Toddler dragged into the water by an alligator at Disney

WaPo reports there was another gator attack in 1986.

 

http://abc13.com/1388788/

 

So the father and son was messing with the alligators? LOL

And Not sure why me saying build some sort of wire fence or barrier on an enticing beach where guests watch movies be understood as building a walls around central Florida

 

So letting a toddler go ankle deep in a man-made beach lagoon that has a simple "No Swimming" sign is equivalent to breaking the law and parking in a handicap spot.

Rep to the first person that finds a post where REEKO didn't fully "follow the rules."

 

No, but others did over time, making them less fearful of people. I was bit by a squirrel at UCLA in the 90s that jumped up to grab my sandwich once, because students there would feed the squirrels because they thought it was cute.

I suspect alligator-proofing the whole area of the resort would be problematic, especially, 1. because of the ability of alligators to swim, climb and chew through whatever is in their way and 2. because of the impact it would have on the environment and laws protecting the wildlife.

What's wrong with respecting that there are more than a million alligators in Florida, avoiding them and not feeding them? If they end up in people's swimming pools in their fenced in back yards, how do expect to exclude them from a large waterway?

 

I don't think think he's necessarily talking about preventing alligators from getting in the lagoon. It's more like making it harder for people to not walk right up to the edge of the shore, or if we want to use a wee bit of common sense.....not construct a beach that pretty much invites people to walk up to the edge of the shore.

 

The fence was to keep toddlers from wandering off from the beach to the shoreline never know alligators may come out as well. Disney has money they use the movie night at the beach attraction to entice tourists to their 500 a night resort might as well do everything to ensure the safety of their guests

Either that or close the beach which is what they temporarily did now

 

I stand corrected, then.

 

I am big on personal accountability and believe that too many people in 2016 just assume that the government and businesses sanitize the dangers of the world around them. As a result you have idiots trying to rescue "cold" animals in national park, people feeding bears that approach their vehicle and moron tourists feeding a dinosaur that can easily reach 12 feet long and weigh 1200 lbs.

The situation in Disney is a little different because you have a place with children everywhere, an attractive nuisance and a failure to inform the guests of an ever present danger.

The feeding of the alligators angered me as well, and it is quite possible why the found at least four alligators in that area. Alligators are high level predators, but they also are weary of animals close to their size... so they normally, unless startled, will stay away from people.... unless you have idiots feeding them.

I can almost guarantee you that the family that lost their son were not hunters...

 

To be fair, I find the Disney bubble excruciatingly irritating and I didn't like Disneyland or Disneyworld even as a kid. The whole canned, phony vibe is like some kind of American answer to socialist realism, and I find it grotesque. Just not my cup of tea, especially for the expense, and the few clever and fun things there just aren't worth it.

My dream vacation would be Kruger National Park and I would NOT get out of the jeep, I would NOT feed the animals, and I would NOT bring kids.

If I wanted to go to a theme park I'd go see the real thing that has adults in mind as well as kids, with its ample opportunities to drink beer and non-kitchy aesthetics.

Otherwise, I think Schlitterbahn is my favorite amusement park in the US, Like Tivoli, it lacks the in-your-face commercialism, the staff are mostly cute imported Eastern European girls, and...there's alcohol. A winning combination that more than makes up for the long lines and screaming children.

 

Probably explains this guy hanging out so close to the boardwalk today at the brazoria national wildlife refuge. Sees people walking by, expects food. Not manicured like Disney world though, you'd expect to see them here, and there are specific warning signs everywhere. I warned a couple with a dog headed that way as I was leaving. This recent Orlando story probably played into their decison to immediately u-turn. It'd probably grab a dog.

Spoiler

 

You might find this article interesting. Totally off topic from the gator attack, but frankly I can't bear to think about this anymore.

http://stevecoast.com/2015/03/27/the-world-will-only-get-weirder/
The world will only get weirder

by Steve Coast on March 27, 2015 in economics, future shock
Another month, another terrible and bizarre aircraft incident.

As far as the media are reporting, Andreas Lubitz decided it would be a great idea to fly a fully functional A320 in to the side of a mountain and kill 150 people a few days ago.

Six months ago a fully functioning 777 was flown in to the sea wall at SFO.

A year ago a fully functioning 777 made some interesting maneuvers and disappeared in the South Indian Ocean with 239 people on board.

Aircraft are an interesting set of examples because they’re so well studied and corrected. We don’t spend time correcting hospital mistakes with nearly the speed and detail we do aircraft accidents, for example.

It used to be that airliners broke up in the sky because of small cracks in the window frames. So we fixed that. It used to be that aircraft crashed because of outward opening doors. So we fixed that. Aircraft used to fall out of the sky from urine corrosion, so we fixed that with encapsulated plastic lavatories. The list goes on and on. And we fixed them all.

So what are we left with?

971112f316fcb1fa9cbc0041d53b19dd064e9650942d3cf1c6ee7c16c9ce6e32

As we find more rules to fix more things we are encountering tail events. We fixed all the main reasons aircraft crash a long time ago. Sometimes a long, long time ago. So, we are left with the less and less probable events.

We invented the checklist. That alone probably fixed 80% of fatalities in aircraft. We’ve been hammering away at the remaining 20% for 50 years or so by creating more and more rules.

We’ve reached the end of the useful life of that strategy and have hit severely diminishing returns. As illustration, we created rules to make sure people can’t get in to cockpits to kill the pilots and fly the plane in to buildings. That looked like a good rule. But, it’s created the downside that pilots can now lock out their colleagues and fly it in to a mountain instead.

It used to be that rules really helped. Checklists on average were extremely helpful and have saved possibly millions of lives. But with aircraft we’ve reached the point where rules may backfire, like locking cockpit doors. We don’t know how many people have been saved without locking doors since we can’t go back in time and run the experiment again. But we do know we’ve lost 150 people with them.

And so we add more rules, like requiring two people in the cockpit from now on. Who knows what the mental capacity is of the flight attendant that’s now allowed in there with one pilot, or what their motives are. At some point, if we wait long enough, a flight attendant is going to take over an airplane having only to incapacitate one, not two, pilots. And so we’ll add more rules about the type of flight attendant allowed in the cockpit and on and on.

Why, why, why, why, why

There’s a wonderful story of the five whys.

The Lincoln Memorial stonework was being damaged. Why? By cleaning spray eroding it. Why? Because it’s used to clean bird poop. So they tried killing the birds. Didn’t work. Why are the birds there? To eat insects. Let’s kill the insects! Didn’t work. Why are the insects there? Because the lights are on after dusk. So let’s just turn the lights off. That works.

This is a clean and understandable example of why adding more layers, and more rules, to a problem doesn’t always work. If you stop at some level then you’re missing out on the ultimate solution.

If we’d stopped at killing insects, we’d spend more money and still have the same problems. If you keep asking why, then you get to solve problems.

Similarly the US Constitution, as a set of rules, fixed most problems with government. That document alone probably fixed 80%+ of governmental problems and now we’re reduced to rules making it illegal to be a hairdresser without a government license, or whatever.

Weirder

And so, with more rules we have solved most of the problems in the world. That just leaves the weird events left like disappearing 777’s, freak storms and ISIS. It used to be that even minor storms would be a problem but we have building codes now (rules). Free of rules, we’d probably have dealt with ISIS by now too.

Ultimately, this is why the world is getting weirder, and will continue to do so. Now with global media you get to hear about it all.

What to do?

The primary way we as a society deal with this mess is by creating rule-free zones. Free trade zones for economics. Black budgets for military. The internet for intellectual property. Testing areas for drones. Then after all the objectors have died off, integrate the new things in to society.

The worry should be we end up with so many rules we become sclerotic like Italy or France. We effectively end up with some kind of Napoleonic law – everything is illegal unless specifically made legal. Luckily we’re far from that in the US.

B3ZDwwkIIAAmqhw

On a personal level we should probably work in areas where there are few rules.

To paraphrase Peter Thiel, new technology is probably so fertile and productive simply because there are so few rules. It’s essentially illegal for you to build anything physical these days from a toothbrush (FDA regulates that) to a skyscraper, but there’s zero restriction on creating a website. Hence, that’s where all the value is today.

If we can measure economic value as a function of transactional volume (the velocity of money for example), which appears reasonable, then fewer rules will mean more volume, which means better economics for everyone. So it used to be very hard to create an airline, now it’s easy, we have more choice and more flights and so on.

Rules stop you making transactions (monetary or otherwise). With fewer transactions we have a lower flow of value from where it is, to where it’s best usable.

Speed

And thus we arrive at speed. As everything is getting weirder, it’s also getting faster. In film, Christopher Nolan has explored a lot of this across his movies.

Almost literally, everything that has ever happened has happened in the last decade or less.

Nick Bostrom nails it in his book:

B0-3fytIUAEkXIp.jpg-large

Nothing happened from the beginning of time up until something like 1980. Maybe the industrial revolution. You get to pick. The explosion in transactions came from a feedback loop of an explosion of population and ideas.

It’s going to take a lot of rules to slow that down, but it is possible.

 

I haven't followed this story closely, any official statement made by Disney?

 

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/17/disney-world-alligator-in-park-weeks-before-attack/

 

PowerLULZ at the last line.

HE WASN'T EVEN SWIMMMMMMMMMMMING! He was, GASP - STANDINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

 

No swimming is usually meant to indicate strong currents or some kind of pollution in the water. Not alligators.

 

It usually means don't get in the water. Disney doesn't have a "Warning Amoebas" sign either despite having a kid die from one in River Country.


That was just filtered fresh water, since they closed that, their swimming areas have been completely purified. This was neither and therefore no swimming.

 

I'm not even talking about swimming vs alligators I'm talking about the dramatic writing - swimming vs standing. Give me a break.

 

You laugh, but in a court of law "No Swimming" vs. "Beware of Alligators" is a several million dollar distinction.

 

Why wouldn't they just say "Don't get in the water" then? Wouldn't that be more clear?

And while they're at it, maybe get rid of the nice sandy beach that practically beckons, "please come in and dip your feet in the water."