Dogs

[Petronillus]

5 minutes ago, highscar said:

If my cat was allowed I would be the one wearing the support vest.  I support him grooming, feeding, stroking, etc etc etc.  

I've heard that dogs have owners and cats have staffs.

[highscar]

2 minutes ago, Petronillus said:

I've heard that dogs have owners and cats have staffs.

 

[highscar]

Cats have waiters , cooks, pedicure appointments, free laundry, personal on call 24-7.  

[Petronillus]

On 4/9/2024 at 10:45 AM, chengkp75 said:

Yes, it is a question of "law or not law".  Your state has a law about getting a doctor's letter for a handicap placard.  That is the law.  The law that governs service animals, the ADA, a federal law, specifically states that establishment owners can only ask two questions regarding service dogs;  one, "is that a service animal", and two "what service is the dog trained to provide for the owner".  That's it.  That is the law, and asking any other questions is against the law.  Now, SCOTUS has ruled, in Spector v NCL, that foreign flag cruise ships do not fall entirely under the ADA.  Specifically, the cruise ship's "internal policies and procedures" are not subject to the ADA.  So, while the ADA requires the cruise line to have accessible cabins, and to not charge more for accessible cabins, the policy of requiring documentation to obtain an accessible cabin is up to the cruise line.  Their determination as to whether or not to allow you to book an accessible cabin (their internal policy) is different than their ability to not allow you onboard due to your disability (ADA requirement).  Asking whether or not a person needs a service animal onboard is to question and possibly deny that person accommodation on the ship (illegal under the ADA, and not an "internal policy")

 

14 hours ago, Kay S said:

For my friend who asks about the ADA and cruise ships, I refer you to this post which I have gone back to find for you.  (Emphasis is mine.)  So as I see it, the answer is not strictly yes or strictly no but it "depends" on whether the issue is the ship's "internal policies and procedures" or not.

 

Thanks you chenkpg75 for the clear explanation.

In further defense of "It depends . . ."

The Spector case is an interesting and relevant precedent, but it does not settle the issue of whether foreign-flag vessels are subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act with respect to service animals.

First, the Spector decision was a 6-3 opinion with a confusing welter of splintered plurality opinions and a characteristically penetrating dissent from Justice Scalia that the Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor joined and Justice Thomas joined in part.

Second, the case presented the questions of whether, how, and to what degree do the barrier-removal and structural accessibility requirements of the ADA apply to foreign-flag vessels.

Third, the bottom line (which is kind of thin and wavering, given the splintered rationales of 5/6 justices and the solid dissent of 3/4 justices) is (1) that the ADA applies to foreign-flag vessels while operating in U.S. territorial waters and (2) that the ADA does not address the "internal order" of a foreign-flag vessel (i.e., the vessel's operational policies, procedures, and practices) except to the extent the internal order impinges directly upon the health and welfare of Americans while in US territorial waters.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that under Spector the ADA requirements concerning service animals are also covered, it is conceivable that a cruise line could require that once the ship has entered into international waters (and the casino is opened!), all service animals be confined to quarters or kenneled (if kennels there be) at the passenger's expense. It would also be permissible that once the ship is in international waters those claiming to need a service animal could be required to prove their bona fides with evidence satisfactory to the captain or her/his designated officer.

The cruise lines should not claim, "Our hands are tied by Spector." 

Given Justice Scalia's dissent, who knows if today's US Supreme Court would be inclined to extend Spector to service animals?

[oaktreerb]

16 hours ago, House_Atreides said:

I was on this cruise.

The ladies with the dogs were total frauds.

When I asked questions, because I am a service dog trainer, over two days, I got 2 different answers from the lady pictured on what service does/do the dog(s) perform.  How do the dg(s) alert to your condition?  Totally made up answers were given, on the fly.

Staff was alerted, although not by myself, and later in the cruise, the dogs were not seen anymore.  

I was especially surprised to see a service dog on our Hawaii cruise.  In the past Hawaii has been especially strict about dogs coming to the island even with a military family (dogs had to quarantine for several weeks).  (Vietnam wartime ear)  I asked the handler if the dog could get off the ship.  Yes, she said she had to fill out a lot pf paperwork (I didn’t carry the conversation further).  On the next cruise to Hawaii there were the two companion dogs.  I wonder if they were allowed off the ship in Hawaii.

 

Do cruise lines require medical records showing that the dog has received the proper immunizations required for a dog license in many states, like California?   What if the dog bites someone or has fleas?

This is not a simple issue.

[kirtihk]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:37 PM, pilot said:

Had a first last night in the dining room on Nieuw Statendam. Saw a couple leaving the dining room with a dog in a stroller. Have been on previous cruises and have seen working service dogs, but never have seen one pushed around in stroller through the dining room. 

I would love to hug that dog!

[TRLD]

21 minutes ago, oaktreerb said:

I was especially surprised to see a service dog on our Hawaii cruise.  In the past Hawaii has been especially strict about dogs coming to the island even with a military family (dogs had to quarantine for several weeks).  (Vietnam wartime ear)  I asked the handler if the dog could get off the ship.  Yes, she said she had to fill out a lot pf paperwork (I didn’t carry the conversation further).  On the next cruise to Hawaii there were the two companion dogs.  I wonder if they were allowed off the ship in Hawaii.

 

Do cruise lines require medical records showing that the dog has received the proper immunizations required for a dog license in many states, like California?   What if the dog bites someone or has fleas?

This is not a simple issue.

One can avoid the hawaii quarantine by having appropriate documentation and vaccination history. Some friends of ours split time between California and Hawaii and take their dogs back and forth. 

[Kay S]

1 minute ago, kirtihk said:

I would love to hug that dog!

Me, too, but some "not-anti-dog people" hereabouts would be terrified of the thing biting, or worse, spraying fleas all over.  😄

[Funsun60]

I have been following this discussion and wonder how many dogs are we talking about and how often have the contributors to this site been on cruises where dogs (or a dog) have been present?  I have also followed other threads where it has been noted that some of our fellow human cruisers have manners and behaviors that could potentially outweigh some of the objectional behavior being discussed here. A dog eating off a dirty plate left in the hallway..whose fault or responsibility is that? People in bare feet in the Lido  or a fellow cruiser resting bare feet on the chairs in a bar or theatre. Fellow cruisers leaving dirty dishes on stairs, elevators, etc. Fellow cruisers using their hands in the buffet rather than using designated utensils to serve themselves. I am not condoning behavior of cruisers who may take advantage of rules/regulations, but as the saying goes "if you have a stick you will find a dog to beat". If I had a certified service dog and was reading this thread, I would feel somewhat intimidated about going on a cruise as I would feel I was being watched and judged. 

[kirtihk]

1 minute ago, Kay S said:

Me, too, but some "not-anti-dog people" hereabouts would be terrified of the thing biting, or worse, spraying fleas all over.  😄

Oh, yes!  Who is better than a dog! Not any human being!

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, Petronillus said:

 

In further defense of "It depends . . ."

The Spector case is an interesting and relevant precedent, but it does not settle the issue of whether foreign-flag vessels are subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act with respect to service animals.

First, the Spector decision was a 6-3 opinion with a confusing welter of splintered plurality opinions and a characteristically penetrating dissent from Justice Scalia that the Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor joined and Justice Thomas joined in part.

Second, the case presented the questions of whether, how, and to what degree do the barrier-removal and structural accessibility requirements of the ADA apply to foreign-flag vessels.

Third, the bottom line (which is kind of thin and wavering, given the splintered rationales of 5/6 justices and the solid dissent of 3/4 justices) is (1) that the ADA applies to foreign-flag vessels while operating in U.S. territorial waters and (2) that the ADA does not address the "internal order" of a foreign-flag vessel (i.e., the vessel's operational policies, procedures, and practices) except to the extent the internal order impinges directly upon the health and welfare of Americans while in US territorial waters.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that under Spector the ADA requirements concerning service animals are also covered, it is conceivable that a cruise line could require that once the ship has entered into international waters (and the casino is opened!), all service animals be confined to quarters or kenneled (if kennels there be) at the passenger's expense. It would also be permissible that once the ship is in international waters those claiming to need a service animal could be required to prove their bona fides with evidence satisfactory to the captain or her/his designated officer.

The cruise lines should not claim, "Our hands are tied by Spector." 

Given Justice Scalia's dissent, who knows if today's US Supreme Court would be inclined to extend Spector to service animals?

The Major cruise line companies have resolved any potential issues by clearly allowing service animals on cruises originating where such are allowed. But some ports/countries may require them to remain on ship when at those ports. 

 

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.

Edited April 10 by TRLD

[cccole]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

One can avoid the hawaii quarantine by having appropriate documentation and vaccination history. Some friends of ours split time between California and Hawaii and take their dogs back and forth. 

You are right.  Hawaii has also gotten a bit easier.  There are not many labs in the U.S. that are accepted by the State of Hawaii to do the tests.  When we first started taking pets between the mainland and the islands I think the only lab was at the University of Kansas.  We have not flown an animal to Hawaii in several years.  Last time we did so there was no need for quarantine because the tests were good and the rules not as strict.  I have had several conversations with the vet who meets the flights in Kona re bringing large animals to our ranch.  My issue with our 16 year old dog is that I don't think he can withstand the pet area of the cargo compartment. I'd love to put a vest on him and pretend he is a service dog but it's not fare to those that legitimately need service animals and their incredibly trained dogs. 

 

I never thought about what a person with a service dog needs to do to leave the ship in ports.  Hopefully if you are able to board the ship once and you are not traveling to ports where service animals are not allowed you will be o.k.   And, hopefully the ship will let you know if you need to show documentation.  Cherie

[cbr663]

This isn't about dogs or anti-dogs.  This is yet another example of obnoxious passengers behaving poorly on a ship and HAL doing very little about it.  And that list of obnoxious behaviour appears to be getting longer.

 

My HAL cruising experience is that I have sailed on more cruises with dogs than without.  I've only sometimes encountered the dogs, yet as someone who walks the Promenade deck I have encountered the turf pad.  I've also encountered dogs in my other forms of travel.

 

As a dog lover, encountering a service dog on a ship doesn't bother me.  I understand that it may bother others and I am quite sure that people who travel with service dogs have ample experience of how to deal with others who simply don't want to be around a dog period.  This though is not what this thread is about.  This is about people refusing to accept the HAL rule that pets are not permitted and mis-representing their pet as a service animal.  Aka - obnoxious passengers behaving poorly.

 

I've written on an earlier cruise my surprise with seeing a passenger enter the Grand Dutch Cafe with a large shoulder bag, sit at a table and then remove the little dog from the bag and place it in her lap while at the table.  I wondered what service the dog could provide while being transported in a pet travel bag and I thought it very surprising that the dog would be allowed to essentially be at the dining table.  I also accepted that if no one working for HAL was going to address it, neither was I.

 

And that's the core issue here - HAL's refusal to address poor passenger behaviour.  It seems that HAL would rather simply count the days until the cruise is over and the problem walks off the ship than to take concrete steps from preventing it from walking on the ship.

 

Edited April 10 by cbr663

[Mary229]

18 minutes ago, cbr663 said:

This isn't about dogs or anti-dogs.  This is yet another example of obnoxious passengers behaving poorly on a ship and HAL doing very little about it.  And that list of obnoxious behaviour appears to be getting longer.

 

My HAL cruising experience is that I have sailed on more cruises with dogs than without.  I've only sometimes encountered the dogs, yet as someone who walks the Promenade deck I have encountered the turf pad.  I've also encountered dogs in my other forms of travel.

 

As a dog lover, encountering a service dog on a ship doesn't bother me.  I understand that it may bother others and I am quite sure that people who travel with service dogs have ample experience of how to deal with others who simply don't want to be around a dog period.  This though is not what this thread is about.  This is about people refusing to accept the HAL rule that pets are not permitted and mis-representing their pet as a service animal.  Aka - obnoxious passengers behaving poorly.

 

I've written on an earlier cruise my surprise with seeing a passenger enter the Grand Dutch Cafe with a large shoulder bag, sit at a table and then remove the little dog from the bag and place it in her lap while at the table.  I wondered what service the dog could provide while being transported in a pet travel bag and I thought it very surprising that the dog would be allowed to essentially be at the dining table.  I also accepted that if no one working for HAL was going to address it, neither was I.

 

And that's the core issue here - HAL's refusal to address poor passenger behaviour.  It seems that HAL would rather simply count the days until the cruise is over and the problem walks off the ship than to take concrete steps from preventing it from walking on the ship.

 

I think the resolution is complex.  The ADA is very complex and leaves companies open to serious litigation and fines.  CCL doesn’t want one errant employee to ask or say the wrong thing. The lawyers need to handle this.  What can we do is bring pressure on corporate to get those lawyers working.  How we do this is filing reports/complaints through as many avenues as we can find - from the app, from the survey, by email, by letter.  If people document the offending parties as @Haljo1935did the perhaps corporate will feel the pressure and get their lawyers working.  Those lawyers can research the case after the fact and the line could then ban the guest.  Also if the complaints are frequent enough then perhaps the cruise lines, like the airlines will start challenging the laws to remove the loopholes.  As mentioned earlier by a UK poster their equivalent law requires training documentation and certification and the law allows them to demand these documents. 

[TRLD]

22 minutes ago, cbr663 said:

This isn't about dogs or anti-dogs.  This is yet another example of obnoxious passengers behaving poorly on a ship and HAL doing very little about it.  And that list of obnoxious behaviour appears to be getting longer.

 

My HAL cruising experience is that I have sailed on more cruises with dogs than without.  I've only sometimes encountered the dogs, yet as someone who walks the Promenade deck I have encountered the turf pad.  I've also encountered dogs in my other forms of travel.

 

As a dog lover, encountering a service dog on a ship doesn't bother me.  I understand that it may bother others and I am quite sure that people who travel with service dogs have ample experience of how to deal with others who simply don't want to be around a dog period.  This though is not what this thread is about.  This is about people refusing to accept the HAL rule that pets are not permitted and mis-representing their pet as a service animal.  Aka - obnoxious passengers behaving poorly.

 

I've written on an earlier cruise my surprise with seeing a passenger enter the Grand Dutch Cafe with a large shoulder bag, sit at a table and then remove the little dog from the bag and place it in her lap while at the table.  I wondered what service the dog could provide while being transported in a pet travel bag and I thought it very surprising that the dog would be allowed to essentially be at the dining table.  I also accepted that if no one working for HAL was going to address it, neither was I.

 

And that's the core issue here - HAL's refusal to address poor passenger behaviour.  It seems that HAL would rather simply count the days until the cruise is over and the problem walks off the ship than to take concrete steps from preventing it from walking on the ship.

 

Who knows. But I do know of a few diagnosed conditions that use trained service dogs that are possibilities where it could be a trained service dog. No way to know for sure. One can get indications if the dog is not attentive and or misbehaves, or if the owner acts like it is not one, but no way to know for sure. 

 

Do a search for Psychiatric Service Dogs and you might get an indication how it might be a valid service dog. 

[TRLD]

1 minute ago, Mary229 said:

I think the resolution is complex.  The ADA is very complex and leaves companies open to serious litigation and fines.  CCL doesn’t want one errant employee to ask or say the wrong thing. The lawyers need to handle this.  What can we do is bring pressure on corporate to get those lawyers working.  How we do this is filing reports/complaints through as many avenues as we can find - from the app, from the survey, by email, by letter.  If people document the offending parties as @Haljo1935did the perhaps corporate will feel the pressure and get their lawyers working.  Those lawyers can research the case after the fact and the line could then ban the guest.  Also if the complaints are frequent enough then perhaps the cruise lines, like the airlines will start challenging the laws to remove the loopholes.  As mentioned earlier by a UK poster their equivalent law requires training documentation and certification and the law allows them to demand these documents. 

keep in mind that from the cruise line perspective, if the passenger knows what is needed and the rules, about the only thing they can do is restrict the behavior causing a disturbance. 

 

They might be right is 9 cases of a fake service dog, and wrong 1 time out of 10 that 1 case can cost them far far more than letting 9 fake service dogs on board. There are plenty of attorneys waiting for that 1 case and can easily win if it is demonstrated that the cruise line prevented a valid service animal.

 

I am certainly against the fakes, but also understand what businesses face with the way the current law is written. Even the state that have laws against false claims or documents concerning service animals, the underlying federal law means that it is difficult to actually catch them, unless the animal actually creates a disturbance.

[Mary229]

4 minutes ago, TRLD said:

keep in mind that from the cruise line perspective, if the passenger knows what is needed and the rules, about the only thing they can do is restrict the behavior causing a disturbance. 

 

They might be right is 9 cases of a fake service dog, and wrong 1 time out of 10 that 1 case can cost them far far more than letting 9 fake service dogs on board. There are plenty of attorneys waiting for that 1 case and can easily win if it is demonstrated that the cruise line prevented a valid service animal.

 

I am certainly against the fakes, but also understand what businesses face with the way the current law is written. Even the state that have laws against false claims or documents concerning service animals, the underlying federal law means that it is difficult to actually catch them, unless the animal actually creates a disturbance.

And I agree the law is a minefield.  The airlines have been fighting to tighten the law similar to the UK version.  They were, at last, allowed to refuse non-dog animals as “service animals”. Yes,yes, there are cats on planes but those are paying passengers governed by private guidelines.   If we don’t raise a complaint there will be no one to bring the pressure. We are not powerless, perhaps impatient but not powerless 

[cccole]

35 minutes ago, TRLD said:

keep in mind that from the cruise line perspective, if the passenger knows what is needed and the rules, about the only thing they can do is restrict the behavior causing a disturbance. 

 

They might be right is 9 cases of a fake service dog, and wrong 1 time out of 10 that 1 case can cost them far far more than letting 9 fake service dogs on board. There are plenty of attorneys waiting for that 1 case and can easily win if it is demonstrated that the cruise line prevented a valid service animal.

 

I am certainly against the fakes, but also understand what businesses face with the way the current law is written. Even the state that have laws against false claims or documents concerning service animals, the underlying federal law means that it is difficult to actually catch them, unless the animal actually creates a disturbance.

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    

Edited April 11 by cccole

[TRLD]

18 minutes 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    

Comical that he not only tried to take it to court without making sure that dog behaved in court. Did he actually submit a doctors statement with the diagnosis of a condition supporting a service dog, and documentation of what the dog was trained to do in support of that condition. That usually will win a case very quickly in the case of a valid service dog.

[cccole]

8 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Comical that he not only tried to take it to court without making sure that dog behaved in court. Did he actually submit a doctors statement with the diagnosis of a condition supporting a service dog, and documentation of what the dog was trained to do in support of that condition. That usually will win a case very quickly in the case of a valid service dog.

What was really comical was that after the dog was denied access to the courtroom the man said he was hospitalized because of the trauma.  When the judge asked for confirmation from the man's brother there was nothing from the hospital or a doctor.  My husband and I laugh about this case but it's ridiculous that there are people who abuse the system and really think that the rules do not apply to them.  I would love to put a vest on Zion and cruise or fly to Hawaii but I just can't be "that" person.  Cherie. P.S.  This person had made a lot of money from other hotel chains who settled rather than going to court.

Edited April 11 by cccole

[Haljo1935]

2 hours ago, cccole said:

...I'd love to put a vest on him and pretend he is a service dog but it's not fare to those that legitimately need service animals and their incredibly trained dogs...

Exactly and thank you.

I feel the same way about my

two dogs that I love dearly. And miss dearly while I'm cruising and they are not.

I 1000% support legitimate service dogs accompanying their humans any and every where necessary.

[Haljo1935]

2 hours ago, cbr663 said:

This isn't about dogs or anti-dogs...

 

As a dog lover, encountering a service dog on a ship doesn't bother me.  I understand that it may bother others and I am quite sure that people who travel with service dogs have ample experience of how to deal with others who simply don't want to be around a dog period.  This though is not what this thread is about.  This is about people refusing to accept the HAL rule that pets are not permitted and mis-representing their pet as a service animal...

 

And that's the core issue here - HAL's refusal to address poor passenger behaviour...

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. 

[House_Atreides]

5 hours ago, oaktreerb said:

I was especially surprised to see a service dog on our Hawaii cruise.  In the past Hawaii has been especially strict about dogs coming to the island even with a military family (dogs had to quarantine for several weeks).  (Vietnam wartime ear)  I asked the handler if the dog could get off the ship.  Yes, she said she had to fill out a lot pf paperwork (I didn’t carry the conversation further).  On the next cruise to Hawaii there were the two companion dogs.  I wonder if they were allowed off the ship in Hawaii.

 

Do cruise lines require medical records showing that the dog has received the proper immunizations required for a dog license in many states, like California?   What if the dog bites someone or has fleas?

This is not a simple issue.

You have some great questions. I’ll do my best here.

 

I can’t comment on Hawaii, because they are part of the United States. I’ve never had a client travel there. However, I do know that immunizations absolutely must be up-to-date. Also, not every state requires a dog license, however, everybody must have a rabies shot. Proof of that can be gotten from the veterinarian.

 

I am not sure if the cruise line actually requires the medical records however it would be silly not to ask for a rabies certificate at the very least.

 

If the animal has fleas, that would need to be addressed immediately.  Responsible service dog owners keep their dogs impeccably clean.
 

Biting is a different issue. I would hope that the dog has been trained not to do such a thing. However, accidents can and do happen. If the trainer is recognized the DOJ, if the dog were to bite someone the DOJ will cover that as far as a lawsuit for injury being filed against the handler.  Of course, things are different outside of the USA.  
 

Taking a service animal on a cruise That visits multiple countries can be a regular pain in the rear end.  Handlers need to get in touch with each Embassy for each country and ask for approval to bring their animal into the country.

 

I hope this helps!

Happy cruising!

Edit….sorry, the ADA is a law, not a government agency.

 

 

Edited April 11 by House_Atreides
Misspelling

[bajae]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:48 AM, mawvkysc said:

https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/

 

No opinion. Just FYI for the thread. 

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

From the posted link:

“In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s ADA regulations have a separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. (Miniature horses generally range in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weigh between 70 and 100 pounds.) Entities covered by the ADA must modify their policies to permit miniature horses where reasonable. The regulations set out four assessment factors to assist entities in determining whether miniature horses can be accommodated in their facility. The assessment factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken; (2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner’s control; (3) whether the facility can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the miniature horse’s presence will not compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation of the facility.

For more information about the ADA, please visit ADA.gov or call our toll-free number.”

[Kay S]

2 hours ago, bajae said:

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

 

Oh boy...