Trial Run for Dogs in Resort Rooms

[sunsetbeachgal]

I am a dog owner who is against this policy. I would be equally as concerned about dogs fouling the carpet in the guest room/common areas as I would be about dogs left alone while their owners go to the parks spending the day in the room barking. When my dog hears strange noises especially in an unfamiliar setting, he barks!!

We often travel to DW with our families with small grandchildren who like to come back to the room mid afternoon for a pool or nap break, and I could see that being interrupted by barking. And then with the owner gone what would you or resort management be able to do about that noise, absolutely nothing!

 

[Julylady]

Quick Question: Were dogs previously allowed in Ft Wilderness cabins or only in the camping loops? Many posters are referencing the cabins as if they have had dogs all along.

Next, I too received a 2nd call back, probably because they could answer some of my question on the first call.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Quick Question: Were dogs previously allowed in Ft Wilderness cabins or only in the camping loops? Many posters are referencing the cabins as if they have had dogs all along.
l.

It is new to allow them in the cabins. It was only at the campgrounds before.

 

[Wubar]

I suspect we would be having similar negative discussions if Disney were to implement a 10% ticket price increase next year.

I'm sure that plan is already in the works. *sigh*

 

[Sarahraegraham]

I’m going to copy a post I made on a different site because I hadn’t articulated this or seen anyone else do so here.

I think pets are just that, pets. They are not a necessity and even with as strongly as I will miss my angels on my 2 weeks at WDW coming up this month, it is not appropriate for me or anyone else to bring their pets with them. That is my opinion.

The reason that dog owners alone seem to be the pet owners so adamant about bringing their pets with them wherever they go (and not cat owners for example) is because they are extremely high maintenance. There may be exceptions and service dogs are included in that, but normal everyday pet dogs require tending on numerous levels (physical, emotional, etc) and at numerous times throughout the day and when a human is used to having that interaction for years and they suddenly go away for a week and don’t have it, their relationship/routine is broken. The dog owner feels it and the dog feels it.

But that is part of being a dog owner. It should not mean that everyone else (dog owner/lover or not) should be expected to accept that dogs can go any and everywhere with their owners (supermarket, mall, your workplace or WDW) to compensate for the owner or animal’s well-being. This is why I am against the new pet policy. Most of those who I have read give their opinions online about why they would want to take their dogs with them have to do with the well-being of the dog and themselves, while those against are stating their reasons against it are for the good and well-being of themselves and their families. Their humans families. And the good and well-being of an animal should NEVER EVER EVER EVER be taken over and above the well-being of a human. Should we care for them, yes! But not at the expense of another human being, whether it be their health or just their happiness. It’s called being considerate because a human life is and always will be worth more than an animal’s life. Normal humans. Not murderers, so please be reasonable when tempted to flame me for that statement. A reasonable person will understand my point.

I am in the camp that thinks they should add a separate pet-friendly resort and stop the argument once and for all. Makes everyone happy.

 

[b2k1121]

A message to all those with a neutral view on this policy change. Those with the wait and see approach.

Do you think in a year's time after the trial is over and Disney has made $s from this service they won't consider rolling out to the other resorts?

Also in a year's you decide you don't like it. Will Disney care about your opinion after they start to make $ and everything has been implemented?

If it goes as horribly as some are predicting I assume they would severely restrict the rooms dogs are allowed in or end the policy all together.

If it goes with very few negative instances, they will probably expand.

 

[ArwenMarie]

The reason that dog owners alone seem to be the pet owners so adamant about bringing their pets with them wherever they go (and not cat owners for example) is because they are extremely high maintenance. There may be exceptions and service dogs are included in that, but normal everyday pet dogs require tending on numerous levels (physical, emotional, etc) and at numerous times throughout the day and when a human is used to having that interaction for years and they suddenly go away for a week and don’t have it, their relationship/routine is broken. The dog owner feels it and the dog feed it.

This could be true for some folks. The canine-human bond is strong, I mean that's how they've managed to follow us around for thousands of years!

But I think it's more about the care expectations as you said. Dogs need a lot of daily care, and it's not always easy to find it. Your dog may not do well in a kennel, you may not have relatives around, etc. So I think the reason for a lot of the "dog travel" we see is pragmatic, not emotional

We've taken trips with our dog that we wouldn't have taken if the destination hadn't been pet-friendly.

 

[CT Disney]

Still working my way through this thread!

A quick question though: since "dog-friendly" is not a bookable category as of right now, what would happen if someone booked a river view or royal room at POR? When they called to add a dog to the reservation, would they be asked to change to a standard or garden view? What if they added the dog to the reservation at the last minute and there were no standard or garden views left? Would they not be allowed to add the dog to the reservation?

 

[robinb]

I’m going to copy a post I made on a different site because I hadn’t articulated this or seen anyone else do so here.

I think pets are just that, pets. They are not a necessity and even with as strongly as I will miss my angels on my 2 weeks at WDW coming up this month, it is not appropriate for me or anyone else to bring their pets with them. That is my opinion.

The reason that dog owners alone seem to be the pet owners so adamant about bringing their pets with them wherever they go (and not cat owners for example) is because they are extremely high maintenance. There may be exceptions and service dogs are included in that, but normal everyday pet dogs require tending on numerous levels (physical, emotional, etc) and at numerous times throughout the day and when a human is used to having that interaction for years and they suddenly go away for a week and don’t have it, their relationship/routine is broken. The dog owner feels it and the dog feed it.

But that is part of being a dog owner. It should not mean that everyone else (dog owner/lover or not) should be expected to accept that dogs can go any and everywhere with their owners (supermarket, mall, your workplace or WDW) to compensate for the owner or animal’s well-being. This is why I am against the new pet policy. Most of those who I have read give their opinions online about why they would want to take their dogs with them have to do with the well-being of the dog and themselves, while those against are stating their reasons against it are for the good and well-being of themselves and their families. Their humans families. And the good and well-being of an animal should NEVER EVER EVER EVER be taken over and above the well-being of a human. Should we care for them, yes! But not at the expense of another human being, whether it be their health or just their happiness. It’s called being considerate because a human life is and always will be worth more than an animal’s life. Normal humans. Not murderers, so please be reasonable when tempted to flame me for that statement. A reasonable person will understand my point.

I am in the camp that thinks they should add a separate pet-friendly resort and stop the argument once and for all. Makes everyone happy.

First of all, I miss my cat a whole lot more than I miss my dog when I'm on vacation.

Secondly, I don't really think your argument works. First you argue that dog owners develop deep connections to their animals and that leaving them can be difficult for the owners. Then you claim that other people's happiness trumps dog happiness. While that might be true, what about dog owner happiness? Those people who you have said made a deep connection with their animal? Isn't their happiness worthy?

 

[Sarahraegraham]

First of all, I miss my cat a whole lot more than I miss my dog when I'm on vacation.

Secondly, I don't really think your argument works. First you argue that dog owners develop deep connections to their animals and that leaving them can be difficult for the owners. Then you claim that other people's happiness trumps dog happiness. While that might be true, what about dog owner happiness? Those people who you have said made a deep connection with their animal? Isn't their happiness worthy?

My point was that the emotional happiness of a pet owner in relation to their pet and that pets emotional well-being in relation to their owner does not trump another human beings health and well-being, emotional or physical. Hence why dogs don’t go to hospitals that I am aware of. Or supermarkets (at least they should not!) That is why it has been against health and safety policies in the past to bring a dog on resort property or in the parks (except service animals.)

 

[LSUmiss]

I’m going to copy a post I made on a different site because I hadn’t articulated this or seen anyone else do so here.

I think pets are just that, pets. They are not a necessity and even with as strongly as I will miss my angels on my 2 weeks at WDW coming up this month, it is not appropriate for me or anyone else to bring their pets with them. That is my opinion.

The reason that dog owners alone seem to be the pet owners so adamant about bringing their pets with them wherever they go (and not cat owners for example) is because they are extremely high maintenance. There may be exceptions and service dogs are included in that, but normal everyday pet dogs require tending on numerous levels (physical, emotional, etc) and at numerous times throughout the day and when a human is used to having that interaction for years and they suddenly go away for a week and don’t have it, their relationship/routine is broken. The dog owner feels it and the dog feed it.

But that is part of being a dog owner. It should not mean that everyone else (dog owner/lover or not) should be expected to accept that dogs can go any and everywhere with their owners (supermarket, mall, your workplace or WDW) to compensate for the owner or animal’s well-being. This is why I am against the new pet policy. Most of those who I have read give their opinions online about why they would want to take their dogs with them have to do with the well-being of the dog and themselves, while those against are stating their reasons against it are for the good and well-being of themselves and their families. Their humans families. And the good and well-being of an animal should NEVER EVER EVER EVER be taken over and above the well-being of a human. Should we care for them, yes! But not at the expense of another human being, whether it be their health or just their happiness. It’s called being considerate because a human life is and always will be worth more than an animal’s life. Normal humans. Not murderers, so please be reasonable when tempted to flame me for that statement. A reasonable person will understand my point.

I am in the camp that thinks they should add a separate pet-friendly resort and stop the argument once and for all. Makes everyone happy.

I think both sides are equally worried about their own well-being & self-interests. That's HUMAN nature (not so much a dog's nature...but I digress). A person's well-being who wants to take the dog b/c they will worry about the dog's well-being is still affected. I think if more of us admitted that we are worried about our own self-interests & well-being & stopped trying to qualify our own well-being as more important than anyone else's there would be little left to debate . Many have pointed to how this is a change after 45 years of it not being this way. But, I think that's exactly why some dog owners are happy b/c (like it or not) dogs are more accepted in public places these days & many of us have been waiting for WDW to jump in on this.

BTW, I have cats too & they are WAY less needy. They can stay home w/ someone checking on them every other day & I never worry about them at all. But, I think that's why there are often so many comparisons to dogs & kids. I KNOW dogs aren't human. I don't need another zoology lesson. I am just saying that I have cats, dogs, & a child. And the dogs & child are more closely related as far as needs than the cats. So, I think it's easy for some of us to make that comparison.

 

[Wood Nymph]

Does anyone have information regarding dogs being allowed on the walkway to DHS, the walkway around the lake, or the beaches in front of the BC? I spoke to someone but not sure if I'm getting correct information as she sounded unfamiliar with the BC & BW area.

There have been a few people who have asked guest services about dogs in areas outside of the Yacht Club and the latest information is that the dogs will not be allowed off the grounds of the YC. They will not be allowed on any of the Beach Club property, including the beach. They will not be allowed on the walkways to the Boardwalk, Hollywood Studios, or any of those areas. We are staying at the Beach Club in November and I hope not to see them in those areas.

 

[LSUmiss]

First of all, I miss my cat a whole lot more than I miss my dog when I'm on vacation.

Secondly, I don't really think your argument works. First you argue that dog owners develop deep connections to their animals and that leaving them can be difficult for the owners. Then you claim that other people's happiness trumps dog happiness. While that might be true, what about dog owner happiness? Those people who you have said made a deep connection with their animal? Isn't their happiness worthy?

Exactly. I have been miserable & anxious on trip when I had to board my blind, 16 y/o dog w/ a bad back & bad heart. I worried about him the WHOLE time. Was terrified he would die alone in a kennel while were selfishly on vacation (that's how I saw it). That dog did eventually die recently of pancreatitis. While he didn't die there, the episode that killed him started when he was boarding b/c they didn't feed him the right food. I know many ppl w/ similar experiences w/ boarding old and/or sick dogs. If you have a young & healthy dog, it's no big deal. I have 2 young & healthy dogs so I plan to board them b/c I don't want to deal w/ the hassle of bringing them. But, I can completely understand why someone would need to bring their dog. Like I have said many times, I am happy that we have options now. And those that don't like it (excluding those who are already booked) also still have options.

 

[robinb]

My point was that the emotional happiness of a pet owner in relation to their pet and that pets emotional well-being in relation to their owner does not trump another human beings health and well-being, emotional or physical.

Why not? Why isn't the dog owner's emotional happiness and well-being just as valid as the non-dog owner? I don't see how you can say that one "side" deserves happiness and the other "side" does not.

Hence why dogs don’t go to hospitals that I am aware of. Or supermarkets (at least they should not!) That is why it has been against health and safety policies in the past to bring a dog on resort property or in the parks (except service animals.)

Dogs do go into hospitals and rehab facilities. We brought my mom's dog into see her once. As for supermarkets, I am not sure if there are actual regulations banning non-service animals or if they simply make their own rules.

 

[LSUmiss]

My point was that the emotional happiness of a pet owner in relation to their pet and that pets emotional well-being in relation to their owner does not trump another human beings health and well-being, emotional or physical. Hence why dogs don’t go to hospitals that I am aware of. Or supermarkets (at least they should not!) That is why it has been against health and safety policies in the past to bring a dog on resort property or in the parks (except service animals.)

It's not trumping anyone. Those who can't stay w/ dogs can stay at one of the resorts that is not dog-friendly.

 

[Wubar]

I wonder what would change if Disney opened up the pet policy to include other animals, such as cats, birds, snakes, ferrets, bunnies, etc. Would dog owners object to guests bringing their cats? Would bird owners not want to be placed near cat owners?

This post was made tongue-in-cheek, but I could see how owners of pets that aren't dogs are wondering why they can't bring their loved ones along...

 

[LSUmiss]

I wonder what would change if Disney opened up the pet policy to include other animals, such as cats, birds, snakes, ferrets, bunnies, etc. Would dog owners object to guests bringing their cats? Would bird owners not want to be placed near cat owners?

This post was made tongue-in-cheek, but I could see how owners of pets that aren't dogs are wondering why they can't bring their loved ones along...

LOL! My cat would have a stroke!

 

[Sarahraegraham]

I wonder what would change if Disney opened up the pet policy to include other animals, such as cats, birds, snakes, ferrets, bunnies, etc. Would dog owners object to guests bringing their cats? Would bird owners not want to be placed near cat owners?

This post was made tongue-in-cheek, but I could see how owners of pets that aren't dogs are wondering why they can't bring their loved ones along...

This. We can’t all bring our beloved animals with us wherever we go. It’s part of life.

 

[robinb]

Exactly. I have been miserable & anxious on trip when I had to board my blind, 16 y/o dog w/ a bad back & bad heart. I worried about him the WHOLE time. Was terrified he would die alone in a kennel while were selfishly on vacation (that's how I saw it). That dog did eventually die recently of pancreatitis. While he didn't die there, the episode that killed him started when he was boarding b/c they didn't feed him the right food. I know many ppl w/ similar experiences w/ boarding old and/or sick dogs. If you have a young & healthy dog, it's no big deal. I have 2 young & healthy dogs so I plan to board them b/c I don't want to deal w/ the hassle of bringing them. But, I can completely understand why someone would need to bring their dog. Like I have said many times, I am happy that we have options now. And those that don't like it (excluding those who are already booked) also still have options.

That really sucks . I'm sorry for your dog. My cat did die in a kennel while I was at WDW. He became sick right before we were to leave and we kenneled him at the vet's office while we were away. I was comforted that someone held him as he died but I wish it had been me.

 

[jrmasm]

I wonder what would change if Disney opened up the pet policy to include other animals, such as cats, birds, snakes, ferrets, bunnies, etc. Would dog owners object to guests bringing their cats? Would bird owners not want to be placed near cat owners?

This post was made tongue-in-cheek, but I could see how owners of pets that aren't dogs are wondering why they can't bring their loved ones along...

My answer remains the same. I don't care.