Disney’s Animal Kingdom Was a Mistake

[erasure fan1]

Oh ok

Oh ok

I'm not sure what you're going for here.

 

[doctornick]

I think that making the park centered on live animals is the best aspect of it and far from a mistake. It is something that makes the park very distinct from the other WDW parks (yes, Epcot has the Seas as well) and gives it a firm identity. I'm not that hardcore about every park having to be completely different but it is certainly something that works in the favor for DAK. Personally, I find going to DAK to be such a different experience than the other parks that it enhances the vacation as a whole by complimenting the other parks. That wouldn't be the case without the significant live animals presence.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Fake news!

 

[UNCgolf]

I would argue that a 5th park is needed, only because the capacity of the parks they have are so lacking. The studios and animal kingdom are still lacking in the rides department. Epcot also could use a couple more rides. If we had the ride capacity In all the parks, a 5th park wouldn't be needed in my opinion. The other issue is Disney seems to have enough issues with running 4 parks. I'd hate to see what adding a 5th would do.

They'd be much better off spending any money they might use on a 5th gate on multiple new attractions at DHS and Animal Kingdom.

 

[WondersOfLife]

I'm not sure what you're going for here.

I’m not sure what your point was

 

[Marc Davis Fan]

I've just read the OP's full blog post (which I highly recommend doing), and I think it's correct about quite a lot.

I agree that it would've been better to spend more on transportation infrastructure before building a fourth park, so WDW wouldn't end up with such a disorganized "urban sprawl" problem.

However: DAK's use of space to spread out the different lands and walkways is something extraordinary that Disney could not have accomplished by simply adding to the existing three parks. DAK also has consistently detailed/immersive theming, as a result of the commitment thereto since its inception.

On the other hand, most important issue that the blog post brought up is: Was a park with live animals the way to go? I don't think it was. (a) The money the spent on live animals could have allowed for multiple spectacular e-tickets that would have made it a full-day park even with the initially-allotted budged. (b) The issue of keeping wild animals in captivity is contentious, and will continue to grow more so. (c) The animals themselves might be the least special part of DAK; that is, you can see animals at your local zoo, while the immersion that makes DAK special is actually what they didn't do enough of because of the cost of the animals.

In sum, I think: The addition of a park with DAK's design/quality was a great decision, but the inclusion of live animals was probably a net negative.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think Animal Kingdom is an amazing park, but I agree it’ll prove to be a mistake in the long run simply because of what it is—a zoo, albeit a very nice one. As the reactions here show, most people are still OK with zoos, but I personally think opinions will change in the decades to come, at which point Animal Kingdom may have to be reconceptualised. (Full disclosure: I belong to the minority who find zoos troubling, and I wish Disney had steered clear of the genre.)

I made a post about this on a different thread, but Animal Kingdom is more or less the kind of zoo we actually need (it's not perfect, but it's better than many). The North Carolina Zoo is another (and even moreso than AK). We need zoos with large, natural habitats for the animals for conservation purposes -- even if that sometimes means visitors only get a glimpse of the animals or don't see them at all because they have so much room to roam. I think those types of zoos serve an important function for wildlife and nature in general.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of zoos like that. There are thousands of zoos where the animals live in mediocre to poor conditions with very small habitats -- if they even have a habitat at all instead of just some sort of mildly decorated cage. Those types of zoos should be eliminated. Zoos also should never acquire animals from the wild, unless they are animals that would not otherwise be able to survive due to injuries or other issues. That problem would likely be eliminated if the number of zoos was cut down to a small number with gigantic footprints to give the animals room.

Maybe we will reach a point where zoos like that aren't necessary to help counteract the damage humans have done to the environment and wildlife in general, but I don't think it will be any time soon.

EDIT: Of course private wildlife reserves can serve the same function with regards to helping endangered species, but that requires people with a lot of money willing to fund them. It's only a partial solution. It's a lot easier to raise the necessary money from paying guests than it is to fund enough places out of a benevolent pocket.

 

[LittleBuford]

I made a post about this on a different thread, but Animal Kingdom is more or less the kind of zoo we actually need (it's not perfect, but it's better than many). The North Carolina Zoo is another (and even moreso than AK). We need zoos with large, natural habitats for the animals for conservation purposes -- even if that sometimes means visitors only get a glimpse of the animals or don't see them at all because they have so much room to roam. I think those types of zoos serve an important function for wildlife and nature in general. They help save endangered animals through breeding programs and also usually use some of their funding for other conservation efforts/research -- funding that would be very hard to come by otherwise. They also help introduce people to the idea of conservation, and educate people who might otherwise never have any interest in the topic whatsoever.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of zoos like that. There are thousands of zoos where the animals live in mediocre to poor conditions with very small habitats -- if they even have a habitat at all instead of just some sort of mildly decorated cage. Those types of zoos should be shut down.

Maybe we will reach a point where zoos like that aren't necessary to help counteract the damage humans have done to the environment and wildlife in general, but I don't think it will be any time soon.

My issue with zoos as they currently exist—and this includes Animal Kingdom—is that most of the animals they keep are neither endangered nor rescued, and that they engage in practices such as pinioning that even the Association of Zoos and Aquariums considers problematic. I agree with you that a zoo like Animal Kingdom, with its large, lush enclosures, is far preferable to other kinds of zoo, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that its main goal remains the entertainment of humans rather than the conservation of animals. Most people seem to be OK with that on balance, but I predict attitudes will change in a few decades.

 

[celluloid]

I made a post about this on a different thread, but Animal Kingdom is more or less the kind of zoo we actually need (it's not perfect, but it's better than many). The North Carolina Zoo is another (and even moreso than AK). We need zoos with large, natural habitats for the animals for conservation purposes -- even if that sometimes means visitors only get a glimpse of the animals or don't see them at all because they have so much room to roam. I think those types of zoos serve an important function for wildlife and nature in general.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of zoos like that. There are thousands of zoos where the animals live in mediocre to poor conditions with very small habitats -- if they even have a habitat at all instead of just some sort of mildly decorated cage. Those types of zoos should be eliminated. Zoos also should never acquire animals from the wild, unless they are animals that would not otherwise be able to survive due to injuries or other issues. That problem would likely be eliminated if the number of zoos was cut down to a small number with gigantic footprints to give the animals room.

Maybe we will reach a point where zoos like that aren't necessary to help counteract the damage humans have done to the environment and wildlife in general, but I don't think it will be any time soon.

EDIT: Of course private wildlife reserves can serve the same function with regards to helping endangered species, but that requires people with a lot of money willing to fund them. It's only a partial solution. It's a lot easier to raise the necessary money from paying guests than it is to fund enough places out of a benevolent pocket.

This is well said.

One of the best things I would recommend when visiting a place or before visiting a place that is zoological in the states is look to see if they are AZA Accredited. Which means they are approved by The American Association of Zoos and Aquariums. It is not an easy achievement to receive.

 

[LittleBuford]

Zoos also should never acquire animals from the wild, unless they are animals that would not otherwise be able to survive due to injuries or other issues. That problem would likely be eliminated if the number of zoos was cut down to a small number with gigantic footprints to give the animals room.

You added this after I hit reply. I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence and hope you’re right with the second.

 

[erasure fan1]

I’m not sure what your point was

Its simple, the only reason a 5th gate is perceived as needed, is because 3 of the 4 parks are greatly lacking capacity. As I said in the post, there is no reason for a 5th gate, they need to add capacity to the parks they have. They also have a hard time maintaining and operating the parks they have. So it would only get worse with a 5th gate.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Its simple, the only reason a 5th gate is perceived as needed, is because 3 of the 4 parks are greatly lacking capacity. As I said in the post, there is no reason for a 5th gate, they need to add capacity to the parks they have. They also have a hard time maintaining and operating the parks they have. So it would only get worse with a 5th gate.

You argue that a fifth gate is needed at the beginning of your post while all of the defense is arguing over not having a fifth gate.

 

[UNCgolf]

My issue with zoos as they currently exist—and this includes Animal Kingdom—is that most of the animals they keep are neither endangered nor rescued, and that they engage in practices such as pinioning that even the Association of Zoos and Aquariums considers problematic. I agree with you that a zoo like Animal Kingdom, with its large, lush enclosures, is far preferable to the zoos of yore, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that its main goal remains the entertainment of humans rather than the conservation of animals. Most people seem to be OK with that on balance, but I predict attitudes will change in a few decades.

My understanding (and this is also in response to your later post) is that most zoo animals (at least at accredited, quality zoos) are not captured from the wild. They are usually born in captivity, for better or worse. Generally speaking, the types of zoos that are purchasing animals that were captured in the wild are the types of zoos that should not exist. And while I agree that the entertainment of humans is the main goal of most zoos, that's not necessarily a problem as long as it's balanced with conservation and gigantic, lush habitats and the money is reinvested in conservation efforts. I don't think we really disagree much (birds should absolutely not be pinioned, for one). What I'm really advocating for would likely result in the closure of 90+% of zoos worldwide.

Animal Kingdom isn't the absolute best example of what I have in mind, but it's better than most. I would prefer to see a very small number of regional zoos that have massive amounts of land so that the animals are living in huge environments -- not one or two acre habitats, but 40 or 50 acre ones (or larger). Depending on the type of animal, of course, because some would not need or care about a space that large.

I grew up near the NC Zoo, which has a habitat of that size for its elephant herd. It also has a huge, enclosed tropical aviary full of plants, water, and birds that fly around freely (I could spend hours just sitting in there). It is the world's largest natural habitat zoo and so it absolutely gave me a skewed view of the typical zoo when I was younger. Even the NC Zoo is far from perfect -- partially because it's actually owned by the state of North Carolina, and for a time funding was slashed by the state government -- but that type of available land is what any zoo needs.

I live in Atlanta now, and while the zoo here is relatively nice for what it is, it's far, far too small for some of the animals they have. I don't visit it because I don't think animals like the elephants have nearly enough space. And that is the reality for the vast majority of zoos; they simply aren't large enough. There are ways around that -- if the Atlanta Zoo focused on smaller animals that didn't need much space, it wouldn't be an issue -- but of course zoos want animals like elephants and gorillas to bring in paying customers.

To summarize everything (TLDR), I think zoos can serve a valuable function, but there should be a very small number of them that have huge tracts of available land and vast amounts of funding. They should be a tourist destination in and of themselves because of their scarcity and overall quality instead of scattered around everywhere at varying levels of quality and size. The animals should all have lush, elaborately themed habitats and palatial accommodations.

 

[Notes from Neverland]

AK is an amazing park. Its differences when compared to other parks is part of what makes it so great.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Completely disagree and the numbers disagree as well. People enjoy AK.

 

[LittleBuford]

My understanding (and this is also in response to your later post) is that most zoo animals (at least at accredited, quality zoos) are not captured from the wild. They are usually born in captivity, for better or worse. Generally speaking, the types of zoos that are purchasing animals that were captured in the wild are the types of zoos that should not exist. And while I agree that the entertainment of humans is the main goal of most zoos, that's not necessarily a problem as long as it's balanced with conservation and gigantic, lush habitats and the money is reinvested in conservation efforts. I don't think we really disagree much (birds should absolutely not be pinioned, for one). What I'm really advocating for would likely result in the closure of 90+% of zoos worldwide.

Animal Kingdom isn't the absolute best example of what I have in mind, but it's better than most. I would prefer to see a very small number of regional zoos that have massive amounts of land so that the animals are living in huge environments -- not one or two acre habitats, but 40 or 50 acre ones (or larger). Depending on the type of animal, of course, because some would not need or care about a space that large.

I grew up near the NC Zoo, which has a habitat of that size for its elephant herd. It also has a huge, enclosed tropical aviary full of plants, water, and birds that fly around freely (I could spend hours just sitting in there). It is the world's largest natural habitat zoo and so it absolutely gave me a skewed view of the typical zoo when I was younger. Even the NC Zoo is far from perfect -- partially because it's actually owned by the state of North Carolina, and for a time funding was slashed by the state government -- but that type of available land is what any zoo needs.

I live in Atlanta now, and while the zoo here is relatively nice for what it is, it's far, far too small for some of the animals they have. I don't visit it because I don't think animals like the elephants have nearly enough space. And that is the reality for the vast majority of zoos; they simply aren't large enough. There are ways around that -- if the Atlanta Zoo focused on smaller animals that didn't need much space, it wouldn't be an issue, but of course zoos want animals like elephants and gorillas to bring in paying customers.

To summarize everything (TLDR), I think zoos can serve a valuable function, but there should be a very small number of them that have huge tracts of available land and vast amounts of funding. They should be a tourist destination in and of themselves because of their scarcity and overall quality instead of scattered around everywhere at varying levels of quality and size. The animals should all have lush, elaborately themed habitats and palatial accommodations.

Thank you for this really well thought-out response. I too think we largely agree with one another, and I likewise see a role for a smaller number of "reformed" zoos in the future.

Something that I think would have to be addressed for zoos to become truly focused on conservation is the issue of captive breeding. As things stand, there are too many animals (the large majority of them unendangered) being born within existing zoo populations, such that hundreds of "surplus" animals are put down each year. The problem appears to be worse in Europe than in the US, where contraceptives are used to prevent such excess numbers.

How many healthy animals do zoos put down?

When Copenhagen Zoo put down a healthy male giraffe earlier this month, much of the world was outraged. But many Danes could not understand what the problem was.

www.bbc.com

 

[disneygeek90]

Yeah, I call April fools.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Perhaps the biggest irony of AK today is that its most popular attraction is one that does not feature any live animals or educational content.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

For about 25 years prior to the opening of AK, WDW already had a "zoological sanctuary" with live animals.

What if Disney had built just the Africa/Conservation Station area of the park and sold it as an attraction like Discovery Island? Would it have had the same effect of extending vacations (something AK intended to do, but didn't quite at first) with more money to spend to expand the other parks?

 

[Giss Neric]

Me reading the thread title and the first post.

AK is my favorite park out of the 4, even before when it was a half-day park, even if it was the hottest park. I like the balance of theme park and zoo. Just going around sightseeing is what I enjoyed the most. To be honest, Dino Rama is the only mistake AK did. I can forgive Rivers of Light.