Trial Run for Dogs in Resort Rooms

[aeryn]

I can't wait to stay at the resorts with my pup. I travel with her everywhere I can and it cost as much for the pet sitter as it would to bring her to the resort. I love this ability.

 

[BaronLaw]

Please don't even go there!! I had the same thought and squeezed it right out of my mind. I don't see it happening, in large part because I can't imagine they would be allowed on rides, and then where would they go while people are on rides.

I completely understand and wonder whether bringing it up makes sense. Am I giving them an idea or am I preventing it ?

 

[mexi]

I think it depends on the dog. Neither of my dogs wants to go. Both refuse to get out the car. But the golden retriever eventually has fun. But the dachshund doesn’t eat & doesn’t do well. I dread boarding him. I take short trips now to avoid boarding him too long.

I have a mini dachshund. They are a cute breed aren't they. I understand what you're saying totally.

 

[Madame]

But they did apparently see a need for it. They added rooms of 5 to CBR just 2 years ago and built AoA suites for up to 6 people. Now they've essentially taken those options away from people who can't or won't stay in a hotel with dogs.

They’ve also added the murphy to as many DVC studios as they physically can at this point.

Many families of 5 (like us) go DVC when they realize how expensive & limited accommodations for 5 are. DVC will save us a bundle in the long run. More & more people are having 3 kids.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I just want to say to folks who are planning on calling Animal Control, please be careful with that. This is Disney's issue and should be solved through them first. The last thing an already-overburdened agency needs is a bunch of calls about hotel dogs barking. They see some really really sad and terrible stuff everyday. You know like animal cruelty and stuff

 

[BK2014]

There are no statistics other than the poll results, but lots of assumptions and opinions to bolster the relevance of the poll..

Your assumptions are largely based off the two polls that you listed in your post. One cannot make assumptions based on poll results and then claim that those assumptions somehow bolster the relevance of the polls.

In summary, this is a very unpopular policy for the majority. It is also unnecessary. Will some be happy about this proposed policy? Yes. However, this policy comes at the expense and frustration of the many.

This is an over-broad conclusion that you try to make appear as though it is the logical conclusion of the poll results (and the makeup of people on these boards). Just because one opinion is more loudly presented than another does not mean it is the opinion of the "many". There is nothing in the poll results, or this forum that can lead anyone to conclude that the majority of WDW guests are against this policy. There is no way to account for those who are completely indifferent. That is the problem with these forums when there is a hot button issue. The echo chamber effect leads people to conclude that more are agreeing with them than there actually are.

 

[Ensusieasm]

Please don't even go there!! I had the same thought and squeezed it right out of my mind. I don't see it happening, in large part because I can't imagine they would be allowed on rides, and then where would they go while people are on rides.

They have had doggie days at Magic Kingdom in the past.

 

[Madame]

Also, I asked the CM what the $50 nightly pet fee was for and she told me it was for the deep cleaning they need to do after we've checked out.

If you believe this, then I’ve got a bridge to sell ya....

 

[b2k1121]

I can deny that there are "plenty" of people in "full-blown meltdown mode"

...The fact you see it as plenty of people in that extreme state shows me you are misjudging at least some of them, because (quoting myself here to rest my weary fingers )...

I don't think the argument that I can't understand where people are coming from because I haven't experienced it holds up. I'm highly allergic to cats. If this policy was switched from dogs to cats I would have the same exact opinion. I wouldn't write an angry letter or make a phone call yelling at someone that had no hand in this policy just because I've been slightly inconvenienced. I wouldn't look down on those that bring their cats. I would simply stay at the hotels without cats. If I somehow ended up in a room that previously had a cat I'd ask nicely for a different room. I'd wait until it expanded to every hotel before I got upset.

 

[TheFloatingBear]

As a generality a person's homeowner's or renter's insurance (and if needed and if they had it their umbrella insurance policy) would cover them for personal liability. It would still have to be a covered loss of course. But as with some very very common things such as driving we all hope that people are insured adequately should something occur.

As to children petting a dog at epcot that is both on the responsibility of the person owning the dog and the parents (or the person responsible for the children) allowing their children to pet the dog. It would still be the liability of the owner of the dog but it doesn't exempt responsibilties from other parties.

But you do bring up a very good point.

I was going to mention this last night when I read the Touring Plans blog, but I lost track of things...the article brought up some different things I hadn't thought about - it mentioned this about the homeowner's insurance...

"Who is Liable If My Dog Injures Someone/Is Injured By Someone or Damages Something?
Faster than you can say Disney Legal, you can be certain that Disney will have themselves covered by waivers of liability. If your dog injures someone, you will be responsible for the liability. If you/your dog is injured by someone else’s dog, you will have to seek damages from them. Check with your homeowner’s insurance policy to see if you are covered when you travel, as well as any travel insurance you are carrying. You will also be financially responsible for any damage done to the room by your pet above and beyond normal use and wear."

It sparked a lengthy discussion with my DH, since he is a insurance agent and we often have lengthy discussions about insurance related topics . He seemed to think at this point, generally your coverage shouldn't change if you're away from home (like if there is a dog bite at a playground - he deals with these types of claims all the time), however we talked about the increase in pet friendly hotels, which we were both unaware of, and he said that sometimes the industry lags behind and there may be changes in such things if pet travel really is becoming that widespread. As it is, states vary with coverage, breed restrictions, etc. The example he used was the rise in Uber and the like, which I've seen plenty of threads taking about the merits. In MA where we live, there are a lot of insurance issue with Uber drivers that have accidents while "working" - their umbrella policies don't cover everything, and sometimes their regular car insurance won't cover it since it's considered work-related. I mean, he's no expert, I just thought it was interesting and something I hadn't considered, since I don't travel with a pet.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I just want to say to folks who are planning on calling Animal Control, please be careful with that. This is Disney's issue and should be solved through them first. The last thing an already-overburdened agency needs is a bunch of calls about hotel dogs barking. They see some really really sad and terrible stuff everyday. You know like animal cruelty and stuff

I know it's not the same subject necessarily but I remember in college when I lived in the dorms the fire station responsible for that area of the city was right there next to the main cluster of dorms.

Unfortunately people thought it was funny to pull the fire alarms just for fun sometimes even multiple times at night. The second dorm I lived in had 10 stories and I was on the 10th floor. During a fire alarm you cannot use the elevators..so yeah at 3am it wasn't fun at all walking up and down those 10 stories. Anywho the fire department had to plead with people to stop pulling the fire alarms for fun as it was pulling resources away from the rest of the city. It's hard to go fight a real fire when you're busy inspecting a dorm because of a prank.

Now I know people are talking about calling the animal control not out of a prank or to be funny but your comment did made me think about what happened when I was in college with firetrucks and whatnot.

 

[agavegirl1]

Just listened to the podcast. I didn't think they came out as rah-rah "I'm all for this policy" without bringing up any of the potential issues, they just didn't really dive deep into any of the potential negative situations. I think the big assumptions they made were:

1. Disney had set aside specific rooms for dogs, and only dogs will be able to stay in those rooms. I don't think Disney has given anyone definitive information that that is the case.
2. Only responsible dog owners that have well-behaved dogs will bring their dogs.
3. Owners would not think of leaving their dogs behind by themselves in the room for extra long periods of time so they can visit the parks.

If their assumption for #1 is true, then some of the fears and concerns would be relieved (not all, but some).
#2 and #3 are probably not true, as there are exceptions to every rule.

I thought their point on anyone "slapping a service animal vest on any dog" was amusing, although in situations where this happens, it does takes away from the validity and impact of true service animals. And what about Julie wanting to bring her cat! LOL...

Well Said Wubar.

 

[Dentam]

I can see both sides here. The short notice wasn't a great PR tactic for sure. However, I'm wondering how everyone fared during and after the hurricane last month. My understanding was that all Disney resorts opened their doors to evacuees with pets. I never heard any reports of severe allergy issues that resulted from this, nor anyone being bit, etc. ?

 

[Dis703]

Hopefully she has good info but the problem I see is there are two dog relief stations right up against the Royal rooms and preferred. The only way there is to walk your dog by these rooms. They have no purpose unless dogs will be close by. Same goes for AoA.

I completely don’t buy they don’t think many will do this. Disney’s #1 goal is revenue and they wouldn’t be doing all this if they weren’t expecting a cash success story.

Okay, I just looked at the maps and yes it makes zero sense for the dog relieving area to be outside buildings 95 and 15 if there are no dogs allowed in those sections. I asked the CM I spoke with who to talk to if I had more questions and she gave me an email address to reach her so I just sent a question asking what was up with this discrepancies. In totally different wording, lol.

So it's either
A: There are actually dogs allowed in Preferred and Royal Rooms at POR or
B: Dogs aren't allowed in those rooms, but they are allowed all over the resort and not restricted to dog walking areas as Disney said they would be.
Or maybe C: they totally screwed up the maps? I'll hope for that one.

 

[croach]

I've posted quite a few times in this thread but maybe I should post about my experiences traveling with a pet. I have been several places with my dogs over the years - Washington DC, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Virginia Beach, etc. And I'm talking right in the middle of this big cities. I would guess the majority of the stays have been at Residence Inns because they are pet friendly and I get points but one was an upscale Kimpton resort. I also stay at Residence Inns even when not traveling with a pet because I just like them. And I will preface this with I know everyone's experience is different and I'm not saying my experience invalidates anyone else(caveats out of the way). Not once in my travels have I seen a dog running around off a leash, not once have I seen a dog go the bathroom in the lobby or a a hallway, not once have I seen a dog be aggressive, and I really can't recall ever hearing a dog bark maybe more than once or twice. Does that mean it never happens. Of course not. But the point is I think a lot of people that travel with pets try to do so in a responsible manner because they are aware that not everyone has a dog or wants to be around them. I'm sure someone will post "what about the irresponsible owners" but I hope people will just read this and see it as an person's experience that has traveled a lot with dogs and use it as an offset to some of their concerns. If not that's ok too.

 

[Tink-osophy]

I don't think the argument that I can't understand where people are coming from because I haven't experienced it holds up. I'm highly allergic to cats. If this policy was switched from dogs to cats I would have the same exact opinion. I wouldn't write an angry letter or make a phone call yelling at someone that had no hand in this policy just because I've been slightly inconvenienced. I wouldn't look down on those that bring their cats. I would simply stay at the hotels without cats. If I somehow ended up in a room that previously had a cat I'd ask nicely for a different room. I'd wait until it expanded to every hotel before I got upset.

"Slightly inconvenienced" still tells me you don't fully understand. Sorry! ...Though glad for you.

 

[markman04]

If you believe this, then I’ve got a bridge to sell ya....

I do, actually. No reason not to.

 

[HopperFan]

Okay, I just looked at the maps and yes it makes zero sense for the dog relieving area to be outside buildings 95 and 15 if there are no dogs allowed in those sections. I asked the CM I spoke with who to talk to if I had more questions and she gave me an email address to reach her so I just sent a question asking what was up with this discrepancies. In totally different wording, lol.

So it's either
A: There are actually dogs allowed in Preferred and Royal Rooms at POR or
B: Dogs aren't allowed in those rooms, but they are allowed all over the resort and not restricted to dog walking areas as Disney said they would be.
Or maybe C: and they totally screwed up the maps? I'll hope for that one.

Disney emails folks have posted and some other sources have said the dogs are allowed in public areas and walkways they just must be leashed and maintain control of them. They can even go in lobby, they just can't sit on the furniture.

That cracked me up, like that is the worse of the worries.

It's Disney, if they can sell more rooms, they will. And what if the folks demand to stay in Royal or Preferred (which cost more) plus have a dog ... $ $ $. What if folks try to show up with a dog and add on like we do with extra guests ... $ $ $, they will get a room.

This is right off their website ".... expected to be well behaved, leashed in public resort areas and properly vaccinated."

AND, what are pet walkways? Did they build a walk all the way around resort to connect the poop stops so only dog people will be on them.

 

[mercexe]

Disney emails folks have posted and some other sources have said the dogs are allowed in public areas and walkways they just must be leashed and maintain control of them. They can even go in lobby, they just can't sit on the furniture.

That cracked me up, like that is the worse of the worries.

It's Disney, if they can sell more rooms, they will. And what if the folks demand to stay in Royal or Preferred (which cost more) plus have a dog ... $ $ $.

I was told by the CM that called me that dogs are permitted in all public areas except pool areas Only rule is that they must be leashed.

 

[ShirikiUtundu]

I'm not getting why some think that Disney is not a place for people to bring pets. If other hotels or resorts do it then let Disney try it and decide for themselves. Disney is a huge company and they wouldn't jump into something without doing their homework first.

And I'm not getting why any dog owner would think WDW is a place to bring pets, even with the new policy.
It is not generally a vacation conducive to spending time with a pet, or even just ensuring the pet is happy. A nature-type vacation, like at a lake or a beach seems more appropriate - somewhere a dog can actually do something besides sit in an unfamiliar 300 square foot room and only be taken out to use the bathroom. The policy doesn't seem to have anywhere you can actually take your dog to do, well, anything, besides use the bathroom without it being crated. What exactly does this accomplish? I certainly wouldn't call it a "pet-friendly policy."

For this reason I really don't think this won't be much of an issue. I think most people are smart enough to realize this isn't actually good for their pets. I do not expect to see hundreds of dogs on my next WDW trip.