From the OS: Gator drags child into Seven Seas Lagoon

[FrankLapidus]

I would find it extremely hard to justify the price of a theme park view room at a monorail resort if half of the resort amenities are taken away. The view and pool alone aren't worth it. Especially during months where it's too cold to swim yet room prices are high and without discounts.

For now I'm not aware of them doing anything other than put up more signage warning specifically about alligators and now these fences.

What I would say is, in the short-term at least, there might well be some other changes made while they figure out if there are more permanent things that need to be done. Disney will be looking at everything around that lagoon while making sure they're being seen to be doing something to alleviate concerns. The signs and fences might prove to be the extent of the short-team measures, its just something to keep an eye on.

 

[s8film40]

Waterfront != beach

You can't even make out the recreational beach in those photos... they just show the property on the lagoon. One of them shows the sand side near the pavilion - which isn't even the recreational beach.. which is on the OTHER side. The sand is BARELY noticeable. The property is being showcased for its location and setting on the water.

Maybe in your marketing eyes there is a beach there just waiting to be discovered and its some sexy tease... but it's the water, not beaches that is being spun here. I mean come on.. on the header they even show the NON-BEACH side... choosing the side that is all break rock.

Just like it took 4 posts to get you to answer that you DIDN'T find the original picture in Disney marketing/literature.. you're just digging in here and trying to avoid the fact it's not prominently shown here either.. which is why you didn't actually SHOW the photos, just said 'its in two of them'. You're just being dodgy vs facing it.

In one of the 6 precious photos... Disney wastes it on pontoon boats... The sunbathing beach isn't even LISTED, let alone promoted, on the list of recreational amenities, etc.

I've made my point here

Yeah, like I said your just not getting it. Yes, if your looking at the photos for rules and lists of amenities you are correct the beach isn't explicitly put forth. From a marketing and lifestyle perspective it's there. Marketing isn't something that everyone understands, I certainly respect your perspective. I'm just pointing out that it's different.

Maybe we should look it this from another angle. Do you think the fences they are putting up will hurt the GF as a resort in any way? I personally think they will, this implies that the beach is a desired aspect of the resort.

 

[Rescue Ranger]

I wonder if this fence is just a short term solution?
Ideally, a low lying boardwalk type pier/doc along the water's edge as a lookout would probably look best.

 

[EngineJoe]

One is one too many.

Yup. Disney needs to build a dome over the entire resort because being struck by lighting or killed by a Bufo frog or armadillo is "one too many"

 

[EngineJoe]

Just dropping by to say the scenes with Tic Tok in Peter Pan are still there as of this afternoon. I remember someone asking about them earlier in the week. Something I did notice though was the "Fire Mr. Smee!" dialogue was turned off.

Isn't there a gator in splash mountain?

 

[DisneyJoe]

One is one too many.

I agree wholeheartedly, but wouldn't 1 accident in 45 years possibly be the definition of a freak accident?

 

[TLtron]

Actually, the experts have stated that the reason was twofold - night time when they feed the most, and since the boy was making noise, the gator figured it to be a wounded animal, and therefore, easy prey.

This would certainly be true if the boy was playing & splashing around in a quiet, remote little area of the shore. But considering there was a movie event going on at the beach where he was, with an abundance of noise & human commotion....regardless of being hunting time for the animals, that is usually something they would steer clear of, unless they had been trained to come towards crowd noises for food reward.

 

[EngineJoe]

Yeah, like I said your just not getting it. Yes, if your looking at the photos for rules and lists of amenities you are correct the beach isn't explicitly put forth. From a marketing and lifestyle perspective it's there. Marketing isn't something that everyone understands, I certainly respect your perspective. I'm just pointing out that it's different.

Maybe we should look it this from another angle. Do you think the fences they are putting up will hurt the GF as a resort in any way? I personally think they will, this implies that the beach is a desired aspect of the resort.

Yes. For the price people pay gf will be a less attractive option now on top of it being a Aligator "crime scene"

I think eventually they will have to retheme it or raze it and make it a parking lot or storage facility.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I agree wholeheartedly, but wouldn't 1 accident in 45 years possibly be the definition of a freak accident?

Split all the hairs you want, there's a significant aggressive alligator problem that has magnified since the bungalows were built.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Speaking of that.
When my family checked into the AK Lodge we were given very specific advice on what not to do.
"Don't hang towels and clothes on the balcony, don't feed the animals, no straws etc..."
Were guests staying in the Grand Floridian given advice about the alligators?

I had exactly the same experience.

When I checked into the Caribbean Beach several years ago I was told that there was a beach on which we were encouraged to use the hammocks and deckchairs if we wanted, we could watch Illuminations in the distance each night, but that going into the lake was strictly prohibited and that we should stay well away from the shoreline.

We stayed at Wilderness Lodge a couple of years after that in 2008 and the same thing at check-in: please feel free to use the beaches, we could see the MK fireworks from the beach but the view could be restricted, but going into the lagoon is strictly prohitibited and we should always stay well back from the shoreline.

Those are the two resorts we've stayed at with a beachside lake and/or lagoon so I assumed that that was procedure, that if you stay at any of those resorts you're warned that going into the water is not allowed. I get the impression that that is not the case and if it isn't I think it should be.

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe we should look it this from another angle. Do you think the fences they are putting up will hurt the GF as a resort in any way? I personally think they will, this implies that the beach is a desired aspect of the resort.

Not as dramatic change as the earlier decisions to stop using the lakes for recreational bathing and then still leaving the beaches there.

The sunbathing and recreation elements can be replicated elsewhere on the property in sundecks and play areas... so there is really no loss in amenities anyway. The viewing for nighttime events isn't really impacted and the views can be kept intact even if the beaches go away entirely.

The landscaping and waterfront can be altered to be natural without it being approachable. Disney could even keep the sand washups but move the pedestrian barrier back to along the paths. Rocks, barriers, rope lines, etc can all establish a barrier without necessarily removing the water's edge look from afar.

I think adding the ropes but not altering the beach uses and accessibility itself is another stupid move... that like the years before it makes Disney maintain areas that would just make the guests go 'huh?? why is that even there if no one can use it'. Which is why I believe as other projects happen, you'll see these beaches finally goto YesterLand and the waterfront being redone.

I don't think anyone thinks the Grand Floridian looks awful from this view...

And that is all the side that is break rock and not foot accessible.

And BTW: I've done plenty of marketing... comes with the territory of designing the corporate booths, presentations and strategy for industry shows, events, and other goodies that came with being Product Line Owners.

 

[DisneyGigi]

Went back a few pages and didn't see sign posted. If I am repeating, I apologize. Saw it on twitter first, via the disneyblog.
Link
http://thedisneyblog.com/2016/06/16/disney-world-considering-adding-signs-response-gator-attack/

 

[Blueliner]

Clearly Disney isn't concerned about needing to settle with the family... as these actions pretty much would make it a slam dunk to say Disney knew, but didn't do enough to protect the guests. Using their own reactions against them is a piece of cake to shown them as necessary or 'should have been done'. Disney is cutting the check and just hoping to appear proactive here.

See Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Subsequent Remedial Measures
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

• negligence;
• culpable conduct;
• a defect in a product or its design; or
• a need for a warning or instruction.

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

There is a sound policy reason for this. You do not want someone to fail to correct a dangerous condition because of fear that the correction will constitute an admission of liability. In other words, you want them to fix the problem as soon as possible so that no further harm will be done.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Went back a few pages and didn't see sign posted. If I am repeating, I apologize. Saw it on twitter first, via the disneyblog.
Link
http://thedisneyblog.com/2016/06/16/disney-world-considering-adding-signs-response-gator-attack/

Yep, those new signs will be very.... very clear. I can see why they wanted to avoid putting something like that up, it's quite startling, but necessary.

This is what Disney said in that article:

“We are installing signage and temporary barriers at our resort beach locations and are working on permanent, long-term solutions at our beaches. We continue to evaluate processes and procedures for our entire property, and, as part of this, we are reinforcing training with our Cast for reporting sightings and interactions with wildlife and are expanding our communication to Guests on this topic.”

 

[GoofGoof]

Yeah this is the real reason they have to build a fence. Not because people are whining and complaining but rather Disney doesn't want to be confrontational and tell someone they can't do something.

Yes. Definitely true. It's why they spent a bunch of money adding chips to cups and soda dispensers instead of having CMs just reprimand guests for taking "free soda". They always look for the passive aggressive way to enforce rules without direct confrontation. They don't make chips for gators. Disney will need to step up and empower CMs to strictly enforce the no feeding rules.

 

[asianway]

Went back a few pages and didn't see sign posted. If I am repeating, I apologize. Saw it on twitter first, via the disneyblog.
Link
http://thedisneyblog.com/2016/06/16/disney-world-considering-adding-signs-response-gator-attack/

Do we need to link lifestyler blogs when real news outlets are reporting on this?

 

[flynnibus]

Don't they beach the boat at the different spots to get off?

They did, but not sure if they went to the normal beaches that were open to sunbathers, etc or if they went to other areas that were previously inaccessible.

 

[DisneyGigi]

Do we need to link lifestyler blogs when real news outlets are reporting on this?

Good grief..just sharing the sign. Does it matter if it is blog? Add another link if you like. Were we not just sharing twitter photos?.

 

[21stamps]

Went back a few pages and didn't see sign posted. If I am repeating, I apologize. Saw it on twitter first, via the disneyblog.
Link
http://thedisneyblog.com/2016/06/16/disney-world-considering-adding-signs-response-gator-attack/

I just read that it says "Temporary Barriers" So it sounds like it will be just the signs that are really an impact. That is GOOD NEWS!

Never mind, I then read the "looking for long term solutions.." So maybe these temporary barriers are a placeholder for something else.

 

[flynnibus]

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

There is a sound policy reason for this. You do not want someone to fail to correct a dangerous condition because of fear that the correction will constitute an admission of liability. In other words, you want them to fix the problem as soon as possible so that no further harm will be done.

Excellent point! But do we really think a Jury would be able to hold themselves above the emotional trap of connecting the two? And Disney is basically saying 'yes it is possible' and 'yes it should make a difference' by doing so. Specifics of law aside, its hard to keep those ideas away from the Jury if the fact its happened makes it to the jury.