Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

Status
Not open for further replies.
People really are stuck on stupid, aren't they? Feeding alligators. Unbelievable.

It all starts with familiarity with alligators. Less than a month ago I went to a man made lake where guests had access to pay for food dispensers to throw food into a lake to feed fish. The last time I went to the alligator farm in St. Augustin you could buy food to throw to the gators. The responsibility is on Disney to set and enforce the rules on their property. If Disney knew guests played in the water and or fed alligators without acting, it does not help their case.
 
I actually think we've overlooked another very important issue regarding Disney's liability, and that's the fact that so many people are now reporting that guests staying in the Poly bungalows have been feeding the alligators and despite complaints about it to management, nothing has been done to stop the practice, including something as simple as putting notices in the bungalows that feeding gators violated Florida law.

Feeding gators violates Florida law because it increases aggression/decreases fear of humans.
Guests are known to feed guests from the Poly bungalows.
Disney looks the other way, not reprimanding guests who are literally spending thousands of dollars a night to stay in the bungalows.
This attack happened just over a year after the Poly bungalows opened. After 40+ years of no incidents. Is it a coincidence? Maybe. But it's not going to be that hard to argue correlation, especially with CMs/former CMs coming forward saying that management did nothing despite complaints.

Or as I posted before, if there is one shred of evidence that stronger warning signs were frowned upon due to theming, they are going to lose quickly in the court of public opinion.

Except with those talking about bathtubs and coffee.
 
Last edited:
All of this increases the statistical probability of an encounter. As I've said before, this was an accident waiting to happen.

I'd argue that with the rise in guests around the waterways (more people), and the alligator population pretty much being the same over the course of the last 40 years, the odds are in Disney's favor even more.

Now when you add in more guests around the waterways due to newer resorts increasing the probability of humans and alligators in the same vacinity....then the odd decrease, but it's still high.

The real argument here is what is/was Disney's Standard of Care for guests on the beach. I don't think "No Swimming" signs are/were adequate. However, again, this is Florida, and alligators and waterways are known habitats. There still has to be a common sense approach with the guests themselves too.

We'll find out in the coming months, as we see signage change, and how they man the beaches with staff.
 
More people around the waterways repeatedly at night = more food = higher probability of a wild animal lurking about.
 

Bottom line is, a horrible ACCIDENT occurred. Because of this ACCIDENT, some things will most likely change at Disney, like the warning signs. NOW, these signs are probably warranted. My issue is with the "shame on Disney! They should have known better!" or the "They are only looking out for their wallet!" crowd. The risk was so low prior to this ACCIDENT that there was not really a need for said warnings. Especially considering that said signage can have the opposite effect of drawing even more attention to the alligators than needed by thrill seekers(or bored teens). You ARE in a theme park where you will have a disproportionate number of said thrill seekers than in the general populace. So, you weight the risk with the reward. Now that the risk has increased, yes Disney should and most likely will add warnings.
 
The parents not letting their kid play on his own in a lake at 9:30 at night could have also saved the child's life. They took on the risk on their own to let their child "wade" in the water that said "no swimming" and wasn't even within arms reach of his child then I do not feel that Disney owed them an explanation of their no one in the water policy. They could have perhaps made it more clear that you shouldn't be in the water, but they don't owe an explanation as to why you are not allowed in the lake.
Further, considering the Dad serves on the chamber of commerce, which is very anti safety regulation, then I do feel like someone who lobbies on behalf of personal responsibility should have taken personal responsibility.

I disagree. That could have been me walking on the shoreline with my toddler. I'm not going to argue the logistics of whether this parent was holding his hand vs not - I don't think it would have prevented the attack, but we don't know.

I think Disney absolutely owes an explanation as to why you shouldn't be in/near the water. An alligator sign would surely deter most from being near the shoreline. "No swimming" to me does not mean do not get near the water's edge.

Lounge chairs near the water don't exactly scream "danger" to me.

You're acting like tourists and children being outside on the beach at 9:30 at night is some anomaly in WDW - which isn't the case, not at all.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can totally see how this could happen in that particular 'beachy' area of the resort, especially without proper warning signs.

I'm not here to berate the child's father because he serves on the chamber of commerce and should 'take responsibility'. I really hope those parents never read this thread. Have some compassion.
 
Now that the risk has increased, yes Disney should and most likely will add warnings.

We found common ground.

Your point with the added risk of thrill seekers is well taken. You could be right. If this turns out to be the case, I would hope no one would fault Disney for it. I know I wouldn't.
 
/
I disagree. That could have been me walking on the shoreline with my toddler. I'm not going to argue the logistics of whether this parent was holding his hand vs not - I don't think it would have prevented the attack, but we don't know.

I think Disney absolutely owes an explanation as to why you shouldn't be in/near the water. An alligator sign would surely deter most from being near the shoreline. "No swimming" to me does not mean do not get near the water's edge.

Lounge chairs near the water don't exactly scream "danger" to me.

You're acting like tourists and children being outside on the beach at 9:30 at night is some anomaly in WDW - which isn't the case, not at all.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can totally see how this could happen in that particular 'beachy' area of the resort, especially without proper warning signs.

I'm not here to berate the child's father because he serves on the chamber of commerce and should 'take responsibility'. I really hope those parents never read this thread. Have some compassion.


All you have to do is go to google images, type in disneys grand floridian.

How many pictures depict the water and the beach as an inviting part of that resort?

Are people who frequent the water and the beach when they go idiots? Or are they marketed to that way?
 
FTR, the movies are not ON the beach. They are in a grassy area near the pool/QSRs at both the GF & Poly.

Regardless, I believe the No swimming signs should indicate there are alligators in the water.

At the Yacht and Beach Clubs they are (or perhaps now "were") on the beach.
 
What are your credentials again?


Oh no, me and everyone else coming to Florida are willing to comply. Since you want to MAKE everyone coming into the state read (and probably sign a waiver stating you fully understand and again, will COMPLY with reading the handbook upon entry). I am certain I need to defer to your credentials on the matter. You have clearly thought this through.
 
I'm now baffled as to why Disney allows these activities to take place. It never crossed my mind until this horrific incident. My husband and 9 year old son do the bass fishing on Bay Lake each time we visit WDW, and even that makes me shiver a bit now, thinking of what's really in those waters.

They allow it (or did, anyway), because it is not actually dangerous - or at least, not any more dangerous than any number of other activities we undertake on a daily basis.

I'm no expert on boat safety, but on the list of ways in which you can be injured or killed while participating in water sports or boating activities, I'm willing to bet that "attacked by alligator" is not one of the more likely causes, even in a Florida lake.

Likewise, playing on a Disney beach, or even (gasp!) watching a movie on the beach at night, is not an inherently dangerous activity, even if there are alligators in the water nearby. Allowing a very small child to be in or near the water's edge at night might be considered "unsafe", but even then the risks of serious injury were low, and the specific risk of alligator attack was probably not not highest amongst them.

Most people are very, very bad at rational assessment of relative risk. As a result, we wildly overreact to the possibility of certain risks, and are sometimes almost irresponsibly dismissive of others. When we're discussing an individual's assessment and response to particular risks, it doesn't matter whether or not their actions are rational. Individuals should be free to make decisions for themselves and their families, based on whatever criteria they choose. But when we let irrational fear dictate public policy and restrict the choices of others - IMO that's a serious problem.
 
Bottom line is, a horrible ACCIDENT occurred. Because of this ACCIDENT, some things will most likely change at Disney, like the warning signs. NOW, these signs are probably warranted. My issue is with the "shame on Disney! They should have known better!" or the "They are only looking out for their wallet!" crowd. The risk was so low prior to this ACCIDENT that there was not really a need for said warnings. Especially considering that said signage can have the opposite effect of drawing even more attention to the alligators than needed by thrill seekers(or bored teens). You ARE in a theme park where you will have a disproportionate number of said thrill seekers than in the general populace. So, you weight the risk with the reward. Now that the risk has increased, yes Disney should and most likely will add warnings.

I agree. It is a horrible tragedy... an absolute nightmare. There will absolutely be changes now that this has happened, but blame does not have to be assigned.
 
We found common ground.

Your point with the added risk of thrill seekers is well taken. You could be right. If this turns out to be the case, I would hope no one would fault Disney for it. I know I wouldn't.
Well color me shocked! We CAN agree on something!:banana:

I do believe that many, if not most on here are pretty much saying the same thing. We are just all going about it in our own way. That is the great thing about a discussion. It can take many twists and turns before arriving at it's destination. We can boil the whole argument down to this. Could Disney have done more to inform the public of this risk? Of course they could. Should they have informed the public? That is very debatable. In the same vein, could the parents have done more? Yes they could have. Should they have? This is also debatable. As in most things, hindsight is a heck of a thing.
 
The parents not letting their kid play on his own in a lake at 9:30 at night could have also saved the child's life. They took on the risk on their own to let their child "wade" in the water that said "no swimming" and wasn't even within arms reach of his child then I do not feel that Disney owed them an explanation of their no one in the water policy. They could have perhaps made it more clear that you shouldn't be in the water, but they don't owe an explanation as to why you are not allowed in the lake.

Further, considering the Dad serves on the chamber of commerce, which is very anti safety regulation, then I do feel like someone who lobbies on behalf of personal responsibility should have taken personal responsibility.

I don't disagree with this. I cringed at the thought they were letting a 2 year old play in the water at night, regardless of any other potential hazards. Too many accidents can happen, and it only takes a moment for a toddler to slip away. I mean, I have seen no swimming signs because there is an undercurrent, the mud/sand is like quick sand, no lifeguard etc, etc. So that was already risky. But what I circle back around to, is if it was posted with the no swimming/alligator sign, would this family have made the same decision to let him play there? To me and my way of thinking, I have to think the answer to that question would be no.
 
Last edited:
I think Disney absolutely owes an explanation as to why you shouldn't be in/near the water. An alligator sign would surely deter most from being near the shoreline. "No swimming" to me does not mean do not get near the water's edge.

Lounge chairs near the water don't exactly scream "danger" to me.

I agree. Looking at the water, I would think the "no swimming" was either for this water is full of germs or, we don't want anyone getting hit by a boat or ferry while swimming in the lagoon. I never meant for me to not do to the waters edge because there are alligators in here that could attack.
 
I'd argue that with the rise in guests around the waterways (more people), and the alligator population pretty much being the same over the course of the last 40 years, the odds are in Disney's favor even more.

The alligator population in Florida has tripled in the last 30 years. 40 years ago they were almost extinct and were placed on the endangered species list. Just to keep the record straight. WDW wasn't built on entirely on swampland and the alligators there now aren't reclaiming their ancestral home. If I'm guessing, I'm guessing the population density of alligators there has rarely, if ever, been higher because the predators that eat their young have all but vanished.

That said, and as much as i stand by my kill them all stance, I think there are a couple of misconceptions going on here. The first is that more signage would have made any difference. Unless the sign said that splashing attracts alligators, no one would assume that a warning about the dangers of alligators would include wading. The entire event is inconceivable to a parent, and almost to that extent for Disney. It's not a natural jump to make, and if someone is going to let their kid wade, then a sign telling there are alligators in the water is unlikely to dissuade them unless it gives a specific reason. if you're talking about more signage, all you're really suggesting is that Disney do more to limit its liability, and that's not high on my list of priorities.

The second misconception is that this is a major problem, and enough of a problem for Disney to change their landscape. it's not. It's a tragedy, and its regrettable, but it's the definition of a fluke occurrence. Alligators are lazy, stupid creatures and they, for the most part, like easier prey than even small kids. They don't like sandy beaches because sand is hard to get out from under scales and its harder to hide on sand than in weeds. And one big enough to get a child is usually big enough for WDW's team to find and remove (or, hopefully, kill). They aren't smart enough to hunt or stalk; they exist purely on instinct. So the fears of people in deep water being attacked by them aren't necessarily valid, because the only time alligators are in deep water is going from one feeding spot to another -- they stick to shore because that's where the food is. And I'm pretty sure the boat operators keep people away from the weeds and the shallows, so the stupid alligators wouldn't see a swimmer in deep water as food. Plus, they stay away from noise. The only time I've ever heard of an alligator attacking in deep water was them pursuing a dog from the beach, and the dog was being listed into a rowboat. And even then the thing left once the dog was out of the water.

And, as much as I dislike them, even I have to admit that an alligator attacking a person is beyond rare. So making adjustments based on their actual behavior and history isn't a reasonable response.

They are scary and scary looking, their presence is enough to discourage people from using lakes and fresh waterways, and that sucks. There are too many of them and that sucks. But the actual danger they represent to humans is minuscule. Anything short of mass exterminations won't do anything to affect the situation; anything else is just propaganda and window dressing. The idea of signs and seawalls and even getting rid of beaches or beach-related events is just so people think WDW is doing something, even if that something has little to do with the actual situation.
 
I disagree. That could have been me walking on the shoreline with my toddler. I'm not going to argue the logistics of whether this parent was holding his hand vs not - I don't think it would have prevented the attack, but we don't know.

I think Disney absolutely owes an explanation as to why you shouldn't be in/near the water. An alligator sign would surely deter most from being near the shoreline. "No swimming" to me does not mean do not get near the water's edge.

Lounge chairs near the water don't exactly scream "danger" to me.

You're acting like tourists and children being outside on the beach at 9:30 at night is some anomaly in WDW - which isn't the case, not at all.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can totally see how this could happen in that particular 'beachy' area of the resort, especially without proper warning signs.

I'm not here to berate the child's father because he serves on the chamber of commerce and should 'take responsibility'. I really hope those parents never read this thread. Have some compassion.

I have compassion for them, the same as I also have compassion for people who drink too much and end up hospitalized. I feel for them and I, having a two year old and vacationing at Disney, can really relate to them. I have said multiple prayers for them and rejoiced when their sweet child was found.

However, I am not willing to think that Disney should have somehow saved them from themselves. Disney said "Do Not Swim" and they chose to have their two year old in the water by himself at night. What if he had been bitten by a snake or contracted a parasite? Would it also have been Disney's responsibility to list that on the sign? There is a multitude of reasons that Disney does not want you in that water.

Also, we have been on the beaches at night to enjoy the fireworks, but you can enjoy the beach without being in the water.

Ultimately, the risk factor according to the people who work with alligators was that he made a splash in the water and there was not a larger person there which would normally have scared away the alligator. So we could reasonably guess that they would have lowered their risk of an alligator attack to walk along the water's edge hand in hand and even more to stay out of the nasty water all together.
 
The alligator population in Florida has tripled in the last 30 years. 40 years ago they were almost extinct and were placed on the endangered species list. Just to keep the record straight. WDW wasn't built on entirely on swampland and the alligators there now aren't reclaiming their ancestral home. If I'm guessing, I'm guessing the population density of alligators there has rarely, if ever, been higher because the predators that eat their young have all but vanished.

That said, and as much as i stand by my kill them all stance, I think there are a couple of misconceptions going on here. The first is that more signage would have made any difference. Unless the sign said that splashing attracts alligators, no one would assume that a warning about the dangers of alligators would include wading. The entire event is inconceivable to a parent, and almost to that extent for Disney. It's not a natural jump to make, and if someone is going to let their kid wade, then a sign telling there are alligators in the water is unlikely to dissuade them unless it gives a specific reason. if you're talking about more signage, all you're really suggesting is that Disney do more to limit its liability, and that's not high on my list of priorities.

The second misconception is that this is a major problem, and enough of a problem for Disney to change their landscape. it's not. It's a tragedy, and its regrettable, but it's the definition of a fluke occurrence. Alligators are lazy, stupid creatures and they, for the most part, like easier prey than even small kids. They don't like sandy beaches because sand is hard to get out from under scales and its harder to hide on sand than in weeds. And one big enough to get a child is usually big enough for WDW's team to find and remove (or, hopefully, kill). They aren't smart enough to hunt or stalk; they exist purely on instinct. So the fears of people in deep water being attacked by them aren't necessarily valid, because the only time alligators are in deep water is going from one feeding spot to another -- they stick to shore because that's where the food is. And I'm pretty sure the boat operators keep people away from the weeds and the shallows, so the stupid alligators wouldn't see a swimmer in deep water as food. Plus, they stay away from noise. The only time I've ever heard of an alligator attacking in deep water was them pursuing a dog from the beach, and the dog was being listed into a rowboat. And even then the thing left once the dog was out of the water.

And, as much as I dislike them, even I have to admit that an alligator attacking a person is beyond rare. So making adjustments based on their actual behavior and history isn't a reasonable response.

They are scary and scary looking, their presence is enough to discourage people from using lakes and fresh waterways, and that sucks. There are too many of them and that sucks. But the actual danger they represent to humans is minuscule. Anything short of mass exterminations won't do anything to affect the situation; anything else is just propaganda and window dressing. The idea of signs and seawalls and even getting rid of beaches or beach-related events is just so people think WDW is doing something, even if that something has little to do with the actual situation.
Wow, just wow. I truly have no clue what to say to this. There is so much wrong going on in this post that i'm just going to say wow instead of risking getting put in time out. WOW
 
I don't disagree with this. I cringed at the thought they were letting a 2 year old play in the water at night, regardless of any other potential hazards. Too many accidents can happen, and it only takes a moment for a toddler to slip away. I mean, I have seen no swimming signs because there is an undercurrent, the mud/sand is like quick sand, no lifeguard etc, etc. So that was already risky. But what I circle back around to, is if it was posted with the no simming/alligator sign, would this family have made the same decision to let him play there? To me and my way of thinking, I have to think the answer to that question would be no.

But what if the child had died from quick sand? Then would we all demand a quick sand sign? I know that some people have argued it and maybe it's because my husband is in the Army, but when I see "no swimming" or "do Not enter" I don't need to be told why.

The signs on the old part of Eglin where they test lots of ammunition don't say "Stay out, there could be live amunition" it says "Stay out" and you stay out.

I do think Disney has hopefully learned that they need to use more forceful and clear language in the signage, but ultimately the parents disregarded already posted signage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top