JPP Builds A Park (INTERACTIVE)

We found our land lads! Thank you Gondrasia! Now what?
update: Nah, I'm sticking with green swamp, it's a lot more practical than creating an atificial island of that size when we have ready to use land right there.

Lake Okeechobee is unusually shallow, so it wouldn't be implausible to do it. I guess it's weird because it's such a big lake and sort of a landmark and to essentially fill up the center of it with an amusement park seems wrong, even though it's hypothetical.

But it would give us a good area of space and would allow us to build the kind of geography we want, so I'm for it. I'm not sure if this one needs to be voted on, but I think we can talk about it more before making a final decision.

How about somewhere in the Everglades? I would love to be in the swampy alligator infested areas of the Everglades. I'm honestly thinking instead of building an actual amusement theme parked JP. Why not wall off swamp land in the Everglades with electric fencing and let nature run it's course. Let the people be charged to come visit a biological preserve. I think that is more appealing to ME.

I think the everglades is too big, too iconic. That's why Green Swamp and Big Cypress are good choices. Who's going to start a twitter campaign against the demolishing of those places?

And we could do both, honestly. One part be filled with dinosaurs that had entered the florida wild through the illegal actions of people, and one that is theme park orientated.

DoYouKnowTheMuffinMan? wrote:

Why not wall off swamp land in the Everglades with electric fencing and let nature run it's course. Let the people be charged to come visit a biological preserve. I think that is more appealing to ME.

We aren't spending $3,000,000 on a herd of 20 Gallimimus just for them to be killed off. These individuals aren't disposable.
Also, (skip to 1:10)

Personally I truly believe that there are great advantages to building an island from scratch in Lake Okeechobee, rather than buying The Green Swamp and modifying the area so that it's just habitable for the dinosaurs:

1. The park will be built with both Mesozoic and modern animals in mind, and ensuring that escape from Jurassic Park will be next to impossible; While the creation of the island will certainly fill in most of Lake Okeechobee's area, the island will feature many rivers, watering holes etc. that will be connected to the lake through either the surface or underwater. This will allow species, such as the Largermouth bass, to still live in a relatively large area.

The fish can also be used as a possible secondary way of feeding the Spinosaurids and Pterosaurs in the park. The rivers in the island will also allow rides such as the Cretaceous Cruise/Jungle River Adventure to be built in a way that is satisfying and safe to both the visitors and the dinosaurs. The rest of the island is designed with the many planned rides and attractions specifically in mind to be large, comfortable, and safe for both dinosaurs and man.

The dimensions of the island will also preserve a relatively large area of open water for the modern wildlife that currently live in the lake, preserve the recreational fishing businesses that use the lake (perhaps Jurassic Park can make a deal with them, so that their visitors can use these businesses, if they want to fish). Another advantage with these dimensions, is that the remains of the lake can function as a moat: the alligators could eat escaped dinosaurs such as Ornitholestes and Velociraptor etc. Also with the planting of new plants (both modern and prehistoric) Jurassic Park in this location, would score highly with environmentalists.

2. Lake Okeechobee's environment will gain in the long term with Jurassic Park being built; Whilst it is true that Florida's citizens as well as the rest of the world will be concerned with the construction of a dinosaur theme park, when considering the problems the state has with exotic invasive species, and the lake's ecosystem will be affected in the short term with the creation of the island, fitting in all the necessary facilities such as waste disposal and fuel pipelines, and of course adding the genetically recreated fauna and flora.

In the long term everyone will be satisfied with Jurassic Park in Lake Okeechobee; The modern wildlife will be satisfied as they will still be able to live in their habitat and their ecosystem won't have changed much (for the most part), the genetically recreated wildlife will be satisfied as the island caters to pretty much all of their requirements (whether they are dinosaurs, pterosaurs, marine reptiles, plants etc.), and the people will be satisfied that the lake and its ecosystem is still intact (as well as local businesses), the island is safe and secure (with a dinosaur escape being very unlikely) and the newest additions to Lake Okeechobee's wildlife are well looked after and can be seen in safety, through a wide variety of rides and attractions.

RaptorLover0823 wrote:

DoYouKnowTheMuffinMan? wrote:

Why not wall off swamp land in the Everglades with electric fencing and let nature run it's course. Let the people be charged to come visit a biological preserve. I think that is more appealing to ME.

We aren't spending $3,000,000 on a herd of 20 Gallimimus just for them to be killed off. These individuals aren't disposable.
Also, (skip to 1:10)

Haha, they weren't technically killed off on Sorna. But I see your point.

Alright, I've been convinced for building a park in the middle of Lake Okeechobee. Should I do a poll or are we okay with this?

I'd like a poll

Sorry for the delay. Poll #2 is up!

Key Largo would work an it is isolated enough to contain any problems.

The Everglades is currently the popular choice at the moment in the poll, but I can't help but consider the possible advantages and disadvantages to building Jurassic Park in this location:

Advantages

The Everglades are a national park, it's located in a relatively quiet and isolated location, a suitable location then for a dinosaur theme park.

Disadvantages

However building in a national park, especially one as famous, as prestigious and as unique as the Everglades, is a double edged sword. And because of this, I doubt Florida's citizens, the Government and the EPA would be willing to lease much of the land for Jurassic Park, around about 20 or 30 square miles at the most.

National Parks also have very strict rules and regulations, this would give us several severe limitations as to what species can be recreated, what buildings can be built and what materials they're made of, and what attractions can be built. Due to this environment, only species that lived in specialised locations such as the Everglades can live in the park, such as Baryonyx and Deinocheirus.

Then there's transportation and traffic issues, there is only one main road that goes through the Everglades and could possibly reach the park, and that is State Road 9336. If Jurassic Park is built here, the traffic would become very heavy and could cause pollution and damage to the surrounding area on the road.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I personally find that The Everglades are a good location for a secondary park, a side attraction to the main park, the site for a "natural" lost world perhaps. But for the Everglades to be used as the location for an inevitably very popular dinosaur theme park, probably not a good idea.

I voted 'none of the above' because I can't really decide which one works. All the national parks in Florida are, you know, National Parks. Using them as the location for any theme park is sort of frustrating even if we have a come up with lore like invasive dinosaur species are ruining the national parks so they sell off some to keep it in control.

So here is my proposal; we create a fictional 'uninhabited Floridian area' where we can make up any geography we want. They did this with Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna, I see no reason why we can't do it hear. It makes things a lot easier.

I agree, that makes this easy.

I'll wait until tomorrow to see if the vote for the Everglades is done, then I'll do another vote between fictional area Vs Everglades.

I agree. Let's move on now, but quick question, square mileage of the park?

I'd say from anywhere from 20 to 50 square miles, any more would be overkill. We have an unlimited budget but if we leave ourselves with limited room we'll have more fun fitting everything in.

Good. So, should we start choosing what species we clone and what pens they go in?
For example,
"Pen 01: 2 Tyrannosaurus"
Also, accurate dinosaurs or JP style? I say accurate.

Yeah, I'd like accurate dinos.

Poll #3 is now up. This'll be the last poll I'll do regarding the location for awhile because we should start talking about other aspects like the park's name and its species. But once we get a a map going, we'll be discussing the details of it pretty in-depth.

Poll #3 is closed, and we have finalized the location; a fictional location somewhere in Florida.

So here is where we should head next:
1. What will our park's name be?
2. Should the prehistoric animals in our park be accurate or to JP-like?
3. How many species should we have?

And anyone interested in making maps should give it a shot. Focus only on the general shape and geology, none of the actual park yet. Then we'll vote on the best ones and eventually make a cohesive official map.

Heres a basic map, I'll update it as we progress. And for the name I say simply, "(Insert your name here)Prehistoric Wildlife Preserve."

Did we all agree on this?

I was thinking of something on the other side of the state, as the right side is more populated and the left has the national parks and forest-y areas.

EDIT: I made this quick little thing using the website Inkarnate.
https://postimg.org/image/fud250ykh/

evolution_rex wrote:

I was thinking of something on the other side of the state, as the right side is more populated and the left has the national parks and forest-y areas.

EDIT: I made this quick little thing using the website Inkarnate.
https://postimg.org/image/fud250ykh/

I'll use this.

evolution_rex wrote:

So here is where we should head next:

1. What will our park's name be?
2. Should the prehistoric animals in our park be accurate or to JP-like?
3. How many species should we have?

1. Jurassic Park; it's a classic, unique, iconic and timeless identity and when looking at its symbolism, it's very clever.
2. Accurate animals please, although should we keep Dilophosaurus as a natural venomous dinosaur?
3. Excluding plant life, I think around 150-200 species of animals would be good for the park.

Gondrasia wrote:

3. Excluding plant life, I think around 150-200 species of animals would be good for the park.

That's a lot. Were talking about a space only the size of Isla Sorna. So how about 2 times the amount of species that Sorna had, so about 72?

RaptorLover0823 wrote:

That's a lot. Were talking about a space only the size of Isla Sorna. So how about 2 times the amount of species that Sorna had, so about 72?

I should have mentioned that the number of species that I was thinking of does incorporate a large variety of Mesozoic animals, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, marine reptiles, crocodiles, amphibians etc.

But when thinking about it, 200 species of animals is too much for 50 square miles; I'll compromise to around 100-150 species, so the park is just around large enough to warrant more than one visit to the park just in case visitors missed some of the animals and to revisit the favourites.

Gondrasia wrote:

But when thinking about it, 200 species of animals is too much for 50 square miles; I'll compromise to around 100-150 species, so the park is just around large enough to warrant more than one visit to the park just in case visitors missed some of the animals and to revisit the favourites.

125 works.

That seems like too much to me. I thought 100 would be the maximum. But that might be something we'd have to vote on.