Dreamworld Dreamworlds Tiger cubs

Of course Dreamworld is out to make a profit. It is owned by a bank. They brought the tigers out with the thought that they would be popular and they have been.

If the animals are well cared for in a professional program that benefits wild tigers I cannot see too many downsides. I can appreciate that there are varying opinions on how large carnivores should be managed but few who have actually been to Dreamworld and seen how it is presented actually disagree with the approach.

I am pretty sure that the decision to acquire elephants at Taronga and Melbourne was born out of a desire to increase revenue. It would have been carefully assessed in this regard.

 

Didn't Dreamworld send, or atleast one of Dreamworld's keepers spend quite a bit of time in India teaching locals how they can stop tigers and what they can do to prevent their income/families being harmed by them. To me that is very impressive. This is doing what we have said many times on the forum should be done. this as well as the money they put in is pretty damn good. Now they may not put as much in compared to the profits but atleast they do... I approached ten major companies to help support a free Mobile Vet Unit in Sri Lanka for elephants and the most i got back was a free sample of coffee. These are Multi -million/billion dollar companies that wouldn't spend $5,000 to help out. so any organisation that gives money/supports to environmental issues should be applauded (as long as it's not to cover up other problems...lol). How much of the Profits from Australia Zoo would go into helping exotic species. he does a hell of a lot for natives sure but with income being atleast $20,000,000 just from gate entries I think it would also be comparitivelt low... and he uses tigers in the same way as dreamworld... right well now i'm gettin a little bit cheeky so I'll stop my ranting... Just my thgouhts. i do believe all zoos do great jobs and all do them in different ways. Education is the key however...

 

education is the key, youre right jarkari, and when zoos present tigers in an 'eco-system' habitat, im much the same way as elephants are at taronga and melbourne they are highlighting the significance of ecological interdependence. species obviously didnt eveolve in islolation and therefore the message of tiger conservation, or any keystone species is most effective and valid when presented in this context.

ptig, i fully agree with dreamworlds husbandary protocol, enrichment and think the projects the are supporting are valid tools. having been to dreamworld, i saw first hand the magnificence of the display and the tigers. but surrounded by commercial eateries, souveneir shops and rides, it can be hard to foster any sort of contemplative or reverential attitude towards these animals.
what im questioning or merely raising is whether dreamworld is actually in an effective postion to be a conservation education forum, as opposed to a zoo like say taronga. chances are, visitors to dreamworld will walk away knowing alot more about tigers than a visitor to taronga, but the context in which zoos present their animals (for example, the tiger within a tropical forest framework) has deeper implications for conservation and sustainability awareness. melbourne zoo and taronga zoo, behind the elephant importation 'scandal' both present thse animals within their environmental and cultural context, surrounded by other animals, themed architecture and education. to say the animals were brought out here to boost revenue is as much as an over-simplification of the saga as it would be to say that just by having them here were going to save elephants. the reasons behind this import, as youre proably aware, ranged from, yes increasing attendance to the zoos, to supporting in-situ work (which both zoos were doing along time before the import) and also to ensure that future australian zoos actually have animals. without these elephants, for example, our representation of mega-fauna could soon just be giraffe and white rhino. and as someone who both believes in zoos roles and their future this was frightening. to draw a comparison between asian elephants in zoos and dreamworlds tigers is opening up a wide margin for scrutiny.

i think zoos are much better placed than theme parks like dreamworld to deliver these messages because... -the focus is not purely on making money and.... as time goes by, and funds becme available zoos are increasing their focus on ecological sustainability.
this value set is translated in everything they do, from the corporate side of things to what species they choose to display and how they are contributing to this species in the wild. in australia, perth zoo is leading the way, but the other zoos all have equally strong enviro agendas. and finally, figures surrounding surrounding in-situ support form any zoo are always hard to breakdown, because often in-kind support such as staff, consultation and equipment are not disclosed.

 

education

in the end we only conserve what we love,
only love what we understand,
and only understand what we are taught.

 

*sob sob sob.....

such profound words zooboy...

 

lol shut up pat- but we cann all agree it's true

 

well said, hehehe

 

I like the drawing of the Tiger Pat, is it Bengal?.

 

but more seriously, glyn, i think you are letting your distaste for amusement parks cloud your better judgement.

most people visit zoos on weekends and public holidays and as you yourself have mentioned in the past, on these days they are hardly places inducive of any comtemplative thought. they are full of screaming children and families who are just as concerned with feeding the kids icecreams to get them to shut up as they are with looking at the animals.

we all seem to agree here that the best method of educating the public is with keeper talks. but isn't that what tiger island does all day?

do you really think that observing some a ball of stripes half hidden behind a bamboo thicket at your local zoo is potentially more educational because it has otters and elephants displayed on either side of it instead of a rollercoaster and a bigbrother housemate?

i think your perceptions of what the average zoo visitor, who lets face it probably doesn't even have a great deal of interest in animals per se, absorbs from a visit to the zoo.

you mention the architecture. well, at melboure the whole area is delightfully asian themed and inspired. yet, one of the most common questions i still hear people say, as they viwe the elephants from a little thai pavillion is "are they asian or african elephants?"

but hey, i'm not trying to put down the educational integrity of zoos so much as i'm attempting to illustrate that really, the reason everyone is paying out on dreamworld is simply because they don't like the idea of live tigers being and attraction at a theme park.

i have never visited dreamworld and have absolutely no aspirations to change that, but so far i have not heard one argument against the park in this thread that is particuarly justified.

and anyway, tiger island doesn't have to be more educational that a zoo to warrant its existance, its not trying to teach people about the worlds ecology as a whole, just about a charismatic part of it.they are doing a good job of it, so whats the problem?

 

hmmmm. i reckon he's got a bit more of a siberian look about him personally. but i'll be honest, i didn't really think about what subspecies he was when i drew him...

 

Well there a a few pictures of the cubs on the website now, they have been moved to the nursery and are pretty darn cute. the website lso provides some good info on the cats, including birth details and the history of the parents etc. CUTE!!!!

 

tiger coservation and messages

I have to agree with Patrick. It seems to me that Glyn believes that everyone that goes to a zoo is a university professor and all of the village idiots go to a theme park. Probably a little of both.

Sure it is great to exhibit elephants next to other animals that interact in their environment. However the average zoogoer does not get the connection. I do not have any problem with the elephants coming to the zoos here and I fully support their value to conservation. I know keepers at both Melbourne and Taronga and think that they do an excellent job.

In the interest of the survival of exotic animals at zoos in Australia they do need to look forward. It is only going to become more difficult to maintain collections with animal rights pressures as well as government over regulation.

The argument though about wht was best for these individual animals can be raised. Were they in better conditions in Thailand?

 

give me a break. people go to zoos to see animals, if they werent intereste d in the first place they wouldnt go. they go to theme parks to go on rides. i dont care if dreamworld has tigers (they could have elephants too, or polar bears, or giraffes, or aardvarks), they do a good job of looking after them. they donate some money, lots of it. they give a talk about tigers. then you cna go and jump on the tower of terror and forget all about it. if thats considered to be conservation, or education and if thats all we have to do to save tigers, then thats good...maybe things are a bit simpler over the border, any wonder people move up there
it would make you wonder why zoos spend so much time peddling issues like habitat conservation, trying to change behaviours by teaching things you can do at home, ecology and biodiversity when conservation can be as fun and happy as this.

 

why people go to zoos

Please give me a break. I am pretty sure that people go to zoos for several reasons which may be as simple as going to nice place to have a day out of the house. It may be even take their kid to the petting zoo cause it's fun.

Maybe the principle reason to go to a theme park is to go on the rides, at least for most people. Believe it or not some of them go to see the tigers and even a few want to learn about them. How dare these people go to theme park and not just focus on rides!

 

Dreamworld has a big range of native animals there in good exhibits and from what i hear doing a real good job with them too, I understand they also have the secong biggest Koala colony in the world, sure they are not a zoo but if they are doing a good job teaching people about animals and breeding animals good on them, and if they donate money to conservation even better.

 

ptig are you an american?

 

I am a citizen of the world. What are you writing a book?

 

ha ha, howd you know. i jst noticed you said petting zoo, and was sonly wondering.

 

Mark, do I understand that you think this is a good thing? From what I understand, the largest colony in captivity is just down the road from Dreamworld at Lone Pine - around a couple of hundred Koalas, I think. What on earth would warrant holding this many koalas (apart from selling them Japanese or US zoos of course)? There's nothing that can't be done with 5-10 animals, and the costs involved with keeping this many is huge.

Personally, I don't think for a second that holding that many koalas is anything to brag about.

 

probably so that they can rotate them for photo sessions. and at a guess thats exactly why taronga zoo has about 30 koalas as well!!