Maybe you should reread what I wrote because you missed my point so many times there is no point in trying to clarify it to you.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What happened to the safari?
- Thread starter Pi on my Cake
- Start date
Maybe you should reread what I wrote because you missed my point so many times there is no point in trying to clarify it to you.
Just because you don't agree with a government's action doesn't mean the government isn't legitimate. I wouldn't have agreed with the Nazi German government but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the legitimate government of German at that time in history.
As for the not logical to smuggle the elephants to Thailand, that remains true. Different kind of elephant from what the folks in Thailand are looking for is problem one. But the biggest problem is smuggling is an expensive act, you don't get the same standard rates to move something like an elephant from point A to point B as a legitimate organization does, bribes of people all along the chain will increase the cost of moving that elephant. It wouldn't be profitable to smuggle then to Thailand no matter how much you want to believe that there is some operation Dumbo going on.
J_Carioca
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think there is some operation Dumbo going on. I don't think that live baby elephants being smuggled from Africa to Asia is a big problem and it's certainly not the major threat to elephants (the threat is poaching). There are limited instances of it, though.
BTW, we are getting really off topic but the govt. of Zimbabwe is widely considered to be not legitimate. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of much of the world.
My overall point is that it's actually quite disingenuous in the current era to have elephants in a park and not talk about poaching. The kids that are enjoying the elephants should know that they really might no longer be around in a few years. People don't need to be hit over the head with a message, but the original ride was fun and exciting and integrated a conservation message. It is not pushing any kind of agenda but merely stating the facts.
Pushing conservation is pushing an agenda. While you may not want to accept the idea that there is no point to conservation, that does not mean it isn't another possible option and in much of the world trying to save an animal is going to happen at the expense of human lives because often the programs you view as conservation are viewed as planned starvation of people that often depend on a way of life that is counter to the conservation movement. While I'm not going to claim whaling and killing rhinos for their horns is a good thing the fact is some people would and would argue that their children's lives depend on it. Disney doesn't need to be in the business of pulling the reality of the world, the safari is really just a ride through zoo and should never try to be anything more.
tonganprince
Well-Known Member
I remember the poaching story and was explaining it to my kids (16 and 11)... They would have preferred that as they thought it was a bit boring. Personally, I liked it, but felt like there wasn't enough animals around... Maybe they were hiding at the time.
Seabasealpha1
Well-Known Member
I've been on both versions...I'm good with the current version where I feel like I learn more...and take more time to just enjoy the animals. About the second time of the "Poacher" version, I was done with it...at least with the current version, you feel like the show is a little more random and unpredictable...not to mention, the audio parts of the ride where we were being updated on the poacher's whereabouts and that were just a little too unrealistic and canned...
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
The entire Animal Kingdom park is focused on conservation. That's its primary message, and always has been. The safari ride should not only communicate conservation, it should loudly trumpet it and drill it into people. If you're going to the Animal Kingdom and don't want to hear about conservation, you're in the wrong park.
I immediately thought of the scene in Jurassic Park when one of the brachiosaurus sneezes on one of the kids....
J_Carioca
Well-Known Member
With all due respect, you do not have any understanding of the conservation movement. Killing rhinos for their horns does not benefit poor African families. Poaching in Africa is organized crime and it is largely run by crime syndicates out of Southeast Asia. No one's life depends on poaching elephants and rhinos, and it is a crime (yes, an international crime) that only benefits crime lords that are already very very rich (and also traffic drugs and weapons). Subsaharan African countries depend on tourism for as much as 20% of their GDP. And what do tourists go to Africa to see? Elephants and rhinos and other animals. When these animals are gone, the tourism industry will collapse and these countries will suffer tremendously. The fact that the countries that have made big efforts to conserve their wildlife are also the countries that are doing well economically is not a coincidence.
Conservation is not about stopping subsistence hunters. Local communities have always hunted and used animal products, and that is not what threatens the existence of species. Local African communities have not traditionally hunted elephants for their tusk or rhino for their horn. African people and wildlife lived together for centuries without species becoming extinct. The decimation of African species is happening because of demand from outside the continent, for trinkets and sculptures made of elephant ivory, and rhino horn that is consumed because some people think it cures cancer (newsflash - it doesn't).
To talk about "planned starvation of people" is absolute nonsense. I won't even comment further.
And if you really think "there is no point to conservation" then I feel really sorry for you. Have fun explaining to your kids or grandchildren how the planet we live on has been decimated.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that sometimes there was applause when we found Little Red at the end. Yeah, the storyline is a nice addition, especially when the actual animals aren't putting on much of a show. Let's remember, most things at Animal Kingdom have a conservation message to them. This little storyline, which adults are free to ignore, is a wonderful piece of Edutainment. I'm sad to see it go, and not being replaced. When AK opened, the idea that it was "Not a Zoo" was pushed very hard. Now Kilimanjaro Safaris seems to have become a little more like a normal zoo, similar in many ways to a simple drive or walk to see animals. AK plussed the experience, and now they seem to have minused it. Indeed, the current version is a tad bland by comparison.
As for the comment about it being tough on the CMs, . . . uh, so what? Parts of all jobs are tough. Deal with it. If it's part of the job, you do it. If you think it's a stupid part of the job, lobby for change and/or find a new job if it bothers you that much. Sorry, but Disney was built on the guest experience being first, not the comfort of employees. The fact that this obscure little thread has generated 91 responses would tell me that Little Red was a nice enough aspect of AK that people both remember it and feel moderately strong about it. Put another way, it was worthwhile, and CM comfort should not be a reason to get rid of it. No one was hurt. It wasn't dangerous. So shut up and do your job, minor irritants and all. Thankfully, most CMs I know would likely agree 100% with that sentiment.
As for the comment about it being tough on the CMs, . . . uh, so what? Parts of all jobs are tough. Deal with it. If it's part of the job, you do it. If you think it's a stupid part of the job, lobby for change and/or find a new job if it bothers you that much. Sorry, but Disney was built on the guest experience being first, not the comfort of employees. The fact that this obscure little thread has generated 91 responses would tell me that Little Red was a nice enough aspect of AK that people both remember it and feel moderately strong about it. Put another way, it was worthwhile, and CM comfort should not be a reason to get rid of it. No one was hurt. It wasn't dangerous. So shut up and do your job, minor irritants and all. Thankfully, most CMs I know would likely agree 100% with that sentiment.
I'll say it again just in case it was overlooked. Disney can still do all the original effects for this attraction without the poacher storyline. Accomplishing the rare "best of both versions -- everyone's happy" scenario.
Overall, I prefer all of these changes, particularly since the result is more animals (or at least more space for animals). I would have liked to see the radio banter continue, though, if only because it provided some variation in the way information was conveyed.
KINGLOUIS1993
Well-Known Member
I kind of miss the poaching element but the new version is also quality. I enjoy the fact there are more animals but the story line just gave it that extra something. Now I am older and wiser I don't miss it that much but my younger self would be a bit disappointed.
However I am a bit of an AV-geek and I want to find out what happened to the plane.
However I am a bit of an AV-geek and I want to find out what happened to the plane.
Phonedave
Well-Known Member
It was not tough as in exhausting or uncomfortable, it was tough as in difficult to pull off in the time frame allotted without sounding rushed and forced.
The CM's first task is to drive the vehicle safely. I think we can agree on that. They are trying to drive the vehicle quickly (because the script called for it), over a bumpy terrain, while "acting". Very often the acting part suffered. The lines were delivered quickly, and were often mumbled or unclear. It made for a poor show.
Now I guess you could argue that WDW should have hired people that could actually do that part of the job, and do it well. Well, that would be great, I just dont know how many people like that are out there that want to be a KS CM for a living.
-dave
Disney's best attractions have a storyline. It's that little extra something that sets it apart from Six Flags. Without the Little Red storyline, it's just not as delightful. Yeah, it's kind of Jungle Cruisey, but without a storyline it is "Just a Zoo." With a little storyline, it's "Beyond a Zoo." I truly wish something would replace it. Face it, nearly every major city has a zoo, and Kilimanjaro Safaris without a storyline has mediocred itself down to that level.
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
I don't think every major city has a massive African savannah with free-roaming animals, last time I checked. Zoo-like or not, it's still a unique animal attraction.
You know the life you live is a direct result to years of people progressing without any care toward "conservation", civilization didn't progress by trying to conservationists... Conservation is a nice buzzword that governments and people like to use to limit freedom. Reality is most every form of life that has ever lived on Earth has already gone extinct... a very large chunk of those extinctions happened before the first man ever bothered to blink.
I'll go merrily along knowing full well that extinction is a fact of life. All life on earth will eventually be extinct, you can live trying to put off the inevitable as long as possible or you can just enjoy life and accept it. I'll enjoy life, I'll tell my kids to enjoy it and what they see now because it wont always be there... you can worry endlessly about trying to stop it... I think we both know which of us will be disappointed by the inevitable, but hey you want to live in misery that's your choice. Oh and considering I know you're fighting a losing battle let me make it a little easier for you, don't bother feeling sorry for me I don't need your sympathy my life is good.
Otterhead
Well-Known Member
Conservation is the way we and our children protect the future for our children's children. It does not limit your freedom, unless your idea of 'freedom' involves slaughtering endangered animals for fun.
Or we can conserve animals, stop extinction, and reverse its course. We've done that. It works. It's way better than giving up.
I don't care how your life is. I care about how your children's life will be without animals, or their children.
Again: Disney's Animal Kingdom is a conservation park.
I like many other don't go to Animal Kingdom to be preached to... Many of the visitors simply view it as a hybrid amusement park/zoo. I seriously doubt that Disney has any motive beyond profit in their creation of the park, if they spout off a message of conservation it is likely just a hollow attempt at trying to make people that believe in that type of thing happy so they spend more money. Or the message is just a ruse to trying and present themselves in a more favorable light since at their very core they are really no better than any other zoo in the country that has yanked a wild animal from its native habitat and crammed it into a park for people to gawk at.