Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

[LaidBackDad]

That is simply not true. Beyond the logistics of being impossible to completely eliminate them permanently due to their migrations, it is illegal to remove gators under 4 feet except where they are causing legit problems.

I sincerely hope you're not implying this incident wasn't "a legit problem". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you typed without thinking. In a previous post I explained how the logistics are actually quite simple. Yes, similar methods of wildlife control are utilized around the globe and no, they don't cause a species collapse. They merely protect human life.

 

[DynamicDisneyDuo]

I sincerely hope you're not implying this incident wasn't "a legit problem". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you typed without thinking.

I'm not sure where you would get the impression they were speaking of this incident. They were simply pointing out that if a gator is less than 4 feet, it can't be moved unless it's causing problems. By legit, I'm guessing they mean that doesn't include just their presence.

 

[mab2012]

I'm saying the perceived risk by everyone just doubled when the second attack happened, so yes,now we may need a sign. I have a couple of sayings for you.
1) here is a Risk Doctor Proverb:
if a risk happens once, that's understandable
if a risk happens twice, unlucky
if a risk happens a third time, that's unacceptable
2) "Everything that happens once can never happen twice.But everything that happens twice will surely happen a third time."

But perception is not fact. It's important that people understand the difference, because basing policy on perception is what leads to irrational decisions that unnecessarily limit choices for everyone.

The risk always existed; it was just small. The risk still exists, and is unchanged (notwithstanding the question of whether the particular alligator involved is still at large and more likely to attack again). The question is not when or if another attack could occur. Given enough time and opportunity, the statistical likelihood is that another attack WILL occur, unless something fundamental changes to eliminate the risk entirely (a sign won't do that, by the way). The question is whether the risk is sufficiently high that we need to modify our behaviour in order to reduce it. I'm sure some would say that no risk is acceptable when we're discussing the life of a toddler, but those people are fooling themselves. I guarantee they take risks with the lives of their children every day - much greater risks than that to which the toddler in this incident was exposed.

I don't think your Risk Doctor understands statistics.

 

[Metalliman98]

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.

THIS. So this. Thank you for being another rational voice on this board. I've been tilting at windmills trying to get people to understand the point you made. We worry so much about a "1 in 100 million" chance of this type of occurrence, and demand all of these extreme changes like removing beaches.....but we don't have the same reaction to activities which are far more risky but are mundane, like hot water burns or car crashes, etc. This types of things happen much more frequently and thus warrant much more consideration and action then any gator attack. Yes, put better signs up if you must. But leave the beaches, and the beach activities, and the lagoon, and as much as possible the gator species, alone. One incident, no matter how tragic, is not and should not be sufficient reason to implement such drastic changes.

 

[romitaz]

But perception is not fact. It's important that people understand the difference, because basing policy on perception is what leads to irrational decisions that unnecessarily limit choices for everyone.

The risk always existed; it was just small. The risk still exists, and is unchanged (notwithstanding the question of whether the particular alligator involved is still at large and more likely to attack again). The question is not when or if another attack could occur. Given enough time and opportunity, the statistical likelihood is that another attack WILL occur, unless something fundamental changes to eliminate the risk entirely (a sign won't do that, by the way). The question is whether the risk is sufficiently high that we need to modify our behaviour in order to reduce it. I'm sure some would say that no risk is acceptable when we're discussing the life of a toddler, but those people are fooling themselves. I guarantee they take risks with the lives of their children every day - much greater risks than that to which the toddler in this incident was exposed.

I don't think your Risk Doctor understands statistics.

Ah but you forget one HUGE thing. In the world of a 24 hour news cycle, perception IS reality. I know it's true. My TV just just told me so. Also, statistics are just one small factor when assessing risk. I don't think YOU understand the risk involved with Disney NOT doing anything. So, the proverb does indeed hold much more water than you may think.

 

[LSLS]

I sincerely hope you're not implying this incident wasn't "a legit problem". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you typed without thinking. In a previous post I explained how the logistics are actually quite simple. Yes, similar methods of wildlife control are utilized around the globe and no, they don't cause a species collapse. They merely protect human life.

I know what I was typing. First off, that is the wording used by the Florida Fish and Wildlife, I did not come up with it. Second, you glossed over the important part of my statement, which is that involves gators less than 4 feet. Or did you not miss that and think that the gator that did this was under 4 foot? Here is an expert on it being a 7 foot gator:

Wasilewski, a South Florida biologist who has handled hundreds of crocs and alligators, was surprised that a relatively small seven-foot gator would attack a human and then not release it when the father fought to rescue his child.

“A seven-foot gator is not usually a size that can do something like this, but a 2-year-old child is a small human being and being in the water at that time is a recipe for disaster,” he said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article83914877.html

I was simply stating the rules. You can not go around killing every gator you see. Yes, the gator that caused this was a legit problem (and let me state again, this is according to Florida Fish and Wildlife, not my wording), and you can try and take every gator over 4 feet out of the area no matter what the problem is (you will never succeed, but you can keep the population limited which is the goal). But you can't take gators under 4 feet unless they are of a legit problem. So now I'm curious, you state it happens all the time that 42 square miles have all alligators eliminated from it. Can you give specific examples of this? As for your comments on happening around the globe and not resulting in species collapse, look at wolves or Tazmanian Tigers just off the top of my head.

 

[LSLS]

I'm not sure where you would get the impression they were speaking of this incident. They were simply pointing out that if a gator is less than 4 feet, it can't be moved unless it's causing problems. By legit, I'm guessing they mean that doesn't include just their presence.

You got it. And legit problem is the wording from Fish and Wildlife.

 

[southerngirl528]

Yet every time I take my family to the parks and a storm rolls in, I see many, many people strolling obliviously around exposed outside as if Disney has some storm barrier in place. And I can't recall ever hearing a CM warning about weather safety, reading a mention in any welcome packet, or lightning sirens going off in the parks (they have them at just about every single golf course down here.) But we are from Florida, so when I start hearing rumbles I look at the radar on my weather app and start planning some indoor activities.

I think bringing up lightning danger in this thread is highly applicable as it is another frequently happening, potentially lethal happening in the state of FL.

As for CM's, I worked for the Mouse for a number of years before moving away. I have personally in that CM role warned guests multiple times about lightning dangers, and I never worked at resorts or marinas or parks. I know for a fact that WDW still has a very active lightning detection system and all pools and outdoor activities at resorts and some in parks are shut down according to the proximity of the lightning. As Mikebb says, lightning is a very real threat here in FL, and once should go indoors when thunder is at all close. Standing under an overhanging awning or similar is NOT safe enough.

As others have said, I do think the onus falls upon visitors to know at least a LITTLE about their destination. In the state of Hawaii there has long been a battle over whether to show ocean safety videos to visitors and if so, where would they be shown. Some want them shown on the planes with Hawaii as a destination. Some want them in the airport. While I could not seem to find recent annual numbers on drownings in Hawaii, a good number happen each year. Many times it is because the victims either were unaware of certain dangers (like rip currents rogue waves, blowholes, etc.), or participated in water activities for which they were not physically strong or healthy enough to partake. So what is the best solution for Hawaii's visitor dangers? Signage all over Hawaii warning of fall dangers from cliffs/paths, ocean dangers, etc., very often do NOT stop people. I wish that were not true, but I have personally witnessed it many times, all over this country.

 

[Tigger's ally]

I expect, it is not what Disney will do because of this tragedy as far as signage and the beaches. It will be exactly what their insurance mandates they do.

 

[Delgado]

Be a Parent or Not One At All

I have had it folks! Lately people are saying not to shame or blame parents after "accidents" occur. Well guess what, some parents need some blame. Parents need to wake up! Child neglect IS a form of child abuse. As a parent you ARE responsible to keep your kid safe. There are accidents where children die but there are also incidents where children die that could be totally preventable.

This week a child died of an alligator attack because their parent decided to disobey the many "no swimming" signs located at a water edge. It's that simple. It is horrible, and I can't imagine how terrible it is to lose a child in any way. But let's hold the parent responsible. If the parent followed the signs right in front of him, and not decided to blatantly disregard them, his child would still be alive. We don't know why the parent didn't think the rules applied to him and his family. If the same parent decided not to use a car seat for the 2yr. old and the parent got in a car wreak, we would automatically say he was negligent because the parent knew he was suppose to have a car seat and disregarded the rules. Why is this any different? Because he was on vacation? Because it was unusual? Because the parent fought the alligator? What about the child who was totally unsupervised and fell into gorilla pit? He could have died too. When are we going to hold parents responsible for their neglect? These incidents didn't have to have happen if parents were doing their basic job of being a parent.

Being a parent IS very hard work. But you can't just take a vacation from it whenever a parent wants to. You have to work hard at it, at all times. Not following rules, especially safely ones and rules of supervising your kids, especially in public places IS neglect and it IS child abuse, and if something happens tragic to your child or they become hurt, it IS your fault as a parent. Wake up parents, and be a parent!

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A.
§5106g), as amended and reauthorized by
the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010,
defines child abuse and neglect as, at
minimum:
“Any recent act or failure to act on the part of
a parent or caretaker which results in death,
serious physical or emotional harm, sexual
abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to
act which presents an imminent risk of serious
harm."

Wow. I hope Lanes parents, relatives, or friends never see your comment. The low lifes of society you just compared his parents to, smh. I agree with the other comment, I hope thats satire.

 

[Delgado]

I think bringing up lightning danger in this thread is highly applicable as it is another frequently happening, potentially lethal happening in the state of FL.

As for CM's, I worked for the Mouse for a number of years before moving away. I have personally in that CM role warned guests multiple times about lightning dangers, and I never worked at resorts or marinas or parks. I know for a fact that WDW still has a very active lightning detection system and all pools and outdoor activities at resorts and some in parks are shut down according to the proximity of the lightning. As Mikebb says, lightning is a very real threat here in FL, and once should go indoors when thunder is at all close. Standing under an overhanging awning or similar is NOT safe enough.

As others have said, I do think the onus falls upon visitors to know at least a LITTLE about their destination. In the state of Hawaii there has long been a battle over whether to show ocean safety videos to visitors and if so, where would they be shown. Some want them shown on the planes with Hawaii as a destination. Some want them in the airport. While I could not seem to find recent annual numbers on drownings in Hawaii, a good number happen each year. Many times it is because the victims either were unaware of certain dangers (like rip currents rogue waves, blowholes, etc.), or participated in water activities for which they were not physically strong or healthy enough to partake. So what is the best solution for Hawaii's visitor dangers? Signage all over Hawaii warning of fall dangers from cliffs/paths, ocean dangers, etc., very often do NOT stop people. I wish that were not true, but I have personally witnessed it many times, all over this country.

Everyone gets storm sooner or later, not everyone deals with gators.

 

[mab2012]

Ah but you forget one HUGE thing. In the world of a 24 hour news cycle, perception IS reality. I know it's true. My TV just just told me so. Also, statistics are just one small factor when assessing risk. I don't think YOU understand the risk involved with Disney NOT doing anything. So, the proverb does indeed hold much more water than you may think.

Oh, I understand the risk to Disney very well. That's why my first question was which risk you were talking about - the actual risk of attack, or the legal and business risks to Disney? Come to think of it, you didn't actually answer that question in your response, but it's pretty clear now that we're talking about different things. You are addressing the risk to Disney of not acting. I am addressing the actual risk to public safety, which remains very low. I get alarmed when I see things like "the risk [of an attack] has increased", because it's that sort of misinformation that feeds the hysteria (I'm certain that wasn't your intent).

I think you understand the difference too, but when we're pointing on a message board we're talking to a much larger audience.

I'll certainly agree that if you're Disney, perception matters.

 

[mab2012]

THIS. So this. Thank you for being another rational voice on this board.

I had much the same reaction to your post below:

When everything is required to be idiot-proof, you end up with a nation of idiots.

We've created the expectation that we should constantly be warned and told about every possible danger, however remote or obvious, in clear and unambiguous terms, and if we aren't, and we get hurt, then others must be to blame. It's why there is literature in products that say the packaging is not a toy. It's why plastic bags have to have warnings that tell you it's not a good idea to put them over your head. It's why instruction manuals for toasters warn not to use them in water. And countless other such ridiculous things.

An ever increasing amount of warnings only teaches people that they don't have be on the lookout for danger because someone is legally required to tell them about it. If we got away from the warnings, and let consequences from actions (ours and others) be the teacher, we would be far better off in terms of intelligence and safety.

We worry so much about a "1 in 100 million" chance of this type of occurrence, and demand all of these extreme changes like removing beaches.....but we don't have the same reaction to activities which are far more risky but are mundane, like hot water burns or car crashes, etc. This types of things happen much more frequently and thus warrant much more consideration and action then any gator attack. Yes, put better signs up if you must. But leave the beaches, and the beach activities, and the lagoon, and as much as possible the gator species, alone. One incident, no matter how tragic, is not and should not be sufficient reason to implement such drastic changes.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[southerngirl528]

Everyone gets storm sooner or later, not everyone deals with gators.

Yes, but not every state has the highest number of lightning deaths. See the link below, but I don't think FL has ever dropped below the top 4 states in lightning deaths. (see NOAA's link below). And FL is hardly the only state with gators. I get what you're saying, but a "storm" happening, wherever it is, does NOT necessarily contain lightning. Hawaii for example, does not have lightning occur often with their storms.

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/59-13_State_Ltg_Fatalities.pdf

We could say the same about states with earthquake risk, volcanic activity risk, hurricane risks, tornadic activity risk, and on, and on and on.....

 

[Delgado]

youre getting out of hand. You said lightning and I responded. Not playing the well I put more crap out there to make my point game. I never said florida was the only state with gators. I said not everyone deals with them. Stick to the topic of conversation

 

[poison ivy]

I am addressing the actual risk to public safety, which remains very low. I get alarmed when I see things like "the risk [of an attack] has increased", because it's that sort of misinformation that feeds the hysteria.

I disagree. If it's true that these animals have been fed by guests near the lagoon which this article states, then they were indeed becoming desensitized to humans. You have to incorporate this into your risk assessment. I would argue the risk to public safety is impacted under these circumstances and do not consider this to be misinformation.

http://www.thewrap.com/gator-attack...-staffer-asked-for-fence-at-lagoon-exclusive/

 

[romitaz]

Oh, I understand the risk to Disney very well. That's why my first question was which risk you were talking about - the actual risk of attack, or the legal and business risks to Disney? Come to think of it, you didn't actually answer that question in your response, but it's pretty clear now that we're talking about different things. You are addressing the risk to Disney of not acting. I am addressing the actual risk to public safety, which remains very low. I get alarmed when I see things like "the risk [of an attack] has increased", because it's that sort of misinformation that feeds the hysteria (I'm certain that wasn't your intent).

I think you understand the difference too, but when we're pointing on a message board we're talking to a much larger audience.

I'll certainly agree that if you're Disney, perception matters.

I was very much speaking of the risk to Disney. I apologize for not clarifying the distinction. The actual statistical risk to the public has not changed. Though to borrow from another, more acclaimed, gentleman, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"-Mark Twain

 

[dlavender]

You can see lightning. You can see a storm approaching. Everyone has an app on their phone where an individual can pull radar footage and watch it coming. You can look up into the sky and see it. Disney closes rides/pools when its close. Lightning is in no way in the same conversation as a hidden danger such as an alligator. Come on.

 

[southerngirl528]

Everyone gets storm

You said "storm" which can be and often is vastly different than the danger of lightning. You are missing my point.

youre getting out of hand. You said lightning and I responded. Not playing the well I put more crap out there to make my point game. I never said florida was the only state with gators. I said not everyone deals with them. Stick to the topic of conversation

I find your hasty judgment and angst somewhat amusing except that this thread is not about bantering but a very serious and sad situation and the concerns going forward. You will find people will take your comments more seriously if you stay within the confines of decorum. (being polite) I was not being argumentative when I responded to you, simply attempting to clarify my original point about lightning being such a danger which another FL poster was wise to bring up since this discussion is about dangers one could meet while at WDW.

 

[LSLS]

Oh, I understand the risk to Disney very well. That's why my first question was which risk you were talking about - the actual risk of attack, or the legal and business risks to Disney? Come to think of it, you didn't actually answer that question in your response, but it's pretty clear now that we're talking about different things. You are addressing the risk to Disney of not acting. I am addressing the actual risk to public safety, which remains very low. I get alarmed when I see things like "the risk [of an attack] has increased", because it's that sort of misinformation that feeds the hysteria (I'm certain that wasn't your intent).

I think you understand the difference too, but when we're pointing on a message board we're talking to a much larger audience.

I'll certainly agree that if you're Disney, perception matters.

I agree it remains incredibly low, but the statement that the risk has increased is not inaccurate either. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.