Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

[dlavender]

I assure you there are many trails with only minimal signage for dangers. Several of the ones I hike regularly do not warn of snakes anywhere for example, however, you are guaranteed to see them on the path during the evening in the summer and some of them are poisonous. Similarly one of the lakes the boys occasionally swim in has snakes from time to time, no signage about it there either. Another trail I hike I believe the trail guide mentions the possibility of bears if you pick that up and read it, but no warning signs like the one above. These are all areas open to and encouraging the public to visit incidentally.

I'm not against signs, though I doubt it will actually make much difference. I'm against the tone of "why didn't the have this?" that some posters here and the media has taken.

Oh and the wearing of hiking gear would not save you from alligators, bears or snakes so it's entirely irrelevant. Wherever you go, you have a responsibility to educate yourself about the risks.

The "why didn't they have this" attitude is definitely warranted. They have teams dedicated to removing alligators. They certainly have knowledge of the gators. They have received reports from guests about them. They may or may not have intimate knowledge of people feeding them. They know of a problem. They know this problem could cause bodily harm. They decide "no swimming" is sufficient? I don't.

I brought up hiking gear to show that going for a hike and walking around a resort in flip flops are two separate things.

The lake has snakes from time to time......Much different than there is a team extracting poisonous snakes daily.....See the distinction?

 

[kellyjeanie]

It's possible this family did look into the risks, because if they got to the part about alligators they would have found that they're everywhere but the odds of actually getting killed by one in Florida are millions to one, so, like just about everyone else, they would have seen it as not likely to actually happen. I have no idea how anyone can fault them for not thinking about this happening.

 

[Sonicblu]

Been reading these posts for the past couple of days. Like many of you, I've been wondering how this tragedy could've been prevented. After 21 vacations at DW, most of those staying at Disney Resorts, I know those beaches on Seven Seas Lagoon very well. As a kid, my stepdad always told me the water was dangerous because of the bug repellant in the water. Not sure if this was just to scare me, but it worked! Even when we took our 2 year old to Poly, I walked BETWEEN her and the water at the beach.

While I think this was just a tragic accident, there was probably a perfect storm of circumstances for this to happen. One - DW just exudes the feeling of safety, especially at the resorts. After a hectic day at the parks, it's understandable the parents could've had their guard down a tiny bit and not been on the lookout for signs. Two - it was dark, and could've been the family's first time at the beach on seven seas lagoon. The no swimming signs, plus the fact no one is in the water is more obvious during the day. Three - they had a movie night setup right on the beach. The crowd, the movie screen, and the light coming off the screen could all have obscured the visibility of the signs.

The murky water of the lagoon doesn't necessarily look inviting to swim in.. but not uninviting either, especially at night to a two year old, who may have been tired and just enjoyed the quieter water's edge after a hot June day in Florida. What a tragedy.

Disney might have to consider a wall/embankment to make guests feel safe in the future...like this one at Wilderness Lodge

 

[dlavender]

I'm not buying the argument that people should know that by staying on the 7 Seas Lagoon, that they are assuming the same risk as if they were camping in the middle of the Everglades.

Keep selling it, but I'm not buying it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Do you wear hiking gear when walking about the resort? Come on.

See below. Sign from Yellowstone. Where people hike. Outdoors. Supposed to come prepared. So you are saying that where people should undoubtedly come prepared, they have below signage, but wouldn't where people don't come prepared? Seems a little backwards, no?

While I understand your point...those type of signs and warnings did not stop tourists from picking up a baby bison and putting it in their truck because they feared it was too cold...they even admitted while they were doing it that they didn't care that it was illegal and could do much more harm than good because they honestly thought they were doing good.

The press release from Yellowstone after the event had this statement, among others: "We see the need for a call to action. We’re already having problems and the busy summer season hasn’t even begun,” park spokeswoman Morgan Warthin says. “Visitors need to know the safety regulations and respect the wildlife they are coming to see. The well-being of these animals depends on visitors exercising good judgement.”

(My statement is wayyyyy off topic so I apologize for that)

 

[LSLS]

Please no flames, just an honest question from a non Floridian...is there any way to use underwater fencing at the canal points and then slowly try to relocate the gators that are already present in the lagoon as they grow? Will the gators just walk on to shore to circumnavigate? Do boats need to be able to pass through? How many canals are we talking about? Just thinking aloud....

Edited as still thinking...guess existing alligators would lay eggs continuing to increase the population at a rate far greater than those being removed.....

It's a legit question. Answer is no, it won't work well. Gators climb fences on land let alone in the water, and especially during mating season, they do not let a whole lot get in their way. They also travel on land. Also, gators are not relocated, per Fish and Wildlife they must be destroyed if over 4 feet long. If under, they are to be left alone unless they have proven to be "legitimate problem" (put in quotes because that is from Fish and Wildlife and I got attacked for that wording earlier).

 

[ParkHoppers]

Regardless of who people think is at fault if at all in this horrible tragedy Disney will have absolutely no choice IMO to be even more aggressive in the sighting and removal of gators in their waterways. A second event like this would be a massive negative hit to the parks and would almost certainly mean some loss of visitors to Disney.

 

[Eoghann]

The "why didn't they have this" attitude is definitely warranted. They have teams dedicated to removing alligators. They certainly have knowledge of the gators. They have received reports from guests about them. They may or may not have intimate knowledge of people feeding them. They know of a problem. They know this problem could cause bodily harm. They decide "no swimming" is sufficient? I don't.

I brought up hiking gear to show that going for a hike and walking around a resort in flip flops are two separate things.

The lake has snakes from time to time......Much different than there is a team extracting poisonous snakes daily.....See the distinction?

No it isn't "definitely" warranted. That's my point. There is no history of this being a major or even minor problem until now. The steps they had put in place appeared to be adequate. Nor is there any clear evidence that a different sign would have changed anything.

And again, no they aren't two separate things. Because the basic fact remains, it is on you as an individual to learn about the environment you are entering regardless of whether you expect to be wearing boots or flip flops.

To be blunt I think you are just looking for things to blame because it makes it easier to process these sorts of things.

 

[Delgado]

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.

Unless the statistics are specifically related to children in the beach of the lake at night in the vicinity where a movie is being played or watching fireworks, the statistics are worthless. The arguement of generic statistics in this specific event clouds the issues. unless you have statistics on children below a height of three feet, next to a lake, at night, and etc then statistics are lies by omision. So many variables are not considered.

 

[ParkHoppers]

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.

 

[kellyjeanie]

No it isn't "definitely" warranted. That's my point. There is no history of this being a major or even minor problem until now. The steps they had put in place appeared to be adequate. Nor is there any clear evidence that a different sign would have changed anything.

And again, no they aren't two separate things. Because the basic fact remains, it is on you as an individual to learn about the environment you are entering regardless of whether you expect to be wearing boots or flip flops.

To be blunt I think you are just looking for things to blame because it makes it easier to process these sorts of things.

If there's no history of this being a problem, how were the parents to know that it could happen?

 

[Delgado]

Please no flames, just an honest question from a non Floridian...is there any way to use underwater fencing at the canal points and then slowly try to relocate the gators that are already present in the lagoon as they grow? Will the gators just walk on to shore to circumnavigate? Do boats need to be able to pass through? How many canals are we talking about? Just thinking aloud....

Edited as still thinking...guess existing alligators would lay eggs continuing to increase the population at a rate far greater than those being removed.....

Ive read and seen various places where animals if possible will try to find a way around. I could be wrong but I thought they correlated this and deer incidents. The deers natural path was taken away so they began going through high traffic areas. I would assume gators would do the same. Again, could be wrong.

 

[dlavender]

No it isn't "definitely" warranted. That's my point. There is no history of this being a major or even minor problem until now. The steps they had put in place appeared to be adequate. Nor is there any clear evidence that a different sign would have changed anything.

And again, no they aren't two separate things. Because the basic fact remains, it is on you as an individual to learn about the environment you are entering regardless of whether you expect to be wearing boots or flip flops.

To be blunt I think you are just looking for things to blame because it makes it easier to process these sorts of things.

So you are pulling out 7 foot gators, let's just say once a week. You are Disney. You say, man, these things are dangerous. We have reports of people feeding them. We have guest sightings. Should we warn people? You stand up and say, what does history say? That's not even being realistic. You have to make decisions based of the data in front of you. You have a duty to be proactive.

So there is no clear evidence, so you don't even try? Not buying that.

To be blunt, I think you need to feel like nothing could be done, because it keeps it a 1/billion chance in your mind.

 

[ELSA711]

Many places that have bears though, do have warnings. I live in Alaska and we don't have signs that say stay out of the forest. We have signs that say Moose in the forest and Bear in the forest. We also have signs that specify what to watch for and how to react. This is at almost every reasonable access point, ie trailheads. My 2 cents is if you create an area that is intended to invite people to be there, and you know there are other dangers in the area, due diligence would mean you should warn them of the dangers.[/people I need a beware of dog sign in my township/insurance etc. reasons because I have a pitbull mix (who is the most docile dog) I have ever had.

Many places that have bears though, do have warnings. I live in Alaska and we don't have signs that say stay out of the forest. We have signs that say Moose in the forest and Bear in the forest. We also have signs that specify what to watch for and how to react. This is at almost every reasonable access point, ie trailheads. My 2 cents is if you create an area that is intended to invite people to be there, and you know there are other dangers in the area, due diligence would mean you should warn them of the dangers.

Right but in your examples, most of those lands are regulated by the state, parks, ie trailheads. etc.
This is a private property issue and with that then yes WDW needs to answer to the 'attractive nuisance' issue. IMO
If homeowners need a beware of dog sign, WDW needs beware of gators sign.

 

[Eoghann]

If there's no history of this being a problem, how were the parents to know that it could happen?

How? By doing a little research. If your read up at all on alligators you know how they behave, their presence in Florida is no secret nor is their presence on Disney World property.

And again I stress I'm not blaming the family at all. There are so many factors at play here that it's silly to try and isolate it down to one thing and say "if only this had been done".

Accidents happen. Bad things happen to good people. Life isn't fair. And on, and on.

 

[kellyjeanie]

How? By doing a little research. If your read up at all on alligators you know how they behave, their presence in Florida is no secret nor is their presence on Disney World property.

And again I stress I'm not blaming the family at all. There are so many factors at play here that it's silly to try and isolate it down to one thing and say "if only this had been done".

Accidents happen. Bad things happen to good people. Life isn't fair. And on, and on.

But you just said there was no history to show this was a major or even minor problem. If the parents did research, that's what they would have found.

 

[LSLS]

Unless the statistics are specifically related to children in the beach of the lake at night in the vicinity where a movie is being played or watching fireworks, the statistics are worthless. The arguement of generic statistics in this specific event clouds the issues. If you have statistics on children below a height of three feet, next to a lake, at night, and etc then statistics are lies by omision. So many variables are not considered.

Actually I would argue that putting those stipulations in the stats probably make the chances less likely. I mean, if you want to include movies, your number is 0 in however many movies have been shown on the beaches around Disney/anywhere less they set something up outside as that has never happened. Leave the movie part out, there have been 3 children recorded being killed by gators since the 1970s. And one 2 year old (the 4 year old was most likely over 3 foot, so if you don't count that child, you are now at 2 children). So unless you feel there have only been a handful of children who have played near lakes at night from Florida-Texas in the last 50 years, there is a legit chance the stats are probably at least on par with the overall statistic.

 

[Eoghann]

So you are pulling out 7 foot gators, let's just say once a week. You are Disney. You say, man, these things are dangerous. We have reports of people feeding them. We have guest sightings. Should we warn people? You stand up and say, what does history say? That's not even being realistic. You have to make decisions based of the data in front of you. You have a duty to be proactive.

So there is no clear evidence, so you don't even try? Not buying that.

To be blunt, I think you need to feel like nothing could be done, because it keeps it a 1/billion chance in your mind.

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.

 

[dlavender]

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.

And as I've said before, if you are running a risk assessment, and it's 1 million that these things are going to cause bodily harm to someone, you put out a sign. You let someone know.

Especially if you have noted increased activity.

Statistics go out the window when you can literally see a danger.

For example, you are next to a great white. Do you still have a 1/billion chance of getting bit?????

 

[Eoghann]

But you just said there was no history to show this was a major or even minor problem. If the parents did research, that's what they would have found.

There's no history of people getting hit by cars in the road outside my house, does that mean I'm going to stand in the middle of it and be surprised when I get run over?

Again... not blaming the family, don't know that they did anything wrong at all, but this line of argument is silly. Certain things are inherently dangerous and should be approached as such. It is in everyone's best interest to learn about their environment and what risks they are exposed to.