What happened to the safari?

[thomas998]

You didn't read my post, did you? No, of course not.
Again: Disney's Animal Kingdom is a conservation park. That's its message and goal. Like other zoos, their scientific focus is on communicating the value of nature, animals, and wildlife, and on working with other zoos to propagate and conserve endangered species through breeding programs and care. Yes, it's a zoo with rides. And one with a message that you are not only ignoring, but claiming is false and impairing your freedom, somehow.

My claim isn't that their message is true or false, simply that it is disingenuous because in the end the park wasn't built as a means of pushing conservation if that were the case it would be a non-profit charging less with a goal of simply spreading its word to as many people as possible which would happen at a much lower price of admission than they currently charge...

It was in fact built to make money, and if it makes more money spouting off a message of conservation because it placates a portion of the audience then that is what it will do... but if Disney thought it could maximize profits by preaching that poaching was good then that is what it would do.

 

[danyoung56]

Why can't a park have multiple reasons to exist? Why can't DAK be a profit center for the Disney company while having a positive message and goals?

 

[Ralphlaw]

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.

True, but why take away a major attribute of the Disney method--story-telling? I have never seen a zoo or animal park that has put a story behind the animal viewing experience. San Diego has a great zoo, but I do not believe they put a story to it. Most decent zoos today have more realistic environments for their animal habitats. Disney's is huge and very realistic, but not utterly unique. What was utterly unique was a drive-through vehicle with an immersive narration and story. Disney plussed it to that level. No more.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Why can't a park have multiple reasons to exist? Why can't DAK be a profit center for the Disney company while having a positive message and goals?

As a Disney shareholder AND a frequent Disney guest AND a person who feels some sympathy for environment, I fully agree. Disney has duties to do both, which is the whole idea behind "edutainment".

 

[marni1971]

Well this took a turn...

 

[J_Carioca]

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.

Again, your post reveals so much ignorance as to what conservation is. Yes, many life forms have gone extinct over the millennia. The difference is that for literally thousands of years extinction happened because of natural phenomena. It is happening now because of human intervention.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain how it's a bad thing that elephants - one of the most intelligent, social, complex species to exist - is going extinct because criminals are hunting them to make tchotchkes out of their tusks.

And I don't live in misery, thank you very much. My life is great. In large part because I actually care about things besides myself.

 

[J_Carioca]

You didn't read my post, did you? No, of course not.
Again: Disney's Animal Kingdom is a conservation park. That's its message and goal. Like other zoos, their scientific focus is on communicating the value of nature, animals, and wildlife, and on working with other zoos to propagate and conserve endangered species through breeding programs and care. Yes, it's a zoo with rides. And one with a message that you are not only ignoring, but claiming is false and impairing your freedom, somehow.

Yes, you are 100 per cent right. AK does tons of work on breeding endangered species and reintroduction programs. If I recall correctly there are tamarins at the entrance to Conservation Station and they're part of a reintroduction program. But I guess someone who thinks that conservation is a government conspiracy wouldn't bother go to a place called Conservation Station...

Disney Conservation Fund has done amazing work around the world. Yes, Disney is a corporation with the ultimate goal of making money, but they also do a lot of charitable work. They could put this money anywhere, but they chose to support conservation efforts.

 

[J_Carioca]

As a Disney shareholder AND a frequent Disney guest AND a person who feels some sympathy for environment, I fully agree. Disney has duties to do both, which is the whole idea behind "edutainment".

This has nothing to do with AK or conservation, but more about "edutainment": we recently watched an episode of World of Colour (the TV show) from the 1960s. My husband and I were stunned at the level of sophistication of some of the concepts they touched on (see here for example, wherein Ludwig von Drake talks about the spectrum, likening it to musical octaves and so on: ).

Disney was so great at making great entertainment that actually helped people learn. Sadly I think they have moved away from that over the years.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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.

The main point that you seem to conveniently miss is this. Yes, indeed extinctions did happen before man ever even entered the planet. There were earthquakes, volcanoes, fires, meteors all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly things that killed off many of the animals that once existed. Even the fact that the actual food chain may have contributed enormously in the extinction of a lot of them. However, we are talking about human beings that should have better sense are killing off animals that cannot fight back for the sole purpose of getting rich. If you can seriously compare those things to natural situations, then I'd like to hear an intelligent discussion about that. If you are saying that one of our "freedoms" is to kill everything we see for profit, then that is a freedom that needs to be eliminated. Unless, of course, you would find it OK for a human to break into your house and kill your sorry butt, to get your wrist watch. Seriously, dude, common sense is hard to come by these days, but, that seems to me to be a pretty basic pile of crap you are throwing at us.

 

[SyracuseDisneyFan]

I go to Animal Kingdom for a fun experience. Plus, I have a chance to see animals that I don't have at my local zoo.

 

[Texas84]

<insert popcorn gif>

 

[Sonconato]

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.

Yes, yes, and extra yes.

 

[Sonconato]

My claim isn't that their message is true or false, simply that it is disingenuous because in the end the park wasn't built as a means of pushing conservation if that were the case it would be a non-profit charging less with a goal of simply spreading its word to as many people as possible which would happen at a much lower price of admission than they currently charge...

It was in fact built to make money, and if it makes more money spouting off a message of conservation because it placates a portion of the audience then that is what it will do... but if Disney thought it could maximize profits by preaching that poaching was good then that is what it would do.

Your statements clearly prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Without a doubt, you are at least half wrong. You are probably correct in that Disney is in it to make money but that is NOT all that they are set out to do. If Animal Kingdom does not make money, then they may follow the path that, unfortunately, Sea World seems to be going down due to Blackfish. Sea World is a huge benefit to marine life and in helping us understand our effects on their ecology. Both Animal Kingdom and Sea World are accredited by the "Association of Zoos & Aquariums" which is a "non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation." A company is not accredited by this organization unless they meet minimum criteria in which both Animal Kingdom, Sea World and many others are a part of. Based on your comments, you are basing your judgment on your very limited knowledge of these types of facilities and the animal world. Perhaps the next time you visit Animal Kingdom, you should look for some of the Zookeepers that care for these animals and have a long chat with them…you might actually learn something. If you're not interested in learning anything and you're there for the rides, I suggest you don't visit that Park and stick with Magic Kingdom. In fact, Six Flags is probably more up your alley.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I don't even think the Preshow video shown in the queue line has even changed..Because Warden Wilson Mutua is still there and talks about Poaching on the reserve....

 

[Ralphlaw]

My claim isn't that their message is true or false, simply that it is disingenuous because in the end the park wasn't built as a means of pushing conservation if that were the case it would be a non-profit charging less with a goal of simply spreading its word to as many people as possible which would happen at a much lower price of admission than they currently charge...

It was in fact built to make money, and if it makes more money spouting off a message of conservation because it placates a portion of the audience then that is what it will do... but if Disney thought it could maximize profits by preaching that poaching was good then that is what it would do.

Uh, why does a conservation organization have to be a non-profit? Yes, non-profits do great things, but many of the more notable environmentalists relied on family money to be there, and were thus the beneficiaries of old time environmental degradation. Many others work for colleges and Universities, and wouldn't be there if not for the generous financial remuneration they get. Have you ever seen a University Professor's retirement package? Huge.

Thousands of profitable organizations also do good things, whether its for the environment or other worthy causes. I don't think Disney is placating with its environmental messages any more than GE is placating when it makes energy efficient lights, or Ford is placating when it works on hybrid cars, or a corporation is placating when it slaps a few solar panels on the roof. I would hazard to guess that virtually every "decent" zoo, virtually every decent article on wild animals, and virtually every TV show about animals has a true and heartfelt desire for conservation. Yeah, AK has a goal of being profitable, but that doesn't mean that its conservation messages are a handy plaster-on to satisfy the current anti-poaching feelings of the general public. The people there believe in it, and I believe also that many on Disney's Board of Directors saw this as both profitable AND a good way to further a good and necessary bunch of messages in today's world.

Conservation is a good message. It's a moral message that is not just a handy way to make profit. It's like saying that Disney would open up a line of brothels if not for the backlash because they would be profitable. From Bambi on down, Disney has consistently been pro-conservation. I seriously doubt that they would turn a 180 degree pro-poaching turn if it suddenly became profitable to do so.

Now with that being said, I do find a slight disconnect with WDWs amazing use of electricity and other forms of polluting energy. WDW probably spends more on air conditioning and refrigeration than any other single site in the country. All to make a profit. Its busses and other transportation probably burn more fossil fuels than the transportation systems of all but a few major cities in the country. All to be convenient for guests, and to make a profit. Its dining (especially a dining plan that in some ways promotes the waste of food), could probably stock all of Florida's food pantries with its discards and leftovers. Its gifts and souvenirs are probably worsening the world in many ways, including in various unpleasant worldwide manufacturing sites, and in the shipping of those items from all over the world. Yeah, plastic pollutes, and those little batteries are not the end product of a squeaky clean mining and manufacturing process. Even Disney's penchant for cleaning causes chemical manufacture and wastewater that are not absolutely necessary.

In addition, airliners spew exhaust to get visitors there. ESPN promotes sporting events that cause similar pollution. The cruise line burns more fuel and dumps leftover food in unimaginable quantities. All true, and hard to reconcile. But in the end, I believe that the people who care for AK's animals have a sincere conservation bent, and truly believe that poaching is evil. Anti-poaching messages are not just a flavor of the day, and it is not just there to placate crowds. Indeed, Little Red was a great and happy story because it rang true, and my kids and I liked it in large part for that very reason.

 

[thomas998]

Uh, why does a conservation organization have to be a non-profit? Thousands of profitable organizations also do good things, whether its for the environment or other worthy causes. I don't think Disney is placating with its environmental messages any more than GE is placating when it makes energy efficient lights, or Ford is placating when it works on hybrid cars, or a corporation is placating when it slaps a few solar panels on the roof. I would hazard to guess that virtually every "decent" zoo, virtually every decent article on wild animals, and virtually every TV show about animals has a true and heartfelt desire for conservation. Yeah, AK has a goal of being profitable, but that doesn't mean that its conservation messages are a handy plaster-on to satisfy the current anti-poaching feelings of the general public.

Conservation is a good message. It's a moral message that is not just a handy way to make profit. It's like saying that Disney would open up a line of brothels if not for the backlash because they would be profitable. From Bambi on down, Disney has consistently been pro-conservation. I seriously doubt that they would turn a 180 degree pro-poaching turn if it suddenly became profitable to do so.

Now with that being said, I do find a slight disconnect with WDWs amazing use of electricity and other forms of polluting energy. WDW probably spends more on air conditioning and refrigeration than any other single site in the country. All to make a profit. It's busses and other transportation probably burn more fossil fuels than the transportation systems of all but a few major cities in the country. All to be convenient for guests, and to make a profit. Its dining (especially a dining plan that in some ways promote the waste of food), could probably stock all of Florida's food pantries with its discards and leftovers. Its gifts and souvenirs are probably worsening the world in many ways, including in various unpleasant worldwide manufacturing sites, and in the shipping of those items from all over the world. Yeah, plastic pollutes, and those little batteries are not the end product of a squeaky clean mining and manufacturing process.

Ever see the old Disney movie White Wilderness? It was the nature movie with the lemmings jumping to their death on their own accord... Of course what was missing from that was the bulldozers and people forcing them to jump off a cliff because lemmings don't commit suicide on their own and certainly don't do it in mass because they are simply following their leader, that was probably one of the most horrendously disgusting acts ever perpetrated against wild animals and it was all done by Disney just to make a clip for a movie. So please spare me the Disney has consistently been pro-conservation.... Disney is all about the bottom line. If brothels were widely accepted by the public in general I have doubt that Disney would open them probably with a princess theme with clients having the option of a Cinderella of their very own... At the moment they have jumped on the conservation band wagon because it sells, but the moment it stops selling they will stop offering it up.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Ever see the old Disney movie White Wilderness? It was the nature movie with the lemmings jumping to their death on their own accord... Of course what was missing from that was the bulldozers and people forcing them to jump off a cliff because lemmings don't commit suicide on their own and certainly don't do it in mass because they are simply following their leader, that was probably one of the most horrendously disgusting acts ever perpetrated against wild animals and it was all done by Disney just to make a clip for a movie. So please spare me the Disney has consistently been pro-conservation.... Disney is all about the bottom line. If brothels were widely accepted by the public in general I have doubt that Disney would open them probably with a princess theme with clients having the option of a Cinderella of their very own... At the moment they have jumped on the conservation band wagon because it sells, but the moment it stops selling they will stop offering it up.

The lemming thing was one shameful anecdote from 1958. I can't believe that the same mindset that created that one scene in that isolated film is still running rampant. From what I understand, Disney bigwigs at the time had no idea that it was a staged scene. Stack that up against the hundreds of other examples, including the other true life adventures, 101 Dalmatians, Dumbo, Pocahontas, Fox and the Hound, Old Yeller, and the other stories they told of being kind to animals and being good to the environment.

If we took a vote on the brothel example, I seriously doubt that more than a token percentage of random voters would agree with you. If your view of corporate America is a "profit at any price" business model, then I pity you. Yes, the news is full of uncovered abuses accordingly, but my view of the corporate world is that most companies and their Boards want to make a profit within the boundaries.

If Disney was "All about the bottom line" as you say, then why aren't they calling in bomb threats at Universal, or even sabotaging other competitors in terrible but untraceable ways? Competition has its limits, and the law helps corral the worst of it. Beyond that, most corporate bigwigs have varying degrees of morality that prevent them from doing things that are just plain wrong. Walt and Roy certainly had it, and I cannot believe that they buried Disney morality when they buried Roy.

 

[thomas998]

The lemming thing was one shameful anecdote from 1958. I can't believe that the same mindset that created that one scene in that isolated film is still running rampant. From what I understand, Disney bigwigs at the time had no idea that it was a staged scene. Stack that up against the hundreds of other examples, including the other true life adventures, 101 Dalmatians, Dumbo, Pocahontas, Fox and the Hound, Old Yeller, and the other stories they told of being kind to animals and being good to the environment.

If we took a vote on the brothel example, I seriously doubt that more than a token percentage of random voters would agree with you. If your view of corporate America is a "profit at any price" business model, then I pity you. Yes, the news is full of uncovered abuses accordingly, but my view of the corporate world is that most companies and their Boards want to make a profit within the boundaries.

If Disney was "All about the bottom line" as you say, then why aren't they calling in bomb threats at Universal, or even sabotaging other competitors in terrible but untraceable ways? Competition has its limits, and the law helps corral the worst of it. Beyond that, most corporate bigwigs have varying degrees of morality that prevent them from doing things that are just plain wrong. Walt and Roy certainly had it, and I cannot believe that they buried Disney morality when they buried Roy.

If you don't think Disney is all about the bottom line then why not talk to the American IT workers that were unceremoniously replaced by cheaper foreign labor. You can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand all you want, but the reality is Disney is a business and their first duty is making money not help the environment or any other noble cause you can imagine.... The only time you'll see them taking up a noble cause is when it makes good business sense to do so, but the moment the tides change so will their actions.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Outsourcing is running rampant everywhere. In fact, that fear is one very large reason that Trump ended up winning. Who seriously believed that Hilary would actually do anything about it, after Bill's presidency, her years in the Senate, and her time as Secretary of State? She was in a position to do something since the 1992 election (and even before while on the board of WalMart). The seeds of outsourcing are in the realm of free trade and technology. Sad, but true. But also inevitable to an extent. Read "The World is Flat", especially if you don't have enough worry already in your life.

You contend that the corporate world 100% is about greed and only greed. I have known many very accomplished and wealthy people. For most of them, the money-making aspect is NOT the biggest concern. The biggest concern ultimately ends up being the desire to create something, to do a job well, and to leave a legacy of some kind. Up through about the age of 45 or so, money-making is often at the forefront, but later on the bigwigs mellow and see other goals as even more important. Walt and Roy were certainly not all about the money. I don't believe Iger is either. They were certainly answerable to shareholders, but 100% greed is not what the information bears out.

An apt example of this mixed bag can be found in the NFL. The Packers are owned by thousands of shareholders who love their team even though they get zero financial benefit from owning it. Is it any wonder that they are a very successful team both on and off the field. Meanwhile, the Chargers are leaving San Diego for pure greed in the resale market, and the team has historically been less than successful. Jerry Jones wants to make money with his Cowboys, but I assume his incentive has more to do these days with the pure joy of competition and the building of a legacy. For the most part, his teams have been successful. Disney wants to make money, but they also want the joy of creation and the legacy of delight and greatness. Poaching and prostitution would damage all of that.

Disney won't turn completely away from the causes and stories that underpin their moral legacy. Even for truckloads of cash, they simply won't do it. No informed person would predict that the corporation's annual report will ever have a sub-category of revenues and profits from poaching, prostitution, slavery, or any other obviously evil endeavor. It just won't happen even if the profits present themselves.

And we are a long ways away from Little Red.

 

[Otterhead]

If brothels were widely accepted by the public in general I have doubt that Disney would open them probably with a princess theme with clients having the option of a Cinderella of their very own...

Congratulations, you've crossed every possible line of good taste. First insisting that Disney would make Animal Kingdom a poaching park if it was profitable, and now talking about how they should force the Princesses to become prostitutes.