My 2 cents on the young child/alligator tragedy at the Grand Floridian

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

No "Steep Drop-Off, Deep Water, and NO Swimming" is insufficient to keep people out of the water but if they added the word Danger or Alligators that would make it okay?

What if the sign said both Danger and Alligators and the death had been caused by a snake bite? The sign didn't mention snakes so then what? Back to Disney being liable somehow?

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this one.

And we will have to.

For a 2 year old child, who was just puddling away in shallow waters at the edge of the beach, deep water threats or steep drop off threats are not.....threats.

We have been to many places in Florida that have warnings posted about wildlife...snakes, alligators or otherwise. Those businesses found it important enough to warrant a "DANGER" warning to guests. I, personally, feel Disney should have done the same. Two of the alligators that were captured in the lagoon following the attack were 7 feet long. Those are not babies that became a concern overnight.

I respect the fact that you have a totally different viewpoint. I am just sharing mine.

Edited to add.....if there was a lifeguard in the vicinity (which apparently there was), why did they not ensure the child was removed from the water? Surely the lifeguards are aware that guests are not supposed to be there and could/should use their authority to enforce the "no swimming"?

 

[Princess Jes]

And we will have to.

For a 2 year old child, who was just puddling away in shallow waters at the edge of the beach, deep water threats or steep drop off threats are not.....threats.

We have been to many places in Florida that have warnings posted about wildlife...snakes, alligators or otherwise. Those businesses found it important enough to warrant a "DANGER" warning to guests. I, personally, feel Disney should have done the same. Two of the alligators that were captured in the lagoon following the attack were 7 feet long. Those are not babies that became a concern overnight.

I respect the fact that you have a totally different viewpoint. I am just sharing mine.

Edited to add.....if there was a lifeguard in the vicinity (which apparently there was), why did they not ensure the child was removed from the water? Surely the lifeguards are aware that guests are not supposed to be there and could/should use their authority to enforce the "no swimming"?

Steep drop off makes me think that it's even MORE dangerous for a 2 year old to be wading a foot in from the edge!
A 2 year old can be in a foot of water and be ok, take one step and that steep drop off becomes very deep for a 2 year old.

Why is everyone getting so into the semantics of this sign? If the sign says no swimming, it could be simply because Disney didn't want people ruining the view of the water, or because they didn't want to have to have a lifeguard on duty.
Interpreting rules is silly.

If a sign says "don't ride this ride if you have a heart condition" but you think your specific heart condition will be ok, I think that's still breaking the rules.
They're simple things to follow, an interpreting them to suit yourself is silly really.

 

[wilkeliza]

And we will have to.

For a 2 year old child, who was just puddling away in shallow waters at the edge of the beach, deep water threats or steep drop off threats are not.....threats.

We have been to many places in Florida that have warnings posted about wildlife...snakes, alligators or otherwise. Those businesses found it important enough to warrant a "DANGER" warning to guests. I, personally, feel Disney should have done the same. Two of the alligators that were captured in the lagoon following the attack were 7 feet long. Those are not babies that became a concern overnight.

I respect the fact that you have a totally different viewpoint. I am just sharing mine.

Edited to add.....if there was a lifeguard in the vicinity (which apparently there was), why did they not ensure the child was removed from the water? Surely the lifeguards are aware that guests are not supposed to be there and could/should use their authority to enforce the "no swimming"?

The lifeguard was most likely in the splash pad/pool area watching guests. If you listen to the Daily Fix from today Oliver says he was a life guard at the GF and that they did often tell families to not go in the water or to take their kids out of the water. Sometimes people listen and sometimes people shrug their shoulders and continue. I am not saying that happened this time but we don't know that it didn't. All we know is that a terrible tragedy happened where a little boy was killed by an alligator and his father and a lifeguard tried to fight it off and save him.

I feel like I've had to say this way too much today. Sometimes terrible, terrible, terrible tragedies happen and there is really no one to blame. These parents could have been watching their son 100% and he could have just be playing in the sand (which is not prohibited) and that gator still could have come and gotten him. Disney could remove every gator from the lakes and do a sweep every hour checking for gators and one could have still slipped in the lagoon through a channel in the dark and gotten that boy. Disney could remove every lagoon and a gator could still wander onto property and hurt someone. All we can do now is hope that they do whatever is possible to minimize the possibility of an already extremely rare occurrence.

 

[NeuroCindy]

I think at some point we have to accept that bad things happen in life. It's horrible, it's tragic, and in hindsight we can see the missteps, but at the time people didn't. We don't know if they saw the sign and ignored it, misinterpreted it, or simply didn't see the sign. We don't know if the lifeguard saw them and ignored them or didn't see them. Does it really matter now?

They will live with this the rest of their lives.
The lifeguards at GF will live with this the rest of their lives.
The first responders that came will live with this the rest of their lives.
Four wild animals are dead simply because they were in the vicinity at the wrong time.



ETA: I sincerely hope their other daughter didn't see the attack happen. No child should have to live with that, losing a sibling is horrible enough.

 

[HubbDave]

I really think it was an absolute freak occurrence that all of the signage in the world could not have prevented

19 million per year visit the MK alone
30+ million visit the parks per year. I don't know about resorts

Hundreds of millions since opening. 1 horrible, tragic event in an area that is swamp with natural life. No one is to blame IMHO. Still very sad

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I can't imagine any interpretation of "no swimming" that would say "feel free to go in the water as long as you don't actually swim".

"Oh just ignore the sign. We're not swimming. We're only wading/floating/walking/bobbing. And the doggie paddle isn't really swimming, right? The kids don't even know how to swim so it definitely doesn't apply to them. Grab your inner tubes and come on in."

Doesn't that sound kind of silly?

I think the fact that there has been some debate of this shows that the sign isn't as clear as it should be. Personally I see a big difference between walking along the water edge, getting your toes wet and swimming.

 

[Jennygt]

I was just at the poly last month ...there were always children wading in that water and I never saw a cast member tell them to get out....one afternoon a cast member in charge of pool activities took a large bag of sand toys to the waters edge fir the children to play with, and yes some were in ankle deep water getting buckets of water from the lagoon. So I have to say that there is a culture that seems to imply that wading is ok.

 

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

Steep drop off makes me think that it's even MORE dangerous for a 2 year old to be wading a foot in from the edge!
A 2 year old can be in a foot of water and be ok, take one step and that steep drop off becomes very deep for a 2 year old.

Why is everyone getting so into the semantics of this sign? If the sign says no swimming, it could be simply because Disney didn't want people ruining the view of the water, or because they didn't want to have to have a lifeguard on duty.
Interpreting rules is silly.

If a sign says "don't ride this ride if you have a heart condition" but you think your specific heart condition will be ok, I think that's still breaking the rules.
They're simple things to follow, an interpreting them to suit yourself is silly really.

Unfortunately, not being clear about the reason for the rules, or providing sufficient information about the rules, can also be deadly.

I think "everyone is getting into the semantics of the sign" because those who wish to cast fault on the parents are the first to decry "But there were signs that said no swimming!". I think its just natural that those with an opposing viewpoint cite the areas where the signage was lacking: especially when surrounding, non-Disney properties seem to have devised a way to convey the alligator risk with very clear signage.

My viewpoint probably differs from many others on these boards for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I am a parent. The hardest job I've ever had, and I've made enough mistakes along the way to make me wonder sometimes how my boy made it to adulthood. I'm far from perfect.....perfectly human, for sure..... and have made a ton of bad-judgement mistakes that I regretted afterward. These parents are getting a serious bad rap, and I would suspect that much of it comes from people who have never walked a mile in their shoes. It's easy (albeit, in my opinion, cruel and unfair) to point the finger at the parents and say that their actions are solely to blame. Should they have made a better decision? Well, obviously. Lots of should-haves. The lifeguard should have spoken to them (we have no indication that they did.....and considering the lifeguard was interviewed by the OCSO, I'm certain that would have come out in the news reports). The boy should not have been wading. The signs should have warned against gators and not just deep water or a drop off. Hindsight is 20/20.

Secondly, I am not a Disney cheerleader (Let me be clear....I don't dislike Disney, and I patronize Disney in small doses, but they are not my Orlando park family of choice nor do I find them worthy of any specific adoration......let's just say I don't see the "magic" in the Disney product that many on the boards here do). I have to wonder, though, what the comments in these forums would be if this same tragic event happened at, say, Portofino Bay. Or Holiday Inn Orange Lake. Or Westgate Lakes. Or any other non-Disney resort in Orlando. Would everyone be as quick to say, "But the sign said no swimming, and they let their child wade in the water!". I'm betting there would be FAR more judgement on the part of the property than many are willing to place on Disney. My guess is that there would be pages of posts lamenting "That resort should have done more! They should have had signs! They should have noted the alligator danger!".

And just to clarify.....my comments are not specifically directed at you, Jes. I only quoted your post above in regards to the interpretation of the rules.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Edited to add.....if there was a lifeguard in the vicinity (which apparently there was), why did they not ensure the child was removed from the water? Surely the lifeguards are aware that guests are not supposed to be there and could/should use their authority to enforce the "no swimming"?

Lifeguards are not on post at the lagoon. They are at the pools.

 

[Princess Jes]

Unfortunately, not being clear about the reason for the rules, or providing sufficient information about the rules, can also be deadly.

I think "everyone is getting into the semantics of the sign" because those who wish to cast fault on the parents are the first to decry "But there were signs that said no swimming!". I think its just natural that those with an opposing viewpoint cite the areas where the signage was lacking: especially when surrounding, non-Disney properties seem to have devised a way to convey the alligator risk with very clear signage.

My viewpoint probably differs from many others on these boards for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I am a parent. The hardest job I've ever had, and I've made enough mistakes along the way to make me wonder sometimes how my boy made it to adulthood. I'm far from perfect.....perfectly human, for sure..... and have made a ton of bad-judgement mistakes that I regretted afterward. These parents are getting a serious bad rap, and I would suspect that much of it comes from people who have never walked a mile in their shoes. It's easy (albeit, in my opinion, cruel and unfair) to point the finger at the parents and say that their actions are solely to blame. Should they have made a better decision? Well, obviously. Lots of should-haves. The lifeguard should have spoken to them (we have no indication that they did.....and considering the lifeguard was interviewed by the OCSO, I'm certain that would have come out in the news reports). The boy should not have been wading. The signs should have warned against gators and not just deep water or a drop off. Hindsight is 20/20.

Secondly, I am not a Disney cheerleader (Let me be clear....I don't dislike Disney, and I patronize Disney in small doses, but they are not my Orlando park family of choice nor do I find them worthy of any specific adoration......let's just say I don't see the "magic" in the Disney product that many on the boards here do). I have to wonder, though, what the comments in these forums would be if this same tragic event happened at, say, Portofino Bay. Or Holiday Inn Orange Lake. Or Westgate Lakes. Or any other non-Disney resort in Orlando. Would everyone be as quick to say, "But the sign said no swimming, and they let their child wade in the water!". I'm betting there would be FAR more judgement on the part of the property than many are willing to place on Disney. My guess is that there would be pages of posts lamenting "That resort should have done more! They should have had signs! They should have noted the alligator danger!".

And just to clarify.....my comments are not specifically directed at you, Jes. I only quoted your post above in regards to the interpretation of the rules.

I just don't think that every warning sign or directive sign in the world needs to have the reasons why the sign or rule is in place.
Going by that theory, speed signs should say "60 - because going any faster could cause an accident"

 

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

I just don't think that every warning sign or directive sign in the world needs to have the reasons why the sign or rule is in place.
Going by that theory, speed signs should say "60 - because going any faster could cause an accident"

I agree that signs can't list every peril you might face.

That said, using your example, almost all roadways (certainly the major ones) in North America have posted speed limits........because excessive speeds can be deadly.

Disney knew there were alligators living in the lagoon. They chose to post signage at their properties noting a "no swimming" policy and detailing two reasons why (deep water, sudden drop off). Alligator risks were never mentioned, and could not be an implied or assumed danger to someone not familiar with wildlife native to the southern states. Of the 19 million visitors a year, I'm sure many don't know much about alligator behaviour (sadly, I've learned a lot about it myself over the last few days).

I know you mentioned before that deep water should have been a concern for the parents. The dad, however, was close enough to that child that he was able to close the distance between himself and his son to have time to try and wrestle him free from the gator's mouth when the attack first occured. When it has been repeatedly reported that "it all happened in seconds", that father had to have been extremely close by. Considering his proximity, I am sure he thought he could grab the child in an instant if he happened to toddle into deep waters as he was wading, and therefore didn't see the risk. Fair warning of the potential of an alligator attack (or encounter) is a whole different type of risk.

 

[Princess Jes]

I agree that signs can't list every peril you might face.

That said, using your example, almost all roadways (certainly the major ones) in North America have posted speed limits........because excessive speeds can be deadly.

But the speed limit signs don't specify WHY you should do that speed limit, and similarly, I wouldn't expect that just because a sign lists two reasons not to swim, that there aren't other reasons too.

I know what you mean, I do, I just think people are trying to blame Disney for not signing it better but at the end of the day, there are signs not to swim, regardless of why, just don't swim.

 

[pjweaver]

The warnings on a case of ammunition do not tell me that I may kill people if used incorrectly.
A bottle of bleach only tells me not to drink, so gurgling is fine i suppose.
My cigarettes tell me they MAY cause cancer.

While golfing at the Magnolia a few years ago we were warned of a gator that lived in a pond between 2 fairways. All we were told was that he may be there. sure enough he was on the fairway 10 feet from my ball. The slightest hint of danger from an employee or sign should tell you not to do something.

I feel horrible for this child and the family, but I can't help but think how easily this could have been prevented. If only someone mentioned to people to STAY OUT OF THE DAMN LAKES.

 

[Jennygt]

But again when cast members set up toys at the waters edge , and watch the kids wade in the water...I am not placing blame but stating how I think not swimming was not perceived the same as stay out of the water totaly

 

[CampbellzSoup]

If I saw a sign that said warning alligators / wildlife - I wouldn't even take my kid anywhere near the beach. Again no swimming clearly means no swimming - not enjoying the beach/walking along the shallow water with your child.

Again I think guest could have been more informed of any potential dangers that could have been lurking in the waters.

I'm looking at it from a safety perspective, and the sign was not left to interpretation. DO NOT ENTER WATER is not the same as No Swimming / Deep Drop. I'm sorry it's not.

I love you all, and love the fact that we can have a lively discussion

 

[pjweaver]

If I saw a sign that said warning alligators / wildlife - I wouldn't even take my kid anywhere near the beach. Again no swimming clearly means no swimming - not enjoying the beach/walking along the shallow water with your child.

Again I think guest could have been more informed of any potential dangers that could have been lurking in the waters.

I'm looking at it from a safety perspective, and the sign was not left to interpretation. DO NOT ENTER WATER is not the same as No Swimming / Deep Drop. I'm sorry it's not.

I love you all, and love the fact that we can have a lively discussion

You are dead on there. The signs should be more... direct. In fact, the signs are only written in English while many visitors can not read English. I watch a mother take her three children into the lake at Ft Wilderness, the youngest being carried from his wheelchair. I thought of taking a pic and sending it to Pete for his signoff, but instead went to them and explained, in my best spanish, serpiente y caiman.

They got enough of what I said I guess and left, but they were directly under the sign that said 'no swimming'.

 

[jcb]

This is actually a pretty good and thorough article about landowner liability for gator attacks. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/opinions/hotels-may-avoid-liability-alligator-attack-danny-cevallos/

Still sad that is has to even be discussed.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

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

Disney had concerned of guests feeding the alligators - people are stupid.

 

[kabbie]

I read the article written by a mom about the blamers and shamers...I instantly felt shamed because I had the conversations with coworkers earlier about the parents responsibility (I'm still hung up about the lateness of the hour of the wading - I would definitely be on my guard if I can't see clearly). I do see both sides (signage should have been clear - I saw beware of bear signs everywhere in Alaska) and it has been a horrible lesson to learn.

http://www.people.com/article/toddler-alligator-disney-world-parents-viral-post

 

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

I read the article written by a mom about the blamers and shamers...I instantly felt shamed because I had the conversations with coworkers earlier about the parents responsibility (I'm still hung up about the lateness of the hour of the wading - I would definitely be on my guard if I can't see clearly). I do see both sides (signage should have been clear - I saw beware of bear signs everywhere in Alaska) and it has been a horrible lesson to learn.

This one? It's an excellent read.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/...rs-parents-whose-son-died-disney-gator-attack