Carowinds turn for unruly teens 9/17/22

[disco2000]

Still a developing story and this article is full of errors.  Social Media is reporting they closed early (nothing on official Carowinds sites yet - EDIT - they did about 12:30) due to fights and rumors of guns.

https://snbc13.com/carowinds-shooting-scarowinds-amusement-park-evacuated-after-guns-brandished-charlotte-nc/?fbclid=IwAR1AA3RC-J6nxtnmNl4wCQxmYEjafU2c4p3yUwsCte3NEA66VAS_UxmfT9c&mibextid=YSzJz1

 

Are they next park to see a curfew?

Edit:  adding more news links until another post or Carowind issues a statement:

https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/18/carowinds-says-no-guns-park-cites-unruly-behavior-reason-police-presence/

https://statefirstnews.com/2022/09/18/update-today-carowinds-shooting-active-shooter-scarowinds-amusement-park-evacuated-after-guns-brandished/

 

[disco2000]

Sorry for double post, but Carowinds just issued a statement:

https://twitter.com/Carowinds/status/1571353489523048448?s=20&t=gwsigAwheKO9o4xV-EFmFg

[Coasterteam]

inb4 second chaperone policy

[Kenban]

The same thing happened during Haunt at California’s Great America in 2019.  That park cancelled Haunt and transitioned to a family friendly event this year.

I expect Carowinds will implement a chaperone policy.  I would also not be surprised to see it spread to more of the chain.  But I also guarantee executives will have discussions about possibly ending haunt events at more parks.  Haunt brings in crowds and money.  But at some point it’s not worth it.

[disco2000]

The bigger question will be does CF take note and get ahead of this and implement a chaperone policy chain-wide or do they wait for a truly bad event happen to the point that they have to cancel the whole event at a park for the rest of the season?

As we have seen, CF has eliminated Haunt at other parks in favor of a family friendly event.

KI has data on a family friendly tricks and treats only event from 2020 and data on Haunt "post" pandemic, and CP has numbers on expanding Haunt to Thursdays and Sundays, so CF has a wealth of data to go by to make a financial decision over an emotion decision.  I am sure someone is crunching the numbers and doing the analysis to determine if Haunt should continue.

[FUN&ONLY!]

The issue with Halloween Haunt is that is caters to teenagers. A chaperone policy would essentially eliminate the event’s target audience by making it harder for teenagers to attend. And families are going to stay away as well because the website makes it clear that the event is not meant for young children. If Cedar Fair wants to deal with the root of the problem, the company should probably cancel Halloween Haunt and replace it with the new Tricks and Treats event. Maybe the parks can retain some haunts and scare zones in the “tricks” areas. By changing the event and target audience of the event, the teenage audience will mostly be replaced with a family audience. With a chaperone policy for Halloween Haunt, however, the parks will cater to a teenage audience that cannot easily attend and still deter families.

[disco2000]

If Haunt truly catered to teenagers and was their target audience then alcoholic beverages would not be sold that night LOL...

Although the website tries to make it clear that the event is not meant for young children, KI Haunt still sees a lot of kids under 13 at the park and won't turn families away at the gate.  Strollers going thru mazes.  Wagons being pulled with little ones.  Families don't care what the website says - we have our passes and we are going to use them LOL. 

Look at all the comments from families on FB stating how they have no problem taking their single-digit age children to Haunt and all the gripes about the new bag policy won't allow them to bring in their diaper bag in for their baby....

I can also see the demographic of the audience come into play as well.  I was at HalloWeekends last night and have gone many years in the past.  It is crazy crowded (especially from Columbus day to end of season) and sure they have incidents like other parks, but it isn't overrun by teenagers and most guests are behaving (at least in my experiences compared to at KI and Carowinds).  It is a lot harder for teens to be dropped off at CP for the night than say a Carowinds or KI.  A chaperone policy wouldn't have much impact at CP.

I see the following scenarios going forward (not necessarily this year but in the future years) (although I start with KI, it could be any park with Haunt):

• KI continue as is with fingers crossed that nothing bad happens to warrant a chaperone policy or worse.
• KI gets proactive and implements the chaperone policy now before Haunt starts and takes the abuse on the front end.
• KI goes to a new ticketed event and season passes are not valid (imagine the griping that would get) as a way to try to control the crowd.
• KI moves away from Haunt to a more family friendly event.
• Some other idea that someone else thinks up.

What I expect to happen short term is that they will play the wait and see game.  Knott's Scary Farm starts next weekend and has a chaperone policy in place - that will help guide the chain as to the impact that truly has on the event.

But long term, as I mentioned, CF execs has the data on a family friendly tricks and treats only event from 2020 and data on Haunt "post" pandemic, and CP has numbers on expanding Haunt to Thursdays and Sundays, so CF has a wealth of data to go by to make a financial decision over an emotion decision.  We have already seen them eliminate Haunt at other parks.  And then add this year the data from Knott's and any other park that implements a chaperone policy and the impact that has to operations.  Actually from Knott's they will have data on it being a separate event AND a chaperone policy.  They have been a separate event for years.

And I know some people will say getting rid of Haunt or a separate ticketed event will never happen, yet people said Winterfest would never happen again also....  Changing times calls for changing measures...

 

[FUN&ONLY!]

While there certainly are exceptions, most people at Halloween Haunt aren’t with families.

There is no chance of this happening, but imagine the outcry if Halloween Haunt was taken away as a benefit from the Prestige Passes after what has already been taken away. LOL! If anything, Halloween Haunt would be taken away from Gold Passholders, but I also find that very unlikely.

[disco2000]

^True, but you see way more under 13 years olds than you would expect to see as well.

Now that would be funny to see them screw over Prestige passholders even more LOL.  

And if they did take Haunt away from gold passholders at KI, then it screws over the CP Prestige+ passholder that would visit KI as that pass is considered a gold pass at other CF parks (certainly doesn't sound like an elevated pass offering to me as it should have been like a platinum at other parks) (last bullet):

https://www.cedarpoint.com/blog/2022/guide-to-2023-season-passes

[Captain Nemo]

Chaperone Policy coming to Carowinds after recent incident. I'm all for this policy, parks are not a daycare.

Won't be surprised to see KI announce this soon.

[MisterSG1]

Once again CF has decided to throw the baby out with the bath water.

it’s a futile point in trying to argue about this so why bother.

Tell me, what if it were young adults brawling in the park, like say 18-21, what would you say then, that anyone under 21 should have a chaperone?

 

Wonderland doesn’t have any real behavioural issues with guests, although at haunt back in 2014, someone was stabbed to death by the toll plaza after the park closed that night. Maybe CF was a bit more laissez faire back then because the park operated business as usual the very next day. I was there, I remember, the toll plaza booths were behind yellow police tape and thus associated had to stand outside and collect payment/passes.

 

Since this is a topic that makes people walk on eggshells, let me just say that I would be flabbergasted if CF introduced this to Wonderland, brawls have never happened here and I don’t expect them to start happening.

[robintodd]

Seems like they will most likely follow Knotts policy.  Which by the was news agencies are reporting as being 'well received'.  Must be so considering they are extending the chaperone policy to include Sundays.  I doubt they would extend it to Sunday's if the policy negatively affected attendance.  This may the wave of the future.

[disco2000]

Chaperone policy or eliminate Haunt?

And before you start the argument that Haunt makes too much money to eliminate, CF has dropped Haunt at other parks in favor of family friendly events. Do you really think these teens are actually spending money in the park to justify the event? 

And yes if they wanted to they could make it an over 21 age requirement, especially since alcohol is available.

Sure there are bad apples in every age group, but it is the teen group that continues to demonstrate the most problems.

Further, each park draws a different crowd.  As I said above, CP doesn't  need a chaperone policy as it is a different crowd than a Carowinds or KI.  A little hard for parents to drop teens off at CP...

[Taylor.B03]

17 hours ago, Captain Nemo said:

Chaperone Policy coming to Carowinds after recent incident. I'm all for this policy, parks are not a daycare.

Won't be surprised to see KI announce this soon.

Their website and socials do not reference nor have an announcement of this. Could you please link the source article?

[disco2000]

6 hours ago, Taylor.B03 said:

Their website and socials do not reference nor have an announcement of this. Could you please link the source article?

https://www.facebook.com/carowinds/photos/a.125492718598/10160055444008599/

https://www.carowinds.com/events/scarowinds/visitation-information

https://twitter.com/Carowinds/status/1572284499987398657?s=20&t=8TUU05G1RYEC1TRJPQIdLA

[silver2005]

My Skyline did something similar as they're by a HS where they close at 10 pm every day including weekends because of teens, but also because they don't spend much for the time and effort it takes putting up with them.  Maybe CF has similar thoughts. Teens don't spend much in the park aside from entry fee, right? (I could be mistaken but it seems plausible)

[Browntggrr]

13 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Since this is a topic that makes people walk on eggshells, let me just say that I would be flabbergasted if CF introduced this to Wonderland, brawls have never happened here and I don’t expect them to start happening.

The brawls didn't happen at other parks either.

Until they did.

[FUN&ONLY!]

13 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Once again CF has decided to throw the baby out with the bath water.

it’s a futile point in trying to argue about this so why bother.

Tell me, what if it were young adults brawling in the park, like say 18-21, what would you say then, that anyone under 21 should have a chaperone?

 

Wonderland doesn’t have any real behavioural issues with guests, although at haunt back in 2014, someone was stabbed to death by the toll plaza after the park closed that night. Maybe CF was a bit more laissez faire back then because the park operated business as usual the very next day. I was there, I remember, the toll plaza booths were behind yellow police tape and thus associated had to stand outside and collect payment/passes.

 

Since this is a topic that makes people walk on eggshells, let me just say that I would be flabbergasted if CF introduced this to Wonderland, brawls have never happened here and I don’t expect them to start happening.

I agree with you. People use any incident as a reason for a park to add a chaperone policy. Earlier this year, there was a stabbing at Camp Cedar. If I recall correctly, people used it as a reason to justify a chaperone policy. The only problem is that adults were the ones involved. A chaperone policy does more harm than good. It hurts most teenagers who actually follow the rules. There are always going to be a few bad apples (adults included), but there is no one solution that can completely eliminate the problem. A chaperone policy unfairly singles out the teenage demographic while only preventing some possible incidents. It may be true that most of these incidents do occur among teenagers, but that doesn’t mean all teenagers are to blame.

[MisterSG1]

3 hours ago, FUN&ONLY! said:

I agree with you. People use any incident as a reason for a park to add a chaperone policy. Earlier this year, there was a stabbing at Camp Cedar. If I recall correctly, people used it as a reason to justify a chaperone policy. The only problem is that adults were the ones involved. A chaperone policy does more harm than good. It hurts most teenagers who actually follow the rules. There are always going to be a few bad apples (adults included), but there is no one solution that can completely eliminate the problem. A chaperone policy unfairly singles out the teenage demographic while only preventing some possible incidents. It may be true that most of these incidents do occur among teenagers, but that doesn’t mean all teenagers are to blame.

Obviously you probably saw my lengthy posts about this over on the thread about Knotts.

Im our world, rational thought is lost and everyone is quick to jump to a mob mentality.

Wonderland’s two murders on their property happened in both 2003 and 2014, I believe the former lead to the installation of metal detectors at all the then Paramount Parks. Had these murders been committed by minors, should we rush to ban all minors from the park, it’s the same logic. The wonderland murders were both done by adults.

[disco2000]

The park has decided that security cannot be everywhere at the same time, so they decided to implement a chaperone policy to potentially prevent it on the front end...much easier to enforce that policy at the front gate and deny entry and then, because of that policy, they have the ability to stop any group in the park without a chaperone to confirm said chaperone is still on park premises than it is to staff, monitor and enforce no fights, line jumping, etc. policy within 300+ acres...

Regarding the murders on Wonderland that you love to keep bringing up, everyone involved (victim and perps) were 21 or under....so in all likelihood they were probably there in groups of people that would not have been present with a chaperone policy in place...

So based on those ages, why don't we just make the age limit 21 and above LOL...

Plus times and policies have changed since those murders as well, along with since the parks first opened.  We could get into a whole discussion about the why there have been changes in societal behavior over the years, but then it will turn political and not worth going down that path (in addition to being against the TOS), so let's simply leave it with changing times calls for changing measures and approaches to how to address these issues..

Are there totally behaving minors in the park - absolutely.  Are their mis-behaving adults in the park - absolutely.  Rule-breakers come in all ages.

But when the park analyzes that data and the majority of security calls are with minors, that is how and why they are targeted for policy and enforcement....

And parks have to implement park specific rules - at KI Haunt you can not re-enter, but at CP you can.  Different crowd, different set of rules.

You do realize you are in the minority in this, um, minority debate LOL.  And from what I can tell, this policy doesn't impact your ability to attend the park at all???

[MisterSG1]

It doesn’t affect my ability to attend the park at all, sure. But does it mean it still isn’t fair? Some of my early days I had with my parents back in the 90s wouldn’t have been possible with such a chaperone policy.

I explicitly mentioned 18-21 in accordance to Wonderland because here in Ontario, drinking and casinos, you only need to be 19 to do that here. Still want to oppose a silly 21 restriction and try to justify it by having to be that old to rent a car?

And do you have this data, you keep on saying that. But again I think you are failing to see the long term possibly financial damage this will cause, but again all we do is go around in circles.

 

What these parks need is actual security, not the knuckleheads in security uniforms, but real POLICE like Wonderland has. The park security are knuckleheads and don’t even know the park well, I know because I had to communicate something to do them. But during Haunt, Wonderland security works hand in hand with the York Regional Police, the actual true keepers of order during the Haunt.

[disco2000]

17 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

It doesn’t affect my ability to attend the park at all, sure. But does it mean it still isn’t fair? Some of my early days I had with my parents back in the 90s wouldn’t have been possible with such a chaperone policy.

 

Life isn't fair...  

Did you read the policy - it doesn't say the parents have to hold their kids hand and be with them nonstop LOL.  They have to enter the park with them and be available by phone in the park if they let the kids go off by themselves and they need to be able to prove they are in the park when security stops the kids...I suspect by calling the parents and security goes to the parents location within the park....so some of your early days with your parents back in the 90s would still be possible with said chaperone policy...

Well that is until parents leave and get busted not being in the park and then they ratchet down the requirements to have to be present with the minors at all times LOL...

I suspect that Knott's and Carowinds will still see the crowds and the concern about the financial damage this will cause will go out the window.  As I and others have said, I seriously doubt the teen crowd is spending cash in the park...

[robintodd]

16 hours ago, FUN&ONLY! said:

I agree with you. People use any incident as a reason for a park to add a chaperone policy. Earlier this year, there was a stabbing at Camp Cedar. If I recall correctly, people used it as a reason to justify a chaperone policy. The only problem is that adults were the ones involved. A chaperone policy does more harm than good. It hurts most teenagers who actually follow the rules. There are always going to be a few bad apples (adults included), but there is no one solution that can completely eliminate the problem. A chaperone policy unfairly singles out the teenage demographic while only preventing some possible incidents. It may be true that most of these incidents do occur among teenagers, but that doesn’t mean all teenagers are to blame.

My first reaction is maybe the chaperone policy at Camp Cedar is for the safety of the children not to be wandering around alone.

As far as your last point most people who drive don't get into accidents, yet still all drivers are required to have insurance.  Most people can handle their liquor but there are still age requirements for drinking.  When they moved the age from 18 to 21 it was because of a small minority of people under 21 were the issue, not all of them.  It's just part of living in a society and if you don't like it you can vote to put people in place to change the laws.  

[Orion742]

Chaperone policy and new bag policy are now listed on Carowinds website.

[Browntggrr]

16 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

But again I think you are failing to see the long term possibly financial damage this will cause, but again all we do is go around in circles.

Will it cause financial damage?

The teens most of us refer to that are dropped off at parks likely have passes and minimal money available.  Throw in a chaperone that now pays for parking and has more significant financial resources to be with the teen and the quick Skyline Coney the teen would have without the chaperone now turns into a large pizza with drinks and a couple cheese coneys a few hours later with the chaperone while wearing a new hoodie.

Parks that have had issues like this want to satisfy the social media outlets that are also demanding more security like yourself.  I'm not convinced additional security is the answer.  People know cameras are everywhere (including dashcams) and they still do stupid acts somehow thinking they will not be seen.  Banks are the most secure destinations that most of us know of and they still get robbed.  Kids at the age of needing a chaperone see these videos more often than many adults.  Somehow accountability & integrity has been erased from many in today's world.

I agree that the chaperone policy is a knee-jerk reaction- the recent brawl at Disney is proof that the "chaperone(s)" can commit these violent acts as well.  Parks want to show social media they are doing "SOMETHING" and pointing the finger of those who are not considered adults is a easy solution that just makes people feel warm & toasty inside (kind of putting a guarantee on a box.....).  Like additional security, I don't believe chaperone policy is the answer.

I will continue to beat this drum- put these people acting out on social media blast getting arrested and charged.  Then put them on blast when the punishment is handed down.

[disco2000]

According to different sources on social media, Scarowinds was it's normal packed self, despite no bag policy and a chaperone policy in effect...

[FUN&ONLY!]

11 hours ago, disco2000 said:

According to different sources on social media, Scarowinds was it's normal packed self, despite no bag policy and a chaperone policy in effect...

It may seem like the chaperone policy had little effect on attendance, but I doubt that’s the case. On a super busy Haunt day, 25% of the people can be removed, and the park will still seem packed. I don’t know how reliable this is, but I have also seen that Knott's Scary Farm attendance is about half of it was last year. Now apparently Knott’s Berry Farm also sold less Scary Farm Passes this year which probably contributed to some of the lower attendance, but I doubt it accounted for all the attendance losses. I don’t know what the answer is, but a chaperone policy is not it.

 

[disco2000]

Or maybe these policies are in effect a way to control attendance without having to impose an attendance capacity restriction...just let the effects of said policies do it for them.

I am sure they are still making enough money even if the attendance is down.  And per cap may actually go up because maybe those that would spend in the park but avoided it based on perception that it is unsafe will now attend.

[FUN&ONLY!]

8 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

Or maybe these policies are in effect a way to control attendance without having to impose an attendance capacity restriction...just let the effects of said policies do it for them.

I am sure they are still making enough money even if the attendance is down.  And per cap may actually go up because maybe those that would spend in the park but avoided it based on perception that it is unsafe will now attend.

I feel like the much better way to control attendance would be to raise prices and attract a higher-paying customer base. Increasing per cap spending with controlled attendance is only viable if Cedar Fair hits the sweet spot of attendance where revenue is maximized. Also, I cannot help but think of the investors who will not be happy to see attendance losses even if revenue is way up like it has been.