Interesting Development Re Service Dogs

[rangeley]

Does anyone know what ship this was? We were on the Royal the 9th-16th. There were 4 service dogs onboard. My husbands SD, my friend with her hearing dog, an older couple with a questionable seizure dog and one I never saw. Was wondering if the other dog was this woman.

 

I don't like to get in heated discussions about service animals. Everyone has their own opinions. Just for the record, our dog was trained for 2 years and has to go for testing every 3 years. 

[rugerdog]

18 minutes ago, rangeley said:

Does anyone know what ship this was? We were on the Royal the 9th-16th.

 

It's my understanding it was the Coral.

[rangeley]

3 minutes ago, rugerdog said:

 

It's my understanding it was the Coral.

Thank you. 

[Haboob]

1 hour ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Not true....states are coming up with laws against identifying a animal as a service animal if it is not and making it a crime with stiff fines.

 

DOT  last year clarified rules for service animals on USA planes and transportation after an American Airlines FA was bitten.  I am sure cruise lines could use these guidelines too if they wanted.

⋮

 

Uhh..  No.

You're speaking of "emotional support animals" and the Air Carrier Access Act.

 

Since cruise ships have staterooms, they "provide accommodation" and fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Do any of those things, don't pay the ADA fine of up to $155,000 per instance?  Then the USCG can arrest (seize) the ship the next time it is in a US port.

[caribill]

5 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

 

Bottom line it is still easy to tell who is using a "Fake ESA" and they seem to have no problem putting others at risk by their entitled and selfish attitudes.  Glad to see many different federal and state agencies starting to try and put a stop to this ridiculous abuse of a system.

 

 

I have no problem with an an Emotional Support animal being in an aircraft cabin.....as long at its owner is in the cargo hold.

[Mavis and Me]

2 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I have no problem with an an Emotional Support animal being in an aircraft cabin.....as long at its owner is in the cargo hold.

This cracked me up!!!  

[drpack]

And I thought the proper dress code on formal night threads were contentious...😀

 

From what I've gathered for the last ten pages and over an hour of reading, is that most of us just want a dog onboard to behave like it's supposed to be trained to do. I've never seen a service dog act up in any way. But go to any department store, grocery store or other public place here in Florida and it's almost guaranteed that you will see someone with a so called Emotional Support or Comfort dog. Yes usually a small one, that is acting up. Yes, most of the time it's an older person (I'm a senior citizen too) and the dog is usually setting in the shopping cart. It might have some cute doggy clothing on, maybe even a ribbon around its neck. It's yapping or snapping at anyone who gets near it, or so scared that's its shivering and pees all over the place. At least in my eyes, this isn't a trained service or support animal and shouldn't be allowed on a cruise ship.

 

It's already been mentioned several times. While Emotional Support Animals or Comfort Animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. If a dog isn't trained, it shouldn't be allowed on a cruise ship....

[PrincessLuver]

11 hours ago, Haboob said:

Uhh..  No.

You're speaking of "emotional support animals" and the Air Carrier Access Act.

 

Since cruise ships have staterooms, they "provide accommodation" and fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Do any of those things, don't pay the ADA fine of up to $155,000 per instance?  Then the USCG can arrest (seize) the ship the next time it is in a US port.

 

Never happen plus I trust Princess lawyers.....let me see...a person needs an ESA to be on a ship but they would have no problem going through a lengthily stressful trial if they felt slighted with their animal....it it a 1st world problem brought on by the elitist entitled!!!

[K.T.B.]

7 hours ago, drpack said:

It's already been mentioned several times. While Emotional Support Animals or Comfort Animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. If a dog isn't trained, it shouldn't be allowed on a cruise ship....

 

Bingo.  Time to end this contentiousness with that comment.

[Haboob]

1 hour ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Never happen plus I trust Princess lawyers.....let me see...a person needs an ESA to be on a ship but they would have no problem going through a lengthily stressful trial if they felt slighted with their animal....it it a 1st world problem brought on by the elitist entitled!!!

Last go 'round.  I'll not likely respond further.

 

You are conflating "emotional support animals" under the Air Carrier Access Act and "service animals" under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Cruise ships have staterooms and SCOTUS has ruled they therefore fall under the ADA.  If a cruise ship, for example, asks to see any documentation that an animal has been trained, you can file a "housing" (yeah, "housing") complaint online, and the feds will issue a fine of up to $155,000.

 

I trust Princess lawyers on this, too.  If you simply say your dog is a service animal and name a task, then it is one under the ADA (whether it can perform the task or not, and whether you actually need the task performed or not).  Princess is then barred from asking any further questions, leaving Fluffy there to try and snatch something off my plate in the main dining room.

 

...and giving a bad name to those service animals which are properly trained and very needed.

[PrincessLuver]

9 hours ago, drpack said:

And I thought the proper dress code on formal night threads were contentious...😀

 

 

Are you saying "ESA's" fake or real have to wear formal vests on formal nights?  🙂

[caribill]

14 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Are you saying "ESA's" fake or real have to wear formal vests on formal nights?  🙂

 

[donaldsc]

16 hours ago, Haboob said:

Last go 'round.  I'll not likely respond further.

 

You are conflating "emotional support animals" under the Air Carrier Access Act and "service animals" under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Cruise ships have staterooms and SCOTUS has ruled they therefore fall under the ADA.  If a cruise ship, for example, asks to see any documentation that an animal has been trained, you can file a "housing" (yeah, "housing") complaint online, and the feds will issue a fine of up to $155,000.

 

I trust Princess lawyers on this, too.  If you simply say your dog is a service animal and name a task, then it is one under the ADA (whether it can perform the task or not, and whether you actually need the task performed or not).  Princess is then barred from asking any further questions, leaving Fluffy there to try and snatch something off my plate in the main dining room.

 

...and giving a bad name to those service animals which are properly trained and very needed.

 

Are we allowed to toss the "service" rat dogs overboard.  Does anyone know if "service" chihuahuas can swim.

 

DON

[ghstudio]

One thing to remember.....you and I, as fellow passengers, can ask any questions we want....the law only pertains to the owner and employees of an establishment/plane/ship.  At times, I have been know to have what my DW calls sadistic fun asking folks with "questionable" dogs many questions...in the interest, of course, in learning what dogs are capable of doing and how they are trained.  Funny thing...those with real trained dogs, the ones truly protected by the laws, are generally friendly and willing to talk about their dogs and the way the dogs have changed their lives.  Those having pets with Amazon licenses freak out.....

 

BTW, we are generous contributors to a local guide dog training center who give trained service dogs to those truly in need.  It costs about $60k to train a seeing eye dog...the recipient pays nothing.  

[PrincessLuver]

6 hours ago, caribill said:

 

 

LOL.....great sense of humor....

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

Are we allowed to toss the "service" rat dogs overboard.  Does anyone know if "service" chihuahuas can swim.

 

DON

 

I understand the sentiment.  But, let's not forget if anything it is the owner, not the animal, who needs tossing.  

[KeepCalmBearOn]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:05 PM, Haboob said:

Since cruise ships have staterooms, they "provide accommodation" and fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Do any of those things, don't pay the ADA fine of up to $155,000 per instance?  Then the USCG can arrest (seize) the ship the next time it is in a US port.

 

Cruise lines are no more subject to the ADA than they are to federal minimum wage laws, overtime rules, etc.

[weedpindle]

On 11/20/2019 at 3:24 AM, drpack said:

And I thought the proper dress code on formal night threads were contentious...😀

 

From what I've gathered for the last ten pages and over an hour of reading, is that most of us just want a dog onboard to behave like it's supposed to be trained to do. I've never seen a service dog act up in any way. But go to any department store, grocery store or other public place here in Florida and it's almost guaranteed that you will see someone with a so called Emotional Support or Comfort dog. Yes usually a small one, that is acting up. Yes, most of the time it's an older person (I'm a senior citizen too) and the dog is usually setting in the shopping cart. It might have some cute doggy clothing on, maybe even a ribbon around its neck. It's yapping or snapping at anyone who gets near it, or so scared that's its shivering and pees all over the place. At least in my eyes, this isn't a trained service or support animal and shouldn't be allowed on a cruise ship.

 

It's already been mentioned several times. While Emotional Support Animals or Comfort Animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA. A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. If a dog isn't trained, it shouldn't be allowed on a cruise ship....

I really like it when the 'comfort dog' is in the basket of the store mobility cart, the place where your stuff will go. It seems to be a Florida ritual

[Haboob]

5 hours ago, scottca075 said:

 

Cruise lines are no more subject to the ADA than they are to federal minimum wage laws, overtime rules, etc.

 

The US Supreme Court thinks otherwise:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1388.pdf

[pms4104]

3 hours ago, weedpindle said:

I really like it when the 'comfort dog' is in the basket of the store mobility cart, the place where your stuff will go. It seems to be a Florida ritual

Publix at least mandates "four on the floor" ... i would expect other companies tp follow suit 

[MixerDave]

15 hours ago, Haboob said:

 

The US Supreme Court thinks otherwise:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1388.pdf

 

That ruling only applies to Cruise ships that visit US ports.  It does not apply to foreign ports.

[Haboob]

10 hours ago, MixerDave said:

 

That ruling only applies to Cruise ships that visit US ports.  It does not apply to foreign ports.

Yup.

 

...and on cruises that don't touch US waters or ports, every service animal I've seen aboard has been well-trained and well-mannered.

[richstowe]

On 11/21/2019 at 5:17 PM, Haboob said:

 

The US Supreme Court thinks otherwise:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1388.pdf

 

 

 

That was the 2005 court . Wonder what the current court would decide ?

 

10 hours ago, MixerDave said:

 

That ruling only applies to Cruise ships that visit US ports.  It does not apply to foreign ports.

 

I'm not so sure . Regardless, my understanding is that the US cruiselines follow these same guidelines everywhere .

[Peckishpixie]

On 11/20/2019 at 5:44 AM, PrincessLuver said:

 

Never happen plus I trust Princess lawyers.....let me see...a person needs an ESA to be on a ship but they would have no problem going through a lengthily stressful trial if they felt slighted with their animal....it it a 1st world problem brought on by the elitist entitled!!!

You are incorrect. In 2014 Carnival was investigated and taken to court by the US for failure to comply with ADA regulations. Carnival argued that Cruise ships were not required to comply with ADA because they are registered in other countries . The courts ruled against Carnival Corp and Carnival corp was ordered to either comply or no longer dock in US ports and to was also assessed several million dollars in fines. The decision also opened  Carnival up to civil suits and 13 class action suits were filled while Carnival was waiting for a decision on their appeal. Carnival lost its appeal so in 2015 Carnival voluntarily entered in to an agreement with the Attorney Generals office that outlines how cruise ships will operate concerning ADA compliance.  If you want to view the agreement you can do so at https://www.ada.gov/carnival/carnival_sa.html Because Carnival lost its appeals all other cruise ship companies operating in the US have voluntarily  agreed to comply with ADA standards.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

3 hours ago, richstowe said:

That was the 2005 court . Wonder what the current court would decide ?

 

I read the decision, which was one I wasn't familiar with.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1388.pdf

 

As the "comfort" animal continues to get out of hand it is a case ripe to be revisited. Although it was officially a 6-3 decision, it was really 5-4 in several key parts and I think Thomas might be swayed by stronger arguments on a textual basis.

 

As usual, Scalia's dissent was spot on. The case was a classic of reading more into an act than was written in it. In the absence of specific Congressional intent, the courts should on the side of caution rather than legislate on their own; especially in a relatively new law.