Alligators captured at Disney doubles

[Pixieish]

The signs (at least the ones at the Polynesian) very clearly said "this beach is closed" followed by "no swimming allowed." We can debate the definition of 'beach' and 'closed' and 'swimming' but that is what the signage said. Some signage just reads "no swimming" but that should be enough of a red flag. If a door says "do not enter" im not going to open it even if it doesn't list the exact hazard on the other side.

No current Disney marketing shows guests in the the water.

I've never seen a report that said for certain the child was not in the water. If there is one it's news to me. The reports I've seen including from witness have been that he was playing in the water along the shore.

Since no legal action was pursued we can't really speculate about what may have come out in court. It could have gotten quite messy for both sides depending on the circumstances.

Here is an article about the previous signage, including pictures. Little signs saying "No Swimming Please" with an image of someone doing the crawl stroke - swimming. They didn't warn of any danger of proximity. They didn't appear to reflect any danger whatsoever, more like courtesy "stay off the grass" signs.

I guess we do have to define those words for you, because while you may believe them to be muddy, they aren't.

The "beach" is where the sand is.

"Swimming" is when you get into the water and propel yourself through it.

Disney marketing surely shows families on the beach, which is where this family was. They host movies and events on the same beach.



According to authorities, he was bent over scooping up water/wet sand near the edge. There is no indication that he was "swimming" or entered the water whatsoever.



Well, certainly we can - that's why it's called "speculation".

But we don't even have to - legal experts have. Had it been litigated, it would have come down to the signage - which likely would not be deemed adequate by politely asking people not to swim. And Disney clearly knew that there were gators there, which would be the only other defense.

Then there is also the fact that they took six alligators out in the days before, four of which were larger than six feet - 50% longer than the size at which they deem them to be dangerous.

Not to mention, that at least two people spotted the gator in the area and alerted Disney about it before it happened, and Disney had no "clear the beach" policy or procedure in place when such reports are made.

So yeah, it's hard to see where Disney wouldn't have taken it from behind legally on this one.

I did extensive research immediately following the incident as we have a young son (6) on the autism spectrum who ADORES water and will make a B-line towards any water he sees if given the opportunity, and we were flying down that October. (Yes, we could totally be like that guy whose roughly 10-year-old son decided to swim at Epcot recently, but we don't give our son enough freedom at the parks for that to happen.)

I remember distinctly that the majority of reports - including those by witnesses - stated that he had been standing in 6-12" of water - a significant amount for a child of that size (right about knee-deep or deeper). Everything else seemed to say "it was unclear".

Honestly, we've become so obsessed with unnecessary details in this country. It said no swimming. That in and of itself should have been enough. WARNING: HOT COFFEE!!! Um, yeah, I wouldn't pay for it if it wasn't hot. (Don't get me wrong, I saw the burns the woman from the famous McDonald's case suffered, and she wasn't awarded enough. That coffee was TOO hot, and court records show that.)

But in all seriousness...read through the multitude of lists of injuries and incidents that occur at Disney World. The majority of them are the fault of the guest. I was appalled at the number of guests who have twisted facts and/or acted with purpose in order to gain a financial reward (I'm talking about YOU, Gondola-jumping guy! TRUE STORY).

I sure as hell don't argue semantics with my kids when I lay down rules. Disney (or any other company, for that matter) shouldn't have to either, but this is exactly what I'm talking about in many of my previous comments on this thread.

Humans are dumb.

EDIT: Don't read this as me blaming the parents for what happened - I'm not. I'm simply speaking about society at large. The prevailing attitude is that we want reasons and details for everything that should be completely unnecessary, and it's VERY easy to fall into the "well, it didn't say "insert words here" attitude.

 

[JoeCamel]

Spent my honeymoon @ the Contemporary Resort in 1977 swimming was allowed in the Lagoon then. Was given upon check in a copy of Disney World News paper (8 page still have) in it WDW touts the beautiful beaches for swimming and boat rental. What year they stopped allowing swimming don't know.

Humans had not been feeding the gators for 50 years at that point so they were scared. 6 years was not enough to habituate them to your presence.

 

[jimbo mack]

Just seeing this picture is disturbing.

Seeing alligators in their natural habitat is disturbing?

God the cruelty of some of the people and comments here in these posts condoning the killing of alligators, deer etc.

All people need to do is apply common sense when living in or visiting Florida. Alligators are not out to attack humans - they’re just residing in their natural habitat, this is not a crime.

 

[21stamps]

1 year and a half later and people are STILL blaming Disney, or the Parents, instead of simply-nature.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night..

 

[Pixieish]

Humans had not been feeding the gators for 50 years at that point so they were scared. 6 years was not enough to habituate them to your presence.

You wouldn't believe people's attitudes about the signs that say don't feed the wildlife.

 

[AEfx]

Honestly, we've become so obsessed with unnecessary details in this country. It said no swimming. That in and of itself should have been enough.

I agree with you most of the time, and I agree about personal responsibility in general, but the "unnecessary details" here are the difference between blaming this kid's family and not. I realize that isn't your intention, but it is the intention of some of the others participating in this discussion. That somehow this family was negligent to be playing near the water edge.

The fact is also, legally, everything comes down to what you are calling "unnecessary details". I backed up my statements above with links to the appropriate sources. All people seem to keep repeating generalities about their beliefs about the state of humanity (many of which I actually agree with!) that don't take into account the actual situation that happened.

Can you really look at that "No Swimming Please" sign and not see a difference to a "DANGER! Do Not Approach The Water!" sign? Especially given the fact that the reason given when guests have asked previously about no-swimming is about the amoeba in the silt under the water, and bacterial infections that kill. Most of us here, "educated" about WDW as much as possible, did not know to the extent of the alligator population there.

Like I said, I quite agree with you most of the time (almost all of the time, LOL - we have a similar New England sensibility) but on this issue, clearly the signage was not adequate in communicating the danger of even being near the water.

Aside from that, given the amount of gators that Disney was aware were present (and clearly knew were a danger which is why they were being constantly removed), Disney also should have had some warning system or procedure in place to clear the beaches for when people sighted alligators near guest areas. An announcement over the PA, and.or CM's going out and telling people to leave, etc. If they had, this kid probably would not have died.

It all comes down to those two things - basically, Disney walked a fine line between sufficiently warning guests of the dangers and keeping up the magical image of a place where everything is just perfect and carefree. On this, they erred on the wrong side, and thankfully they are now taking steps to correct this.

 

[peter11435]

Here is an article about the previous signage, including pictures. Little signs saying "No Swimming Please" with an image of someone doing the crawl stroke - swimming. They didn't warn of any danger of proximity. They didn't appear to reflect any danger whatsoever, more like courtesy "stay off the grass" signs.

I guess we do have to define those words for you, because while you may believe them to be muddy, they aren't.

The "beach" is where the sand is.

"Swimming" is when you get into the water and propel yourself through it.

Disney marketing surely shows families on the beach, which is where this family was. They host movies and events on the same beach.



According to authorities, he was bent over scooping up water/wet sand near the edge. There is no indication that he was "swimming" or entered the water whatsoever.



Well, certainly we can - that's why it's called "speculation".

But we don't even have to - legal experts have. Had it been litigated, it would have come down to the signage - which likely would not be deemed adequate by politely asking people not to swim. And Disney clearly knew that there were gators there, which would be the only other defense.

Then there is also the fact that they took six alligators out in the days before, four of which were larger than six feet - 50% longer than the size at which they deem them to be dangerous.

Not to mention, that at least two people spotted the gator in the area and alerted Disney about it before it happened, and Disney had no "clear the beach" policy or procedure in place when such reports are made.

So yeah, it's hard to see where Disney wouldn't have taken it from behind legally on this one.

Here is the signage that I was referring. This was in place prior to the incident. Courtney of tikimans site..

http://www.tikimanpages.com/poly/images/stories/activities/IMG_2002b.jpg

I never said Disney marketing didn't show guests on the beach. I said it didn't show guests in the water. Everything I have read has said the boy was standing in 6-12 inches of water. That is in the water. Maybe you wouldn't define that as swimming but if a sign says no swimming I certainly would take that to mean stay out of the water. Just because a sign is courteous doesn't mean it doesn't need to be followed, I'm not walking on your grass either.

I agree Disney needed to improve their signage and that what was there wasn't adequate. I've already stated that. But that doesn't mean it's entirely up to them to warn you of natural hazards and keep you safe. You must take some responsibility for yourself. That's where this conversation originated.

 

[Pixieish]

I agree with you most of the time, and I agree about personal responsibility in general, but the "unnecessary details" here are the difference between blaming this kid's family and not. I realize that isn't your intention, but it is the intention of some of the others participating in this discussion. That somehow this family was negligent to be playing near the water edge.

The fact is also, legally, everything comes down to what you are calling "unnecessary details". I backed up my statements above with links to the appropriate sources. All people seem to keep repeating generalities about their beliefs about the state of humanity (many of which I actually agree with!) that don't take into account the actual situation that happened.

Can you really look at that "No Swimming Please" sign and not see a difference to a "DANGER! Do Not Approach The Water!" sign? Especially given the fact that the reason given when guests have asked previously about no-swimming is about the amoeba in the silt under the water, and bacterial infections that kill. Most of us here, "educated" about WDW as much as possible, did not know to the extent of the alligator population there.

Like I said, I quite agree with you most of the time (almost all of the time, LOL - we have a similar New England sensibility) but on this issue, clearly the signage was not adequate in communicating the danger of even being near the water.

Aside from that, given the amount of gators that Disney was aware were present (and clearly knew were a danger which is why they were being constantly removed), Disney also should have had some warning system or procedure in place to clear the beaches for when people sighted alligators near guest areas. An announcement over the PA, and.or CM's going out and telling people to leave, etc. If they had, this kid probably would not have died.

It all comes down to those two things - basically, Disney walked a fine line between sufficiently warning guests of the dangers and keeping up the magical image of a place where everything is just perfect and carefree. On this, they erred on the wrong side, and thankfully they are now taking steps to correct this.

We do tend to agree A LOT, lol!!!

There is definitely a huge difference in wording...I guess I was just taught not to question stuff like signs because there could be hidden dangers. To me, no swimming means don't touch the water. I can totally see both sides though - Disney certainly didn't want to scare its guests, but the guests figured that wading was okay. Those combined equalled a recipe for disaster - the perfect storm of conditions I mentioned earlier.

I couldn't agree more on the procedures. Disney has been loosening up over the years on procedures and they need to tighten it back up - not just at the beaches either. There needs to be policy/procedure consistency throughout the parks and resorts and that is definitely lacking when people are given a multitude of answers when asking if they'll be allowed in early so they won't be late for a reservation. If handled properly, CMs could clear the beach when necessary without frightening guests. Perhaps a pamphlet about indigenous wildlife included in the welcome packs are in order as well...and those need not be terrifying either - they could be factual and include the alligators, lizards, ducks, etc. etc. with warnings about feeding and what to watch out for.

 

[21stamps]

Oh.. and we’ve come full circle to blaming Disney again.

Sometimes a tragedy is just that. I will never understand why people can’t just accept that fact.

The knowledge or lack of knowledge of alligators in Florida wasn’t said one way or another in that specific story. There’s now a beautiful foundation from an obviously classy family.. maybe Disney People could stop with the assumptions after assumptions and obvious personal need to assign blame to someone.

 

[Pixieish]

Oh.. and we’ve come full circle to blaming Disney again.

Sometimes a tragedy is just that. I will never understand why people can’t just accept that fact.

The knowledge or lack of knowledge of alligators in Florida wasn’t said one way or another in that specific story. There’s now a beautiful foundation from an obviously classy family.. maybe Disney People could stop with the assumptions after assumptions.

I'm really not "blaming" anyone...if I were to place direct blame, it would be on conservation efforts gone out of control.

 

[21stamps]

I'm really not "blaming" anyone...if I were to place direct blame, it would be on conservation efforts gone out of control.

Or maybe it’s just nature.. not out of control.. just -Nature. The same as sharks, snakes, amoeba, crocs, bears.. etc etc etc.

 

[Pixieish]

You have to admit...for such a touchy subject, the discussion has remained remarkably civil - even when there have been disagreements.

 

[larryz]

You wouldn't believe people's attitudes about the signs that say don't feed the wildlife.

"Signs? What signs? Oh, those signs. I didn't read those."

 

[Pixieish]

"Signs? What signs? Oh, those signs. I didn't read those."

I've had people flat out argue with me that "it's fun, I don't care". Meanwhile, we DO NOT feed any of the wildlife, but this little lady hung out with us by Gertie in HS.

 

[larryz]

We do tend to agree A LOT, lol!!!

There is definitely a huge difference in wording...I guess I was just taught not to question stuff like signs because there could be hidden dangers. To me, no swimming means don't touch the water. I can totally see both sides though - Disney certainly didn't want to scare its guests, but the guests figured that wading was okay. Those combined equalled a recipe for disaster - the perfect storm of conditions I mentioned earlier.

I like the effective but understated way the Aussies put it...

 

[raymusiccity]

Disney had signs posted saying the beach was closed and swimming was not allowed. People choose to ignore those signs. Obviously the signs didn't at the time specifically say why you were not allowed to enter the water but they still prohibited it. Does a posted rule or law not apply to someone if it doesn't clearly state why the rule or law exists?

Agreed. Common sense is rapidly disappearing. 'Back in the day', one of the acitive

Oh.. and we’ve come full circle to blaming Disney again.

Sometimes a tragedy is just that. I will never understand why people can’t just accept that fact.

The knowledge or lack of knowledge of alligators in Florida wasn’t said one way or another in that specific story. There’s now a beautiful foundation from an obviously classy family.. maybe Disney People could stop with the assumptions after assumptions and obvious personal need to assign blame to someone.

Agreed. There just seems to be an ever increasing lack of common sense regarding what might be lurking in any body of water. 'Back in the day', there existed one of the best programs offered at the campgrounds. Just 'Google' Marshmallow Marsh for a description of a super activity. You'd take a guided tour, paddling a Davy Crockett type canoe, down the canals to the beach area. Roast some marshmallows, singalong, be visited by Chip & Dale, and watch fireworks over the lagoon. (along the way, the guide would shine his searchlight on alligators resting on the banks! ....Gasp! Somehow, people obeyed the warnings not to go into the water after dark.

 

[LAKid53]

I'm definitely a soulless meat eater. Bambi, Wilbur, Clarabelle, Nemo, you name it, I'll eat it.

My family owns a large cattle ranch in Colorado. I'd be disowned if I announced beef, lamb, chicken and pork are bad....

I'm with @John park hopper, you don't know what good animal protein is until you've had the minimally processed variety...that's grass fed in the case of beef and lamb. Or fresh milk you've just separated and cooled. Or eggs just retrieved from the coop.

God, I miss those breakfasts.....

 

[Pixieish]

My family owns a large cattle ranch in Colorado. I'd be disowned if I announced beef, lamb, chicken and pork are bad....

I'm with @John park hopper, you don't know what good animal protein is until you've had the minimally processed variety...that's grass fed in the case of beef and lamb. Or fresh milk you've just separated and cooled. Or eggs just retrieved from the coop.

God, I miss those breakfasts.....

Fresh is absolutely the best...I'm dying to get to the point where my boys eat enough meat to warrant joining a local farm meat co-op. Ohhh...and pheasant...and I used to go deep sea fishing or even just fishing off the town pier...best seafood in the world.

 

[John park hopper]

My family owns a large cattle ranch in Colorado. I'd be disowned if I announced beef, lamb, chicken and pork are bad....

I'm with @John park hopper, you don't know what good animal protein is until you've had the minimally processed variety...that's grass fed in the case of beef and lamb. Or fresh milk you've just separated and cooled. Or eggs just retrieved from the coop.

God, I miss those breakfasts.....

We have chickens and ducks- you are so right on, there is nothing like a fresh egg- the yolks are a rich bright golden yellow nothing like mass produced store bought eggs. They make the best yellow cakes. The wild hogs I hunt again-- tastes nothing like mass produced factory raised hogs. Yes, wild hogs are a major problem in SC for farmers and native wildlife

 

[FullSailDan]

You forgot Warning snapping turtles may remove your finger and Warning armadillos carry leprosy.

Sorry was too busy worrying about being bitten or clawed by the turkey vultures.

 

[Frankie Nova]

In my lifetime in Florida I can say that I have seen 1000 times more alligators than deer but you can only hunt alligators
if you win a lottery and pay $300 per permit fee with a limit of 2. If I hunt deer I just need a license and a permit and I can take 2 per day in season. I know that gators were endangered back in the 60's in Florida but there is an estimated 1.4 million gators in Florida and 700K deer. I think it is time they look at new hunting laws for gators. I will leave this pic here. This is Myakka State Park. About a 20 min drive from my house.

View attachment 241443

played golf there Myakka.. dad works there at least think he still does