I will say on my recent trip there were plenty of people on the animal trails as well. Some of the habitats weren't exactly crowded, but there were a lot of people at the species you'd expect to be popular, particularly the gorillas and tigers. Plenty of people also ride the Safari, which takes you past plenty of ABC animals as well (giraffe, elephant, Hippo, lion)- and I'd expect most visitors do ride the Safari during their visit. It was also crowded up at Rafiki's Planet Watch- where there aren't any rides, but a habitat for the most popular animal of all- the domestic goat! I'd also say though to plan for a whole day. It may not take you that long, but it would be easy to spend that long depending on the wait times for safari and how long you spend in the two walk-through aviaries (something I easily could've spent longer in if I wasn't traveling with family).
Disney's Animal Kingdom® Park News from Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter kiang
- Start date
Echo this, it takes a whole day to see. The rides are good too, you’re paying over $100 entry so you might as well give some of them a go if you get the chance.
How on earth was I at all snobby, or implied that DAK doesn't care about their animals?
‘people constantly stopping to take selfies and all of that. A lot of the people there don't care about the animals at all, they care about the disney.’ That is snobby, although I was implying people on this forum saying visitors to DAK don’t care about the animals, not that the park doesn’t.
I wouldn't call that snobby - I'm sure it's true in many (though far from all) cases.
Well I’m sorry if I’ve misinterpreted it, but there is a vein of snobbery when discussing this particular park amongst certain members on this site. I think, largely, it’s because we all wish we could build a pure zoo with the funding DAK has!
I wasn't being snobby at all. Going to DAK because you like Disney, or like theme parks, or whatever, is completely valid. It is a Disney theme park, after all. But if you are going to the park just to see the animals, like bnb said he was planning on, people like that will make your time getting around the place much more difficult than at a regular zoo, which people go to because they at least slightly want to see the animals.
I've never seen any snobbery whatsoever about DAK, why would there be?
I have seen some general attitudes looking down on DAK from the zoo enthusiast community at times. Mostly it's because some don't think it can be considered as good of a zoo as it is because it's not a "pure zoo" or something of that nature. The fact that it's a combination theme park and especially a piece of the Disney brand somehow makes it less of a zoo for some people. In that sense, I agree there is a degree of snobbery directed at the park, though I'm not sure how prevalent that is here on this forum as a whole.
~Thylo
~Thylo
When I was at ZooTampa it was clear that the staff looked at bit down on anyone that went to Busch or DAK to work as a keeper due to the fact they were theme parks. I knew a few people that made the move to DAK or to/from Busch, and there was definitely a certain feeling towards those people. That may have changed over the last 15 years, but it was the case at one time.
Pretty much how I feel. Thanks for articulating that Thylo.
Yeah, I guess I can see some people feeling that way. My only problem with it is it makes them so expensive to visit; I really wish places like this would incorporate a special armband or something that means you can't go on any rides.
Don’t forget Disney also tried to market DAK as just a theme park. When press and advertisements first began for the park the main slogan was “nahtazu”(something to that effect) or not a zoo. Disney tries to treat it as a theme park which could be hostile towards zoo enthusiasts. Now realistically that’s just not true, DAK definitely is a zoo or a part of it is. It is in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums earning the recognition of zoos. Therefore it should be treated as any normal zoo
no matter the company, rides, keepers, or crowds.
Any ‘band’ which excluded rides would presumably also exclude Kilimanjaro Safari’s. Without that there limited point in visiting.
People who find ‘nahtazu’ hostile you should probably get a sense of humour.
So? Not everyone wants to go on that ride. I also said "places like this", meaning not just DAK.
He's trying to show you why some might have a problem with DAK. Their initial marketing of literally saying they are not a zoo is a valid reason for people who go to zoos to not support the place.
I’m fully aware of what he’s saying, thanks though.
I will say based on my recent visit, there are definitely places that, while successful as a theme park, DAK "fails" as a zoo, such as:
- Limited viewing opportunities. This is the most common complaint I've heard on this site, and in my opinion a very justified one. The animals on the Safari cannot be viewed for longer than the 30 seconds to a minute the truck is there, while many zoo enthusiasts may want to look at certain species for longer.
- One of the main goals of the AZA is education. From what I saw, DAK fails to reach this goal. Signage is missing at a lot of exhibits, and some of the staff members stationed at exhibits weren't exactly helpful (one of the staff in the Asian aviary introduced the Crested Wood Partidges as "avocados with legs")
These two reasons mean that zoo enthusiasts are justified in being critical of Disney's Animal Kingdom, as it succeeds as a theme park, but simultaneously "fails" as a zoo.
- Limited viewing opportunities. This is the most common complaint I've heard on this site, and in my opinion a very justified one. The animals on the Safari cannot be viewed for longer than the 30 seconds to a minute the truck is there, while many zoo enthusiasts may want to look at certain species for longer.
- One of the main goals of the AZA is education. From what I saw, DAK fails to reach this goal. Signage is missing at a lot of exhibits, and some of the staff members stationed at exhibits weren't exactly helpful (one of the staff in the Asian aviary introduced the Crested Wood Partidges as "avocados with legs")
These two reasons mean that zoo enthusiasts are justified in being critical of Disney's Animal Kingdom, as it succeeds as a theme park, but simultaneously "fails" as a zoo.
That said, they do offer species guides for both aviaries, and there *are* opportunities to view the safari on foot, albeit significant upcharges. And while the educational aspect of DAK is limited/increasing over time, the theming and the exhibit design is a MASTERCLASS. The sightlines. The foliage composition. The unobtrusive aviary design especially. (And for the record, introducing crested wood partridges as "avocados with legs" is a fun way of showing them off to the public, as while it sort of anthropomorphizes them, it's better than the public seeing them as just another bird.)
you make an interesting point re viewing and the safari. I certainly think that on that ride specifically it’s fair to view the animals very much as a prop in the background.
I'd imagine a large proportion of the forum members don't give DAK a second's thought.
From reading the previous comments, though, it sounds like an awful zoo experience. Waiting in a line for over an hour just to begin to see common zoo animals? And it's just a ride as well? Not a difficult decision from me to skip it for something more enjoyable.
There are animals spread throughout the park, but the bulk of them - all of the African species - are on the safari ride. It's a neat ride, but it *is* a ride at a major theme park, vs a safari truck ride at a different zoo. Because of the theming, species can be difficult to see on it.