I wish there were a "person doing cartwheels" emoji.I read it too on another board.
I don't get newsletter or read anything ... what does it say?
"Experiment ends in October" is nothing more than the one year experiment is over. It doesn't say to me the dogs are going anywhere, it could just be changing to policy. Any more details?
ALL EARS® HEARS
... from Diane C.: I just spoke with Disney World about a dog-friendly cabin at Fort Wilderness. According to the cast member I spoke to, as of October 15, there are no more dog-friendly hotels or cabins.
EDITOR'S NOTE: As far as we've been able to confirm, Diane is correct. It seems that the trial program that started last October will conclude this October 15, and Walt Disney World will no longer feature dog-friendly rooms at its resorts, with the exception of certain Fort Wilderness campsites, which have always been pet-friendly.
I imagine their legal department finally really mulled the possibilities over...And they've probably learned how much extra cost goes into cleaning up after dogs.Was it from lack of demand or other reasons?
I imagine their legal department finally really mulled the possibilities over...And they've probably learned how much extra cost goes into cleaning up after dogs.
My guess would be it just wasn’t profitable. I doubt the “legal department” failed to “mull over possibilities” before it was implemented especially considering plenty of other hotel chains have had success with this. My guess is they thought they saw an opportunity b/c so many opted to bring their pets for the storm. However, that’s different from a busy vacation so I’m sure not too many ppl took advantage of the option so it just wasn’t profitable.I imagine their legal department finally really mulled the possibilities over...And they've probably learned how much extra cost goes into cleaning up after dogs.
My guess would be it just wasn’t profitable. I doubt the “legal department” failed to “mull over possibilities” before it was implemented especially considering plenty of other hotel chains have had success with this. My guess is they thought they saw an opportunity b/c so many opted to bring their pets for the storm. However, that’s different from a busy vacation so I’m sure not too many ppl took advantage of the option so it just wasn’t profitable.
It's always "lack of demand".Was it from lack of demand or other reasons?
Most hotels don't cater overwhelmingly to families who spend most of their waking hours at theme parks. Most hotels also limit the size of dogs they accept. WDW put no exclusions on size or breed. Combine that with all the kids running around the resorts, and with the lack of responsibility some guests at WDW exhibit...I do think there was an incident waiting to happen that had not been thoroughly considered by legal.I doubt the “legal department” failed to “mull over possibilities” before it was implemented especially considering plenty of other hotel chains have had success with this.
I imagine their legal department finally really mulled the possibilities over...And they've probably learned how much extra cost goes into cleaning up after dogs.
We just got back from a week long stay at POR. We only saw two true pet dogs while there- DS1 saw a golden retriever when he arrived before us and we saw a man walking out in the parking lot with his small dog that looked like a bichon frise the one day we took our car. Other than that we saw two service dogs at the resort- one on the bus coming back one night and the other in the food court, and many more at the parks.
For us personally, the $50 per night charge is pretty high. Even boarding at Best Friends is less than that, and they charge almost twice what our AKC approved boarding/vet facility charges back home. Keeping our dog in our room would have meant having to be back to let her out and feed her, which kind of takes away from the relaxation and spontaneity we like to enjoy on vacation. I'm guessing that the program just wasn't profitable.
Well, that is an assumption. I think people do assume that corporations think things out better in advance than they actually often do. Are you old enough to remember "New Coke"? We think, "well, they have lots of money and employees, and potential liability, so they must have very carefully considered everything..." But experience shows that's often not the case. The United puppy incident you mentioned is one example of a corporation's failure to carefully train employees to protect both human & animal safety. The Grand Floridian alligator incident is one Disney example of a failure to consider the potential safety implications of families from all of the world coexisting with native resort wildlife. Having unlimited sizes & breeds of pet dogs at a busy, family-oriented resort was going to eventually result in a guest, probably a child, getting badly bitten. Imo it wasn't a matter of if, but when.I highly doubt WDW's legal team would implement any plan without mulling over every possible scenario first. I am sure they have an entire department of lawyers to make sure they do not have any unnecessary liabilities. So I have a feeling the termination was not for legal reasons. But if we start to see a change in how WDW allows dogs in general, like airlines are now doing because of the puppy/overhead bin incident, that may be for legal liability reasons.