WILD animals at WDW

[mshanson3121]

Yes.

Well that's good to know. What ones and what do they look like?

 

[Feisty Fairy]

Ducks at Epcot. I watched for about ten minutes so cute.

 

[Jennasis]

Well that's good to know. What ones and what do they look like?

You can look them up online...

Cottonmouth, water moccasins, copperheads, diamondback rattlesnake, coral snake

 

[NuJoy]

I always find it hilarious to watch squirrels stealing from strollers

 

[wareagle57]

This one? Poor squirrel. But he made it!

This is amazing. What I don't understand is how the driver saw the squirrel to stop for him. Or did they actually do this inching forward thing all the way from one stop to the next?

 

[minnie mum]

Okay, you're all freaking me out with the snakes, lol. Does Florida have poisonous snakes?

Yes, there are 6 types. 4 different rattle snake varieties, the water mocassin, and the coral snake. Plus many varieties of nonpoisonous snakes. What do you expect in a state with that much swampland?

 

[minnie mum]

This is amazing. What I don't understand is how the driver saw the squirrel to stop for him. Or did they actually do this inching forward thing all the way from one stop to the next?

I can't remember if they were stopped at the GF station when the driver first saw the squirrel, or if he saw it further up the track while he was still going slowly. At any rate, the monorail proceeded at a snails pace, stopping whenever the poor squirrel stopped. It took a very long time before they made it to the MK station.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is amazing. What I don't understand is how the driver saw the squirrel to stop for him. Or did they actually do this inching forward thing all the way from one stop to the next?

I am imagining the squirrel was noticed just as soon as they departed GF. Since the train needs adequate stopping distance, it could not have been going full speed.

Also--either in this submission or another one, the person recording said that it was about 45 minutes for the monorail to get to the station.

 

[mshanson3121]

Yes, there are 6 types. 4 different rattle snake varieties, the water mocassin, and the coral snake. Plus many varieties of nonpoisonous snakes. What do you expect in a state with that much swampland?

Well considering swampland is not synonymous with poisonous snakes all across the world, it shouldn't exactly be shocking that someone would be unaware that there are poisonous snakes there.

 

[Jennasis]

Well considering swampland is not synonymous with poisonous snakes all across the world, it shouldn't exactly be shocking that someone would be unaware that there are poisonous snakes there.

Pretty sure the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska.

 

[mshanson3121]

Pretty sure the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska.

Believe it or not, people come from other countries (of which there are over 190) to visit Florida, not just from within the US. And normally, they don't know have a vast knowledge of all the animals living in each state, which ones are poisonous, which aren't etc... It's pretty presumptuous for anyone to assume that people have this knowledge. Especially since I'm assuming most of you Americans aren't exactly "up" on all the wildlife found in every state/province in every other country.

 

[Jennasis]

Believe it or not, people come from other countries (of which there are over 190) to visit Florida, not just from within the US. And normally, they don't know have a vast knowledge of all the animals living in each state, which ones are poisonous, which aren't etc... It's pretty presumptuous for anyone to assume that people have this knowledge. Especially since I'm assuming most of you Americans aren't exactly "up" on all the wildlife found in every state/province in every other country.

If one has a particular concern over the presence of a particular type of animal in the country they are visiting...snakes, scorpions, spiders, monkeys etc, the information as to whether that creature exists in said country is readily available.

 

[mshanson3121]

If one has a particular concern over the presence of a particular type of animal in the country they are visiting...snakes, scorpions, spiders, monkeys etc, the information as to whether that creature exists in said country is readily available.

You will notice that the idea of the animal never even crossed my mind until this thread. And considering that the entire purpose of this site is to ask questions, it certainly would not be out of line to ask about the variety of wildlife one might encounter. If we are only to consult Google when we have a question then this site is useless. But certainly, forgive me for thinking a person could ask a legitimate question without being mocked, due to other people's ignorant assumptions.

 

[Jennasis]

You will notice that the idea of the animal never even crossed my mind until this thread. And considering that the entire purpose of this site is to ask questions, it certainly would not be out of line to ask about the variety of wildlife one might encounter. If we are only to consult Google when we have a question then this site is useless. But certainly, forgive me for thinking a person could ask a legitimate question without being mocked, due to other people's ignorant assumptions.

I wasn't mocking anyone. I provided the answer asked for (a list of the poisonous snakes found in Florida). I don't know what they look like, which is why I said they could be looked up online.

 

[mshanson3121]

I wasn't mocking anyone. I provided the answer asked for (a list of the poisonous snakes found in Florida).

I didn't say you did.
But your quote /comment was pretry moot, or an example of what I'm talking about. The very title of this thread is asking what type of wildlife can be seen. Likely because the poster was unaware of what animals are native to the area. Hard to look up information on what you don't even know. Then again, I suppose she could have just Googled it.

 

[Jennasis]

I didn't say you did.
But your quote /comment was pretry moot, or an example of what I'm talking about. The very title of this thread is asking what type of wildlife can be seen. Likely because the poster was unaware of what animals are native to the area. Hard to look up information on what you don't even know. Then again, I suppose she could have just Googled it.

You didn't say I was mocking you?? You said "But certainly, forgive me for thinking a person could ask a legitimate question without being mocked, due to other people's ignorant assumptions." I'm the only one talking to you. Who is mocking you?? You have no problem mocking me, calling me ignorant (rather thinly veiled) and being snippy with me. I was only trying to help you. Answered your question, even gave you specifics when you asked for it.

Sorry if you read more into my previous posts than was there, or read it with a tone that wasn't intended.





Back to the OP, I saw a peacock over at FW. It scared the heck out me! Not because it was a peacock, but because I saw it out of the corner of my eye and I swore I thought it was an alligator.

 

[mshanson3121]

You didn't say I was mocking you?? You said "But certainly, forgive me for thinking a person could ask a legitimate question without being mocked, due to other people's ignorant assumptions." I'm the only one talking to you. Who is mocking you?? You have no problem mocking me, calling me ignorant (rather thinly veiled) and being snippy with me. I was only trying to help you. Answered your question, even gave you specifics when you asked for it.

Sorry if you read more into my previous posts than was there, or read it with a tone that wasn't intended.

It all boils down to contextual, and proper grammatical reading. If you look back you'll notice I liked your first comment, I truly appreciated the input. My first direct reply was to Minnie Mum - NOT you, which therefore, means you were NOT the only one I was replying to/talking to.

Also, just so you know, I wasn't mocking you or calling you ignorant (in the first place you'll notice I said OTHER people's ignorant assumptions, not yours. Yours would indicate I meant you), but rather the assumptions. Grammar 101, in that sentence, the adjective was placed before the subject (aka, the noun). Therefore, it was the noun (assumptions) which was being called ignorant, not you, or any other person. Sorry if you read more into that than was intended.

At any rate, grammar lesson aside, in my comment to Minnie Mum, that's where I was pointing out that just because Florida has swamps that are filled with snakes - doesn't mean that's how it is everywhere else. Therefore, it shouldn't be assumed that everyone would know that, or that they'd expect that. To take it further, the fact that I pointed out world would indicate to the readers that I am not from the state, nor even from the country - even furthering the fact that it would be unlikely I would have that information.

To which you then directly quote my comment. This is where contextual reading comes in. You quoted my comment commenting that it's not like that everywhere, and then made a direct reply to my comment of "Pretty sure the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska." When that sentence is read in context, it pretty well implies that since the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska, it should pretty well be common knowledge that there'd be poisonous snakes in Florida. Which would therefore mean you just ignored the entire point of my comment, which yeah, comes across as rude.

So, if that's not how you meant it, and you were just inserting some random fact that the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska, then I apologize. It's not how it came across to me. Peace.

 

[Jennasis]

It all boils down to contextual, and proper grammatical reading. If you look back you'll notice I liked your first comment, I truly appreciated the input. My first direct reply was to Minnie Mum - NOT you, which therefore, means you were NOT the only one I was replying to/talking to.

Also, just so you know, I wasn't mocking you or calling you ignorant (in the first place you'll notice I said OTHER people's ignorant assumptions, not yours. Yours would indicate I meant you), but rather the assumptions. Grammar 101, in that sentence, the adjective was placed before the subject (aka, the noun). Therefore, it was the noun (assumptions) which was being called ignorant, not you, or any other person. Sorry if you read more into that than was intended.

At any rate, grammar lesson aside, in my comment to Minnie Mum, that's where I was pointing out that just because Florida has swamps that are filled with snakes - doesn't mean that's how it is everywhere else. Therefore, it shouldn't be assumed that everyone would know that, or that they'd expect that. To take it further, the fact that I pointed out world would indicate to the readers that I am not from the state, nor even from the country - even furthering the fact that it would be unlikely I would have that information.

To which you then directly quote my comment. This is where contextual reading comes in. You quoted my comment commenting that it's not like that everywhere, and then made a direct reply to my comment of "Pretty sure the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska." When that sentence is read in context, it pretty well implies that since the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska, it should pretty well be common knowledge that there'd be poisonous snakes in Florida. Which would therefore mean you just ignored the entire point of my comment, which yeah, comes across as rude.

So, if that's not how you meant it, and you were just inserting some random fact that the only state without poisonous snakes is Alaska, then I apologize. It's not how it came across to me. Peace.

 

[klmall]

Let's get back to posting "wildlife" in the parks other than at the Animal Kingdom:

This little girl was delighted to see two 'friends' at Epcot!

 

[klmall]