Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

[lockedoutlogic]

Guilty as charged. I don't know how else to react, though. It's obviously terrible for the family, but I'm not sure what is to be done about it.

Agree 10 times over

 

[Silock]

I feel terrible for this family, so please don't think my comments are intended to minimize their loss. I am commenting only because several people have described Disney as negligent. That's a legal conclusion that implies they had a specific duty they failed to perform. I am not at all convinced that is the case. After all, this was a wild animal attack. At the end of the day, there are many terrible things that happen in the world for which no person or company is legally liable.

Well, it's certainly negligence if they didn't follow up on the reports of alligator activity in the area or stopping people from feeding the gators to begin with. There's no concrete evidence of either, though.

 

[STLstone]

I'm only on page 17 of this thread but I just had to comment...has anyone mentioned the fact that 1/3 of the 40 square miles of Disney property is set aside specifically for wildlife preservation? The idea of killing or removing every remotely dangerous animal from the property is honestly disgusting to me. Humans are selfish selfish creatures, and we are already wreaking havoc on the environment. This was an accident...I would like to know the actual odds. Far less than one in a million, if yearly visitor numbers are any indication. Alligators are going to alligator. And looks like humans are going to human and continue to try to sanitize the nature out of nature.

I don't think they should remove the alligators. They should not promote easy human access to them. They built a white sandy beach right up to the edge of their apparent feeding grounds - 100 feet from the kid's water zone play area at a luxury resort - and didn't even put up a sign that warned people of the danger.

I agree that "alligators are going to alligator," but if you believe that, then it means this wasn't just an accident, it was an eventuality. Obviously you should never go near that water, like Florida residents know. But I can't reasonably expect the visitors that come from all over the world to know that.

They have signs up to warn people not feed the birds, they should have spared a few words for the alligators.

 

[STLstone]

I feel like a lot of people don't have any understanding of alligators in this thread.

I think someone mentioned the St. Augustine Alligator Farm previously in this thread and that's one of my favorite places I went as a child.

Is it that I've always been so interested in animals that I know more about them than people who aren't?

I'm always on alert when near any sort of wilderness, but I also grew up on land that was basically half forest.

I guess what I'm saying is, city folk that aren't accustomed to being in natural surroundings a lot maybe underestimate nature.

Which is exactly why, as property owner, you shouldn't build an inviting beach right up to the alligator's habitat without a single warning sign about the danger to alligators. A "no swimming" sign is not a direct warning about alligators for "city folk." In fact, as you point out, even if you're not in the water you can still be at risk from alligators.

With visitors from all over the world coming to Disney, it will be good to now have signs that warn them of the basic dangers you already know about. But I don't think it was reasonable for everyone, from all over the world, to know of those dangers before Tuesday.

 

[dlavender]

Which is exactly why, as property owner, you shouldn't build an inviting beach right up to the alligator's habitat without a single warning sign about the danger to alligators. A "no swimming" sign is not a direct warning about alligators for "city folk." In fact, as you point out, even if you're not in the water you can still be at risk from alligators.

With visitors from all over the world coming to Disney, it will be good to now have signs that warn them of the basic dangers you already know about. But I don't think it was reasonable for everyone, from all over the world, to know of those dangers before Tuesday.

To add to this, for the 21st time on this thread, is that if you have a team of people dedicated to a problem, and this problem poses a threat to human life, you have a responsibility to disclose it.

I still don't get the people equating this to spiders,bathtubs, squirt guns, rain....

Does Disney have a team of people removing brown recluses, black widow, super soakers?

Do they notice large lightning bolts striking beaches, nightly, with no warning? No storm anywhere close, no radar footage, just rogue bolts striking every night?

You all know the answer, but I'll remove all doubt. No. No they do not.

If Disney is pulling poisonous snakes out of the Poly everyday, has people posted around just to remove them because they know there are many coming onto property daily, would you not want to know about it? You just figure you are outside, good luck? Not me. I'd like to be made aware of the issue. Because it is an issue. Disney has identified it. It's outside the natural occurrence at that point. Statistics are no longer part of the equation. The "1 in a million" has now gone out the window.

 

[Silock]

I agree that "alligators are going to alligator," but if you believe that, then it means this wasn't just an accident, it was an eventuality.

Part of me agrees with you, but then the other part of me thinks about how many people have done the same thing over the years without it being a problem. I mean, on a long enough time line, everything is an eventuality, but the odds of this happening are just so astronomically low...

 

[ryukage]

The news here stated he was found 15 - 20 yards from the shore. They didnt specify what shore. GF Shore, shore over by the MK? Also, he was 6 feet underwater...according to the news. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ed-water-alligator-near-disney-resort-n592641

Based on the photo of the tents the searchers set up, it looks like the stretch of shoreline between the GF & MK. It'll be hard not to think about it when going around on the monorail.

 

[Eoghann]

As always people want to pick a bad guy and lay blame. Pointless.

Accidents happen, lessons are hopefully learned. People casting stones with 20:20 hindsight aren't remotely helpful to anyone.

 

[whiporee]

They should not promote easy human access to them.

So they should not take advantage of their lakes? They are recreational places -- heck, they're man-made recreational places. They should just say "okay. the alligators are here, I guess we all should stay away. Not just from the water but the beaches"? It's not like there was a bunch of fresh-cut chicken laying around the beach to draw the alligators in for an interaction. The kid was wading in the water -- that shouldn't be seen as a threatening situation by anyone, including Disney. It just happened that it was.

In situations dealing with these kinds of animals, humans have three choices.

1) They can cede the habitat to the animals and just stay away from it. That's the easiest thing to say and the hardest to do, because those bodies of water have recreational, not just aesthetic value. Disney created those lakes with a purpose, and following this course requires them to not only not use them for their intended purpose, but to also void their beaches. The same thing with homeowners -- they pay a premium for lake access, but this suggests they shouldn't use the lake to its fullest potential. It's easy to say "so what" unless you're the person paying the bills. Then you -- like everyone -- want the most value for your expenses.

2) They can decide to accept and acknowledge the risk. Even though it's a very very very very very very small one, there is a risk. This works until it doesn't, like we saw this week.

3) Or they can to their best to eliminate the problem. The only way to do that is to dedicate themselves not just to reactive policies of removing troublesome animals, but proactive stance to trying to remove them all. This would require some law changes and some public backlash and is probably unfeasible. But you could put a large dent in it, and that might be worth doing.

 

[Silock]

Statistics are no longer part of the equation. The "1 in a million" has now gone out the window.

What makes you say this? If anything, the statistics come into play even more. Now with a greater awareness, the likelihood of an incredibly rare event just got even lower than it was to begin with.

 

[ELSA711]

I feel terrible for this family, so please don't think my comments are intended to minimize their loss. I am commenting only because several people have described Disney as negligent. That's a legal conclusion that implies they had a specific duty they failed to perform. I am not at all convinced that is the case. After all, this was a wild animal attack. At the end of the day, there are many terrible things that happen in the world for which no person or company is legally liable.

This is where I come down to. When I was little we visited my uncle's brother's cabin up north in the woods. 4 of us kids were sitting at a picnic table and a black bear strolled out of the woods within a few feet from us. We had our backs turned to the woods as well, if it wasn't for my uncles brave & quick thinking dog, who knows. It was private property with a possible wild animal attack.
I don't know if WDW could have done more, should have done more but this is why there will be entire legal team to sort that out. Glad I'm not part of that. Because as a mother and being human, my emotions would take over.

 

[jimsanfilippo]

Nature gonna nature.

The fact that it hasn't happened before means the likelihood of it happening again is quite slim.

Was Disney negligent? Probably. Were the purposefully negligent? Highly doubtful.

Purposely negligent is something the family's lawyers will sniff out. I think "Highly doubtful" is probably highly doubtful. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that Disney posting signs at beaches that warn of alligators and amoebas in the water would almost certainly have hurt how much they could charge for rooms at waterfront resorts. Showing a direct correlation between money and proper signage will probably be exactly what is focused on and their lawyers will probably uncover internal memos, etc., that show signage discussed. But we will never find out because the family will not be allowed to disclose anything as part of the settlement unless there are also criminal charges (which is "highly doubtful").

 

[STLstone]

So they should not take advantage of their lakes? They are recreational places -- heck, they're man-made recreational places. They should just say "okay. the alligators are here, I guess we all should stay away. Not just from the water but the beaches"? It's not like there was a bunch of fresh-cut chicken laying around the beach to draw the alligators in for an interaction. The kid was wading in the water -- that shouldn't be seen as a threatening situation by anyone, including Disney. It just happened that it was.

In situations dealing with these kinds of animals, humans have three choices.

1) They can cede the habitat to the animals and just stay away from it. That's the easiest thing to say and the hardest to do, because those bodies of water have recreational, not just aesthetic value. Disney created those lakes with a purpose, and following this course requires them to not only not use them for their intended purpose, but to also void their beaches. The same thing with homeowners -- they pay a premium for lake access, but this suggests they shouldn't use the lake to its fullest potential. It's easy to say "so what" unless you're the person paying the bills. Then you -- like everyone -- want the most value for your expenses.

2) They can decide to accept and acknowledge the risk. Even though it's a very very very very very very small one, there is a risk. This works until it doesn't, like we saw this week.

3) Or they can to their best to eliminate the problem. The only way to do that is to dedicate themselves not just to reactive policies of removing troublesome animals, but proactive stance to trying to remove them all. This would require some law changes and some public backlash and is probably unfeasible. But you could put a large dent in it, and that might be worth doing.

You left off the other part of my post that said "didn't even put up a sign that warned people of the danger." I placed a condition on allowing access to the habitat. How can people "accept and acknowledge the risk" that you mention in item #2 if they don't know of the risk?

There's a lot of disagreement about this next point, but I do not accept that everyone on the planet (Disney's customer-base) should have been well-aware of the dangers of alligators lurking at Disney's premier luxury resort. A simple warning of that to visitors allows them the make the choice in your item #2 for themselves.

 

[Guyton dis lover]

Gators we live with them.

As always people want to pick a bad guy and lay blame. Pointless.

Accidents happen, lessons are hopefully learned. People casting stones with 20:20 hindsight aren't remotely helpful to anyone.

Exactly.

 

[STLstone]

This is where I come down to. When I was little we visited my uncle's brother's cabin up north in the woods. 4 of us kids were sitting at a picnic table and a black bear strolled out of the woods within a few feet from us. We had our backs turned to the woods as well, if it wasn't for my uncles brave & quick thinking dog, who knows. It was private property with a possible wild animal attack.
I don't know if WDW could have done more, should have done more but this is why there will be entire legal team to sort that out. Glad I'm not part of that. Because as a mother and being human, my emotions would take over.

If one of you were injured, several people would be saying, "what did you expect? Everyone knows you don't go into the woods where bears live!"

 

[ELSA711]

If one of you were injured, several people would be saying, "what did you expect? Everyone knows you don't go into the woods where bears live!"

Exactly, my parents knew the risk, just like when they took us to AZ. My parents had a long talk about rattlesnakes, coyotes and scorpions. I do understand that even if people know that FL has alligators that they wouldn't expect them in WDW but I also know that you just can't keep nature out. Nature does find a way

 

[whiporee]

You left off the other part of my post that said "didn't even put up a sign that warned people of the danger." I placed a condition on allowing access to the habitat. How can people "accept and acknowledge the risk" that you mention in item #2 if they don't know of the risk?

There's a lot of disagreement about this next point, but I do not accept that everyone on the planet (Disney's customer-base) should have been well-aware of the dangers of alligators lurking at Disney's premier luxury resort. A simple warning of that to visitors allows them the make the choice in your item #2 for themselves.

I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about Disney, and mostly i was talking about Florida residents because I don't see this as a Disney problem as much as I see it as a suburban Florida problem. In regards to people, I personally don't think a sign would have done any good unless it spelled out that alligators are attracted to splashing at dusk and in the dark, and even then it's doubtful. They could have had a constantly running video that showed alligators (more likely crocodiles) attacking from the shore. But until now, the idea of an alligator grabbing a child from the shore was simply beyond the imagination of most people, and beyond the imagination of Disney. So I don't think any degree of warning sign would make any degree of difference,unless your intent was to just scare people. And to assume Disney's responsibility was to scare people away from their lakes and their beaches for such a minuscule risk is to put too much responsibility on them

 

[STLstone]

I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about Disney, and mostly i was talking about Florida residents because I don't see this as a Disney problem as much as I see it as a suburban Florida problem. In regards to people, I personally don't think a sign would have done any good unless it spelled out that alligators are attracted to splashing at dusk and in the dark, and even then it's doubtful. They could have had a constantly running video that showed alligators (more likely crocodiles) attacking from the shore. But until now, the idea of an alligator grabbing a child from the shore was simply beyond the imagination of most people, and beyond the imagination of Disney. So I don't think any degree of warning sign would make any degree of difference,unless your intent was to just scare people. And to assume Disney's responsibility was to scare people away from their lakes and their beaches for such a minuscule risk is to put too much responsibility on them

A warning sign would make a difference in one small way. If there was a sign that said "Warning Alligators are dangerous and may be present on the shore or in the water," then I would be holding Disney 0% responsible and the parents 100% responsible.

After this publicity, that is how I will feel for all future incidents. I did not feel that way about Tuesday's incident.

 

[dlavender]

What makes you say this? If anything, the statistics come into play even more. Now with a greater awareness, the likelihood of an incredibly rare event just got even lower than it was to begin with.

I'm saying that if you now notice an increased threat, i.e., poisonous snakes being spotted everyday, and you are removing them, assigning teams to this task, then that generic statistic should no longer be used to make decisions. Those statistics are based off of different data than you are now presented with. Because a new set of rules are now in place. You know now, as a fact, that the risk has increased from one in a million. That a person now definitely has a higher risk of injury than an office worker in North Dakota has. That's why I say this.

 

[romitaz]

Well, it's certainly negligence if they didn't follow up on the reports of alligator activity in the area or stopping people from feeding the gators to begin with. There's no concrete evidence of either, though.

The problem with this is, as I have stated before, that everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. At EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT you have the "I tried to warn them" crowd as well as the "me Too" crowd. Whether these "reports" are credible or not remains to be seen and I have my doubts.