Heartbreaking news...a big reminder to be aware of wildlife on property

[HookedOnDCL1]

There are over 1,000,000 alligators in Florida

Alligators can be found in fresh and brackish bodies of water — including lakes, rivers, canals and golf course ponds — and there's an estimated 6.7 million acres of suitable habitat statewide.

It's confusing how many people are surprised about the Florida + alligator relationship. Somehow I find it hard to believe the 1 Million alligators just recently showed up.

There is some onus on the traveler to educate themselves when they travel to educate themselves on their destination.

Sure. But I think the issue here is that even those of us that know there are alligators in the wild in Florida and are careful at lakes and rivers would not know that there could be alligators at Disney. I don't consider Disney as "in the wild" and I thought of it as a private, controlled environment. My mistake and a real eye-opener. But a mistake that's easy to make and probably made my many.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

How about sink hole signs?

I doubt many non Florida residents know Florida is the sink hole capital of the world...

MG

You didn't respond to this one, though...

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

The bottom pic is just totally wrong. This is giving a false sense. ..no way can you or should you do that...ever, even if this is dated back to 1988 when resort first opened. I had not seen that one before. ..that is just wrong..
This has just changed my mind on Disney luring you...yes I know fake (magical ) advertising. ..and standing with your feet in is what I have seen before. ..but this is just unacceptable. ..this is what is known as Bait & Switch

Exactly!

Now I can see why someone in another thread said that the "beach" at GF was a real draw for them when they booked! This really does not strike me as ok.

 

[theSurlyMermaid]

You didn't respond to this one, though...

View attachment 175858

Some people just can't admit they're wrong even when it is staring them in the face. There is literally no way you can find no fault at all with Disney after you see that picture. Anyone who attempts to must be plugging their ears, closing their eyes and yelling "LALALALALALA!"

 

[DarkPaw]

My post is not debatable, as I stated this is "my opinion". If your opinion differs from mine, please don't try to debate with me. Thank you.

You post your opinion, then give the resons that brought you to this conclusion, but yet ask people not to debate it... right.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

You didn't respond to this one, though...

View attachment 175858

Yeah, not sure what to say. Do you know what year that was and when they banned swimming?

MG

 

[SoarinSC]

According to this Disney photo, probably...

View attachment 175854

A lawyer is gonna be chomping at the bit with those pics.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Who's property is it? Mine or Disney's?

If I invite you to my home and you see a doghouse and get attacked by the dog, would you be happy if I said..."well, you saw the doghouse, right?" No, you would be pissed that I never made you FULLY aware of the potential dangers that exist IN MY HOME. In fact, the lack of clarity made you feel somewhat safe.

A dog is not wildlife! Not even same category. ...if a coyote gets me on your property, should I ask why you didn't have a sign? Now that would be same category, wildlife. ...
Whose property is this? Who warns you then? The State?
http://www.winknews.com/2016/06/16/gator-spotted-near-beach-at-wiggins-pass/

 

[AnnaKat]

I agree with this...I hope they do not overreact either. That said the more I think about it the more I do believe Disney dropped the ball. I have looked at a bunch of brochures of the GF beach area and all of them show people up close to the water, boating on the water, beach chairs to lounge on even playing on the edge of the water. In every way they make it seem it is a traditional family beach resort...that is the theme. That is what gives the false sense of safety and that it is man made and controled and why the extra wildlife warning needs to be there. I don't think Disney took the necessary steps to warn of this possibility when in every other way presented this as a beach. As many have said ad nauseum the no swimming seemed to pertain to a bacteria/life guard issue, not a wildlife one. I can see where anyone who researched this resort and saw the images presented by the WDW resort and felt as if it was safe to be in the shallows.

This is no where near the same as overeating mickey bars or lighting warnings IMO.

When I did a quick image search of GF lots of images came up on WDW, Dis and a travel agents websites that make it seem like a beach. I wish I knew how to upload the pics.

I agree that there should be alligator warning signs.

However, I believe Disney will choose NOT to put up signs warning of alligators.
WHY? Because of their promoting of GF as above PP have noted.
Having alligator warning signs will take away from their decades of promoting GF as a family friendly " beach " resort.
The bean counters know that guests could perceive the value of paying $800/night @ GF as no longer worth it.

The resort is beautiful, but after ALL, it is built on a SWAMP,
and an alligator inhabited one @ THAT!

 

[Hikergirl]

Some people just can't admit they're wrong even when it is staring them in the face. There is literally no way you can find no fault at all with Disney after you see that picture. Anyone who attempts to must be plugging their ears, closing their eyes and yelling "LALALALALALA!"

When was the photo taken and used? Is it still being used in their promotional mailings today? That may not make a difference to your opinion, but it does to mine. If its not something they are using TODAY to draw guests to the GF then the pic means nothing IMO.
There was a time when they did allow swimming in the lakes (or one of them), but they don't today.
If a guests is checking out info that isn't current, then how is that Disney's fault?

 

[nugov2]

Yeah, not sure what to say. Do you know what year that was and when they banned swimming?

MG

The point is Disney advertised those images and either changed the policy on entering water either swimming or wading or swimming was never allowed and they out those images out even with that policy in place. Instead of explaining that it is now dangerous with a warning dangerous wildlife sign, they felt a simple no swimming sign was sufficient. It is not because anyone there who could wade in previously if that was the old policy or who researched and saw those advertisements along with a very beachlike inviting environment would think the swimming was not due to wildlife dangers. They did not warn guests as well as they should have considering they had images like this out there as well as presenting it in every way as a family beach. I do not think the gorilla incident should lead to a lawsuit, I feel very differently about this incident. I am not kidding if you google searc GF beach there are so many images both perosnal (which I know are not disney endorsed, but shows how popular wading/playing in the shallows are and should be cracked down on) and via wdw/travel agent sites with people in the shallows. I can see why people felt it was safe.

 

[WuvEeyore]

A lawyer is gonna be chomping at the bit with those pics.

That was probably from 1988 before swimming was banned.

 

[kellyjeanie]

Welcome to the Internet??

Seriously, did you expect several thousands of posts (between all the different threads) just to be "oh how terrible"?
While it certainly IS terrible it is human nature to examine the situation if for no other reason than to prevent it from happening again.

MG

I keep hoping that'll be the case.

 

[nandm92574]

Why pay a guard to make sure people adhere to a sign? ????? No, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. If signs are changed, why should I pay more to ultimately pay for that guard because some cannot follow directions

The guard patrols the waters and observes for alligators not to yell at people. and warns of danger. No where did I say a guard to watch for sign breakers.. In case you are wondering you pay for quite a bit of ridiculous things at Disney. An increased wildlife guard at peak hours makes sense for the people and for gators.

 

[snoopboop]

When was the photo taken and used? Is it still being used in their promotional mailings today? That may not make a difference to your opinion, but it does to mine. If its not something they are using TODAY to draw guests to the GF then the pic means nothing IMO.
There was a time when they did allow swimming in the lakes (or one of them), but they don't today.
If a guests is checking out info that isn't current, then how is that Disney's fault?

The point is Disney advertised those images and either changed the policy on entering water either swimming or wading or swimming was never allowed and they out those images out even with that policy in place. Instead of explaining that it is now dangerous with a warning dangerous wildlife sign, they felt a simple no swimming sign was sufficient. It is not because anyone there who could wade in previously if that was the old policy or who researched and saw those advertisements along with a very beachlike inviting environment would think the swimming was not due to wildlife dangers. They did not warn guests as well as they should have considering they had images like this out there as well as presenting it in every way as a family beach. I do not think the gorilla incident should lead to a lawsuit, I feel very differently about this incident. I am not kidding if you google searc GF beach there are so many images both perosnal (which I know are not disney endorsed, but shows how popular wading/playing in the shallows are and should be cracked down on) and via wdw/travel agent sites with people in the shallows. I can see why people felt it was safe.

That image appears to only be found online on ONE website - that of a travel agency that sells Disney vacations. A Google Images search brings up only that ONE instance of that particular image appearing ANYWHERE online.

 

[SoarinSC]

I agree that there should be alligator warning signs.

However, I believe Disney will choose NOT to put up signs warning of alligators.
WHY? Because of their promoting of GF as above PP have noted.
Having alligator warning signs will take away from their decades of promoting GF as a family friendly " beach " resort.
The bean counters know that guests could perceive the value of paying $800/night @ GF as no longer worth it.

The resort is beautiful, but after ALL, it is built on a SWAMP,
and an alligator inhabited one @ THAT!

The cynical part of me thinks you're right.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Yeah, not sure what to say. Do you know what year that was and when they banned swimming?

MG

Don't know. I found it very quickly just googling Grand Floridian. Just like anyone else interested in GF might google it. It's obviously their stock photo.

That image appears to only be found online on ONE website - that of a travel agency that sells Disney vacations. A Google Images search brings up only that ONE instance of that particular image appearing ANYWHERE online.

Ok... So does this mean that at some point, they had the sense to remove this photo from advertising?? Wonder why...??

 

[nugov2]

That image appears to only be found online on ONE website - that of a travel agency that sells Disney vacations. A Google Images search brings up only that ONE instance of that particular image appearing ANYWHERE online.

I found a few more, one even from the dis blog with a girl in the sand right in the shallows. I just can't figure out how to upload a screen shot from my phone

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Exactly!

Now I can see why someone in another thread said that the "beach" at GF was a real draw for them when they booked! This really does not strike me as ok.

On same token though, while pic is definitely wrong to have, thst wster looks nothing like the water that is really there. Using my common sense, just me, even if pictures lured me there, I would not go in because it's filthy and has weeds and alge growing in it. No, not an excuse for the pictures , just the way I am. I don't care what a picture shows, if I am not comfortable, I am not going near it.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Ok... So does this mean that at some point, they had the sense to remove this photo from advertising?? Wonder why...??

Hmmmm