Zebras removed from Kilimanjaro Safaris

[doconeill]

Would you say River Country was the first themed water park?

That I don't know. Water park history is murkier that River Country's pool

 

[JoshuaShaw]

Not strictly true - but Walt's implementation made them popular.

I think Santa Claus Land (now Holiday World) in Indiana is credited as the first park specifically built around a theme.

Good to know!

 

[CtinaDitty]

Zebras Removed Permanently After 4 Months from Kilimanjaro Safaris

http://wdwnt.com/zebras-removed-permanently-after-4-months-from-kilimanjaro-safaris/

I went on the Wild Africa Trek last summer while they were building the new habitat for the zebras. The CMs said the first time they took the zebras out is because zebras are actually bullies. They actually will "kidnap" other animals and got to be somewhat agressive with those animals. I'm wondering if it happened again.

 

[Spacedog1975]

I'm not sure why some of the antagonism @ Disney. It seems they made a responsible change.

 

[jade1]

They were really racing around last month when we went.

 

[skier_pete]

This is a total red herring, but no, there weren't. Walt Disney created the theme park.

No, there were theme parks in Europe. (Tivoli Gardens for one.) Just not at the level that Walt did it. Walt's great innovation was in deciding that these parks are for everyone. Let the parents ride with the adults.

I'm going to chime in - the failure to successfully integrate Zebra's into the Safari does not = complete and utter Disney incompetence.

And I'm going to disagree with LOL's. Yes, they failed to do what corporate Disney wanted - build a theme park that raked in money hand over fist.

But what the imagineers succeeded in doing was to making beautiful, fascinating them park that rewards the curious and the adventurous versus the average ride hungry theme-park goer.

They made an anti-corporate theme park and got away with it (mostly). For a couple of people (PP2 and LOL) that constantly bash Disney corporate, you'd think you'd be more supportive of a park that went against the corporate grain.

 

[kmchisholm]

I believe (note, believe, not 100% certain) that these zebras came from a conservation facility in Texas where you could drive your car through and feed the animals. This breed was historically "brave" to say the least on approaching cars for food. They were moved to Animal Kingdom recently and sounds like they were doing the same thing.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

No, there were theme parks in Europe. (Tivoli Gardens for one.) Just not at the level that Walt did it. Walt's great innovation was in deciding that these parks are for everyone. Let the parents ride with the adults.

I'm going to chime in - the failure to successfully integrate Zebra's into the Safari does not = complete and utter Disney incompetence.

And I'm going to disagree with LOL's. Yes, they failed to do what corporate Disney wanted - build a theme park that raked in money hand over fist.

But what the imagineers succeeded in doing was to making beautiful, fascinating them park that rewards the curious and the adventurous versus the average ride hungry theme-park goer.

They made an anti-corporate theme park and got away with it (mostly). For a couple of people (PP2 and LOL) that constantly bash Disney corporate, you'd think you'd be more supportive of a park that went against the corporate grain.

As I think I said,I personally love AK, for all the reasons u mention. But still as a park is it really what it should be? Is it really cohesive? Did they really come close to giving us the best they could?

I keep returning to Walt here. He changed the theme park industry into what it is today almost single handedly. Aren't you just a little sad that he never got his mitts into the zoo biz? But since he was gone by then, isn't sad that no one at Disney had the breadth of vision to imagine a really true Disney zoo? Can't you just imagine how inspiring and entertaining that would be?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

As I think I said,I personally love AK, for all the reasons u mention. But still as a park is it really what it should be? Is it really cohesive? Did they really come close to giving us the best they could?

I keep returning to Walt here. He changed the theme park industry into what it is today almost single handedly. Aren't you just a little sad that he never got his mitts into the zoo biz? But since he was gone by then, isn't sad that no one at Disney had the breadth of vision to imagine a really true Disney zoo? Can't you just imagine how inspiring and entertaining that would be?

Amen...I agree with Pete 2...

I'll respond to Pete 1 later, Mister

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Not strictly true - but Walt's implementation made them popular.

I think Santa Claus Land (now Holiday World) in Indiana is credited as the first park specifically built around a theme.

Plus Walt used carnivals, fairs, boardwalks and other venues (such as Tivoli) to define what he was looking for. The term 'theme park' may not yet have been coined but what he developed was an amalgamation of existing entertainment genres.

 

[doconeill]

Plus Walt used carnivals, fairs, boardwalks and other venues (such as Tivoli) to define what he was looking for. The term 'theme park' may not yet have been coined but what he developed was an amalgamation of existing entertainment genres.

True...and what he essentially did was build 5 different theme parks, connected together into one "super-theme park".

 

[lockedoutlogic]

No, there were theme parks in Europe. (Tivoli Gardens for one.) Just not at the level that Walt did it. Walt's great innovation was in deciding that these parks are for everyone. Let the parents ride with the adults.

I'm going to chime in - the failure to successfully integrate Zebra's into the Safari does not = complete and utter Disney incompetence.

And I'm going to disagree with LOL's. Yes, they failed to do what corporate Disney wanted - build a theme park that raked in money hand over fist.

But what the imagineers succeeded in doing was to making beautiful, fascinating them park that rewards the curious and the adventurous versus the average ride hungry theme-park goer.

They made an anti-corporate theme park and got away with it (mostly). For a couple of people (PP2 and LOL) that constantly bash Disney corporate, you'd think you'd be more supportive of a park that went against the corporate grain.

agree...tivoli gardens is where people should start their "search for the "theme park"

And agree...an animal not reacting well to a loud, imposing drive through truck course that was designed to process volume DOES NOT represent a catastrophic company failure. they tried...didn't work. no biggie.

But...BIG BUT...i can't disagree with you more on the above statements.

you act as though this was a group of "artists" going against the will of the big juggernaut corporate entity and succeeding against the odds...

you're completely stretching/twisting and you know it.

What they did was run amuck behind Generalissimo Goofy Rhode. Who forget the "engineer" part of imagineer and acted like and artsy fartsy who spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and had to be dragged back aboard the ship before the party was over...

The concepts that were built are all over the place:
Safari - good...but could definitely have been tweaked on the layout. and the cost must be staggering.
CTX - good...not much complaints here.
Tough to be a bug...good.
The rest? not so good.

Eisner pulled the plug on the construction because it was out of control...more than anything. if they hadn't racked up 2 billion (what i consider to be a low and utterly safe estimate) in costs and gotten what basically was half to 2/3rds of the concept built in 5 years...maybe we don't get camp minnie mickey...or the boat ride to nowhere.
or maybe the not kali (a pretty bad water ride)...

or chester and hester (defend that...please)

or the failure of everest (on its on...maybe not a big deal...but taken in the aggregate with the neglect and lack of reinvestment for the first 10 years of the park or the going ten since...inexcusable)

see this is my problem...i always come off as a complete animal kingdom hater and i'm not.
What i end up doing every time is OVER-Compensating for those that lower the bar for Disney regarding AK and the more recent parks and give them a pass. Fans/employees/whatevers don't need to "do them a solid" and do this for TWDC...they don't need the support here. They've systematically lowered the bars for themselves.

I'm not a "coaster,coaster, coaster" guy who hates trees...as animal kingdom critics often are labeled (as you basically did, there pete). My favorite park is EPCOT by a country mile. i aint about the rides all the time.

what i am is an incomplete disney park hater...and there is nothing to dispute that in the case of animal kingdom.

the defenders would claim i just don't get it. Kinda offensive...i get it. but i can never accurately judge or defend that park until they get off their greedy little cans and do a complete job on it. not even close...no matter how many types of mangroves they plant in there or how many different pictures of animals are mounted onto that silly little tree...

just take look at it on the grand scale:

disneyland (originally short due to REAL lack of funding and time)...but a complete park by all standards due to continued funds, investment, and real bust it work and brain power (the model for mgm and ak that has not been followed...among other parks)

magic kingdom...complete park
epcot...complete park
tokyo...complete park
studios...incomplete that has been "babied" along (here's where the trouble begins)
euro...for all of its political and cultural trouble (disney mistakes)...still a complete park
AK...first large park with an incomplete construction...little to know investment afterward
DCA...incomplete...horrid mediocre to bad park (the jury has rested on this one)
Studios paris...same as DCA...incomplete, i was there in 06 and it was literally warehouses in a square...putrid. have been trying to recover ever since.
DisneySea...GREAT!...but wait a minute....disney didn't pay. sorry, folks...that's gonna result in a lovely parting gift.
Hong Kong...incomplete and mediocre. has been under construction constantly since to add appeal...7 years now. (but at least the chinese are accepting of crap at "high quality" ticket prices)

you see...i'm not joking here...

Please stop lowering the bar and defending animal kingdom...it is what it is. Not the worst, not nearly the best or even in the conversation.

Not really worthy of being close to its two sister parks.

 

[skier_pete]

Not in the mood to argue on a Friday night - I'll simply agree to disagree. AK is a better realized park than the Studios, and is better now than Epcot is now. (Epcot was better initially, but "future" world is a shell of it's former self.)

However, I don't defend Chester and Hester's. That stuff is shiite.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Please stop lowering the bar and defending animal kingdom...it is what it is. Not the worst, not nearly the best or even in the conversation.

Not really worthy of being close to its two sister parks.

I agree with the whole post but as usual I will only quote the last paragraph.

Joe Rhode ran amok ("amok, amok, amok" ... Anyone?). Can anyone disagree with that?

There was, and is no reason for Disney to run scared. They set the bar and should live up to it. Doing the minimum is not the Disney way, it is the ... Wait for it ... Walmart way. Come on Disney, just be true to your ideals.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Not in the mood to argue on a Friday night - I'll simply agree to disagree. AK is a better realized park than the Studios, and is better now than Epcot is now. (Epcot was better initially, but "future" world is a shell of it's former self.)

However, I don't defend Chester and Hester's. That stuff is shiite.

Wow...better than EPCOT?

EPCOT is the best park ever built by a lot of measurements. It has been neglected (hint...theme), but that doesn't diminished what it is and how ridiculously off the map (no pun intended) it was when they built it.

MGM...I believe...is more indicative of Disney's park decline than when it followed through...I believe.

Wow...are you Skier Pete Rhode?
The place gets people from 8-10 and is nearly vacant by 3...
It's not just me...do about 9 million people a year "not get it"?

Have you considered that maybe there nothing to get? Just maybe...

You know I love ya...but come on

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Wow...better than EPCOT?

EPCOT is the best park ever built by a lot of measurements. It has been neglected (hint...theme), but that doesn't diminished what it is and how ridiculously off the map (no pun intended) it was when they built it.

MGM...I believe...is more indicative of Disney's park decline than when it followed through...I believe.

Wow...are you Skier Pete Rhode?
The place gets people from 8-10 and is nearly vacant by 3...
It's not just me...do about 9 million people a year "not get it"?

Have you considered that maybe there nothing to get? Just maybe...

You know I love ya...but come on

LOL, is it my turn to worry about mi compadres?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Rays win! The Pirate is happy!

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

No, there were theme parks in Europe. (Tivoli Gardens for one.) Just not at the level that Walt did it. Walt's great innovation was in deciding that these parks are for everyone. Let the parents ride with the adults.

I'm going to chime in - the failure to successfully integrate Zebra's into the Safari does not = complete and utter Disney incompetence.

And I'm going to disagree with LOL's. Yes, they failed to do what corporate Disney wanted - build a theme park that raked in money hand over fist.

But what the imagineers succeeded in doing was to making beautiful, fascinating them park that rewards the curious and the adventurous versus the average ride hungry theme-park goer.

They made an anti-corporate theme park and got away with it (mostly). For a couple of people (PP2 and LOL) that constantly bash Disney corporate, you'd think you'd be more supportive of a park that went against the corporate grain.

~THANK YOU!!! You've expressed your thoughts beautifully and it's desperately welcome in this sea of negativism!

Not in the mood to argue on a Friday night - I'll simply agree to disagree. AK is a better realized park than the Studios, and is better now than Epcot is now. (Epcot was better initially, but "future" world is a shell of it's former self.)

However, I don't defend Chester and Hester's. That stuff is shiite.

~LOL. Did you say FRIDAY?!? I totally agree with this! You win by a mile!

 

[Attina]

Wow. That escalated quickly.

I won't get into the AK vs "successful theme parks" argument. I'll just comment on the original purpose of the thread. Tee hee.

It's not an easy thing for a zoo or aquarium to make the decision to permanently remove animals from an exhibit. There's a lot that goes into it, and it usually comes down to the health and welfare of the collection as a whole.

The zebras at Animal Kingom were likely experiencing some problems, whether those issues stemmed from behavior or health isn't exactly clear, but my guess is that it was a little of both.

As this is the rumors area, I've heard that the Animal Kingdom was having a bit of trouble with sickness among the zebras. As a result large swaths of land had to be burned with a flamethrower in an effort to sanitize things. I'm not sure if that could be seen from the KS vantage point or not, as I haven't been there in quite some time. The staff has done everything they can to take care of the problem and protect the animals.

In this case, it was a decision made on behalf of the animals, and has little to do with making money or visitor experience. It's possible that they could be brought back in once everything is under control, but I respect the decision for now. Better to have no zebras than sick zebras.

Also... to the previous poster who mentioned that they should obtain some pandas, you have no idea how hard that is to do. All pandas housed in US zoos are still property of the Chinese government, and they are very unlikely to give any more. It's possible that pandas born in the US could be transferred to other US facilities who don't currently house them, but quite unlikely. The paperwork alone is nightmarish. Cute animals, but obscenely difficult and expensive to keep.

 

[monorailrabbit]

Wow. That escalated quickly.

I won't get into the AK vs "successful theme parks" argument. I'll just comment on the original purpose of the thread. Tee hee.

It's not an easy thing for a zoo or aquarium to make the decision to permanently remove animals from an exhibit. There's a lot that goes into it, and it usually comes down to the health and welfare of the collection as a whole.

The zebras at Animal Kingom were likely experiencing some problems, whether those issues stemmed from behavior or health isn't exactly clear, but my guess is that it was a little of both.

As this is the rumors area, I've heard that the Animal Kingdom was having a bit of trouble with sickness among the zebras. As a result large swaths of land had to be burned with a flamethrower in an effort to sanitize things. I'm not sure if that could be seen from the KS vantage point or not, as I haven't been there in quite some time. The staff has done everything they can to take care of the problem and protect the animals.

In this case, it was a decision made on behalf of the animals, and has little to do with making money or visitor experience. It's possible that they could be brought back in once everything is under control, but I respect the decision for now. Better to have no zebras than sick zebras.

Also... to the previous poster who mentioned that they should obtain some pandas, you have no idea how hard that is to do. All pandas housed in US zoos are still property of the Chinese government, and they are very unlikely to give any more. It's possible that pandas born in the US could be transferred to other US facilities who don't currently house them, but quite unlikely. The paperwork alone is nightmarish. Cute animals, but obscenely difficult and expensive to keep.

Thank you! While I LOVE reading all this stuff about (and totally agree with) AK kind of falling short in some aspects, I just want to be able to find out where I have to go in Sept. if I want to see the Zebras!