I wish Disney had dog friendly accommodations!

[NikitaZee]

One pet friendly resort would not impact anyone who wasn't pet friendly. If Disney were to build it and you weren't pet friendly you wouldn't stay there! That's it. I don't get what all the freakin' fuss is about.

Not to mention that the whole point is moot anyway - there are no plans in the works for a pet friendly hotel at Disney, so the whole argument is imaginary

 

[mskayjay]

Fuss about a pet resort?
Ask the same question about a child free resort and than you will see "fuss"'

Absolutely!!!!! Even asking for a child-free floor or wing at a resort is cause for being labeled a child-hater!!!!! just saying........

 

[CoachBagFanatic]

I definitely agree with that. My dog hasn't really been to other houses besides my house and my grandparents' house in St. Louis. That is the only place we take her when we go on vacation for Thanksgiving and Christmas. She has gone to my grandparents' place in St. Louis since she was a puppy so she adapted pretty well with the new environment, but I don't know how she would be in a completely new environment. Especially one like WDW. She also hates the car. Always has and always will. I would hate to think how uncomfortable she would be on a plane or 14+ hour drive.

Same here. The only other house that my babies have been to is my mom's since they were puppies also. My two don't like the car either. My Cody Bear howls at the top of his lungs and my Temari whines and then they get sick even though I don't feed them. I wear ear plugs when we have to take them to the vet.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Fort Wilderness camp ground. Dogs are everywhere

Not quite. They are limited to RVs. They are not permitted in the cabins.

 

[Greysword]

I think it's a good idea to have a small portion of rooms allocated as pet rooms at one or more of the resorts. That way if people don't want to stay in a pet room, they don't have to.

One pet friendly resort would not impact anyone who wasn't pet friendly. If Disney were to build it and you weren't pet friendly you wouldn't stay there! That's it. I don't get what all the freakin' fuss is about.

People with all their negative opinions are just misinformed. Most of the upscale hotel chains allow pets. Some of the arguments are just silly. One only needs to look at Universal to see it's possible to maintain nice resorts & allow pets. All their resorts are as nice as WDW deluxes.

Many people are selfish by nature & want to have everything available to them, regardless of who else it affects. They're not happy with more rooms than they could possibly ever stay in during their lifetime. They also want to make sure the few that could be designated pet friendly are available to them too.

Being married to an asthmatic with very bad allergies, we book our vacations based on resorts that don't allow pets.

If WDW would do this, please keep this to one resort. Let the animal owners have their space!

WDW could build a resort that caters to pets, and it is probable many non-pet owners and owners not traveling with their pets would be willing to stay there. However, there would be no guarantee of enough demand throughout the year to warrant the expense of a whole resort complex.

If they built a wing on an existing resort, the biggest concern would be the ability to shift guest to those rooms. For instance, if all "non-pet" rooms are currently filled, the resort management would simply channel the next guest to the pet room (just like they do with HA rooms and previously smoking rooms). However, it would take only one guest that is deathly allergic to pets to be moved to the pet wing to cause a significant issue (WDW is now toally non-smoking for a reason, right?).

Although this is very unlikely, it is more probable WDW reservations would need to play "musical guest" as many visitors would not want to stay in a room regularly catering to pets.

You would have any easy decision then.

Jade, I am very surprised by this recurring comment, as you are well traveled at WDW and know that requesting a non-pet room would be just that; a request. WDW could put people into a pet room, regardless of needs or desires.

I don't agree that pets always create extra noise or that pet rooms equal dirty rooms. Babies and toddlers are also noisy, messy, sometimes wet the bed, and have "accidents" frequently. Should they be banned from Disney resorts?

To me, it's only being selfish if a person is totally unwilling to compromise. If I said, I think every room should allow pets, ban kids, require kids, etc., then I would be being selfish.

What many of you don't consider is not everyone has someone to leave their pets with. Leaving them in a place they're familiar with isn't an option. You leave them in a kennel 24/7 with strangers or you take them with you & let have some normalcy (being with their family) at least part of the day & night.

There will be pet owners who allow their pets to disturb others. There will be many more parents who do the same with their kids. Let's not forget the drunks. The list could go on.

Here is the bottom line on these arguments, pets are property, plain and simple. They have the same fundamental rights as luggage, an iPad, cigarettes and a handgun when it comes to the ability of a private property owner to ban them from their land (this is simplified, as pets do have a few rights to humane treatment and upkeep, but vacationing isn't one of them ).

Children, on the other hand, are human beings with a substantial amount of rights, thus is it not accurate to compare a dog to an infant (or toddler having a meltdown ). Thus, such a comparison as a basis to the case to have pets in the resorts likely hinders the argument rather than bolster it.


In summary:
While I understand the premise to having a dedicate set of rooms for pets at WDW and the desire for pet owners to bring their pets with them, I believe the concept undermines the premise and specialty of Walt Disney World.

To elaborate, the resort IS a safe haven for many families and children. WDW is a magical place where people with special challenges (be it mobility, socializing, allergies, age, whatever) can find a respite from their daily hyper diligence and have a safe place to vacation. WDW is a place where families can relax, let their guard down for a moment, and enjoy their surroundings, knowing their loved ones will be treated well and not have a fear of something happening due to their challenge.

Introducing a pet resort (or even a hotel wing) has the real possibility to encroach on this zone of safety for many people. While service dogs are allowed*, they are relatively easy to spot and CM can be quick to intervene if something happens do to the dog's presence.

Thus, it is better from a business standpoint for WDW to remain pet free in their resorts, as it provides greater flexibility for them, reduces projected (and likely actual) maintenance costs, and allows all guests to feel safe.



*Also, the service dogs are allowed as their human masters need them, not because they want them.

 

[c3363]

WDW could build a resort that caters to pets, and it is probable many non-pet owners and owners not traveling with their pets would be willing to stay there. However, there would be no guarantee of enough demand throughout the year to warrant the expense of a whole resort complex.

If they built a wing on an existing resort, the biggest concern would be the ability to shift guest to those rooms. For instance, if all "non-pet" rooms are currently filled, the resort management would simply channel the next guest to the pet room (just like they do with HA rooms and previously smoking rooms). However, it would take only one guest that is deathly allergic to pets to be moved to the pet wing to cause a significant issue (WDW is now toally non-smoking for a reason, right?).

Although this is very unlikely, it is more probable WDW reservations would need to play "musical guest" as many visitors would not want to stay in a room regularly catering to pets.

Jade, I am very surprised by this recurring comment, as you are well traveled at WDW and know that requesting a non-pet room would be just that; a request. WDW could put people into a pet room, regardless of needs or desires.






Here is the bottom line on these arguments, pets are property, plain and simple. They have the same fundamental rights as luggage, an iPad, cigarettes and a handgun when it comes to the ability of a private property owner to ban them from their land (this is simplified, as pets do have a few rights to humane treatment and upkeep, but vacationing isn't one of them ).

Children, on the other hand, are human beings with a substantial amount of rights, thus is it not accurate to compare a dog to an infant (or toddler having a meltdown ). Thus, such a comparison as a basis to the case to have pets in the resorts likely hinders the argument rather than bolster it.


In summary:
While I understand the premise to having a dedicate set of rooms for pets at WDW and the desire for pet owners to bring their pets with them, I believe the concept undermines the premise and specialty of Walt Disney World.

To elaborate, the resort IS a safe haven for many families and children. WDW is a magical place where people with special challenges (be it mobility, socializing, allergies, age, whatever) can find a respite from their daily hyper diligence and have a safe place to vacation. WDW is a place where families can relax, let their guard down for a moment, and enjoy their surroundings, knowing their loved ones will be treated well and not have a fear of something happening due to their challenge.

Introducing a pet resort (or even a hotel wing) has the real possibility to encroach on this zone of safety for many people. While service dogs are allowed*, they are relatively easy to spot and CM can be quick to intervene if something happens do to the dog's presence.

Thus, it is better from a business standpoint for WDW to remain pet free in their resorts, as it provides greater flexibility for them, reduces projected (and likely actual) maintenance costs, and allows all guests to feel safe.



*Also, the service dogs are allowed as their human masters need them, not because they want them.

I think what you are missing is that for a lot of people pets ARE family. Pets ARE loved ones. They may be property in the eyes of the law, but they are certainly not property to 99.9% of pet owners. Pet owners do not have the luxury of "knowing their loved ones will be treated well and not have a fear of something happening." Visit the onsite kennel and even some offsite kennels and you will see what I mean.

There are currently many potential dangers for people when they go to Disney World. Many people have allergies to nuts, but they don't ban nuts from all hotel rooms and restaurants. A child could easily have peanut butter on their hands and spread the allergen to different surfaces that the next guest may touch. Many people cannot be stung by bees, but the resort does not guarantee that a bee will never enter a hotel room. Many people are fearful of snakes, yet there is a possibility of a snake encounter on Disney Property (even a venomous one). As far as I know, Disney World does not do background checks on resort guests, so there is a POSSIBILITY that a criminal or convicted predator could be staying in the room next door to you or hanging out near the pool. A dog being a "danger" is a rare exception, just like any of the other situations I have mentioned.

Plus, perhaps it is your wording, but I would seriously doubt that service dogs are not "wanted" by their owners LOL. Of course they need them, but they also have a strong connection and bond with their owner. They are most definitely wanted as well.

 

[jade1]

I believe one pet-friendly resort would be a HUGE hit with guests. Tiled floors, dog park, pet bed area, walking service, etc.

Jade, I am very surprised by this recurring comment, as you are well traveled at WDW and know that requesting a non-pet room would be just that; a request. WDW could put people into a pet room, regardless of needs or desires.

That comment is always proceeded by the OP suggesting WDW build a resort that allows dogs. So you would have to ask to book a room at that resort, in order to be around dogs. Why would you do that knowing they allow dogs, when you said yourself you wouldn't do that?

My point is your decision would be easy-don't book there.

 

[Greysword]

I think what you are missing is that for a lot of people pets ARE family. Pets ARE loved ones. They may be property in the eyes of the law, but they are certainly not property to 99.9% of pet owners. Pet owners do not have the luxury of "knowing their loved ones will be treated well and not have a fear of something happening." Visit the onsite kennel and even some offsite kennels and you will see what I mean.

There are currently many potential dangers for people when they go to Disney World. Many people have allergies to nuts, but they don't ban nuts from all hotel rooms and restaurants. A child could easily have peanut butter on their hands and spread the allergen to different surfaces that the next guest may touch. Many people cannot be stung by bees, but the resort does not guarantee that a bee will never enter a hotel room. Many people are fearful of snakes, yet there is a possibility of a snake encounter on Disney Property (even a venomous one). As far as I know, Disney World does not do background checks on resort guests, so there is a POSSIBILITY that a criminal or convicted predator could be staying in the room next door to you or hanging out near the pool. A dog being a "danger" is a rare exception, just like any of the other situations I have mentioned.

Plus, perhaps it is your wording, but I would seriously doubt that service dogs are not "wanted" by their owners LOL. Of course they need them, but they also have a strong connection and bond with their owner. They are most definitely wanted as well.

I agree that Shadow is definately a member of our family (DD5 alls him her brother ), but despite our love for him, he still doesn,t have the same rights as a evil child that deserves to be in a kennel. WDW does a great job of controling as much as possible within the law, and if they could corral the bees and snakes,I believe they would (and put them to work in the Pooh ride and jungle cruise respectively ). They can control the location of most pets, so they are permitted in the kennels and Ft Wilderness away from the general population of the resort. Right or wrong, it is a wise business decision.

 

[ScarletFire]

Not to mention that the whole point is moot anyway - there are no plans in the works for a pet friendly hotel at Disney, so the whole argument is imaginary

Too funny! I started the thread 6 years ago. Searching Disney dog pictures and my old thread was on the first page.

 

[Jason2015]

Too funny! I started the thread 6 years ago. Searching Disney dog pictures and my old thread was on the first page.

Excellent thread. Interesting the arguments haven't changed in 6 years. I would like to point out to the pets as property person (6 years late) that I can leave my iPad at home unplugged for a week and not get arrested but if I left my dog home for a week without food and water I can be arrested for animal abuse. So there is a level of responsibility pet owners have that iPad owners don't. (Yes I know 6 years late) Also, children can be banned from resorts just like pets. How many bed and breakfasts have age restrictions?