[MR] Laws/Rules & pesky 10% - was "furry friends"

[Alan MacNeill]

As I have previously stated, we did implement a fairly simple
standard, and it was not held to.  Dogs were not policed, unregistered
dogs were on the property, and people were dishonest about it.

I don't know about you, but to me the idea of being "CSI:Caer Mear"
and tracking down who's dog left the "present" under the troll table
doesn't exactly seem like something that is actually feasible after
the fact, much less pleasant.

Had it been one incident, we might have rolled it off, but it was
multiple incidents over multiple years.  We assume with multiple
animals.  As such, we held a meeting, and our populace voted, nearly
unanimously, to accept the autocrat's recommendation that animals not
be allowed (with the necessary legal exceptions).

Which reminds me, something to note...."Therapy Dogs" are not covered
by the ADA.  You are not entitled to bring one to an event.  To assume
that it's okay and that you will bully the autocrat into letting you
stay because fluffy is your therapy dog and therapy dogs are required
to be allowed is not an assumption that I would recommend making this
coming year.

This is significantly different from legitimate assistance animals.
If you do not know the difference, I suggest you educate yourself.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM,  <sigrune at aol.com> wrote:
> Gorm of Berra posted:

> All I ask is prior to implimenting a rule, why not consider implimenting a
> standard
> and expecting people to hold to it?  And if they do not, utilize what we aer
> trying to
> recreate?