Can you really bring your dog to a park?

[InLikeFlynn]

I took this photo just to show the crowd (I always take a crowd shot in this same spot each trip), and didn't notice till I got home that the little dog was riding on the lady's lap. He was in a bag, but had his head popped out.

So yeah...service dog in a bag.

 

[MissM]

The use of service animals is already legitimate. Local and state authorities are precluded by federal law from imposing such restrictions. :wave:

REAL service dogs are one thing. Some spoiled brat bringing a purse dog in because they believe the rules don't apply to them is something else entirely. And that something is OFFENSIVE.

Save your smug wave for someone who believes in respecting TRULY disabled people and not trying to argue on the side of people who ABUSE and make MOCKERY of legit needs.

 

[ScorpionX]

I read somewhere that service ponies are better than service dogs. :lookaroun

 

[Clever Name]

REAL service dogs are one thing. Some spoiled brat bringing a purse dog in because they believe the rules don't apply to them is something else entirely. And that something is OFFENSIVE.

Just as with a wheelchair, no one knows if the person is really disabled or not. We can't judge the true disability or the need for the service animal. We must trust in the word of the person. Will some people cheat the system? Yes, but it's not for you or me to judge.

Save your smug wave for someone who believes in respecting TRULY disabled people and not trying to argue on the side of people who ABUSE and make MOCKERY of legit needs.

It is not consistent with the purpose of the ADA to limit the options of a disabled person because of the dishonesty of some non-disabled persons. The crime of using a fake service animal comes with its own penalty. An animal that misbehaves in a public environment does not have to be tolerated and will be forced to leave with its owner. Fake service animals are far more likely to misbehave than are properly trained service animals.

 

[BigTxEars]

I took this photo just to show the crowd (I always take a crowd shot in this same spot each trip), and didn't notice till I got home that the little dog was riding on the lady's lap. He was in a bag, but had his head popped out.

So yeah...service dog in a bag.

Lordy that is a lot of people I am getting kinda claustrophobic just looking at it :ROFLOL: What date was that taken ?

 

[sweetpee_1993]

It is not consistent with the purpose of the ADA to limit the options of a disabled person because of the dishonesty of some non-disabled persons. The crime of using a fake service animal comes with its own penalty. An animal that misbehaves in a public environment does not have to be tolerated and will be forced to leave with its owner. Fake service animals are far more likely to misbehave than are properly trained service animals.

Then by your logic nobody should be required to have a handicap placard to park their cars in those designated spots since we should all go by the honor system. Yeah, that would go over like a load of bricks. :hammer:

The point is that just like so many things, the poor behavior & abuse of the laws of some unfortunately creates the need for licensing and additional effort for those with a genuine need. As previously stated, those who genuinely need service animals might be willing to go the extra mile to ensure their rights in the future. Sure the ADA protects them right now but never say never. Things can always change. If enough people continue to abuse these rights then legitimate reason exists to make changes and impose restrictions.

Also, to the previous poster whose daughter suffers with anxiety and panic issues: I can understand where you're coming from. My dad lived a looooong time after the events that are the root of his current problems. He also suffers with extreme depression as well as panic & anxiety disorders brought on by PTSD stemming from things he did & lived thru in Vietnam. All those years he was a regular guy & cool dad. We traveled. We did a lot of things. He also went to WDW lots as well as other theme parks & never had a problem. In his later 40s it was like someone flipped a switch and he rapidly decended into himself. He continues to deteriorate as the years go by. For the last 5 or so years it's become increasingly rare for him to even leave his house. It's just too much for him to be out and about anymore. My parents have a cat and when I bring my dog to visit it does seem the animals bring him out of his
shell. I definitely see the therapeutic benefit to him having pets around. That said, I STILL do not buy this whole "therapy animal" as a working service animal deal. Absolutely not. As much as I'd love to stand on Main Street with my dad again I would never in a bazillion years bring a lap dog or even my dog into the park to make it a possibility. Between medication and learning some coping tools/behaviors I believe with my whole heart that someone who wants to be in the parks absolutely can. It would take a tremendous amount of work to learn to handle the stress of the crowds but it is not impossible. Being able to enjoy a WDW trip would be the big reward. Imagine the gift in the sense of accomplishment! Do I think my dad will ever put in the work to be able to make a trip and enjoy the parks with his grandchildren as he did with us all those years ago? No. I don't see it. I love him anyway and he enjoys us coming back with pictures, video, stories, and presents which is just fine. Nothing wrong in it. The problem comes when people with these types of disabilities become unwilling to put in the work to help themselves overcome the hurdles that hold them back or don't believe they can do it. It's easier to take meds and tote around a cute little lap dog. That's not a service animal. It's a crutch.

Agree with MissM, these so-called "therapy" dogs as service animals are an insult to what a true service animal is about.

 

[The Mom]

If someone who is abusing the system parks in a handicapped parking space, that prevents someone with a legitimate need parking there. If someone abuses the use of service animals by calling a pet one, it affects someone with a legitimate animal how? The current law protects someone with a legitimate service animal - they cannot be denied service/admittance.

So it becomes a matter of our opinion of someone who we think is abusing the system - and we could be wrong in that judgement unless we know that person, and his/her medical history. And there are millions of people who don't give a damn about what a stranger (or even those they know) think about their behavior, or its impact on society.

I wholly support allowing anyone, with any sort of disability, a chance to experience as much as possible. The days when they were locked away, either in institutions, or a prisoner in their own homes, are thankfully behind us.

And shame on those who abuse the system, thereby making those with legitimate needs suspect. I don't know how they can live with themselves, and I hope they don't discover that it's never a good idea to tempt fate.

 

[MissM]

If someone who is abusing the system parks in a handicapped parking space, that prevents someone with a legitimate need parking there. If someone abuses the use of service animals by calling a pet one, it affects someone with a legitimate animal how?

By diminishing the perception and acceptance of such service dogs. By making a mockery of legitimate needs. By changing public opinion from one of respect for service dogs to a joke. It hinders the truly disabled because it belittles the needs of the truly disabled. It becomes merely a "joke."

I understand disabilities come in all shapes, sizes, colors and flavors. My Mom has an "invisible" disability. Her Lupus and RA have left her disabled. She has a handicapped parking tag. And people have actually said something to her about how she doesn't "look" disabled before - actually confronted her in the parking lot! Do we really want the same attitude to pervade those truly disabled people for whom their service dog is a lifeline? Because by spoiled brats disobeying the rules and bringing in their pets just for the heck of it, that's what will happen.

 

[unkadug]

By diminishing the perception and acceptance of such service dogs. By making a mockery of legitimate needs. By changing public opinion from one of respect for service dogs to a joke. It hinders the truly disabled because it belittles the needs of the truly disabled. It becomes merely a "joke."

I understand disabilities come in all shapes, sizes, colors and flavors. My Mom has an "invisible" disability. Her Lupus and RA have left her disabled. She has a handicapped parking tag. And people have actually said something to her about how she doesn't "look" disabled before - actually confronted her in the parking lot! Do we really want the same attitude to pervade those truly disabled people for whom their service dog is a lifeline? Because by spoiled brats disobeying the rules and bringing in their pets just for the heck of it, that's what will happen.

Aren't you being just as judgmental of these "spoiled brats" by assuming that they DO NOT have a disability that you know nothing of? :shrug:

 

[wm49rs]

By diminishing the perception and acceptance of such service dogs. By making a mockery of legitimate needs. By changing public opinion from one of respect for service dogs to a joke. It hinders the truly disabled because it belittles the needs of the truly disabled. It becomes merely a "joke."

How are they disrespecting anything? And what qualifies as a "legitimate need?" And how do you speak for "public opinion" on the matter? I'm as much a member of that body as you, and if someone needs a service dog for mental needs I tend not to think anything of it. Let's not bring "the public' into an argument when no one here speaks for them at large.....

 

[sweetpee_1993]

I think the problem comes in defining a disability that requires the use of a service animal.

Think about it. A disability is a condition that cannot be improved or changed. The need for the "service" animal is to assist those with limitations that they cannot change. A blind person cannot see. They need the animal to assist them in moving about safely. A person with seizures even with meds cannot stop the seizures. They need the animal to help them avoid unsafe conditions when a seizure is about to occur. A person who is missing limbs, paralyzed, confined to a wheelchair, etc. needs a service animal to pick things up for them and/or perform different functions that they physically are unable to. Those people cannot change their conditions.

Then you have people who have anxiety, depression, and/or panic disorders. These people take medications and such then claim to need a "therapy" pet in order to function. No. These people could go to a therapist and learn different coping techniques in order to improve their conditions so that they don't need an animal. They can make choices for their vacations that better fit what they are able to handle comfortably. If it's soothing or calming they look for, get a Teddy bear. There's alternatives. An animal is not a necessity for them. They just have to be willing to put in the work and not give up.

There's a big difference between "need" and "want".

I totally agree that it's unfair for anyone to assume or judge who is or is not in need based upon appearances. Does the person with the pocket pooch have the right to carry around their little pet because they claim it is a "service" dog? According to the ADA, yes. The fact that the dog mentioned by the OP was in a carrier and obviously isn't "working" pretty much says that it's not a necessity.

This is why there now needs to be standards, licensing, and proper identification for true service animals. Again, it's the abuse of the few that created the need. Unfortunate but it happens. With proper licensing and visual identification there would be no doubt as to which service animals are legit and which are not.

The same goes for ECV users. My mother and my aunt both require the use of one and neither have that outward appearance. Both have physical disabilities that they cannot change or improve that limit them. I assure you, if it became necessary for them to obtain documentation to reflect that so that they could still use them in the parks that would be no more a problem for them than getting their handicap parking placards for their vehicles. I know both would be happy to do so just to eliminate the snide comments and rude guests they encounter whenever they are on their vacations. :animwink:

 

[MissM]

Aren't you being just as judgmental of these "spoiled brats" by assuming that they DO NOT have a disability that you know nothing of? :shrug:

The people I call "spoiled brats" are people with NO DISABILITY that simply think the rules do NOT apply to them. They want to bring their dog with them and to hell what the rules are. So they LIE and say it's "a service dog" WHEN IT'S JUST A NORMAL HOUSEHOLD PET. THAT is who is a spoiled brat. Not someone with a legitimate need.

I totally agree that it's unfair for anyone to assume or judge who is or is not in need based upon appearances. Does the person with the pocket pooch have the right to carry around their little pet because they claim it is a "service" dog? According to the ADA, yes. The fact that the dog mentioned by the OP was in a carrier and obviously isn't "working" pretty much says that it's not a necessity.

This is why there now needs to be standards, licensing, and proper identification for true service animals. Again, it's the abuse of the few that created the need. Unfortunate but it happens. With proper licensing and visual identification there would be no doubt as to which service animals are legit and which are not.

EXACTLY!!

Just calling your PET a "service dog" should NOT be enough. Just because you want to bring your PET with you for no reason other than you want to is NOT a true disability. It's selfishness. And it's INSULTING to people who truly DO rely on their service animals for their independence and for their trained skills.

A service dog is trained. It's an extension of the owner. It has a job to do and responsibilities. It's years of work and highly specialized process. And it's amazing.

A pet is just a pet. And has no business being brought into stores, restaurants, parks, etc. because it's NOT serving any legitimate purpose. I love my cats but I'm not going to LIE and say they're "therapy animals" just so I can bring them to Disney with me. That's absurd and insulting.

Some sort of certification/license/permit - just like is require for handicapped parking - would immediately solve the problem and prevent people from abusing the system just because they can.

 

[wm49rs]

And just how are any of us to know what is a pet and what is a service dog when you see one at the parks?

 

[Clever Name]

I totally agree that it's unfair for anyone to assume or judge who is or is not in need based upon appearances. Does the person with the pocket pooch have the right to carry around their little pet because they claim it is a "service" dog? According to the ADA, yes. The fact that the dog mentioned by the OP was in a carrier and obviously isn't "working" pretty much says that it's not a necessity.

You just passed judgement with the remarks above. It is impossible for you or anyone but the owner to know if the dog was working. You would have to know what task(s) the dog is trained to perform and you would have to know what the animal is trained to do in response to his/her awareness of a host of problems and situations. Just because the dog is in a carrier does not mean it is not working. Dogs that are trained to alert for hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) can sense and alert to their owner’s problem from inside a carrier.

This is why there now needs to be standards, licensing, and proper identification for true service animals. Again, it's the abuse of the few that created the need. Unfortunate but it happens.

The U.S. Department of Justice disagrees with you:

Training requirement. Certain commenters recommended the adoption of formal training requirements for service animals. The Department has rejected this approach and will not impose any type of formal training requirements or certification process, but will continue to require that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. While some groups have urged the Department to modify this position, the Department has determined that such a modification would not serve the full array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals, since individuals with disabilities may be capable of training, and some have trained, their service animal to perform tasks or do work to accommodate their disability. A training and certification requirement would increase the expense of acquiring a service animal and might limit access to service animals for individuals with limited financial resources.

Some commenters proposed specific behavior or training standards for service animals, arguing that without such standards, the public has no way to differentiate between untrained pets and service animals. Many of the suggested behavior or training standards were lengthy and detailed. The Department believes that this rule addresses service animal behavior sufficiently by including provisions that address the obligations of the service animal user and the circumstances under which a service animal may be excluded, such as the requirements that an animal be housebroken and under the control of its handler.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/reg3_2010.html

With proper licensing and visual identification there would be no doubt as to which service animals are legit and which are not.

It is none of my business and none of your business as to the identification or legitimacy of service animals. You should totally ignore all service animals. If the animal displays aggression or creates a disturbance only then does it becomes your business and the owner must then regain immediate control and face the consequences (including legal action) of the intemperate behavior. :wave:

 

[BigTxEars]

I can see the concern with parking spaces designated for those with disabilities as there are a limited number of those and if taken by folks not needing them then the folks who do might be deprived.

Not sure why anyone cares about rather a animal in Disney or anywhere else is a service animal or not, it really has no effect on any of us. If Cujo goes crazy and starts to eat small children then I can see the concern, otherwise it is really none of our business. Just my .02

I work in a business where customers sometimes bring in legitimate service animals, I am positive that at other times those animals are not service animals, such as the "service" snake one had. :ROFLOL:

Some folks cheat the system in almost everything, this is no different. Looking at Disney alone how many people cheat the FP system, the Give A Day program, the child swap program, the etc...... I do not think Disney should make those programs harder to use for the honest users just because of the cheaters.

 

[mp2bill]

I've only ever seen large dogs in the park as service animals. I have absolutely no experience with service animals so forgive me, but isn't the point of the animal to be able to 'service'? What service could one of the little dogs provide? other than companionship i suppose.

My mother in law has a brain injury which has thrown off her balance. She has a 5 lb chihuahua which qualifies as a service dog because even that small amount of weight helps her retain her balance.