Dreamworlds Tiger cubs » Dreamworld

11-04-2007

I can't say if the cubs were not meant to be born or not. If this was the case it could be because their parents were so closely related.The cubs parents are Lari (the male) and Malu( the female). The fathers of these two were brothers, Shiva and Jambi wjo were cubs of Tarongas original breeding pair Nico and Meta. Laris brothers are Ramalon (at Melbourne and with cubs of his own) and Juara the breeding male at Taronga. Asister Kemiri is at Adelaide.

11-04-2007

You are right Jarkari, these tigers were bred against the recommendations of the species coordinatro, as both parents are over represented. The fact that they were also moved to Australia Zoo without the knowledge of the species coordinator makes you wonder just how the "accient" might have happened. Still, it got Australia Zoo some hand-raised tigers for their shows

12-04-2007

maybe mogo got a nice donation, which would have been a very big endorsement?

12-04-2007

I remember reading that when Steve took the cubs, Sally (is it sally, the owners name?) vowed to never do it again. Was she talking about taking the cubs from their money or going against breeding recomendations?

12-04-2007

Umm... so, selling some endangered program animals that were bred against regional recommendations is an endorsement???

Whooa then!! I think all the zoos should just breed whatever they want, and sell the offspring to whoever they want. And while we are at it, should we tell all the species coordinators to stop wasting thieir precious time making well thought-out breeding recommendations each year, in order to effectively manage the meagre populations that we have here?

Really, think about the BIGGER picture!! And not about short-term benefits, to the detriment of well thought-out, long-term goals.

12-04-2007

i know zoopro, and it doesnt mean they should have, but its steve, hes rich, mogo, mogo is not rich, and if sally was gonna get some money, she would have taken the opp.

i dont support what happened

Sumatran cubs at Dreamworld
20-04-2007

I read with interest all of the differing opinions on the pluses and minuses of hand rearing tigers by choice versus necessity. The advantages of hand rearing far outwweigh the negatives as well as it taken on by competent and trained staff. The staff at Tiger Island(Dreamworld) has hand reared six previous cubs there while the manager and associates have hand reared well over 125 cubs overseas in California. This does not include many lions, leopards, cheetahs, cougars, and a variety of small cats. They would be certainly a world leader in the field.

To provide the animals in their care with the most rewarding and enriching life is paramount. Tigers that are accustomed to handling in this fashion are less stressed in situations that would clearly caused problems with cats that are less used to human activities.

Over the last 10 years Dreamworld has been able to donate over 700,000 dollars to tiger conservation in India, Indonesia, and Russia. They are the largest zoological donor to tiger conservation in the world. The remainder of the zoos in Australia cannot come close to this kind of funding. It is only through the educational message and activites that the tigers take part in (paid tiger walks, photo sessions, commercial jobs, and public donations) that this level of funding is possible.

As for the activities that the tigers participate in during presentations. They do not perform un-natural activities. Rising up for milk is simply an extension of what they do in the wild. They obviously do it for the reward on offer. I see it as a benefit that people get to see a larger range of activities than in a static tiger exhibit and may have a better understanding of what a tiger is. It simply is not a "showy" kind of presentation.

The tigers are also benefitted by advanced husbandry techniques that allow handlers to take temeperatures, blood, close visual inspections without knocking animals down.

Certainly there are economic incentives to Dreamworld. But seeing that the tigers have a better life, breed better, show people a different side of the cats, and raise huge sums of money that is sent to protect and support them in the wild should be applauded.

20-04-2007

its good to hear about the donations, but forever will debate go-on in the zoo industry

20-04-2007

i agree with all of the above remarks. the only thing i would question is the depth and/or value of dreamworlds tiger education campaign. whilst visitors to dreamworld, or indeed any zoo might vow not to buy tiger products, its the overly commercialised nature of the place that undermines the promotion of any real eco-sentric value set.
of course, thats beside the point. good on dreamworld, and all the visitors who fly to soth-east queensland, with one of the worst land-clearing rates in australia, and by purchasing a plush tiger toy can contribute to tiger conservation!
ok, im cynical, maybe ive been reading to many books by david hancocks or nicole mazur!

education value
21-04-2007

I do agree that there is probably limitied value in talking to most people regarding reasons and changes that may be made to enhance the chances that tigers will continue to exist in ten or twenty years. But the attempt is surely worthwhile.

The same people that go to theme parks go to zoos and get half of the message in most cases that Tiger Island delivers. Years ago there was a study conducted that revealed that visitors to Dreamworld's Tiger Island spent between 15-20 minutes looking at the tigers as well as listening to the handlers. The same research done at Western Plains zoo found that the average watching the tigers there was approximately two minutes.

Visitors do not read much in the way of graphics and the only message delivered is through interpretive talks.

Sure Dreamworld is out to make a buck. I will tell you though that so is Taronga, Melbourne, Perth, and the rest of the government zoos in the country. The only real conservation value is putting something back into the wild. Unless you get "bums on seats" and provide a fun and entertaining environment chances of success are limited.

22-04-2007

ptig, im a strong supporter of zoos and captive assurance programs, but real conservation is not about putting something back in the wild as you said. i dont doubt for a second that dreamworld manages to hold visitors attention span for alot longer than a static zoo exhibit does, but its the context in which the messages are being delivered that i care about. i mean, we could build a fabulous exhibit of tigers in a shopping centre too, or build a polar bear enclosure on the gold coast, on the other hand. but this is not conservation. its not really education either. its a commercial product with a bit of 'conservation' on the side. dreamworld cannot simplify conservation and saving tigers by saying 'you can still have a holiday and save tigers'. what a croc of ****. its like the rhetoric less conservation savvy zoo PR people come up with, when they announce that a captive breeding program is saving a species!
if you are to consider that australians have one of the biggest eco-footprints of any global citizen, and the growing impact of aviation in climate change, then flying to dreamworld to listen to a spiel about sumatran tigers is not conservation. im not going to say its not fun, or that it lacks value entirely, just that its real conservation. and in a global context of rampant consumerism which is affecting tigers directly too, $700,000 isnt a lot of money. its better than nothing, but its not alot.
and on another note, whilst yes, the zoos of australia owned publicaly are orientated towards being cash flow positive, i would hesitate to say they are commercial. after all they are not-for-profit.

22-04-2007

While I agree with some of your coments ptig, there's holes a mile wide in the one quoted above. I'd be guessing (probably correctly) that the majority of people that go to Dreamworld go for the rides, and the theme park entertainment. Amongst all the rides, there's the tiger display, and tucked away in the corner, a small native wildlife park. It's quite likely that Dreamworld visitors are going to spend far more time at your tiger exhibit than visitors do at the one at Western Plains Zoo - they are giving 20 minutes of their whole day to have a look at one of the few "non-ride" activities at Dreamworld. But Western Plains Zoo visitors in contrast, have gone to spend the best part of their day at a zoo, and not at a theme park.

Although I don't have any facts (and I'd be very keen to be pointed in the direction of the research that you are quoting) I would be surprised if Western Plains visitors spent only 2 minutes in front of the tigers there. I wouldn't dispute that fact that they spend less time in front of the tigers there than visitors do at Dreamworld, but in contrast, they spend the rest of their day looking at other animals, and not on activities that have nothing whatsoever to do with wildlife.

Overal, Western Plains visitors probably spend 4-5 hours watching animals in a day, but at Dreamworld, as you say, it's probably 15-20 minutes out of a day. Which visitors are likely to learn more about wildlife and conservation?

I'm also aware of the significant amount of money that Dreamworld contributes to various in situ wildlife projects, but I'd be keen to see what percentage of their profits this constitutes. The National Zoo in Canberra (and other zoos) also donate a significant amount of money to in situ conservation projects, and while the dollar value they donate might not be as large as Dreamworld's, I bet the percentage of it's income that this represents is much higher than Dreamworld's. In my eyes this shows a higher commitment to conservation.

22-04-2007

can anyone remember the new member pat scared off? lol what was their name? lol

tiger conservation
22-04-2007

The quoted figures for visitors' time spent at each exhibit come from an honours project done by a student from New castle. To clarify one point is that while visitors did spend more time during interactive keeper talks they were still on average spending very little time there.

No doubt they spend a larger amount of time during their day looking at wildlife. I never asserted that they did not. I was only discussing their tiger exhibit.

As far as conservation donations go. You may possibly be right about the donations as a percentage of gross profits for different organisations. I for the life of me cannot figure out how Flora and Fauna International or Phoenix fund can spend percentages. Seems to me that they need the currency to pay the bills.

tiger conservation
23-04-2007

Glyn, firstly I am not scared off by a good debate. I would love to hear the definition of conservation. If it is not doing something about the issues and problems in-situ than the rest of it is crap. I can only assess that you are not a supporter of at least exotic animals in zoos.

I too do not think that on there own most captive programs are likely to increase numbers of a species. There are exceptions but tigers are certanly not going to be released back into the wild. They do though draw attention and can focus public funding to assist.

The 700,000 dollars that I mentioned is substantial in terms of funding projects. The money is spent in countries where it goes considerably further than in a western country. It is certainly considerably better than nothing and would love to see others match it.

Please do not let the "not-for-profit" attachment lead to the conclusion that these businesses are run in a uniquely different fashion. They have to pay the bills as well. The difference being profits go back into the zoo versus to shareholders. I guess if there is a profit to be re-invested.