Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

[ELSA711]

I think I am extremely naïve about human stupidity because I just can't fathom people or families feeding these animals on their vacation.

 

[STLstone]

I am a Disney lover and DVC owner. Though I am not going lay blame I do get the feeling that Disney didn't have gators signs is because it doesn't go well with the Happiest Place on Earth vibe that they are trying to sell. I mean how many people would have been using those beaches had the signs already been in place. Just the feeling I have on this sad,sad event.

If that could be proven in court, then just back up the Brinks truck.

 

[STLstone]

That would be the normal way to do risk assessment you know. You look at the history, you look to see if there is a change in patterns and you assess the need to change what you are doing. Alligators aren't a new thing on Disney property. I have photos from my 2011 trip where they were swimming in the water around the Beach Club.

You're fixating on these signs but we have nothing to say it would have made any difference. What you have is two data points, some rumors and a lot of supposition.

Do all Disney visitors have access to your photos? Of course, if a sign would not make a difference, why would a photo?

You keep saying people need to be aware of their environment. Wouldn't a sign for ignorant travelers help make them aware of their environment?

 

[jimsanfilippo]

ParkHoppers said: "I am a Disney lover and DVC owner. Though I am not going lay blame I do get the feeling that Disney didn't have gators signs is because it doesn't go well with the Happiest Place on Earth vibe that they are trying to sell. I mean how many people would have been using those beaches had the signs already been in place. Just the feeling I have on this sad,sad event."

If that could be proven in court, then just back up the Brinks truck.

If there are internal memos/emails discussing beach signage not including language about alligators then it will never get to a courtroom and we will never know. And I have a suspicion there just might be. How could Disney not have internally discussed this and made the conscious decision to not include such a warning? It's just a matter of whether or not they put it in writing somewhere.

 

[Eoghann]

Do all Disney visitors have access to your photos? Of course, if a sign would not make a difference, why would a photo?

You keep saying people need to be aware of their environment. Wouldn't a sign for ignorant travelers help make them aware of their environment?

I mentioned my photos merely to indicate that alligators are common on Disney property and have been for years, not that other people would see that from my photos. I think that's perfectly obvious in the context of what I wrote.

And as I've noted repeatedly there's very little evidence that a sign would in fact make people more aware. People ignore signs.

 

[STLstone]

I guess I just don't understand how WDW is suppose to control the wild animals. To me it comes down to the beaches being an 'attractive nuisance'. Are they or are they not.
Thank goodness someone else has to determine that, not me.

I don't think Disney should do a thing differently to control the animals. What they should do is: 1) not build their beaches right up to the gator habitat and 2) put up a sign letting people know that, although you're at a luxury hotel, you still face all the same dangers as if you were dropped in the middle of the Everglades, apparently.

 

[kellyjeanie]

I mentioned my photos merely to indicate that alligators are common on Disney property and have been for years, not that other people would see that from my photos. I think that's perfectly obvious in the context of what I wrote.

And as I've noted repeatedly there's very little evidence that a sign would in fact make people more aware. People ignore signs.

Correction - SOME people ignore signs. Why are you against more explicit signs?

I have to say, I waded into these threads just white knighting for the parents and not caring one whit about signs. But the pro-sign people make a really good argument. I mean really, why not put up better signs, there doesn't seem to be any downside.

 

[AntimonyER]

Growing up in the Orlando area, I know that if you are near water, gators are a risk. I was shocked to find there was no warning about gators around the lake, especially when you combine as many people as Disney has that don't live in the area with them. That being said, alligator attacks are extremely rare. Disney hadn't had one in decades right? Even with all the massive increases in attendance. I don't see Disney as an evil-doer here, allowing corporate greed etc. to guide them down the road of inadequate warnings. They were just as horrified as everyone else this happened, and not just because of the bad press. I think they do need to take responsibility for the lack of warnings, and their complacency, and acknowledge they could have done more (and they are). But at the same time, the alligators were there first, and Disney probably felt some responsibility for maintaining the habitat, and I think they are right. I don't think the answer is eradicating the alligators from the lakes there, and therefore there will always be a risk.

 

[maxiesmom]

I don't think Disney should do a thing differently to control the animals. What they should do is: 1) not build their beaches right up to the gator habitat and 2) put up a sign letting people know that, although you're at a luxury hotel, you still face all the same dangers as if you were dropped in the middle of the Everglades, apparently.

When you build in swamp land on a large scale, you have to build ponds as well. And if you build a pond, it will end up occupied, no question. If you don't want Disney to build near a gator habitat they they would need to leave Florida.

 

[maxiesmom]

Correction - SOME people ignore signs. Why are you against more explicit signs?

I have to say, I waded into these threads just white knighting for the parents and not caring one whit about signs. But the pro-sign people make a really good argument. I mean really, why not put up better signs, there doesn't seem to be any downside.

The question is, would signs really help? People interpret them so differently, that has become very clear. Though it does seem that is what Disney is going to do, put up signs, once they figure out how many and what format they will take.

I do think that those who stay at the resorts on lagoons need to be told that if they are caught feeding gators, they will forfeit their room reservation. I have no doubt that guests feeding them are causing them to approach humans when their natural instinct is to stay away. There should be a zero tolerance policy for guests caught throwing food to gators on the beach or off of their room balconies or from the boats.

 

[dlavender]

And as I've noted repeatedly there's very little evidence that a sign would in fact make people more aware. People ignore signs.

So why have a sign that says "no swimming"? People will ignore it...... There's a reason that sign says no swimming and not stay out. One is more appealing to the theme than the other. That's what you keep missing.

The only people against proper signage are in a full court press to defend Disney in this. I don't get it. It is painfully clear by this thread alone, that people did not know there were alligators in the lagoon. They did not know that no swimming meant stay out. Painfully clear. Disney never does safety analysis? They couldn't send out a poll, like they do for towel animals, to find out if they were making their patrons aware of potential threats? It's ok to say Disney didn't communicate effectively the dangers of entering their lagoon. Doesn't make you a bad person. Now the reason for the non disclosure, that is debatable.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yep, you are right. Dogs are property, wild animals are not. I realized that after I typed it. Not the same thing.

I was just thinking of my sister who was just ordered by her insurance co and the township to put up beware of dog sign, because her dog is part pit bull, even with no issues with the dog or history.

Fair enough. Don't even get me started on breed specific requirements/legislature. I worked for an insurance company for 4 1/2 years so I do get where your mind-frame was coming from.

I guess I just don't understand how WDW is suppose to control the wild animals. To me it comes down to the beaches being an 'attractive nuisance'. Are they or are they not.
Thank goodness someone else has to determine that, not me.

I forget what the name of the agency is (it's too many pages back) but at least from what I found out here on this thread is Disney doesn't remove the gators a FL wildlife (or something similar) agency removes them.

As for attractive nuisance I also understand where people are coming from (darn insurance work). But I do think people are forgetting there are all sorts of attractive nuisances out there but it doesn't stop people (think about how many of the following you have personally done/have or you know someone who has personally done/has)..two of the largest are trampolines and pools and that sure as heck doesn't stop people from buying them even though the risk of injury is quite high for the trampolines and the risk of injury for pools is drowning as well as slipping/falling.

If you are doing a remodeling project in your home having old belongings outside of your house, dumpsters and even company vehicles for the companies doing the work is an attractive nuisance. Having a nice car/truck on your driveway can be an attractive nuisance especially if you leave it unlocked, leaving your garage door open for an extended period of time is an attractive nuisance. These things here leave you more open to theft or a full on home burglary.

I don't mean to hammer so much on attractive nuisance so I apologize if that's overkill.

 

[ELSA711]

Fair enough. Don't even get me started on breed specific requirements/legislature. I worked for an insurance company for 4 1/2 years so I do get where your mind-frame was coming from.

I forget what the name of the agency is (it's too many pages back) but at least from what I found out here on this thread is Disney doesn't remove the gators a FL wildlife (or something similar) agency removes them.

As for attractive nuisance I also understand where people are coming from (darn insurance work). But I do think people are forgetting there are all sorts of attractive nuisances out there but it doesn't stop people (think about how many of the following you have personally done/have or you know someone who has personally done/has)..two of the largest are trampolines and pools and that sure as heck doesn't stop people from buying them even though the risk of injury is quite high for the trampolines and the risk of injury for pools is drowning as well as slipping/falling.

If you are doing a remodeling project in your home having old belongings outside of your house, dumpsters and even company vehicles for the companies doing the work is an attractive nuisance. Having a nice car/truck on your driveway can be an attractive nuisance especially if you leave it unlocked, leaving your garage door open for an extended period of time is an attractive nuisance. These things here leave you more open to theft or a full on home burglary.

I don't mean to hammer so much on attractive nuisance so I apologize if that's overkill.

Nope, totally get it. I had researched the 'attractive nuisance' scenario for over a year in my state/township for an issue I was fighting within my own local govnt. Painful.
I think since WDW has to follow the wildlife agency rules about not moving gators then this falls back on them and the state in some way.

 

[dlavender]

The question is, would signs really help? People interpret them so differently, that has become very clear

Not sure how else you interpret stay out/dangerous animals present.........

A little less ambiguous than, "no swimming", no?

 

[Delgado]

What increased activity? There's been not a single confirmed bit of evidence of "increased activity".

And statistics never go out the window, they are just modified by circumstances. If I see a shark I get out the water, if I see an alligator I get away from it. A sign changes neither of these things. Your line of argument is entirely illogical.

... So you have to see it before there is a legitament danger? The alligator or shark can be right next to you but its only dangerous if you know for a fact it is right next to you?

 

[Delgado]

Well, in my example about 'beware of dog' it was private property so it was the township (local govnt and insurance) requirement.
I'm guessing insurance mostly in WDW case. I don't know how every state is but the state of PA mandates an 'equestrian risk' sign at all horse farms as well.

This would be great to get to dig a little deeper into. Because if it is mandated by a government, disney as big as it is, this could be interesting or a total dead end

 

[ELSA711]

This would be great to get to dig a little deeper into. Because if it is mandated by a government, disney as big as it is, this could be interesting or a total dead end

I would guess that Florida doesn't have that mandate. I think that is the biggest argument here because alligators are found everywhere there. Even in backyard swimming pools which are also 'man made' like the lake and beach at WDW. If anything this would have come from the insurance company I would guess.

 

[Eoghann]

So why have a sign that says "no swimming"? People will ignore it...... There's a reason that sign says no swimming and not stay out. One is more appealing to the theme than the other. That's what you keep missing.

The only people against proper signage are in a full court press to defend Disney in this. I don't get it. It is painfully clear by this thread alone, that people did not know there were alligators in the lagoon. They did not know that no swimming meant stay out. Painfully clear. Disney never does safety analysis? They couldn't send out a poll, like they do for towel animals, to find out if they were making their patrons aware of potential threats? It's ok to say Disney didn't communicate effectively the dangers of entering their lagoon. Doesn't make you a bad person. Now the reason for the non disclosure, that is debatable.

Same reason most signs are posted. Because a lawyer suggested it would reduce legal liability. I'm not and never have disputed the fact that Disney chose to avoid the word alligator. Nor am I interested in "defending" Disney.

I just despise those who jump in, make up facts and place blame. Which is what you are doing.

 

[LSLS]

Well, in my example about 'beware of dog' it was private property so it was the township (local govnt and insurance) requirement.
I'm guessing insurance mostly in WDW case. I don't know how every state is but the state of PA mandates an 'equestrian risk' sign at all horse farms as well.

A tad different as there are more than 100,000 injuries per year by horses, and over 100 deaths per year. Plus gators are everywhere, I'm not sure how the state could mandate signs everywhere.

 

[Delgado]

I would guess that Florida doesn't have that mandate. I think that is the biggest argument here because alligators are found everywhere there. Even in backyard swimming pools which are also 'man made' like the lake and beach at WDW. If anything this would have come from the insurance company I would guess.

I visited my great grandparents often, they lived in Kissimmee. They had gators and snakes all over. I remember.my gg telling me about a dog that had been eaten and then when a kid went missing they killed the alligator to see if it had ate the child. To this day I dont know if it was true, but it kept me far away from their backyard. I do know that a snake that wrapped itself around their washing machine, best excuse to not do laundry ever!

I guess I dont see the immediate need for signage in residential places, but when you're inviting people on your property you tell them verbally or in writing what is around.