Magic Kingdom and pit bulls

[FFstreetDoc]

The issues is there is no challenge to the validity of the "service" animal. We were in Q for Peter Pan and watched the line grind to a halt for 15 minutes while CM's questioned a lady with her little rat dog she had pulled from her purse. End result is she refused to get off the ride all the while claiming it is her "service dog". The issue wasn't the dog in the park, it was wether it was safe for the dog to ride PPF. In my mind, the dog bails out and splats into downtown London that would not be good. When I asked how she got the don into the park I was told that they are not allowed to even challenge people with dog's at park entry. I was also told by a security officer that there is a local who brings a miniature horse with him to EPCOT.

As politically incorrect as this may sound; If you cant separate from your little dog (most "anxiety / security" dogs ate little dogs), them maybe it would be best to stay at home where you are safe and secure. DISCLAIMER I AM a dog owner and have no issue with dogs so don't tag me a dog hater...lol. I will add, if I had anxiety or security issues, It wouldn't be a Chihuahua at the end of the leash. It would be a Great Dane

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was also told by a security officer that there is a local who brings a miniature horse with him to EPCOT.

This was added 7 years ago.

 

[BrianL]

...are they legally even allowed to ask?!?

They actually cannot require proof under the ADA. What any establishment can ask are two things:

• Is this animal a service animal?
• What task is the animal trained to perform?

There is no legal requirement to provide any kind of proof or documentation. An establishment however may ask a patron to remove the animal if it is being disruptive to the business, regardless of if it is a service animal or not (the vast majority of true service animals are never disruptive though).

Now, "emotional support animals" are not the same as service animals and are not covered in any way by the ADA. Local laws can vary though. Disney's policy is that only service animals as defined by the ADA are allowed in the parks, however it seems that enforcement of that is pretty lax.

 

[BrianL]

The issues is there is no challenge to the validity of the "service" animal. We were in Q for Peter Pan and watched the line grind to a halt for 15 minutes while CM's questioned a lady with her little rat dog she had pulled from her purse. End result is she refused to get off the ride all the while claiming it is her "service dog". The issue wasn't the dog in the park, it was wether it was safe for the dog to ride PPF. In my mind, the dog bails out and splats into downtown London that would not be good. When I asked how she got the don into the park I was told that they are not allowed to even challenge people with dog's at park entry. I was also told by a security officer that there is a local who brings a miniature horse with him to EPCOT.

As politically incorrect as this may sound; If you cant separate from your little dog (most "anxiety / security" dogs ate little dogs), them maybe it would be best to stay at home where you are safe and secure. DISCLAIMER I AM a dog owner and have no issue with dogs so don't tag me a dog hater...lol. I will add, if I had anxiety or security issues, It wouldn't be a Chihuahua at the end of the leash. It would be a Great Dane

Interestingly, only dogs and miniature horses qualify as service animals under the ADA. Also, true service animals actually can ride certain attractions, but not all of them. Peter Pan's Flight is not one, though things like the carousel are.

The list is here: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/en_CA/guest-services/service-animals/

 

[LuvMyEAR]

WOW... a miniature horse as a therapy animal. Very cool. I would so love to see that. Laughed about FFstreetDoc's preference for a Great Dane or other. I am a big dog lover, but there are times I have to admire the portability of the miniature breeds.

Allergies and phobias plague plague most of the population these days, it seems. Life goes on, with adjustments. It comes down to common sense and courtesy. Disney is so good at providing meals that help people with mild to severe requirements to avoid gluten, nuts, etc, that I would like to think they will be conscientious about keeping a percentage of room pet-free and on the ground floor so that allergens don't become an issue in the confined space of an elevator. People who suffer from animal allergies (and my heart BREAKS for all of you!) are used to maintaining a bit of distance when they see dogs.

I am allergic - very allergic - to scented products. A walk around my own block is almost lethal at night while many dryers are pumping their toxic clouds of "fresh rainforest" scent into the air. Flight attendants are my worst nightmare as most seem to seek to drown out the smell of passengers fighting back with copious quantities of scent. I can look forward to a full blown migraine, burning eyes and throat, and shortness of breath on every single flight. Get a rental car, which has been freshly Febreezed...ride with head out window for first few days. I have had to leave theatres, meetings, parties, and restaurants, so I definitely empathize with all manners of allergy sufferers. At least I am able to have my dog to keep me sane. Sort of sane. Ok. Somewhat functional in polite society. Sanity is a bit of a stretch.

 

[LuvMyEAR]

Oh dear heavens... this pop up ad just appeared as I was browsing the DIsney Food Blog.

https://www.officialservicedogregis...MI_7SZ1suK2gIVGZrICh0n7gegEAEYASAAEgIezPD_BwE

If this doesn’t lay things open to abuse, I don’t know what does. Ironic that their poster dog is a Golden Retriever named Buddy, but irony aside, how terrible to encourage anyone to “register” a pet as a service animal just because there is no law against it. Not even funny.

 

[Lilsia]

WOW... a miniature horse as a therapy animal. Very cool. I would so love to see that. Laughed about FFstreetDoc's preference for a Great Dane or other. I am a big dog lover, but there are times I have to admire the portability of the miniature breeds.

Allergies and phobias plague plague most of the population these days, it seems. Life goes on, with adjustments. It comes down to common sense and courtesy. Disney is so good at providing meals that help people with mild to severe requirements to avoid gluten, nuts, etc, that I would like to think they will be conscientious about keeping a percentage of room pet-free and on the ground floor so that allergens don't become an issue in the confined space of an elevator. People who suffer from animal allergies (and my heart BREAKS for all of you!) are used to maintaining a bit of distance when they see dogs.

I am allergic - very allergic - to scented products. A walk around my own block is almost lethal at night while many dryers are pumping their toxic clouds of "fresh rainforest" scent into the air. Flight attendants are my worst nightmare as most seem to seek to drown out the smell of passengers fighting back with copious quantities of scent. I can look forward to a full blown migraine, burning eyes and throat, and shortness of breath on every single flight. Get a rental car, which has been freshly Febreezed...ride with head out window for first few days. I have had to leave theatres, meetings, parties, and restaurants, so I definitely empathize with all manners of allergy sufferers. At least I am able to have my dog to keep me sane. Sort of sane. Ok. Somewhat functional in polite society. Sanity is a bit of a stretch.

I am the same way with scents. I have a hyper sense of smell and cigarettes and perfume are the worst for me. Instant nasty headache, my nose plugs up and my throat starts to itch. It is horrible because you can not get away with it. Those people who are walking and smoking (instead of in the designated areas) trying to "hide" their cigarette in the cup of their hand is a joke. We can still SMELL you! It is hard to explain to people how much smells actually physically affect people like us. I think airplanes need to be perfume/cologne free. If they can go peanut free for allergies(as they should) then our allergy should be taken just as seriously.

 

[goofyintoronto]

Not all pitbulls are bad.. people who raise them to be fighters is what's wrong. Also it's easy to spot a real service dog vs a pet. If the dog barks or growls or even looks hyper while "on duty" they are mostlikly a pet.

Exactly this! Not all pitbulls are bad! I had an ex who had the sweetest kindest pitbull. I blame the owners who raise pitbulls to be fighters etc.

And yes, if the dog is freaking out and barking in the parks, chances are the dog is a pet. Not a service/therapy dog. And thats pretty sad if someone is trying to pass off their pet as a service/therapy dog.

And re: the miniature horse in Epcot, that's so cool. I would love to see that cutie trotting around epcot.

 

[chuff88]

I work in a public space (A public library) and this is becoming more and more prevalent and an issue.

The ADA states that

Only dogs are recognized as registered *service animals*
Entities must provide access for *service animals*

Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

Some State and local laws also define service animal more broadly than the ADA does. Information about such laws can be obtained from the State attorney general’s office.


When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Obviously this is being taken advantage of and I see it everyday. I've said no to cats, birds, and rabbits/cavies. However it is almost impossible and a slippery slope for a lawsuit to bring this up with someone with a dog, because if you do it to someone with an actual disability, you are toast.

These situations are also causing real harm to the people with actual service dogs, as they are being greeted with judgement based on the behavior of people who are taking advantage of them.



In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, 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.

I work in a non-profit arts facility in a town that is fairly liberal and has a large "hippy" culture, and the dog issue comes up for us a lot. Once when I was working Will Call a young woman came in with a HUGE dog that was clearly not a service dog, and when we told her we don't allow pets in our building she said it was a service dog and we shut right up because we didn't want a problem. But this dog was afraid to walk on the carpeted floors, so it was clearly not a service animal. It's incredibly frustrating because that dog's presence almost certainly created discomfort for other patrons, and we felt like our hands were totally tied. I appreciate the information you provided, as I can pass it along to my manager. But this is an issue that a lot of people in customer and public service face.

 

[Pmlocke]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on what a "service dog" is and I have found that many business owners, including disney, do not fully understand ADA rules. A "service animal" is either a trained dog or in some cases a miniature horse (with certain provisions) that is trained to perform work or a task for a person with disabilities. Providing comfort or emotional support is not a recognized "service" under ADA rules. I recently saw a person with a "emotional support" dog who was denied access to a business. This person was making quit a fuss with the store owners and as I was walking by I suggested they contact the local police. The person who had the support dog became quiet and walked away. ADA has very specific rules regarding what constitutes a service animal and they do not recognize these gerbils, peacocks, pigs, or any other type of emotional support animal as a qualified service animal and those animals can be rightfully rejected. I suppose Disney should do a better study on the problem and train their staff much better. Last month I came across a very large mastiff at the Magic Kingdom. I got into a conversation with the person holding the leash and he told me the dog was an emotional support animal. Clearly, not allowed inside the park. I just walked away. Best not to start making a scene when clearly the staff does not understand the rules. If they had, the dog would not have been there.

 

[Firebird060]

All though I agree with everything everyone has said about support animals not being service dogs and there for not covered by the ADA, I have to think Disney has done some type of cost analyst over the whole issue. I agree people shouldn't bring non Legitimate service animals into the parks but knowing Disney the reason they are lax over the issue might come down to having to pay for and fight the frivolous law suites that people getting kicked out or denied entrance would bring. Disney of course is in its right to deny anyone entrance because of improper classification of a service animal but because the law is a bit opaque on this and the somewhat harder way to prove if a animal is a service animal or a emotional support animal Disney might not feel its worth it to really enforce the rules. Yes I agree it can inconvenience and even cause allergy triggers in other guests, and yes Other guests have the right to complain because they to paid the fee to get into the house of mouse but Disney might feel the occasional room discount or disney gift card or whatever they end up giving away to placate the non dog owning guest, is cheaper then fighting a frivolous law suit in court. Even if Disney wins the legal fees there is still the whole time lost by Disney lawyers on defending such a claim.

Yes I feel all it would take is one of these dogs physically assaulting a guest and Disney actually being held liable for a large payout before we would see any movement on this from Disney.

Like everything Disney does I feel this comes down to a cost analyst for Disney. Guest Satisfaction only matters as far as the Profit margin

 

[bryanb]

Pet dogs are allowed in some of the resorts (for a fee).

No dogs other than service dogs are allowed in the theme parks. I believe that emotional support dogs are also not allowed in the theme parks (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

I couldn't find anything on the Disney website regarding emotional support animals. Here is the full webpage regarding service animals. It also lists which attractions with service animal restrictions. Dogs may not ride Rock N Roller Coaster, for example.
https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/guest-services/service-animals/

 

[bryanb]

All though I agree with everything everyone has said about support animals not being service dogs and there for not covered by the ADA, I have to think Disney has done some type of cost analyst over the whole issue. I agree people shouldn't bring non Legitimate service animals into the parks but knowing Disney the reason they are lax over the issue might come down to having to pay for and fight the frivolous law suites that people getting kicked out or denied entrance would bring. Disney of course is in its right to deny anyone entrance because of improper classification of a service animal but because the law is a bit opaque on this and the somewhat harder way to prove if a animal is a service animal or a emotional support animal Disney might not feel its worth it to really enforce the rules. Yes I agree it can inconvenience and even cause allergy triggers in other guests, and yes Other guests have the right to complain because they to paid the fee to get into the house of mouse but Disney might feel the occasional room discount or disney gift card or whatever they end up giving away to placate the non dog owning guest, is cheaper then fighting a frivolous law suit in court. Even if Disney wins the legal fees there is still the whole time lost by Disney lawyers on defending such a claim.

Yes I feel all it would take is one of these dogs physically assaulting a guest and Disney actually being held liable for a large payout before we would see any movement on this from Disney.

Like everything Disney does I feel this comes down to a cost analyst for Disney. Guest Satisfaction only matters as far as the Profit margin

Of course you're right that it comes down to the profit margin, although I tend not to be too cynical about their motivations. Disney can't win with everyone on this issue, so it's a balancing act between taking a hard line and giving some people a grey area of the doubt. If decide to allow a grey area, as they have, people will argue about where that line should be. Even the outrage/support here over pit bulls shows how hard it is to draw it.

If they take a hard line, some parent will go running to the local news crying how their child diagnosed with an emotional disorder --and after all she's been through, wanted nothing more than to meet Snow White but was turned away by the mean corporation because her cute, photogenic support pup wasn't allowed to go with her. Thus enraging thousands of pet lovers online about the cruel heartless profit-driven corporation. The news would eat that up.

 

[Firebird060]

Of course you're right that it comes down to the profit margin, although I tend not to be too cynical about their motivations. Disney can't win with everyone on this issue, so it's a balancing act between taking a hard line and giving some people a grey area of the doubt. If decide to allow a grey area, as they have, people will argue about where that line should be. Even the outrage/support here over pit bulls shows how hard it is to draw it.

If they take a hard line, some parent will go running to the local news crying how their child diagnosed with an emotional disorder --and after all she's been through, wanted nothing more than to meet Snow White but was turned away by the mean corporation because her cute, photogenic support pup wasn't allowed to go with her. Thus enraging thousands of pet lovers online about the cruel heartless profit-driven corporation. The news would eat that up.

You are correct, the court of public opinion would prob also hold some weight.

 

[ElyseInWonderland]

My mental reaction when I see ANY kind of animal- large, small, whatever- in the parks with a companion is usually "COOL! A DOG!" and then I go about my day. If the pup is with an individual with a non-apparent disability, I think "I'm glad that person can also enjoy WDW despite their challenges" and I also go about my day. If the dog isn't barking loudly at me or licking my Dole Whip, why would his presence bother me?

I'll also go as far as saying that is someone needs to being Lil' Sebastian (mini horse) to the park in order to enjoy their day, more power to them.

 

[JewelofAlderaan]

I know this isn't exactly the point but...

we should honestly ban Michael Vick and the likes from the Parks - not pitbulls! I recommend all non-believers of this breed watch The Champions!

<3

 

[PamNC]

I own a pit bull and he is in no way dangerous in any stretch of the imagination (nor is he a service dog). Pits are amazing dogs unless they are in a certain environment and taught certain things. It's not the dog, it's the owner. My pit will attack - but only with kisses. I certainly don't own him to feel powerful - I own him because I love him.

 

[JewelofAlderaan]

I own a pit bull and he is in no way dangerous in any stretch of the imagination (nor is he a service dog). Pits are amazing dogs unless they are in a certain environment and taught certain things. It's not the dog, it's the owner. My pit will attack - but only with kisses. I certainly don't own him to feel powerful - I own him because I love him.

Love this. Wish more people understood this.

 

[dachsie]

This thread makes me think about that poor lady in the news recently who went missing after taking her pits for a walk. She was found mauled to death by them, with the dogs standing over her body not letting anyone get close. There is something in those dogs that can make them turn on a dime. I am sure she felt like most pit bull owners feel - that they are great dogs. There ere originally created for fighting so its in their dna. I am glad most people have great ones, but you never know when one will turn as evidenced by this case

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...woman-22-mauled-to-death-by-her-own-dogs.html

 

[Firebird060]

There are no evidence based studies that prove any creature is controlled via aggression due to DNA, DNA doesnt determine temperament of anyone, thats not how DNA works. So by saying pitbulls have something in there DNA to make them viscious shows that you do not understand the science of DNA. That same excuse was used years ago when certain people were talking about other races and crime. It didn't compute then with those theories neither does it compute now with yours.

Aggression is a learned behavior both for humans and animals. Yes animals may have instincts but that is different then behavior. But there you go my scientific rule rebuttal is over.