To say I came to know the park and its staff extremely well would be an understatement. The entire place had an air of 'family' about it that was shared by staff and regulars alike. That's a big part of what made the takeover by SF so painful, because that air utterly vanished within less than a year of the takeover.
--Decommissioning and removal of the gorgeous custom-made dolphin fountain in the main square.
KC7GR,
This is NOT meant to be a "defense" of Discovery Kingdom, as I can tell your points are well researched and based on personal observation (unlike the based-on-what-they've-read blasts made by others). I just want to bring up some points that may be, at least possibly, explanatory.
First, I was not paying attention closely when the Six Flags corporation bought out Marine World. Was this takeover: (a) a hostile corporate buyout, where MW was doing fine but 6F just offered more money; or (b) MW was going under fast, and 6F "came to the rescue", taking a financial risk to "save" this park from financial demise? I truly do not know which situation it was, but I suspect it was the latter. In Denver, the former Ocean Journeys aquarium was about to go bankrupt and shut down forever, until the corporate restaurant chain Landry's bought them out and put their own imprint on the aquarium. And who could fault them? If this is the case with MW, then can you really fault Six Flags for putting their own corporate imprint on the park? Is it bad that they (presumably) took a great financial risk, and for that risk they might want to try and make some money? For example, taking down that fountain might be a part of "putting on their own imprint". Maybe it was a clear symbol of the old "Marine World" park which they wanted to remove.
That was before I saw nearly every spare bit of space in the park taken up by rides. Areas that had formerly offered a quiet and shady place to just sit, rest, and contemplate had gone the way of the dodo.
--NO place in the park that is free of some sort of roller coaster noise, often obnoxiously loud.
I've said it before and I will say it again: This is a park that needs to firmly and permanently decide, one way or the other, what it's going to be. If "zoo/oceanarium," then either get rid of the thrill rides completely or split the park CLEANLY in half, as Busch and DAK have done, and give said rides their own space, island, or whatever. If "theme park," and they are not willing to split the place, then get rid of ALL animal elements and exhibits. Transfer them to other zoos and oceanariums where they will (hopefully) be assured of better living conditions.
As I said in my previous post, perhaps they already HAVE made this "split the park CLEANLY in half" as you suggest. But instead of a geographical split down the middle, they've taken the "pizza" and cut off a outer ring. That "ring" is where all the animal exhibits are, with the rides all on the inside of that ring. Is this so unacceptable? And while I admit that the roller coaster noise can be quite loud (in the rides area, yes, but "obnoxiously" is in the ears of the beholder), I did not find it at all loud in the animal areas. I'll also admit that the inner rides area is indeed quite crowded with rides -- you can see that on the map. But that's something for the rides-fans to complain about, not animal-fans.
--Petting zoo (a great favorite with the kids) removed.
--Permanently closing off the underwater viewing windows at the whale/dolphin stadium, for no good reason that I could fathom.
One thing a corporation does is market research or "market testing". Isn't it possible that they saw the petting zoo (which I'm a huge advocate of) and underwater viewing windows simply weren't getting much use? If so, it's an ordinary business decision to close down such things.
--Big-screen video monitor mounted at the whale stadium, apparently for the sole purpose of blasting commercials at the audience before the show
Sea World has these big-screen monitors too. Certainly one reason may be to "blast commercials", but at least at Sea World they are very nice for giving the audience in the far back rows some up close views of the killer whale(s) and their trainers.
--Background music at their laughable excuse for a dolphin "petting pool" turned up so loud it'd give you headaches.
I can't agree or disagree, except to say I went to the dolphin petting pool and I didn't experience this at all. Maybe the speakers weren't working properly on the day you were there.
--Negligence in maintenance being responsible for the death of a giraffe.
There probably was some real mistakes made -- as there are at all zoos. Apparently the AZA looked at those mistakes and judged that they were not serious enough to withdraw SFDK's accreditation.
--NONE of the original Marine World animal care/training staff (that I knew, at least) deciding to stay on, despite decent offers.
This is actually quite common when there is a corporate takeover. Employees are often very loyal to the old management and they feel that reporting to new management would be "disloyal". Heck, many years ago my wife and I left a church for similar reasons, as we didn't want to start a new loyalty to a new pastor, when the old one was removed -- someone we were very loyal to.
In conclusion, I do NOT disagree with you, at least not much. I simply think that there MIGHT be legitimate reasons for all the things annoying you about SFDK. More than anything, however, you might still have an injured loyalty to the old Marine World -- and nothing Six Flags does will ever win over your loyalty.
Thanks for your thoughts.
