Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I'm sorry...I didn't mean to imply that ADA didn't have positive results. What I am saying, and I stand by it, in the effort to do something to make it a less invasive procedure turned out to be more invasive then before and also left an opening for more abuse of a system that was supposed to be to benefit those that most needed it. And they will not entertain a more compassionate procedure because...well, I don't know why...it appears to be just stubbornness, I think. And who suffers because of it? Those with disabilities, that's who! I know that the ADA rulings, as a whole, is good on many levels, but on a personal level it is unnecessarily spotlighting those with disabilities...something it was supposed to prevent. Actually made it worse. Fix the damn thing, is all I ask. As for "fake" ID's, of course that is possible. It doesn't have to be if they put a few resources into it. There will always be someone that will attempt and be successful in beating the system, but if done right it would be a costly process to fake one. And it would help eliminate unnecessary embarrassment to those with difficulties. I don't understand the stigma of an ID. You need documentation to drive, you need a SS card to collect benefits, you need ID's to get money even if you are a millionaire. Could you please tell me why having a qualifying ID that will help you navigate life is a bad thing?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Could you please tell me why having a qualifying ID that will help you navigate life is a bad thing?<< Where would one need to show this ID? At the grocery store? Public transportation? A movie theater? A theme park? The laundromat? We get so invested in worrying about what must be an extraordinarily small number of people "pretending" to have a service dog that we'll create one giant headache of red tape and time-wasting for people just trying to go about their business who happen to need actually need a service dog. I don't see that as helping anyone navigate life. Feels like a complicated, expensive roadblock that is basically needless at this point. If I start seeing people playing Frisbee with their dogs at Disneyland, I might change my mind. But as for now, is this really a very big issue?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Besides, Disney encourages people to let their dogs enjoy the park. Unleashed! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lqJFNIpdc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...qJFNIpdc</a>
Originally Posted By tashajilek Omg thats was so funny, it was priceless see a dog on a carosel. I think i saw this a long time ago and forgot about it.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 While Disney offers Guest Assistance cards based on a guests need (with documentation) in some cases. What ADA has done at Disney is make the lines much more accessible. Which means that most guests with special needs can use the regular or FP line. Every Disney attraction has a standard operating procedure for a guest with a dog.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>I don't see that as helping anyone navigate life. Feels like a complicated, expensive roadblock that is basically needless at this point.<<< OK, I have refrained from saying this but it is exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. If you are not disabled you see the lack of controls as some sort of equalizing element, when indeed it is the exact opposite. A disabled person (obviously hidden disability) will have to answer questions or at least state to someone that the are disabled. If they require a service dog for anything besides blindness, they will be asked what service the dog provides. The reason is because the other LARGER portion of the public has a right to be protected as well from an animal that isn't sufficiently trained, or for that matter, trained at all, to do what the owner says they do. Whether it be seeing eye, hearing or peanut sniffer...before someone should be allowed to expose the public to this "possible" danger they have to answer questions, simple as they are, to someone whose overall responsibility is to be sure that all are safe EQUALLY. Having worked with the disabled for many years I know how much attention that brings to that individual from everyone within earshot of them. It causes embarrassment and stress to someone who is trying desperately to blend in and just be like everyone else. ADA asked folks to verbally prove they have a disability every single time they are in a situation that requires group protection. Not protection from the disabled person, but from the fake that is using loose fitting regulations to get what they want for themselves. Yes, they don't have to show documentation, the rule says that if they say they have a problem everyone has to accept it and not question any further. But they have to say it. How much less attention would be brought to their problem if all they had to do was show, without words even, a valid ID telling those that have to make these decisions that there is no decision to be made. If you walk into any place that normally doesn't allow animals and it isn't obvious that you have a disability that requires one...you will be asked these questions, legally. You tell me why that is better than a unified system of ID the size of a credit card? There may be very few that actually attempt to do this scam, but even one that has an animal that causes problems will darken the outlook for those with real reasons to have assistance. If the numbers that used to attempt it in a small city in Vermont are any indication of the numbers nationwide...I can tell you it isn't that insignificant. So before, when a person with a disability had to show that their need for assistance was real, now has an additional stigma of...are they scamming me or is this real. ADA says that, it doesn't matter, if they say so...it is so. OK...you're allowed in but you now know that attention is being focused on you in one form or the other. You cannot legislate peoples thoughts. You also only have to read these boards to see how many people with real disabilities are afraid to use wheelchairs or ETV's because people will think they are just faking it to get special treatment. That didn't happen before...but it does now and not in any small part due to this ruling. That would not happen if a reliable method were enacted to discretely identify those with real as opposed to just convenient problems. The same people that made these decisions are the ones that decided for whatever reason that "handicap" was a dirty word so it should now be called "challenged". Let me tell you, if you could not walk when you were handicapped, you will still not be able to walk now that it is called challenged. A rose by any other name... I know this is falling pretty much on deaf ears because unless one is in or close to the situation one has no way of knowing what or how much stress can be cause from lack of clear definable regulations. Instead of being immediately accepted, no questions asked, one is asked to not prove that they have a disability, but instead to prove that they aren't faking one. That is more demeaning then anything one would experience with a small, non-broadcasting identification.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>OK, I have refrained from saying this but it is exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem.<< You haven't explained how your ID system would help. And you haven't explained how such a system would be difficult to cheat, were a person so inclined. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. If people are going to pretend to be disabled to game the system, they're not going to balk at finding other ways to cheat whatever control you want to put in place. I've heard of people using relatives' disabled placards to park right up front. People who are inclined to do that sort of thing will go on doing it. >>Yes, they don't have to show documentation, the rule says that if they say they have a problem everyone has to accept it and not question any further. But they have to say it. How much less attention would be brought to their problem if all they had to do was show, without words even, a valid ID telling those that have to make these decisions that there is no decision to be made.<< It's not about "attention" it's about creating yet another level of expense and bureaucracy for something you haven't convinced me is a huge problem. So again, I ask, is there some huge number of non-service animals being brought to the parks these days? >>The same people that made these decisions are the ones that decided for whatever reason that "handicap" was a dirty word so it should now be called "challenged". Let me tell you, if you could not walk when you were handicapped, you will still not be able to walk now that it is called challenged. A rose by any other name...<< Language changes over time, hopefully in the direction of being more respectful. People were also called "cripples" and worse. Times and attitudes change.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I know what you mean about people with real medical issues thinking twice about using ECV's because of the looks they would get. Although I never have a problem at WDW because it is so flat, the steep hills in Silver Dollar City near where I live cause me real problems because of my emphysema. And yes, I resist using ECV's because I'm not that old, I'm only 5-10 lbs over-weight, and I have no obvious disability. But even given that, I would still HATE to see requirements like you are talking about. COPD ranges from mild to severe... where would you draw the line? When are the symptoms extreme enough to REQUIRE an ECV rather than it being just a convenience? Who makes the decisions on that? What government agency to you create to regulate and judge the severeness of COPD. In the end, it is better just leaving it up to the people to make the judgment themselves. Personally I have no problem with someone using an ECV for no other reason than they don't want to walk. Hey... if they are willing to pay the $50 to rent one what the heck? It is a free country, right? The great majority of people only use one when they really need one. My 83-year-old mother has a pacemaker and has difficulty walking long distances. When I took her to WDW we rented a wheelchair to get her around. But she REFUSED to ever use it in a ride queue. She would leave the chair by the strollers and get in the regular line just like everyone else. Which brings up the issue of strollers. How young should children have to be to utilize one of those ankle-whackers? If they are old enough to walk, should parents be allowed to rent them? Maybe we should make them get a government issued card also. Set up ANOTHER government agency in charge of stroller use in public places. Gotta tell you... add all these government agencies and the unemployment situation would rapidly be eliminated!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>If they are old enough to walk, should parents be allowed to rent them? Maybe we should make them get a government issued card also.<< I know you're trying to show how ridiculous the idea of IDs for service animals is, but I don't think this is a half-bad proposal. Given how many strollers there are in the parks that simply clog up the walkways, why not? : )
Originally Posted By tashajilek I have a story about wheelchair rentals! When i was at WDW there was a olderish husband and wife and what seemed to be their 30 year old son all had these. I didnt think anything of it until the older man hit me, a little girl and about 2 other people in about 2 mins! I couldnt imagine how many people he would hit throughout the day. Im not going to assume anything but, it seemed the family was being lazy and didnt know how to operate the chairs which was scary.
Originally Posted By Donny OK I don't want people to think we are piling on the handicap,what we are doing is pointing out those who are not handicap but are frauds.I was injured and forced to be in a wheelchair for a year because of that problem I still have a handicap placard but I stopped using it when I knew I could walk but if you just hangout at the handicap section of the parkinglot you will see car after car of people who don't look like they should need a closer spot to the monorail.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost As I said...deaf ears. If one hasn't been "challenged" you do not know what an emotionally overwhelming feeling it is. So, I have said all I am going to say on the subject because it's a waste of cyber space anyway. We will just continue to lump all disabled people in the same pile as those that are faking because that is, apparently, far, far better than having a solid method of unobtrusive identification. Who am I to argue?
