Dreamworld Dreamworlds Tiger cubs

but what about for breeding, didnt matter so much about jambo the male at dubbo, his lines are over reped, as with his sisters, but for sumatran especially. also interested to ask when i go back to mogo, what was it like for the mother tiger. any stress

 

Whatever the ethics of removing big cats from their mothers at an early age- and I don't approve of this- it is really the first step towards Domestication.

Incidentally,seperating cubs from their mothers temporarily to handle and 'gentle' them is completely different, a perfectly harmless management tool.

 

Jambo isn't at Dubbo

Sorry Zoo boy but as far as I know Jambo has always been at Taronga and even though being hand raised succesfully bred with Kuchani, I think that's her name, Johari and Asali, his two cubs, were the result. and I believe the over represented bloodline actually belongs to the male at Dubbo... With the studbook manager looking for a compatible male to breed with Bruisers sisters. but this was three or four years ago. I agree, in most cases I do not think that animals should be hand raised. Dreamworld does it as an educational tool. It does generate alot of money for them but the contribution to Conservation projects in India and Sumatra is also alot higher than that of most other zoos, like mogo with it's white lion project. I guess it's just a matter of what the organisation believe is more beneficial to the species. Breeding tigers for zoos or helping them where they need it... I think that came out a bit harsher than I meant it I believe both are great and don't knock either way.

 

yea sorry you are right, my bad

 

domesticating zoo animals

grant you made the comment that pulling these cubs is the first step towards domestication, but i disagree. if anything, im guessing hesitantly the animals at dreamworld lead a more, and i hate to diss our other zoos here, healthier and enriched life than at any other institution in australia.
to take taronga as an example, their exhibits for the big cats are fine, the animals have space, exposure to elements and enrichment, etc. but they can also bound accross their exhibit completely in two or three giant leaps, have limited access to novel environmental features and the design of their exhibit limits the animals capacity to see very far.
dreamworld, by virtue of their hand-raising program, can take their tigers out of the exhibit daily for walks, giving the animals exciting opportunities for exercise, stimulation, etc. by being able to go in and interact with the animals, the handlers can vary the animals environment constantly. these animals, in many ways, are leading more natural lives because they can express a fuller range of behaviours and instincts.
its kind of like the elephant program her ein australia. unfortunately, old heman and burma, due to their aggressive dispostion, could never be taken ou of their exhibit. their lives, not to mention their old exhibit, were even more unnatural than these new, semi-domesticated animals we now have.
this argument raises the broader question of whethr captivity does tend to domesticate species. if a species was poorly managed, than perhaps only the tamer members of the species, more comfortable around humans would reproduce and this could lead to less wild population emerging. current breeding theory should prevent this because it draws genetic representation from the whole population.
finally, if animals are going to be kept in zoos, then they should be managed in such a way that is most beneficial for the individual and the species as a whole. clearly, mainstream zoos and commercial operations like dreamworld have different valu sets so the way they acheive these goals will differ. but as pat said, good luck trying to stop dreamworld from doing what theyre doing.

 

i think thats a pretty strong argument glyn.

certainly, i agree that the tigers of "tiger island" and "tiger temple" would have a much more exciting life than any of the tigers kept in a more conventional state and be arguably fitter and healthier not just mentally but physically also.

but its dangerous for the keepers and whilst i'm sure they can breed effectively maybe they do lose a little of their "tigerness" in the process.

but i must admit the whole argument about taking the cubs away from their mothers is a little hypocritical in my eyes - for all those concerned about the ethics of separating cubs from their mothers may i ask,

how many of you have ever bought a puppy?

 

but for domestic dogs, the mother weans and starts to push the pups away at about 12 weeks- though they are sold at 8 weeks.

 

Was the cheetah that attacked the small child in N.Z hand raised? Does dreamworld walk the tigers around the theme park when the public is present? I know they used to have cougars walking around on leads while the public was present. I haven't been to dreamworld for about 5 years. Last time I was there the "trainers" were telling the public that the tigers were habitualized at a young age to accept humans into their daily lives. At the time I thought it was a bit Sigfried & Royish, but now I wonder is it any different than Melbourne and Taronga with the trainers in with the elephants? I guess you could argue that elephants are domesticated in asia and that is what the zoos are portraying. Some places choose to educate the public differently than others. I have no problem with the hands on approach as long as the animals are healthy, happy and safe. I would have a few concerns if the tigers were forced to jump through flaming hoops and the trainers were wearing white jump suits with shiny sequins on them.

 

Boof,
Yeah Dreamworld does walk the tigers around the park... The cats are walked probably around eight in the morning for however long it takes , they are on leads bbut allowed to jump and play, once the public enters the park the lead is shortened and the public are permitted to pat the tigers on the backside only, with a keeper on either side of the cats head and a path being cleared in front of the cats. The puma are also walked around the park while the public are there. As far as i know Dreamworld also walks it's tigers in unoccupied parts of the park, in the bushland surrounding the main area. I imagine this would be wonderful for the cats as there are loads of native animals, always new scents and things for the cats to discover... Dreamworld never says their cats are tame however, They say they are really well trained and conditioned to accept people. They also say that their tigers are tigers and will always be wild animals. They see keepers as a part of the family, even though tigers are not pride/pack animals NSW laws state that it is acceptable to house tigers together as they are a social cat. It's the environment in the wild that causes all that tension.

 

Sooner or later this will lead to accidents happening. At Howletts and Port Lympne Zoos in Uk their main ethic is (used to be?) to befriend all the animals in their care, without interfering with their normal behaviour,- keepers used to enter the tiger enclosures etc on a regular basis but SEVERAL keepers have been killed there over the years by attacks from their charges. The local council finally got this stopped.

I think Dreamworld's policy of allowing close association between the public and their big cats is also dangerous and will eventually lead to some form of attack on somebody. Its happend so often in the past in circuses and other places where big cats are 'trained' - one day they suddenly turn on the human benefactor.

 

I agree... on some part. I am not a huge fan of the public interaction with fully grown carnivores. I know irrelevant to dreamworld but 20 kgs is the max permitted for public interaction with carnivores. QLD has no real set laws but says to use NSW as a guide... this may have changed in the last 12 month however as I know QLD was developing standards, which brings up another question. Mogo Zoo is allowing the public to play with two of it's white lion cubs... $550 for two people upto 20 minutes. From my experience a 5 month old lion cub would be fairly well over the 20 kg mark. Is NSW letting their laws slide a little...?

 

quote from Boof

Was the cheetah that attacked the small child in N.Z hand raised?

Unless there is something I dont know , I assume that this is referring to the recent cheetah incident from Wellington Zoo that Jay brought to our attention

In which case , it has only been zoo staff that has been involved in the sad furore -- not a child ( yet -- and hopefully never ! )

My understanding is that the cheetahs were conditioned around people but raised by their mother . To me there is a small difference . You can have a cub that is fed , cleaned , taught , disciplined etc by the mother , and still have interaction ( patting , playing etc ) by humans

 

the tigers presentation

the tigers at dreamworld arent really performing animals are they? the behaviours in the presentations are all natural behaviours, they arent balancing balls ont their noses etc. or they werent last time i visited.
really, theres not a big difference between this and elephants, seal shows, bird shows, etc, other than that yes, these animals can be dangerous...
im sure the benifits outweight the risks, for the moment. wouldnt like to have to pay the insurance for dreamworld. where else but queensland hey?

on another note, did anyone catch foreign correspondent last night about china's siberian tigers?

 

Yep saw that about the Siberian tigers, it will be good if they do release some back into the mountains, I am not happy about the proposed plan over there about farming tigers for there body parts, really hope this does not happen.

 

so do i. it wont satisfy the demand, it will just revive it. these tradition needs phasing out, not rekindling. and as that tiger expert said, once a tigers dead, you cant tell if the body parts for the medicine are coming from a captive or wild tigers.

 

sorry Nigel. I thought a small child was involved. I guess i need to do my research a bit better.
Glyn, tigers standing on their back legs while a trainer holds up a carton of milk for the tiger to drink from isn't what i would call a natural behaviour, but i was wrong about the cheetah maybe i am wrong about this too.

 

Natural Behvaiours

Hey Boof,
Your right... but wrong..lol the tigers on their hind legs is a natural behaviour, just that in nature there aren't too many men walking around holding milk cartons stretched out over their heads. But this behaviour is used to show the public the animals size. This posture can also be observed when the cats face off on the island... All of the behaviours, from the situps, standing, leaping and climbing are naturally, for lack of better word, performed by tigers... often see tiger on documentaries doing the situp to look over tall grass. or to mark territory. The way they climmb the trees on the island is amazing.

Cheers,
Jarkari

 

Yeah I know. I was just being a smart arse.

 

Fair enough... Pretty amazing stuff to see anyway, wether or not you agree with it... anyway it's late, why aren't you all in bed?

 

I would like to see some Siberian tigers in our zoos they are so impressive animals and such a massive cat but i guess it wont happen, from what i have herd and read some wild Siberians in the past have rerached over 1000 lbs, WOW, thats some cat, some of the Siberians at the Howlett zoo and the Marwell zoos in the UK have been some of the biggest I have ever seen in fact i think one of the males at Howetts was the biggest in any zoo.