Will dogs be allowed at a DVC resort??

[4luv2cdisney]

Allergies aside, there are lots of other concerns.

Even the most well behaved pets can have issues.

Lots of pets get nervous in new situations. I've both had and known plenty of dogs that get sick because they're anxious.

Lots of pets get sick if they eat something not a part of their regular diet. Very easy to lick up some ice cream or grab a cookie some kid dropped while walking around outside when at Disney.

Nails. Untrimmed or freshly trimmed, they can do some serious damage to furniture and flooring.

The smell. The fact is, very few pet owners can smell what everyone else smells. I dog-sit a friends dog from time to time. It is a "hypoallegnenic" breed. She brings him straight from the groomer to my house. He barely spends any time outside and prefers to do his business on the patio not the grass. I hose down the patio after he goes and wipe his paws with doggy wipes as we come in the door. The dog still stinks by day 3. The build up of these smells are concerning.

I've had dogs my whole life up until the last several years. I think I took good care of my dog. He had a pillow bed that he slept on and that got washed and/or replaced frequently. I wiped his paws when he came in from outside. He got bathed and his nails clipped regularly. I vacuumed daily. Even so, my house is soooo much cleaner, better smelling and just less "worn" now that we don't have a dog. It is what it is. I miss my dog. I loved my dog. I am not an animal hater.

You can come on here and tell us how wonderful your beloved family member/pet is and how great and respectful of an owner you are, but the bottom line is that that's not true of every owner or pet that will be allowed.

There will be damage and increased wear and tear from allowing pets. It will be unavoidable. Even if you like the idea of bringing your own pet, you should be concerned about the damage to the rooms over time that will occur. Rooms will need refreshing more frequently. I really just cannot imagine what the sofas would look like after a bit of time with pets on them regularly. Even if they charged a large cash fee for pets (enough to cover all damage, wear and tear and not increase our dues) we will have to depend on the powers that be to actually notice what needs to be done in each room and find the time to take the rooms out of service and get them updated.

These are just room concerns. These are just some maintenance and financial concerns. There is so much more to consider.

More than anything, I think it is terribly selfish and lacking in empathy for others with allergies or fear of animals, etc. to support any potential proposed change to the existing no pet policy.

 

[Gryhndmom]

Actually when we first purchased into the membership, we were, adamantly, told that there are no pets permitted. When we informed them about allergies, they mentioned about the service animals. We then inquired about what we should do to ensure we don't receive a room after them. We were told that service dogs were kept, in most cases, on the first floor. They were quite sure about that and I had no reason not to believe them. This was over 15yrs ago.

However, in the beginning of our membership when I called to book it, I did speak with the CMs about this and I was told, each time, that there is no need to worry and I did not need to make this request. I was told, again, that they are usually assigned a lower floor and just to ask for higher floor. And, this time, they mentioned that there are very few guests who come with service animals that it should not be an issue for us. They also said that if we had allergy issues, we should contact the front desk and explain.

Although I will admit I was quite naive at that point and believed them, it's been 15+yrs and many many stays, with only one stay on the ground floor, and we've had no issues with pet allergies so far. Were we just lucky? Not sure, but adding the possibility of more pets in the rooms will likely have different consequences.

I would guess that 15 years ago the use of service dogs is not what it is today. Although the CM's probably do try to keep guests with service dogs on the bottom floor, maybe for ease of the guests in case of an emergency, by law the service dog and guests may be in any room that any guests can book. I personally do not think if the trial dog policy was at DVC, this would be at every DVC resort . IF (and BIG IF) dvc ever allows this to happen and if it would be at some resorts they would be ground floor. Just my guess much like many others are guessing about how many dogs could appear at a resort..

Allergies aside, there are lots of other concerns.

Even the most well behaved pets can have issues.

Lots of pets get nervous in new situations. I've both had and known plenty of dogs that get sick because they're anxious.

Lots of pets get sick if they eat something not a part of their regular diet. Very easy to lick up some ice cream or grab a cookie some kid dropped while walking around outside when at Disney.

Nails. Untrimmed or freshly trimmed, they can do some serious damage to furniture and flooring.

The smell. The fact is, very few pet owners can smell what everyone else smells. I dog-sit a friends dog from time to time. It is a "hypoallegnenic" breed. She brings him straight from the groomer to my house. He barely spends any time outside and prefers to do his business on the patio not the grass. I hose down the patio after he goes and wipe his paws with doggy wipes as we come in the door. The dog still stinks by day 3. The build up of these smells are concerning.

I've had dogs my whole life up until the last several years. I think I took good care of my dog. He had a pillow bed that he slept on and that got washed and/or replaced frequently. I wiped his paws when he came in from outside. He got bathed and his nails clipped regularly. I vacuumed daily. Even so, my house is soooo much cleaner, better smelling and just less "worn" now that we don't have a dog. It is what it is. I miss my dog. I loved my dog. I am not an animal hater.

You can come on here and tell us how wonderful your beloved family member/pet is and how great and respectful of an owner you are, but the bottom line is that that's not true of every owner or pet that will be allowed.

There will be damage and increased wear and tear from allowing pets. It will be unavoidable. Even if you like the idea of bringing your own pet, you should be concerned about the damage to the rooms over time that will occur. Rooms will need refreshing more frequently. I really just cannot imagine what the sofas would look like after a bit of time with pets on them regularly. Even if they charged a large cash fee for pets (enough to cover all damage, wear and tear and not increase our dues) we will have to depend on the powers that be to actually notice what needs to be done in each room and find the time to take the rooms out of service and get them updated.

These are just room concerns. These are just some maintenance and financial concerns. There is so much more to consider.

More than anything, I think it is terribly selfish and lacking in empathy for others with allergies or fear of animals, etc. to support any potential proposed change to the existing no pet policy.

Let me say first that I did read your entire post. I read every posts and have not pushed ignore on anybody as I am open minded enough to read different opinions on a subject. I believe when we close our minds to others we stop learning and growing. There are many "what if" scenarios involved in the trial dog policy. Maybe all the bad things mentioned in your posts will happen and maybe the won't....time will tell.

Your bolded statement at the end is lumping every poster who is pro to the new trial policy in one camp and I know good and well many of us (myself included) have said we do understand allergies, fear of dogs, etc. I believe the pro side is just not thinking there will be a wild dog party at every resort complete with people purposely putting their dogs on other guests. Maybe try and think that IF(again BIG IF) dogs are allowed it just might be okay instead of just thinking it will be all bad.

 

[DenLo]

And charge the appropriate MF's for the upkeep of the resort.......

Why should non dog owners have to pay dues for those who bring dogs? Some buyers might not care of others bring dogs but don't have any of their own. DVC will never sell a DVC resort for dog lovers only. It would eliminate too many guests that don't own dogs.

There is a legal dfference between a service dog and a support animal.

Yes and no, as the ADA rules mention a dog to calm it's owner down, I can see many people with comfort dogs thinking their dog does the same thing for their disabled relative that gets hysterical and needs the dog to calm down. I say the difference between the two dogs is that the Service Dog is trained to behave and be quiet when alone.

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.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I would guess that 15 years ago the use of service dogs is not what it is today. Although the CM's probably do try to keep guests with service dogs on the bottom floor, maybe for ease of the guests in case of an emergency, by law the service dog and guests may be in any room that any guests can book. I personally do not think if the trial dog policy was at DVC, this would be at every DVC resort IF (and BIG IF) dvc ever allows this to happen and if it would be at some resorts they would be ground floor. Just my guess much like many others are guessing about how many dogs could appear at a resort..



Let me say first that I did read your entire post. I read every posts and have not pushed ignore on anybody as I am open minded enough to read different opinions on a subject. I believe when we close our minds to others we stop learning and growing. There are many "what if" scenarios involved in the trial dog policy. Maybe all the bad things mentioned in your posts will happen and maybe the won't....time will tell.

Your bolded statement at the end is lumping every poster who is pro to the new trial policy in one camp and I know good and well many of us (myself included) have said we do understand allergies, fear of dogs, etc. I believe the pro side is just not thinking there will be a wild dog party at every resort complete with people purposely putting their dogs on other guests. Maybe try and think that IF(again BIG IF) dogs are allowed it just might be okay instead of just thinking it will be all bad.

Wishful thinking...positive thoughts....being hopeful....all fine and dandy in many situations. So, if I believe it won't be bad, it will alll be ok, and it isn't? Then what? What will anyone do for those that are negatively impacted?

I never envisioned a wild dog party with dogs on people. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that even with the best intentions and use of extreme caution there will be an increased chance of someone who is allergic having a reaction or someone who is fearful of dogs experiencing anxiety. Is it 100 percent guaranted to happen? No, but more dogs = more risk. I don't see how there is any doubt that permitting dogs will increase the wear and tear on rooms. Frankly, adding a 5th person to a room increases wear and tear. It just does. Allowing dogs is essentially increasing occupancy.

I am lumping you in if you would actively support the change. You are saying that you are willing to take that chance at the risk of others for your own personal potential benefit. A benefit that is simply "oh, wouldn't that be nice" for one since one bought knowing they couldn't bring dog(s) while knowing that it increases the risk of harm to others with a real concern with having animals present. Again, more dogs = more risk.

My daughter works where kids are often present. She usually has to go into work straight from school and already hungry. She doesn't get a meal break. She brings snacks. She refuses to bring trail mix, granola bars, etc "just in case" a kid with a nut allergy comes thru and might be affected. There is no rule, no policy, nobody told her she should do that. She loves trail mix and granola bars. They are her "go to" snack. She doesn't eat much meat and needs the protein. It doesn't require refrigeration and it is filling. She inconveniences herself to be considerate of others. I would just really love to see more people think that way.

I have a very open mind about a lot of things, but I just cannot see how supporting the change wouldn't be an act of selfishness. You state that you are aware and understand others issues, but they should basically "think positive" and "hope for the best" so that others can enjoy a new "benefit". That it is ok for some members to take on a potential risk for another members potential enjoyment? Correct? Please explain how that is not selfish? I think it's one thing to simply not care, but for anyone going out of their way to write letters and emails saying that this is a great idea because it benefits them personally while disregarding the potential negative impact it could have on others is completely selfish.

If one person comes on here and posts that they had a dog jump on their kid or they stepped in a pile of poop that someone didn't clean up or their room smelled like dog and it was unpleasant or they got a stuffy nose and watery eyes everytime they were in their room, etc. etc. will your response be that you feel bad for them? Or will you think "it's only one person / one instance"? Or will you think they should just "suck it up"? Just curious.

 

[Gryhndmom]

Wishful thinking...positive thoughts....being hopeful....all fine and dandy in many situations. So, if I believe it won't be bad, it will alll be ok, and it isn't? Then what? What will anyone do for those that are negatively impacted?

I never envisioned a wild dog party with dogs on people. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that even with the best intentions and use of extreme caution there will be an increased chance of someone who is allergic having a reaction or someone who is fearful of dogs experiencing anxiety. Is it 100 percent guaranted to happen? No, but more dogs = more risk. I don't see how there is any doubt that permitting dogs will increase the wear and tear on rooms. Frankly, adding a 5th person to a room increases wear and tear. It just does. Allowing dogs is essentially increasing occupancy.

I am lumping you in if you would actively support the change. You are saying that you are willing to take that chance at the risk of others for your own personal potential benefit. A benefit that is simply "oh, wouldn't that be nice" for one since one bought knowing they couldn't bring dog(s) while knowing that it increases the risk of harm to others with a real concern with having animals present. Again, more dogs = more risk.

My daughter works where kids are often present. She usually has to go into work straight from school and already hungry. She doesn't get a meal break. She brings snacks. She refuses to bring trail mix, granola bars, etc "just in case" a kid with a nut allergy comes thru and might be affected. There is no rule, no policy, nobody told her she should do that. She loves trail mix and granola bars. They are her "go to" snack. She doesn't eat much meat and needs the protein. It doesn't require refrigeration and it is filling. She inconveniences herself to be considerate of others. I would just really love to see more people think that way.

I have a very open mind about a lot of things, but I just cannot see how supporting the change wouldn't be an act of selfishness. You state that you are aware and understand others issues, but they should basically "think positive" and "hope for the best" so that others can enjoy a new "benefit". That it is ok for some members to take on a potential risk for another members potential enjoyment? Correct? Please explain how that is not selfish? I think it's one thing to simply not care, but for anyone going out of their way to write letters and emails saying that this is a great idea because it benefits them personally while disregarding the potential negative impact it could have on others is completely selfish.

If one person comes on here and posts that they had a dog jump on their kid or they stepped in a pile of poop that someone didn't clean up or their room smelled like dog and it was unpleasant or they got a stuffy nose and watery eyes everytime they were in their room, etc. etc. will your response be that you feel bad for them? Or will you think "it's only one person / one instance"? Or will you think they should just "suck it up"? Just curious.

I can see that we will have to agree to disagree as I do not believe my point is being understood. And no, I do not believe myself and others are being selfish by supporting the Policy. If for example Disney has 200,000 guests a year in one resort and 200 guests report allergies, fear of dogs etc., there are those who say the minority should be able to dictate policy.

 

[dvcdisney]

Why should non dog owners have to pay dues for those who bring dogs? Some buyers might not care of others bring dogs but don't have any of their own. DVC will never sell a DVC resort for dog lovers only. It would eliminate too many guests that don't own dogs.

I believe the post you replied to was referring to a Resort specifically built for pets and their owners. And in that case, they would be aware before purchasing any points that the maintenance fees would be higher because for that purpose.

 

[dvcdisney]

I can see that we will have to agree to disagree as I do not believe my point is being understood. And no, I do not believe myself and others are being selfish by supporting the Policy. If for example Disney has 200,000 guests a year in one resort and 200 guests report allergies, fear of dogs etc., there are those who say the minority should be able to dictate policy.

Personally, I understand your point. However, I don't think you understand our point. It's not a choice we want to make. My family loves dogs, unfortunately we are not able to have one due to allergies.

For us, this is not a matter of what I (and others with allergies in their family) want, it's a matter of health. Just as 4luv2cdisney example of a peanut free enviroment, it is similar. All schools in my area are peanut free. Although there are possibly only a handful of children (definitely, a minority) who have allergies, it still a policy because of the health implications. To prevent even one child from having a severe reaction is worth the inconvenience. Some people have severe pet allergies which are life threatening. Some don't even know how severe they will react with different pets. It's not something you want to risk.

Although the damage and financial costs involved in allowing pets in resorts would be an issue, the health of the guests is a far more important concern. And I do hope that most people do contact DVC/DVD and voice their concern. They are not set, as another poster mentioned that they were discussing this, it's obvious they want feedback. And I would hope that even just one person against this for health reason is enough for DVC to know it's not an appropriate change.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

If one wanted to write and let them know ones concern about this policy, where might one write?

Is a snail mail letter more effective than an email or does it not matter as long as it's well written?

 

[rocketriter]

You guys do know that service animals are already allowed in the rooms by law, and cleaning up after them is legally the resort's responsibility.

 

[Gryhndmom]

Personally, I understand your point. However, I don't think you understand our point. It's not a choice we want to make. My family loves dogs, unfortunately we are not able to have one due to allergies.

For us, this is not a matter of what I (and others with allergies in their family) want, it's a matter of health. Just as 4luv2cdisney example of a peanut free enviroment, it is similar. All schools in my area are peanut free. Although there are possibly only a handful of children (definitely, a minority) who have allergies, it still a policy because of the health implications. To prevent even one child from having a severe reaction is worth the inconvenience. Some people have severe pet allergies which are life threatening. Some don't even know how severe they will react with different pets. It's not something you want to risk.

Although the damage and financial costs involved in allowing pets in resorts would be an issue, the health of the guests is a far more important concern. And I do hope that most people do contact DVC/DVD and voice their concern. They are not set, as another poster mentioned that they were discussing this, it's obvious they want feedback. And I would hope that even just one person against this for health reason is enough for DVC to know it's not an appropriate change.

I do understand your point and others on it's a choice you don't want to make. For airlines and Peanuts, SW has been great about pulling nuts from a plane and asking passengers to not open nut related products if they have them but also can tell you that they cannot guarantee that peanut dust, pieces etc. are not still on the plane as planes are cleaned at the end of the day but definitely not an allergy clean. I believe United, and American have said while they understand the allergy to peanuts they cannot guarantee products on a plane don't contain nuts nor can they ask other passengers to not bring these products on board (papraphrasing).

I know a person very allergic to perfume and other cleaning products (as I suspect many others) and she just finds medicine to help control it. Agree people have life threatening allergies (mine is shellfish). My point is each business whether it be a school, airline, hotel/resort can and will approach allergies and their impact on people differently with some more accommodating than others. We will have to wait and see what Disney and/or dvc does on this issue.

 

[dvcdisney]

If one wanted to write and let them know ones concern about this policy, where might one write?

Is a snail mail letter more effective than an email or does it not matter as long as it's well written?

I sent an email to Ken Potrock. But I think others have sent them to the member feedback email.

And yes, if you want them to take you seriously, you need to make sure it's written well and respectful. They have not said they would make any changes. We just want them to take into account our concerns if or when they do discuss this option. I really do believe they appreciate the feedback. As with everything, they will do what they ultimately decide to do and, we as members will do what we need to do when the time comes. I believe most of us still value our membership and don't want significant changes that would affect our enjoyment of our investment in our future vacations.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

You guys do know that service animals are already allowed in the rooms by law, and cleaning up after them is legally the resort's responsibility.

There is a huge difference between a trained service animal and a pet.

 

[dvcdisney]

I do understand your point and others on it's a choice you don't want to make. For airlines and Peanuts, SW has been great about pulling nuts from a plane and asking passengers to not open nut related products if they have them but also can tell you that they cannot guarantee that peanut dust, pieces etc. are not still on the plane as planes are cleaned at the end of the day but definitely not an allergy clean. I believe United, and American have said while they understand the allergy to peanuts they cannot guarantee products on a plane don't contain nuts nor can they ask other passengers to not bring these products on board (papraphrasing).

I know a person very allergic to perfume and other cleaning products (as I suspect many others) and she just finds medicine to help control it. Agree people have life threatening allergies (mine is shellfish). My point is each business whether it be a school, airline, hotel/resort can and will approach allergies and their impact on people differently with some more accommodating than others. We will have to wait and see what Disney and/or dvc does on this issue.

Thank you. And even if these boards can sometimes become very emotional, it's an excellent way to gain empathy from both sides.

And I do agree that we have to wait to see what DVC will do. But with something this important to many of us, I think it would help if we let them know. Sometimes businesses only see the bottom line. I think it's wonderful that DVC appreciates our feedback.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I sent an email to Ken Potrock. But I think others have sent them to the member feedback email.

And yes, if you want them to take you seriously, you need to make sure it's written well and respectful. They have not said they would make any changes. We just want them to take into account our concerns if or when they do discuss this option. I really do believe they appreciate the feedback. As with everything, they will do what they ultimately decide to do and, we as members will do what we need to do when the time comes. I believe most of us still value our membership and don't want significant changes that would affect our enjoyment of our investment in our future vacations.

Thanks. I agree that we need to at least let them know what our opinion is - take it or leave it, they will.

I assumed that Ken Potrock wouldn't even read an email or care what "TiggerBouncy the extreme minority owner of DVC" has to say on the subject which is why I figured there was probably someone else I should send it to. I will go with Member Feedback.

Thank you!

 

[Simba's Mom]

There is a huge difference between a trained service animal and a pet.

Not where allergies are concerned. People who are so highly allergic that they can't be in a room where a dog has been, who say that even a complete allergy cleaning won't alleviate their allergies-how do they deal with service dogs? Although, as someone said above, the fact that service dogs aren't in the room much, usually out doing their "service"/job is a good point.

 

[dvcdisney]

Thanks. I agree that we need to at least let them know what our opinion is - take it or leave it, they will.

I assumed that Ken Potrock wouldn't even read an email or care what "TiggerBouncy the extreme minority owner of DVC" has to say on the subject which is why I figured there was probably someone else I should send it to. I will go with Member Feedback.

Thank you!

You're welcome.

I assumed that as well, but I realized that this is not just a feedback, it's a important issue that I believe he (or his office) needs to know about. I know some members may email him regularly and that's fine. But as I mentioned in my previous post, I hope my concern will be taken seriously since after 15+yrs of membership, this was my first email to him. Don't get me wrong, there have been several changes that I have not been happy about, but this is an important issue for my family.

There is only one other time I sent an email of concern/suggestion and that was after our stay at the Poly when it first opened. And this email was sent to the member feedback because it was truly a feedback of what we experienced in the hopes that something could be changed about the noise issue. I received an excellent response. And even if nothing was changed, this issue is isolated to this resort and not necessarily a health concern, I can choose to book elsewhere.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Not where allergies are concerned. People who are so highly allergic that they can't be in a room where a dog has been, who say that even a complete allergy cleaning won't alleviate their allergies-how do they deal with service dogs? Although, as someone said above, the fact that service dogs aren't in the room much, usually out doing their "service"/job is a good point.

Yes. Service dogs must be under their handlers control at all times. So, there is no leaving the dog alone in the room for 7 minutes, let alone 7 hours.

Service dogs are generally trained to stay off of furniture. I think that helps a bit.

As people have also mentioned, a big concern is the build up of dander. I just don't think there are that many service dogs at any given resort on any given day. So, the odds of a highly allergic guest getting a room that has had multiple service dogs in it to leave behind a build up or to even stay in a room that had a dog in it just prior to you are pretty slim at this point. If there were a service dog in your room say 10 stays ago, at least it's been cleaned repeatedly, things have gotten stirred up and aired out and vacuumed up again. More dogs = more risk.

Another poster did say they were told service dogs are often assigned first floor rooms, so they always request a higher floor.

And of course people with allergies can / have / will take medications to help themselves, but it's not always an easy, guaranteed, or quick fix and I think when the allergen is in the room where you are sleeping -vs- (for example) being on a plane for 3 hours, it is a bigger deal.

FWIW, reasonable accommodations are supposed to be made for both a person with a service dog and the allergy sufferer. So, since we are talking specifically about DVC on this thread, it's easier for a guest that gets a room that IS giving them allergy symptoms to be reassigned to a different room when at a hotel than it is on DVC property, since there often aren't any available rooms to move them to.

 

[DisBuckMan]

I can see that we will have to agree to disagree as I do not believe my point is being understood. And no, I do not believe myself and others are being selfish by supporting the Policy. If for example Disney has 200,000 guests a year in one resort and 200 guests report allergies, fear of dogs etc., there are those who say the minority should be able to dictate policy.

Or, it could be like the 200 people out of 200,000 that want to bring their dogs for whatever reason, that think the minority should be able to dictate policy.

 

[ralphie]

I don't want to sleep in a bed that a dog has slept in, I vote NO.

 

[paults]

I haven't heard this yet so I'm going to say it.

DISNEY IS GOING TO THE DOGS