Dogs

[TRLD]

4 minutes ago, cccole said:

Thanks TRLD,  I did not say "require documentation" but I did say "provide documentation." You are so correct, as I have also stated, you do not need documentation, but if you have it...why not?  It helps those who are not educated.  Our American Staffordshire Terrier is now looking forward to his first cruise.  My husband lost sight in his left eye this year, has no peripheral vision, so instead of me being his left hand we have our wonderful self trained service dog.  We will have documentation, because it will make it so much easier for those processing us thru airports and cruise terminals.  And, if anyone questions it we will have a copy of the ADA regs which I suggest anyone who needs them have in hand.  Is bringing our trained pet with us necessary? no.  But you make it sound like why not?  Why should we pay $1000 a week to have someone stay at the house when we're good to go?  We won't even be lying.  Thank you for misunderstanding my posts re documentation and traveling with a copy of the ADA regs that educate staff in airports and cruise ports.   Zion is awesome.  When he walks people ask us to wait a second so they can get him his treats.  I don't think we will bring the dog stroller and bring him into the dining room because that may be inconsiderate to guests but he thanks you.   Cherie   

The same question applies if you have a placard and you have documentation then you should be willing to provide it to anyone that confronts you about your use and your right to use it. After all

you might upset the sensibilities of those who think you are abusing the privilege. It is pretty much the same under the law.

 

 In both cases neither individual has any responsibility to provide such documentation. 

 

If he has a diagnosed disability that a doctor feels would be helped by a service dog.  And the dog is trained to perform is trained to perform a task to assist with that disability then you would be legally entitled to the same protections under the law in spite of how obnoxious an abuse you try to paint.

 

No one would be entitled to ask for documentation or about the disability, only the 2 legal questions. Though the ship may have requirements for various vaccinations, but those requirement cannot go beyond the two questions legally allowed. 

 

While you are at it you might want to get him a handicap placard as well and enjoy those protections .

[cccole]

Oh please.  We are happy to provide any and all documentation to those that ask for it.  No problem.  You do not think that we should but that's now how we roll.  Now you want a doctor's diagnosed disability? And the dog trained to perform a task?  really?  We have both.  Happy?  Handicap placards are not issued in our state unless necessary.   We have one.  Happy?  We're way ahead of you!!!!  But thanks.  Cherie

Edited April 13 by cccole

[TRLD]

18 minutes ago, cccole said:

Thanks TRLD,  I did not say "require documentation" but I did say "provide documentation." You are so correct, as I have also stated, you do not need documentation, but if you have it...why not?  It helps those who are not educated re the ADA.  Our American Staffordshire Terrier is now looking forward to his first cruise.  My husband lost sight in his left eye this year, has no peripheral vision, so instead of me being his left hand we have our wonderful self trained service dog.  We will have documentation, because it will make it so much easier for those processing us thru airports and cruise terminals.  And, if anyone questions it we will have a copy of the ADA regs which I suggest anyone who needs them have in hand.  Is bringing our trained pet with us necessary? no.  But you make it sound like why not?  Why should we pay $1000 a week to have someone stay at the house when we're good to go?  We won't even be lying.  Thank you for misunderstanding my posts re documentation and traveling with a copy of the ADA regs that educate staff in airports and cruise ports.   Zion is awesome.  When he walks people ask us to wait a second so they can get him his treats.  I don't think we will bring the dog stroller and bring him into the dining room because that may be inconsiderate to guests but he thanks you.   Cherie   

Oh I didn't misunderstand. they should provide documentation is pretty clear. if it creates pressure to do so. Pressure that the law says they are not subject to.

 

After all if they were not willing to do so then the first response is oh they must be fake.

 

A long slippery slope starts with a single step.

 

oh they should be willing. why are you, others have. What do you mean you are not willing. clearly your dog must be a fake.

 

Oh what handicap do you have to get that placard. You should be willing to say to avoid confusion and prevent confrontation and embarrassment.

 

Pretty much the same except some will accept one but not the other.

[TRLD]

8 minutes ago, cccole said:

Oh please.  We are happy to provide any and all documentation to those that ask for it.  No problem.  You do not think that we should but that's now how we roll.  Now you want a doctor's diagnosed disability? And the dog trained to perform a task?  really?  We have both.  Happy?  Handicap placards are not issued in our state unless necessary.   We have one.  Happy?  We're way ahead of you!!!!  But thanks.  Cherie

Good publish it on line if you so choose.

 

The point is that others should not feel obligated to do so, or be put under any pressure to do so.

 

That is why the laws are written the way they are.

[cccole]

2 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Oh I didn't misunderstand. they should provide documentation is pretty clear. if it creates pressure to do so. Pressure that the law says they are not subject to.

 

After all if they were not willing to do so then the first response is oh they must be fake.

 

A long slippery slope starts with a single step.

 

oh they should be willing. why are you, others have. What do you mean you are not willing. clearly your dog must be a fake.

 

Oh what handicap do you have to get that placard. You should be willing to say to avoid confusion and prevent confrontation and embarrassment.

 

Pretty much the same except some will accept one but not the other.

?

[cccole]

1 minute ago, TRLD said:

Good publish it on line if you so choose.

 

The point is that others should not feel obligated to do so, or be put under any pressure to do so.

 

That is why the laws are written the way they are.

?

[Kay S]

So if you don't like the law, take it up with your congressman.  Arguing about it on an online forum isn't going to change a thing.

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, TRLD said:

Why not require everyone with a handicap placard to list the medical condition that allows them to get a placard.

 

Pretty much because it is no one else's business.

 

Not about secrecy it is about privacy of medical records, and it's about what the law does and does not require, and the protections to those under the act...

 

I think that we can agree that laws are often not equitable, or efficient. That's why laws are tested in court and amended.

 

This discussion has been useful in understanding what can be done by the pax, the ship's officers and the cruise line.

 

I can understand your concern as advocate for the handicap. But, advocates for the general public and the general pax on a ship also have a say in the matter.

 

Let's stay on topic with a discussion about life onboard the ships. Don't veer off course with references to parking. Totally different situation.

 

As I understand it, the cruise company aren't able to authenticate service dogs in sailings out of the States. They can however respond to complaints about misconduct.

 

Therefore, I suggest that anyone concerned about a situation should report it to the ship. Hopefully, the volume of complaints will force management to respond. Imposters and fraudsters prosper when we are silence, and acquiescence to their misdeeds.

 

Personally, I have no interest in why someone has a service dog. My concern is about pax safety and the welfare of the animal.

 

Hope that this clarifies our positions.

 

[TRLD]

37 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

I think that we can agree that laws are often not equitable, or efficient. That's why laws are tested in court and amended.

 

This discussion has been useful in understanding what can be done by the pax, the ship's officers and the cruise line.

 

I can understand your concern as advocate for the handicap. But, advocates for the general public and the general pax on a ship also have a say in the matter.

 

Let's stay on topic with a discussion about life onboard the ships. Don't veer off course with references to parking. Totally different situation.

 

As I understand it, the cruise company aren't able to authenticate service dogs in sailings out of the States. They can however respond to complaints about misconduct.

 

Therefore, I suggest that anyone concerned about a situation should report it to the ship. Hopefully, the volume of complaints will force management to respond. Imposters and fraudsters prosper when we are silence, and acquiescence to their misdeeds.

 

Personally, I have no interest in why someone has a service dog. My concern is about pax safety and the welfare of the animal.

 

Hope that this clarifies our positions.

 

There are two conditions where a service animal may be excluded. 1. if the dog is out of control and the owner does not take effective actiin to control it and  2. if it is not house broken.  

 

This link gives some examples of what is out of control.

 

https://adata.org/faq/what-if-service-animal-barks-or-growls-other-people-or-otherwise-acts-out-control

 

So some of the behaviors people have talked about are actionable in keeping a service dog out of public spaces, if the ship chooses to take action and do so. Others like letting people pet the dog, or having it in the dining room, feeding it tidbits from their plate, having it a carriage, veing walked or with another individual, etc. not so much. 

 

Also a service dog should be under control at all time, including being leashed or harnessed unless their trained task requires that they not be. keep in mind that the ship can ask what task the dog is trained to perform so if someone does not have it on leash, and the ship knows that the task does not require it to be off leash then they can take action to require it to be on leash. Though the ship will not tell you if the task does or does not require freedom of action.

 

Of course it is up to the ship to ask or to have that information not another passenger. The person has no responsibility to respond to any question from another passenger.

 

Any observed issue should be reported to ships personnel, I would think security, not direct confrontation with the person with the service dog.

 

The ship may or may not agree and may or may not take any action. Most likely the ship will not provide any feedback to such incident reports.

 

 

Edited April 13 by TRLD

[Kay S]

40 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

 

Therefore, I suggest that anyone concerned about a situation should report it to the ship.

 

Simple solution to the problem of "suspicious" dogs on board.  Report and let that be the end of it.

[Petronillus]

My understanding of the ADA is sketchy at best, but the little I know includes that the law requires the judge/decision-making authority to balance competing interests and burdens. What are the rights of the person who suffers from a deathly phobia of dogs and seeks out cruising as an environment where dogs will not be encountered? What are the rights of the person who suffers an incapacitating allergy to pet dander? I struggle to believe that the equities always fall in favor of the service dog's owner, no matter what.

[Kay S]

2 minutes ago, Petronillus said:

 What are the rights of the person who suffers from a deathly phobia of dogs and seeks out cruising as an environment where dogs will not be encountered? What are the rights of the person who suffers an incapacitating allergy to pet dander?

Living in a country where legitimate service dogs are allowed in public places, someone with either of these problems must find ways to cope.  This is not just a problem on cruise ships.  Do you mean to say that all service dogs should be outlawed because someone might be fearful or allergic?  

 

I think it is possible to inquire ahead of time if an airplane will be carrying an animal in the cabin--not in the cargo hold--in order to avoid any allergy issues.  I wonder if it would be possible to inquire of the cruise line if any service animals will be on board a given ship.  This might work for the phobic or allergic passenger.  Not ideal, of course, but do we want to deny people who need them the use of service animals?

 

Note that I am NOT talking about the "suspect" animals which has been the prevalent theme of this thread.

[TRLD]

32 minutes ago, Petronillus said:

My understanding of the ADA is sketchy at best, but the little I know includes that the law requires the judge/decision-making authority to balance competing interests and burdens. What are the rights of the person who suffers from a deathly phobia of dogs and seeks out cruising as an environment where dogs will not be encountered? What are the rights of the person who suffers an incapacitating allergy to pet dander? I struggle to believe that the equities always fall in favor of the service dog's owner, no matter what.

Actually the allergy is addressed it is covered in the links I attached in one of the earlier posts. Allergy to dogs or dander is not considered to be a reason to restrict access. Except in case of a boarding school where certain areas might be restricted.

 

As far as seeking out cruising as a location where dogs would not be encountered is a fallacy since by law they can be there under certain circumstances. As long as the dog is considered under control.

 

The major question is what constituted reasonable accommodation for service dogs in the work place. That is one where balancing competing interests comes up. The two hypotheticals you listed not so much.

Edited April 13 by TRLD