'm allowed to ask what the dog is 'trained' for. I expect an answer.

2. the dog must be contained. Either in a portable kennel, crate or leash. 

3. if no portable kennel or crate is supplied, then a blanket must be used for the dog to lay on. 

4. no answer, no kennel or crate, no leash & no blanket, means no ride. If these expectations are not met, I cancel the ride & move on. 

 

I haul people. 95% of my riders are business travelers to/from airports and having dog hair in my car is not an option. I have 0 tolerance for anybody claiming to need a service dog w/o consideration for others. On the other hand, if a rider needs my service & my car, and they are also in need of a service dog, I'll go out of my way to assist them if they are considerate of my car, my job, and other potential riders.  

You are just waiting for a court case with your rules.  Don't believe Uber or Lyft will stand behind you on this.

[MotownVoice]

2 hours ago, smplybcause said:

If the public wants to be educated about service animals, there's plenty of ways for them to do that.

Clearly you're involved somehow.  And you are typical of why people roll their eyes at stuff like this, rather than you just trying to be friendly and compassionate and gently lead people in to your camp.

You're not a very good ambassador for your cause.  You just repel people.

Edited September 18, 2019 by MotownVoice

[Cru1s1ng2009]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 5:44 PM, loman said:

Just off the Allure yesterday .

I saw 3 , possibly 4 little doggies on the cruise .

None were wearing service vests .

I saw little kids playing with one and petting it and the owner was pleased with the attention his cruise partner was getting .

I don't think service animals like to be handled by strangers.

I'm glad they weren't large dogs , but just give it time .

 

 

 

 

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 5:44 PM, loman said:

 

 

 

Service dogs don't need to wear a vest. In fact, the owner doesn't need to tell much except for 2 questions to an employee asking.

Do I think these were service dogs? No. but HIPPA and ADA say I cant ask as a passenger.

[Cru1s1ng2009]

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You are just waiting for a court case with your rules.  Don't believe Uber or Lyft will stand behind you on this.

You are right, they wont stand behind them-Fellow Uber driver.

[johnjen]

42 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You are just waiting for a court case with your rules.  Don't believe Uber or Lyft will stand behind you on this.

 

The poster you quoted runs a legit business, and can run it whatever manner they want to. Any "court case" on this would get laughed out of court.

 

And, YES. These "animal needs" ARE becoming a travel industry nightmare.

What next? A discrimination lawsuit against a driver because they won't allow the service pony a ride in their Versa?

[Cru1s1ng2009]

4 minutes ago, johnjen said:

 

The poster you quoted runs a legit business, and can run it whatever manner they want to. Any "court case" on this would get laughed out of court.

 

And, YES. These "animal needs" ARE becoming a travel industry nightmare.

What next? A discrimination lawsuit against a driver because they won't allow the service pony a ride in their Versa?

funny you should mention it. There is such a thing as a mini horse service animal.

 

Although Uber drivers are not saddled with FTA standards, we must accept service animals or risk getting deactivated.

 

Personally I like dogs more than people so having one in my car is a treat. If it has an accident there is a cleaning fee that Uber will charge the rider just as they would for vomit.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Cru1s1ng2009
kinj

[Cruiser_1977]

"So, are dogs allowed on cruise ships now?"

Here is the link to the Royal Caribbean policy on Service Animals.

 

As of 8/14/2018, if you already had a reservation noted with an ESA "All Emotional Support Animals noted on reservations prior to July 30, 2018 are protected and will be allowed to sail."

Edited September 18, 2019 by JennyB1977

[celoplyr]

17 hours ago, time4u2go said:

I totally respect your opinion on this, and I appreciate your weighing in on this.  I'm curious as to what your opinion is when it comes to people with allergies to perfume.  Do you feel that perfume should be banned?  Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to diminish your situation.  I know it's real, and it's a legitimate concern.  I'm just trying to understand different perspectives.

I know people very well who are allergic to perfume.  They will leave the room if it's very perfume heavy. That restricts their ability to breathe.  MOST people with serious, life threatening allergies will take the precautions to make themselves safe.  There's a difference between being "banned" and making reasonable accommodation.  For instance, I will land in the hospital if I have a down pillow.  I don't think that they should be "banned", but you can bet that I have it on every room request, and have learned to say it in other languages.  

 

For me, I need a fair amount of time with an animal before I start to get the serious side effects.  The shortest time was 15 minutes.  I can tell if an animal is in the house in under an hour, even if the room has been deep cleaned. That's why I, personally, would advocate for the segregation of rooms (and for the person that asked, yes, I would do the same thing in a hotel that accommodates pets).  I spend more time in my room/cabin and can't leave if it bothers me.  On airplanes, I ask to be in a different row- the further away, the more time I can spend in the area.  I would also leave the flight if they couldn't accommodate that.  Remember that on an airplane, the "emotional support" animals should be in a carrier, so they shouldn't shed all over the seat or myself.  I've also found that the ratio of "emotional support" animals on an airplane to a true "service animal" is about 100:1.  If I end up on a flight with that one, in the same row as that one and could not be reseated to be as far away as possible- yeah I'll take the next flight.  That risk to me seems very minor compared to potentially having an asthma attack at 30,000 feet. This risk is also lower when I'm flying internationally- most people don't want to deal with the hassle of bringing animals across international borders unless they have to.  

 

If cruises start to be the same, where I can't reasonably segregate myself, then I will stop cruising.  I'm not asking for service animals to only be in 10 rooms per ship, but instead to make half the ship for service animals and half not. Like they used to have smoking on one side of the ship only. Then I can pick a cabin on the other side, and people who need a dog can pick one on the opposite side.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

18 minutes ago, Cru1s1ng2009 said:

You are right, they wont stand behind them-Fellow Uber driver.

 

Then you should know that drivers are independent contractors and not employees. It is for this reason that  Uber and/or Lyft never stand behind the drivers in any litigation. They might de-activiate my account but I don't care. As for my own ability to defend myself against litigation, I think most people would be hard pressed to sue me as I NEVER refuse to carry anyone w/ a dog. I only refuse to carry the dog if they can not assist in the protection of my asset and the ability to make money. That would be the car.  Dog hair will not get in my car. Not even my own two 50+ pound dogs ride in this car.  

[Cru1s1ng2009]

3 minutes ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Then you should know that drivers are independent contractors and not employees. It is for this reason that  Uber and/or Lyft never stand behind the drivers in any litigation. They might de-activiate my account but I don't care. As for my own ability to defend myself against litigation, I think most people would be hard pressed to sue me as I NEVER refuse to carry anyone w/ a dog. I only refuse to carry the dog if they can not assist in the protection of my asset and the ability to make money. That would be the car.  Dog hair will not get in my car. Not even my own two 50+ pound dogs ride in this car.  

totally agree, I just don't want to be deactivated and give up a good part time gig.

[Cruiser_1977]

delete....

Edited September 18, 2019 by JennyB1977

[Don'tNeedAName]

10 minutes ago, johnjen said:

 

The poster you quoted runs a legit business, and can run it whatever manner they want to. Any "court case" on this would get laughed out of court.

 

And, YES. These "animal needs" ARE becoming a travel industry nightmare.

What next? A discrimination lawsuit against a driver because they won't allow the service pony a ride in their Versa?

 

Since when has any business been permitted to run in whatever manner the owner wants to?  All businesses must follow laws, and the applicable one here is the ADA.

 

Refusing access to a legitimate service animal (note: NOT an emotional support animal) based on the lack of a blanket would not be "laughed out of court."

 

Furthermore, your example is erroneous.  First, a pony is different than a miniature horse.  With respect to miniature horses, the law already provides that a business may assess whether it "can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight."  If it won't fit, it won't fit.

 

Simply because some people do not follow the law with respect to service animals (again, NOT emotional support animals) does not mean that the answer is to make life harder on those with a legitimate need for service animals.  

[ownedbypets]

18 minutes ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Then you should know that drivers are independent contractors and not employees. It is for this reason that  Uber and/or Lyft never stand behind the drivers in any litigation. They might de-activiate my account but I don't care. As for my own ability to defend myself against litigation, I think most people would be hard pressed to sue me as I NEVER refuse to carry anyone w/ a dog. I only refuse to carry the dog if they can not assist in the protection of my asset and the ability to make money. That would be the car.  Dog hair will not get in my car. Not even my own two 50+ pound dogs ride in this car.  

 

I will always follow the rules but I can assure you that if I got in your car there is no guarantee that dog hair won't be left behind. I have 4 100 pound plus dogs that all have very long hair and they shed a lot.  Before I leave the house I use a lint roller on all of my clothes but I'm sure that some is left behind for me to leave on a plane seat, car seat or a cruise cabin. 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

2 minutes ago, Don'tNeedAName said:

 

Since when has any business been permitted to run in whatever manner the owner wants to?  All businesses must follow laws, and the applicable one here is the ADA.

 

Refusing access to a legitimate service animal (note: NOT an emotional support animal) based on the lack of a blanket would not be "laughed out of court."

 

Furthermore, your example is erroneous.  First, a pony is different than a miniature horse.  With respect to miniature horses, the law already provides that a business may assess whether it "can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight."  If it won't fit, it won't fit.

 

Simply because some people do not follow the law with respect to service animals (again, NOT emotional support animals) does not mean that the answer is to make life harder on those with a legitimate need for service animals.  

 

Allowing a rider w/ a service animal in my car that would potentially prevent me from taking my next ride request is not acceptable to me. If that is against the law, then the law is wrong. The law is in place to prevent discrimination against those with a disability. I have no problem with this. I only have a problem with it when it prevents me from my livelihood. While it might upset some, my ability to make an income outweighs those with a disability needing my service. It is why I ask for protection. If it's provided and/or complied with, let's roll. If it's not, I move on. I've had about 7 rides w/ service animals in my car. There was no issues. The riders understood and were comfortable with complying. I only had move on one time.  Like everything else in life, it's how you handle things and treat people. I'm not a mean person or uneducated person when it comes to ADA. I'm as compassionate as one can be. I don't drive just to accompany riders with or without disabilities to their destinations. I drive to make money for cruise ships. Period. 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

4 minutes ago, ownedbypets said:

 

I will always follow the rules but I can assure you that if I got in your car there is no guarantee that dog hair won't be left behind. I have 4 100 pound plus dogs that all have very long hair and they shed a lot.  Before I leave the house I use a lint roller on all of my clothes but I'm sure that some is left behind for me to leave on a plane seat, car seat or a cruise cabin. 

 

True. But unless you're as hairy as your shedding dogs, I'll take that chance. Especially if you lent roll. 

[chengkp75]

44 minutes ago, johnjen said:

 

The poster you quoted runs a legit business, and can run it whatever manner they want to. Any "court case" on this would get laughed out of court.

 

And, YES. These "animal needs" ARE becoming a travel industry nightmare.

What next? A discrimination lawsuit against a driver because they won't allow the service pony a ride in their Versa?

From the ADA FAQ page:

 

"

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service."

 

So, no, the Uber/Lyft driver cannot "run it whatever manner they want to".  And since this is mentioned by the DOJ, a civil court case for discrimination would absolutely not be laughed out of court.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

For the record, I have carried wheelchairs, broken down wheel chairs, loaded wheelchairs, and even assisted people w/ 'sliding' them into and out of the car. Never have I refused their service. But they don't have dog hair. For me it's common sense. My next rider expects a clean car and they have no clue what happened on my previous ride and the don't even care about my previous rider's issues. It is what it is. 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

From the ADA FAQ page:

 

"

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service."

 

So, no, the Uber/Lyft driver cannot "run it whatever manner they want to".  And since this is mentioned by the DOJ, a civil court case for discrimination would absolutely not be laughed out of court.

 

Well I'll ask you to protect my interior. If you start quoting this stuff and refuse to help yourself, I'll move on. You can sue me.  

[Threedrones]

On 9/16/2019 at 6:35 PM, not-enough-cruising said:

And there is no certification or paperwork to prove what these dogs do or do not do; so owners can claim anything, and cruise-lines, airports, hotels etc. can do nothing about it. 

While true that service dogs do not require certification, it is not true that nothing can be done about it. A business CAN require documentation when the animal is for emotional support. The documentation is not on the animal, but on the person claiming the need for the animal.

[johnjen]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

From the ADA FAQ page:

 

"

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service."

 

So, no, the Uber/Lyft driver cannot "run it whatever manner they want to".  And since this is mentioned by the DOJ, a civil court case for discrimination would absolutely not be laughed out of court.

You gotta admit, that's crazy.....WOW. No wonder the travel industry is getting hammered with abuse. From that statement, alone, things will be guaranteed to get out of hand.

Edited September 18, 2019 by johnjen

[Don'tNeedAName]

4 minutes ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Allowing a rider w/ a service animal in my car that would potentially prevent me from taking my next ride request is not acceptable to me. If that is against the law, then the law is wrong. The law is in place to prevent discrimination against those with a disability. I have no problem with this. I only have a problem with it when it prevents me from my livelihood. While it might upset some, my ability to make an income outweighs those with a disability needing my service. It is why I ask for protection. If it's provided and/or complied with, let's roll. If it's not, I move on. I've had about 7 rides w/ service animals in my car. There was no issues. The riders understood and were comfortable with complying. I only had move on one time.  Like everything else in life, it's how you handle things and treat people. I'm not a mean person or uneducated person when it comes to ADA. I'm as compassionate as one can be. I don't drive just to accompany riders with or without disabilities to their destinations. I drive to make money for cruise ships. Period. 

 

Requiring a person with a service animal to provide a blanket to cover the seat in your vehicle and then refusing to serve them if they do not do so is discriminating against people with a disability if you do not require that from all others.  If you would like to provide your own cover, then you could certainly do it.

 

Just because others have complied, and no one has actually complained does not mean you are right.  If you do not want to be required to make reasonable accommodations for those needing service animals as required by law, you are opening yourself up to risk.  I see in another reply you have used the "so sue me" language.  It's fine that you have a cavalier attitude about it.  However, you may feel differently if you do receive a complaint, or should you ever require a service animal yourself.

 

If you believe the law is wrong, then write your congressman.

[johnjen]

4 minutes ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Well I'll ask you to protect my interior. If you start quoting this stuff and refuse to help yourself, I'll move on. You can sue me.  

Shame on you for NOT allowing that donkey on board, leaving poor ADA person stranded like that!

[Don'tNeedAName]

1 minute ago, johnjen said:

Shame on you for NOT allowing that donkey on board, leaving poor ADA person stranded like that!

 

Once again, you misrepresent the reality of the situation.  A donkey is not recognized as a service animal under the ADA.

[johnjen]

With these lunatic "laws" in place, regarding animals? If I were a driver and saw that? I'd simply keep driving and write that one off.

[not-enough-cruising]

6 minutes ago, Threedrones said:

While true that service dogs do not require certification, it is not true that nothing can be done about it. A business CAN require documentation when the animal is for emotional support. The documentation is not on the animal, but on the person claiming the need for the animal.

The problem is that there is NO WAY to distinguish one from the other.  A person has only to say, “this is my service animal” and case closed.