You think the reason why they're not gonna do any animals is because it'd be too expensive? Or because they don't want the guys who went after SeaWorld to get on their cases?
My guess is a combination of factors. I.e.:
- “Animal experiences” are a prominent thing in kid’s entertainment now. Pretty locally around my area, you could feed a giraffe, pet a wallaby, drive right past a zebra, swim with otters, handle various reptiles, snorkel with stingrays, pet / feed a sloth… that’s within a 0-3 hour radius, I’m sure there’s much more available near the county’s biggest cities. When that’s going on at the local mall or library, and Disney has to offer less in terms of up-close experiences due to liability and their crowd levels, my guess is that it’s not a money making investment for them right now. AK is already absolutely full of animal enclosures and yet people complain it’s a “half day” park. If most people were checking out every trail and enclosure, I don’t think you’d hear those complaints. In the 90s when AK was built you didn’t see a lot of exotic animals outside of the zoo or circus. Now they seem to be everywhere. (Whether they
should be is of course another question, but for now, just saying kids these days can pet a sloth which was not at all a thing when I was growing up.)
- There’s the potential backlash factor, as you mentioned. Animals in captivity is a hot topic right now.
- Animal care is expensive and can also be prohibitive if done correctly. Animals may be sensitive to certain noises or sounds, for example, making building loud attractions nearby a no-go.
- Animals cannot legally be trademarked and turned into IP. Yet… (Does anyone remember the Ringling / Barnum and Bailey real live unicorn from the 80s? Possibly only a matter of time before someone genetically engineers a pink pony with wings or something and then the Supreme Court is debating whether or not that can be trademarked, but we’re not there just yet.) And right now that means they are by default never going to fit the IP mandate.
