Alleged Service Dogs at Desert Springs Villas

[easyrider]

Ruled in favour over what?

I'm claiming that nobody should have more rights than someone with a service dog, why should they? That's simply discrimination. This isn't about dogs vs humans.

The fact is public health seems to have trumped service dog use in some situations because some people are severely allergic and dogs can contaminate certain areas of a medical facility which seems reasonable to me. I get that you are very pro-service dog and I have been trying to be nice to your opinions but you are wandering into a level of self righteousness I don't appreciate. I'm all for the use of real service dogs but there are some places they do not belong.

Bill

ADA didn’t require hospital to allow nurse’s service dog, 6th Circuit says

The court backed an employer’s decision that the dog’s allergens posed a “direct threat” after a patient and another employee had allergic reactions.

www.hrdive.com

 

[noreenkate]

Businesses do call out the fraud but it's always after the fact. If the registered service dog is unattended in the room and becomes disrupted the pet fee can added as the ADA requires service dogs to be attended at all times.

Bill

Bill see my above post- not arguing just my personal experience…
I shouldn’t be growled at in the lobby in front of a Marriott employee even if it’s a small fluffy “service dog.”

 

[jp10558]

Now you're putting forward a separate argument. As someone with a formally trained and accredited service dog why should I be expected to pay more to stay at a property with my dog simply because some people abuse the system?

I know that people consider it strange that staff are not allowed to ask questions surrounding the dog's tasks and why it's required but there's a good reason for it. I think many people would be surprised at the sorts of questions people with service dogs are asked. I have had complete strangers come up to me and ask the most personal and intrusive questions, questions that they would never dream of asking anyone else. The vast majority of the time it's done out of genuine curiosity rather than an accusatory challenge but that doesn't make it any less uncomfortable and unwanted. I don't want to explain to someone why I have a service dog (although her jacket has a rather obvious clue on it), or what she does for me, the fact that she is wearing her jacket is sufficient for anyone to know that she's a service dog. I do have a formal ID for her and I'm happy to show anyone if they want proof of her status however there's no legal requirement for me to provide it. To date no-one has ever asked me to produce ID for her, I suspect her demeanor and her jacket is sufficient proof. I have experienced occasions when business owners have tried to refuse me entry to their establishment usually restaurants or food stores but a quick mention about the UK Disability and Equality Act and the potential £10k fine always helps to change their attitude.

I get angry about fake service dogs, more so than non service dog owners, because it serves only to create distrust against genuine service dogs and their owners. I get frustrated about the proliferation of service dog vests that can be bought online however it does also mean that it's often easy to spot a fake service dog. The charity that supports me has their jackets produced by a major dog wear company and has the charity logo embroidered on it, the ones from Amazon and the like are simply generic. Reputable organisations typically aim for accreditation with Assistance Dogs International and a quick look at some of the organisations accredited with them show that the majority of the jackets the dogs wear display the name and logo of the organisation making it easy to determine that they are genuine service dogs.

Personally, I just think a simple state ID for a service dog like our non-drivers IDs in NY should be reasonable, and then when they ask for your photo ID to check you in, they can also ask for the Service Dog's photo ID. No need to ask anything else IMO.

This, in my opinion would solve people lying, probably make the number of "service dogs" go down by an order of magnitude and so make the very occasional deep clean needed a reasonable "cost of doing business" like the other ADA regulations.

Some hotels are pet friendly, and maybe some resorts will be, then no question, you know the costs are higher for cleaning, or the units will be pet contaminated and in either case people can make their choices. Maybe all the pet people will be in one resort and the rest of us can be left alone, IDK.

 

[davidvel]

The fact is public health seems to have trumped service dog use in some situations because some people are severely allergic and dogs can contaminate certain areas of a medical facility which seems reasonable to me. I get that you are very pro-service dog and I have been trying to be nice to your opinions but you are wandering into a level of self righteousness I don't appreciate. I'm all for the use of real service dogs but there are some places they do not belong.

Bill

ADA didn’t require hospital to allow nurse’s service dog, 6th Circuit says

The court backed an employer’s decision that the dog’s allergens posed a “direct threat” after a patient and another employee had allergic reactions.

www.hrdive.com

That case was decided on its own facts and under the EEOC (employment) context. It dealt with the interactive process for reasonable accommodations for an employee under the ADA, which is not present in a hotel/guests situation. It really has little to do with what hotel owners must do with respect to claimed service dogs in their establishments.

As with most cases, laypeople often claim opinions establish black and white guidelines, (and support their non-legal beliefs) which is rarely the case. This leads to false understanding of the case, as well as the state of the law in general. As an example, the article you cited, shows that in another case the federal courts analyzing the same laws and doctrines held that a pharmacist could bring her support dog into the pharmacy despite requirements of sterility and claims that contamination could occur. This may seem confusing without reading/understanding the full extent of the opinions and the authority cited by the court in each case.

All this shows that the law is much more complex than it seems. This is why there are attorneys, which make up only some of internet forum participants. While this case could have some persuasive effect on the situation being discussed here, it certainly is not precedent, and doesn't support anyone's lay opinion that has been presented in this thread.

 

[davidvel]

Maybe all the pet people will be in one resort and the rest of us can be left alone, IDK.

Separate but equal?

 

[WinniWoman]

I never heard of anyone having three service dogs!

 

[WBP]

We watched the keepers of these dogs, come and go from their villa, and leave their three “Service Dogs” behind.

What they did, in my opinion, was totally scandalous; in my opinion, a negative reflection of human beings.

Imagine, this couple gave birth to a next generation.

 

[jp10558]

Separate but equal?

In this case, I guess I see it more like some people want a ski resort and some want a beach resort - i.e. some want to hang out with their pets, some don't want to be around animals. And a subset on each side have a medical reason for their preference.

We watched the keepers of these dogs, come and go from their villa, and leave their three “Service Dogs” behind.

What they did, in my opinion, was totally scandalous; in my opinion, a negative reflection of human beings.

Imagine, this couple gave birth to a next generation.

This is just entitled people not wanting to spend the money to board their pets IMO. Which means they *should* stay home or avoid owning dogs / pets IMO. I sort of wish "dog cafes" would catch on like the "cat cafes" have. Maybe just like a petting zoo or something. There's way too many people who want to pet a dog for an hour a day or once every 2 weeks or something, but not actually deal with taking care of them on a daily basis. Yet they for some reason feel like the only solution is having a dog to torture along with other humans in the vicinity.

 

[easyrider]

That case was decided on its own facts and under the EEOC (employment) context. It dealt with the interactive process for reasonable accommodations for an employee under the ADA, which is not present in a hotel/guests situation. It really has little to do with what hotel owners must do with respect to claimed service dogs in their establishments.

As with most cases, laypeople often claim opinions establish black and white guidelines, (and support their non-legal beliefs) which is rarely the case. This leads to false understanding of the case, as well as the state of the law in general. As an example, the article you cited, shows that in another case the federal courts analyzing the same laws and doctrines held that a pharmacist could bring her support dog into the pharmacy despite requirements of sterility and claims that contamination could occur. This may seem confusing without reading/understanding the full extent of the opinions and the authority cited by the court in each case.

All this shows that the law is much more complex than it seems. This is why there are attorneys, which make up only some of internet forum participants. While this case could have some persuasive effect on the situation being discussed here, it certainly is not precedent, and doesn't support anyone's lay opinion that has been presented in this thread.

Well said David.

Bill

 

[jp10558]

All this shows that the law is much more complex than it seems. This is why there are attorneys, which make up only some of internet forum participants. While this case could have some persuasive effect on the situation being discussed here, it certainly is not precedent, and doesn't support anyone's lay opinion that has been presented in this thread.

There's also the difference between claims of what the law is and what someone would like the law to be. I'm careful to make clear most of the time that I'm not a competent expert in what the law is, but I certainly have and feel entitled to my opinions as to what I think it ought to be. At least in the context of if I ever felt like writing my representative. Though TBH most of my efforts are limited to forum posts and so I don't actually feel that strongly about it.

 

[Foggy1]

We watched the keepers of these dogs, come and go from their villa, and leave their three “Service Dogs” behind.

What they did, in my opinion, was totally scandalous; in my opinion, a negative reflection of human beings.

Imagine, this couple gave birth to a next generation.

Did this ever get reported to the front desk as suggested early on by VacationForever? If not, why not?

 

[davidvel]

There's also the difference between claims of what the law is and what someone would like the law to be. I'm careful to make clear most of the time that I'm not a competent expert in what the law is, but I certainly have and feel entitled to my opinions as to what I think it ought to be. At least in the context of if I ever felt like writing my representative. Though TBH most of my efforts are limited to forum posts and so I don't actually feel that strongly about it.

This is a great point that is the new eternal debate on the internet.

Positive statements are based on facts and data that can be validated. They are objective and can be tested and usually accepted among experts in the field, or simply universally accepted. (What is.)

Normative statements are based on opinions or ethics and express value judgments. (What should be.)

People who grew up with the internet and social media for most of their lives generally have difficulty recognizing, or caring, about the difference. Almost everything is framed in normative statements, and facts are discarded. The new wave of older tin foil hatters are the same.

This can be seen in the difference how media exists today. Previously there was a legitimate attempt for "News" to solely include positive statements. Normative statements were reserved for the opinion section. Now, most stories contain a mixture of the two, and weighted toward the normative, with little outward distinction between them. Dedicated opinion sections only exist in printed papers, if at all.

 

[geist1223]

In this case, I guess I see it more like some people want a ski resort and some want a beach resort - i.e. some want to hang out with their pets, some don't want to be around animals. And a subset on each side have a medical reason for their preference.

This is just entitled people not wanting to spend the money to board their pets IMO. Which means they *should* stay home or avoid owning dogs / pets IMO. I sort of wish "dog cafes" would catch on like the "cat cafes" have. Maybe just like a petting zoo or something. There's way too many people who want to pet a dog for an hour a day or once every 2 weeks or something, but not actually deal with taking care of them on a daily basis. Yet they for some reason feel like the only solution is having a dog to torture along with other humans in the vicinity.

Or Volunteer at your local Humane Society. Even though I have Finn (Black GSP) I volunteer 2 days per week (2 hour shift) and walk dogs. Patti volunteers 1 day per week to help take care of cats. Get your Pet fix that way.

 

[WBP]

Did this ever get reported to the front desk as suggested early on by VacationForever? If not, why not?

We made 3 calls to the Front Desk, over 3 days.

 

[easyrider]

We made 3 calls to the Front Desk, over 3 days.

Desert Springs could send these guests an invoice for breaking the ADA regulation of leaving the dog unattended. Technically, you could have called the police about the barking which would be warranted after the first day and call, imo.

Bill

 

[WBP]

Desert Springs could send these guests an invoice for breaking the ADA regulation of leaving the dog unattended. Technically, you could have called the police about the barking which would be warranted after the first day and call, imo.

Bill

There was no barking. We saw the dogs being walked.

 

[easyrider]

There was no barking. We saw the dogs being walked.

I've never been bothered by walking dogs.

Bill

 

[PamMo]

These threads on fake service dogs are like the ones about chair hogs around resort pools. Tuggers just don’t like selfish, entitled cheats!

In my welcome letter from Desert Springs, they make it very clear that only service animals are allowed, and other pet “guests” will get their owners charged a $500 per pet fee. Too bad they don’t enforce it.

 

[WBP]

These threads on fake service dogs are like the ones about chair hogs around resort pools. Tuggers just don’t like selfish, entitled cheats!

In my welcome letter from Desert Springs, they make it very clear that only service animals are allowed, and other pet “guests” will get their owners charged a $500 per pet fee. Too bad they don’t enforce it.


View attachment 103204

My favorite “Chair Hog” characters, caught in the act.

Tis the season, I’ll post this, like A Charlie Brown Christmas.

https://youtu.be/CasUsA4Qh9E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbjwH0-bDH0&feature=youtu.be

 

[easyrider]

These threads on fake service dogs are like the ones about chair hogs around resort pools. Tuggers just don’t like selfish, entitled cheats!

In my welcome letter from Desert Springs, they make it very clear that only service animals are allowed, and other pet “guests” will get their owners charged a $500 per pet fee. Too bad they don’t enforce it.


View attachment 103204

The main problem is this resort is in California. Not only does the resort have to comply with the ADA requirements, they have to comply with CA regulations as well.

Bill

 

[ljmiii]

In my welcome letter from Desert Springs, they make it very clear that only service animals are allowed, and other pet “guests” will get their owners charged a $500 per pet fee. Too bad they don’t enforce it.

Just understand that in California, ESAs are "Service Animals" for the most part (at least those owned by travelers and tenants).

 

[ljmiii]

We just returned from a lovely tour of European Christmas markets and it is interesting to view this thread in that light. There were well behaved dogs in pretty much every hotel and restaurant, sitting at their owners feet, alongside them on a sofa/bench, or held in their arms. And of course lots walking along with their owners in every market.

I'm not saying that I think MVC resorts should change their rules and regulations. Just that it was a different world.

 

[VacationForever]

Just understand that in California, ESAs are "Service Animals" for the most part (at least those owned by travelers and tenants).

Not exactly true.

California Laws on Psychiatric Service Dogs and Emotional Support Animals in Public Places

California law requires staff at most public places to admit service dogs and psychiatric service dogs, and may require landlords and employers to allow ESAs.

www.nolo.com

 

[dagger1]

My wife has been in a wheelchair (full time, zero ability to walk) for 20 plus years. My question is why we must provide “proof” (a placard) to utilize handicap parking, but those with service animals do not have to provide any “proof”? The placards/license plates are a minor hassle to get, but not a huge deal. Why do those with service animals not have to provide the same “proof”? This might prevent some of the fraud….

 

[easyrider]

Not exactly true.

California Laws on Psychiatric Service Dogs and Emotional Support Animals in Public Places

California law requires staff at most public places to admit service dogs and psychiatric service dogs, and may require landlords and employers to allow ESAs.

www.nolo.com

The thing is the business isn't allowed to ask questions or proof of the disability under the ADA . If a person has a dog they want to take to CA on their trip, I think there is little to nothing stopping them.

Bill