4 Walt Disney World Resorts to accept dogs

[David L.]

Look, if you want to drag Fido all the way down to Disney, and put up with the smell and the fur and the dander and the fleas, that's your problem. You don't have the right to make it mine! Just because you love to cuddle with your dog in bed doesn't mean I want to share the experience by using bed linens and towels that have been laundered together with yours! Disney should have notified us about this money-grabbing stunt before we made our reservations. I keep reading about designated areas that I can avoid, will your dog's smell stay in a designated area? We go to POR twice a year and yet I am being told to avoid areas of the resort that I'm paying over $200 a night for.

 

[A Olson]

I think it really sucks Disney decided to do this....

 

[Sundown]

As evidenced by the replies here...doesn't it seem that "dog people" really are very self centered and inconsiderate of others feelings and thoughts? There is barely an ounce of consideration for this change negatively affecting others & their experiences as WDW.

Their responses are full of mockery, "lulz", emoticons, and other infantile responses about how it is "YOUR" problem, not their's. Sadly lacking courtesy and caring of fellow humans, embracing instead an unhealthy obsession with animals.

 

[John park hopper]

All Disney sees is potential $$$$$$$, they did not put a ounce of thought into this. People can complain on both sides of the issue it matters not. As long as it makes Disney an extra dime they will do it. If by chance this fails and costs them money then they will drop it.

 

[Incomudro]

As evidenced by the replies here...doesn't it seem that "dog people" really are very self centered and inconsiderate of others feelings and thoughts? There is barely an ounce of consideration for this change negatively affecting others & their experiences as WDW.

Their responses are full of mockery, "lulz", emoticons, and other infantile responses about how it is "YOUR" problem, not their's. Sadly lacking courtesy and caring of fellow humans, embracing instead an unhealthy obsession with animals.

Bingo.
And that being the case, how do you think such people will react when limitations are imposed on an animal that they view as their child?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

As evidenced by the replies here...doesn't it seem that "dog people" really are very self centered and inconsiderate of others feelings and thoughts? There is barely an ounce of consideration for this change negatively affecting others & their experiences as WDW.

Their responses are full of mockery, "lulz", emoticons, and other infantile responses about how it is "YOUR" problem, not their's. Sadly lacking courtesy and caring of fellow humans, embracing instead an unhealthy obsession with animals.

You might have a point if there were no other options.

There are far more Disney hotels with no pets than there are with pets. Therefore, you have no legitimate gripe. If pets bother you for any reason, real or imagined, don't stay at either of the four hotels testing the new pet policy.

There is no need for whining and crying and victimhood here.

 

[21stamps]

As evidenced by the replies here...doesn't it seem that "dog people" really are very self centered and inconsiderate of others feelings and thoughts? There is barely an ounce of consideration for this change negatively affecting others & their experiences as WDW.

Their responses are full of mockery, "lulz", emoticons, and other infantile responses about how it is "YOUR" problem, not their's. Sadly lacking courtesy and caring of fellow humans, embracing instead an unhealthy obsession with animals.

Anyone who has either
A. Owned a dog that doesn’t just stay in the home.
B. Traveled with a dog.
...all realize how absolutely dramatic and full of fantasy that these responses actually are.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Bingo.
And that being the case, how do you think such people will react when limitations are imposed on an animal that they view as their child?

Stop this garbage.

The anti-dog people are trying to make themselves into abused victims. They are forgetting a basic fact: you do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives.

The hypocrisy on this issue is appalling. This is the same board that didn't think it was a big deal that wheel-chair bound people couldn't go on River Journey. That far worse act of exclusion barely caused a ripple. But apparently dogs being within a mile of some posters is cause for a meltdown.

 

[Driver]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter, after 57 pages. Does the idea of staying at a WDW resort with dogs close by bother me? Not in theory, no. Would I ever bring my own dog with me to WDW? Nope. I do have to mention the people who are against the idea based on their allergic reactions to dogs. Three of the most common allergic reactions occur from the presence of dust, mold and pollen. All three of these things are present at WDW, in varying degrees in different places and different times of the year. I'm sure there are many people who are very allergic to at least one of those three things, yet they can still visit WDW and deal with the allergens enough to keep their trip worthwhile. Two of those three allergens are almost impossible to control (dust, pollen) and the third (mold) is most likely a constant battle in humid Florida to control. If people can control their allergic reactions to something that is basically unseen and all around them, why would it be difficult to minimize an allergic reaction to something that, for the most part, you can see and control your interaction with? Not trying to be a troll or be confrontational, just wondering why this would be a huge concern, based on what I've described (I know I'll get at least a few angry, irrational responses, but I'm OK with that).

Comes back to you not understanding allergies. I am not allergic to any of the things you listed, yet a cat will slay me! Allergic reactions have no rhyme or reason. I have to be careful about dry skin yet I can pull poison ivy out by the roots barehanded and not have a problem. And this is what some posters are not getting or not reading what's being said. I have been following this thread since day 1 and it keeps going through a repeat cycle. I think some are jumping in not knowing they are echoing something already mentioned.

 

[Gitson Shiggles]

As evidenced by the replies here...doesn't it seem that "dog people" really are very self centered and inconsiderate of others feelings and thoughts? There is barely an ounce of consideration for this change negatively affecting others & their experiences as WDW.

Their responses are full of mockery, "lulz", emoticons, and other infantile responses about how it is "YOUR" problem, not their's. Sadly lacking courtesy and caring of fellow humans, embracing instead an unhealthy obsession with animals.

"Dog parents" treating their dogs like human children is more unhealthy for the dog.

 

[Driver]

Stop this garbage.

The anti-dog people are trying to make themselves into abused victims. They are forgetting a basic fact: you do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives.

The hypocrisy on this issue is appalling. This is the same board that didn't think it was a big deal that wheel-chair bound people couldn't go on River Journey. That far worse act of exclusion barely caused a ripple. But apparently dogs being within a mile of some posters is cause for a meltdown.

I'm not anti dog I've had many. And I don't believe anyone should be barred from an attraction unless they could get injured or some type of safety reason. That being said my concern is the allergic issue and I'm not even allergic to dogs. And many of the pro-post here seem to repeat their lack of understanding how allergens affect people in so many peculiar ways. An animal allergie doesn't mean that a person is automatically allergic to dust, pollen or whatever else others keep throwing out there.

 

[disneygeek90]

Basically what is happening here is people are viewing a luxury (bringing your dog with you while you travel) more important than people's necessity (not having severe allergic reactions).

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'm not anti dog I've had many. And I don't believe anyone should be barred from an attraction unless they could get injured or some type of safety reason. That being said my concern is the allergic issue and I'm not even allergic to dogs. And many of the pro-post here seem to repeat their lack of understanding how allergens affect people in so many peculiar ways. An animal allergie doesn't mean that a person is automatically allergic to dust, pollen or whatever else others keep throwing out there.

I understand that animal allergies exist, as do allergies to many other things. People who are severely afflicted with that issue can stay in the non-dog wings of the hotels or, if that's too much of a risk, stay at another WDW hotel if they like. Two of these resorts - YC and PO - were likely chosen because they have similar (or, in the case of PO, superior) sister resorts that can house folks who don't want to risk any sort of proximity to dogs.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Basically what happening here is people are viewing a luxury (bringing your dog with you while you travel) more important than people's necessity (not having severe allergic reactions).

Not even remotely true. Going to WDW is a luxury in the first place, as is being able to choose which hotel you want to stay at (incidentally, the pro-dog folks aren't complaining that their pets are being excluded from 20 hotels). Absolutely no one is being denied a necessity.

 

[21stamps]

I'm not anti dog I've had many. And I don't believe anyone should be barred from an attraction unless they could get injured or some type of safety reason. That being said my concern is the allergic issue and I'm not even allergic to dogs. And many of the pro-post here seem to repeat their lack of understanding how allergens affect people in so many peculiar ways. An animal allergie doesn't mean that a person is automatically allergic to dust, pollen or whatever else others keep throwing out there.

If you are allergic to dogs- to the point where being on the same large property as dogs is going to give you severe allergies, then you should not stay at a hotel that accepts non-service dogs (and hope there’s not a service dog at a no-pet policy resort).
Sure, that’s understandably disappointing for some, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the over-the -top comments.

 

[networkpro]

I dont see any hue and cry about having peanut free resorts ...

 

[Gitson Shiggles]

Not even remotely true. Going to WDW is a luxury in the first place, as is being able to choose which hotel you want to stay at (incidentally, the pro-dog folks aren't complaining that their pets are being excluded from 20 hotels). Absolutely no one is being denied a necessity.

Guests' comfort/health > "Dog parents" who need their binky, aka "fur baby"

 

[disneygeek90]

Not even remotely true. Going to WDW is a luxury in the first place, as is being able to choose which hotel you want to stay at (incidentally, the pro-dog folks aren't complaining that their pets are being excluded from 20 hotels). Absolutely no one is being denied a necessity.

Bringing your dog to WDW is absolutely a luxury. I still have no idea why someone would want to do this in the first place but it does seem like people are interested.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Guests' comfort/health > "Dog parents" who need their binky, aka "fur baby"

You're also free to can the "dog parents" stuff. I think that attitude's a bit odd too, and I've taken dogs to dog-friendly hotels on more than a few occasions. You're trying to marginalize and delegitimize people with opposing opinions here.

No one is going into anyone's home and strapping a dog to them. WDW, which has a couple dozen hotels, is allowing dogs in CERTAIN SECTIONS of three of them and at a campground where, I believe, they were already permitted.

 

[disneygeek90]

I dont see any hue and cry about having peanut free resorts ...

People aren't dusting all of their bed sheets, pillows and carpet in peanut butter.