Respect for Big Cats

I have been to Dreamworld, the facilities were very impressive thats not what I'm arguing here...

I dislike a theme park (any theme park) having animals such as tigers, especially a collection including inbred mutations which it is using to make a company a very healthy profit (a tiny percentage of which it gives to conservation to; deflect nay sayers such as me, give ammunition to supporters such as yourself and attempt to silence animal libbers) they are giving the money because they have to...

Linking white tigers in any way to conservation sends a poor message to the already mainly clueless public and if this wasn't enough you guys incorporate direct handling which is dangerous for the tigers long term mental and physical health and is incredibly dangerous for your guy's safety, you may point out correctly that nothing has happened yet it but it is only a matter of time, ask Seigfried and Roy or look at the recent incident at Zion Wildlife Gardens...

I'm not trying to stir I just have polar views from you and want to have a healthy debate, I seem to remember us having a heated discussion about direct handling at Dreamworld and Dreamworld's part in tigers and tiger conservation before... As for Sun Wukong, knowing him, he'll denigrate me for presuming to speak on his behalf and he won't let on what he does...
 
@ NZ Jeremy- Thanks for your comment about the facilities. I am not sure why you dislike theme parks having tigers. In my estimation it is about taking the best care of them, and reaching out to a broader audience. Some zoos do an excellent job and some are pretty lousy and I have been to hundreds of facilities in my lifetime.

I don't think that any amount of donation level would quell some people. Tiger Island really does not have any animal rights nay sayers. I can honestly say in my 13 years here that I have received only about 4 to 5 letters from people with that slant. They tend to go after captive elephant issues, and marine mammal issues, for the most part.

Anyway the money donated is not to better the PR machine but personally I think that it is important to try and do something to improve the situation tigers are facing in the wild. Dreamworld management has always supported that position not only with tigers but also with native animals as well.

I am not sure what the comment about the mental health issue. It seems important to me to keep the animals in our care stimulated and active. Sort of the same as people. I am not sure where you received your tiger psychology training.

Of course there are greater risks to staff. With any activity it is necessary to have appropriate procedures and manage the risk. Bad things happen everywhere and I have a much better idea of why things have gone wrong at Zion and Siegfried and Roy. I never say it won't happen as that would be foolish but Tiger Island has existed in the US and Australia for almost 40 years without major injuries.

Like it or not people come to view white tigers and I will always feel that they have a place in conservation. Several projects we support can only operate with revenues largely generated from their activities.

We do have polar views. I will leave it at that.
 
So will I, thank you for the well measured response...
 
@NZ Jeremy: Thanks for Your support. Let's hope that we might be able to straighten up our tense "relationship" in the future...
@ptig: Attempting to disqualify Your dialogue partner's qualification is a very, very infantile and weak way of proving one's point-and it often backfires. Let's get the "cat" out of the bag; I've worked intensly with various dangerous animals in zoos, including big cats like tigers, lions, Amur/Indian leopards, Clouded Leopards, Jaguars etc., but also various dangerous domestic animals (bulls, stallions, large boars & hogs, rams, angry camels etc.) I've seen and witnessed very closely, sometimes with personal involvement, what they are capable of, how fast something can go wrong-and how little a human can do in the case of an emergency, especially when his only mean of control is a leash...Therefore, I do consider myself qualified enough to contradict Your easy-going and trivializing attitude. My opinion is not based on "feelings", but on bare risk analysis; and no matter how much You define it down-walking around with a tiger on a leash is an unnecessary and noncontrollable risk. The ban of such exercises in accredited major zoos in the western countries (no matter how much You try to belittle them) and the unwillingness of more and more insurance companies to insure such actions just underlines the validity of my point.
Interesting to see that You avoided answering my further questions in regard to the European zoos. However, this just confirms the idée fixe with Your facility NZ Jeremy rightfully animadverted.
About white tigers & conservation: "Dig"? not at all; I just call a spade a spade. I stated my opinion about this erroneous belief of Yours in another thread and can only support NZ Jeremy's opinion and his disbelief regarding the support of in-situ protection by Dreamworlds.
So long...Over and out.
 
@Sun Wukong- Your reply has not moved me. I would love to hear more about your experiences with tigers and the like. Even as you have stated working in European zoos they do not handle tigers, jags, etc. Thus there may be a difference.

I would assume that you know very little about the program at Dreamworld, which would be helpful for your argument. I at least have been to a few European zoo to give an impression and I stand by my earlier remarks.

I have been to a number of institutions that have made me quite uncomfortable with the expertise and handling of tigers and the other felines. Your attempt to make "bare risk analysis" may require further information as your assessment of my "attitude" when it comes to handling cats.


It is certainly not an "infantile" remark to find what your level of experience is in the matter. I am certainly not capable of throwing rational arguments about the pros and cons of handling crocodiles. I may have witnessed a little but does not make me qualified.

Please enlighten me on the white tiger and Dreamworld conservation comment. Are you questioning to dollar figure? Whether they do support in-situ conservation?

By the way, Dreamworld does have insurance.

Later
 
@ptig: Tz, tz-are You still trying to belittle my qualification? How inventive...;) Let me add a little bit: a) I did never write that my work experience was limited on European zoos and b)I think that operating with and within the inside of a big cat is the closest You can come to one besides being eaten;)-and that's just part of my work experience. And by the way: even European and American zoos "handle" their animals-but they rather try to avoid risks, than deliberately provoke some. That's the major difference. Glad to read that You found an insurance company-let's hope Your institution won't need its services soon.

As I know so little about the fabublous work and huge conservation impact Dreamworld has achieved so far, why not enlighten me (and others)? What about giving me an exact, nonpartisan and traceable insight view? After all, Your comfortable sleep should be based on something as real as Your cozy mattress, shouldn't it? Your visits to European zoos and Your rather odd opinion about them certainly aren't seriously meant as basis for Your qualification to talk about this matter, are they? If so: see Kipling quote...

All in all, Your vague enumerations (" a number", "a few") are about as traceable & inexplicit as my remarks about my job (although I leave various hints); I could equally brag about fictious experiences and numerous institutions I've been to (including Australian ones), with my word here as the only mean of confirmation. In general, the www makes it quite difficult to prove the personal qualification & validity of such claims, doesn't it? Also see the heated discussion about fake personas here... Especially with nicknames such as "Monkey King" or "Ptig" in a casual zoo forum, asking for evidence of qualification (university diploma, advanced training confirmation, conference & workshop authentications, certificates of employment...?) is a bit odd; all we have here are our statements (and maybe photos) and reasoning. Honestly: Yours so far did not convince me at all due to various reasons. Mine probably had a similar effect on You, although my assumption that You base Your reasoning solely on Your current employment, has been confirmed once again.
So why not meet me in person, f.e. at the AAZV conference in LA this autumn? There You could personally convince Yourself of my qualification and You me of Yours-and maybe prove Your point by taking Your white & Golden tabbie tigers on a leash with You on the plane, without anyone getting maulted or killed. How does that sound? The costs of the flight, teh conference fee and accommodation for You and Your tigers could be derived from the 1 million dollar budget, couldn't it? After all, You would also do "conservation work" there by converting me and other nonbelievers to the DreamWorld system of faith.
You once wrote: "We do have polar views. I will leave it at that." On this, I can agree with You.
 
@ Sum Wukong- I would certainly not try to belittle your qualifications. I would love to be dazzled by them. I am quite comfortable with my qualifications and do take offence at the suggestion that I may be fabricating. My employment has been other institutions as well and maybe in the future you can feel free to contact them to check.
I equally would love to view your CV. Possibly I can employ you at some time.

If you are curious to see if Dreamworld does indeed contibute to conservation of tigers please check the 21CT website. I assume that is a non-partisan view of the contributions.

You seem to be the one to take great pride in belittleing the efforts of others while providing no real information. I can only assume that you are possible a vet with your invitation to meet at the conference. We feel that funding in situ conservation is more important than this junket. Possibly you can sponsor me for the conference, that would be fantastic. We could go to all of the theme parks in LA together, that would be fun!

I say "good day to you sir".

I eagerly await the next chapter of the slinging match.
 
@pigtig: It's nice to read that You bestowed other institutions with Your presence. However, they seem to have been a lot like Dreamworld then-or otherwise, Your current employment has made the biggest impression on You so far. Maybe this might change with the next job...
Thanks for the generous job offer. Unfortunately, I have to decline-as on the one hand I'm pretty happy with my current employment and on the other, highly inbred tigers and risky animal training in an amusement park doesn't suit me well. So unfortunately, no CV for You.
Sorry, but all I found when looking for "21CT" were electronics ads-where exactly is that "nonpartisan" website?
Reg.:"You seem to be the one to take great pride in belittleing the efforts of others while providing no real information." Strike Nb. 3-and, You're out...;) Pretty ineffective argumentation pattern of Yours, isn't it?

A "junket"? Oh, not at all; for me, this is part of my job & training-and it should be a treat for You (in plural) to convert all those poor souls there. And about the financing aspect: is someone here trying to squirm and pass the buck;)? After all, I'm not the one (or, as "we" were mentioned, ones) having $ 1 million free to spend. Why not sponsor me & the whole conference instead? And yes, "we" could certainly invest part of that money on taking leashed white tigers with "us" on rollercoaster rides(although they most likely are used to that at home...)...that's most likely the best use this money would have experienced so far.

All in all, this is not even a "(mud-)slinging match", and never was intended to be one; it's just a display of an (alleged?) employee of an amusement park in Australia who tries to defend the husbandry of exotic animals there against all critique, no matter how relevant & well-intentioned the criticism is. And this by employing the same dull "reasoning" again and again and being immune to hints that contradict his/her faith.

So no matter what You answer to this alleged "mud-slinging" of mine-it won't change a thing on both sides, as You are convinced of Your viewpoint, and I am of mine.
NzJeremy correctly wrote:
"Its very hard to respect you ptig when you think everything you and your employer do is infallable and anyone who disagrees is a *****..."
This and Your willingness to consider even fractionally critical remarks as mud-slinging and malicious renunciation of "Dreamworld" makes it hard if not impossible to discuss something with You.
 
Last edited:
@Sun Wukong- Chapter 19

My impressions of zoos or animal training have been from institutions I have worked at as well as many I have visited. I still am not sure where your impressions are from. I am really upset at not sending your CV I am certain I would marvel at it. It is great that you are really enjoying your current employment, hopefully your employer feels the same.

Let me spell it out for you 21CT is an acronym for 21st Century tiger. The various charities do mention who supports their work in the field.

Sorry to also let you know we will not be able to sponsor you to the vet conference. As you can imagine we want to put our donations into worthwhile conservation efforts. I am not sure that you qualify.

I do thank you so much for your "well intentioned" remarks. I truly have learned so much from you. Your stunning white tiger remarks just make me want to really look up to you for advice and consent.

I tire of your ineffective remarks as well. But I am always willing to torture myself some more.
 
Ptig, didn't you guuys send one of your handlers over to india (or somewhere) to work with famers and educate them about tigers and conservation?? From memory he spent quite a bit of time over there. Now the cost of something like that would probably be more than your annual wage Sun Wukong so you really shouldn't question Dreamworlds contribution to conservation.

Secondly.
When Western Plains Zoo announced that they walked their elephants this was receieved quite well 0on this forum, as well as other Australian Zoos walking their's. Whaat is the difference. And don't try to use the "elephants naturally roam huge distances" this is alsso true for tigers, males often have massive territories. the only difference is that the tigers have a leash and this is a control measure. The only reason the elephants don't have a leash is because it would do nothing. With two handlers to a tiger on walks they can atleast prevent them getting away and can minimise the injury if an attack does occur. Try stopping an elephant wwhen they decide to run.
 
I disagree (surprise, surprise) Jarkari...

My father travels to India regularly and one NZ dollar can get you approximately 30 rupees, money goes far in India but you've missed the point as usual... As a ‘rosy eyed’ idealist I believe that money has come from big business profiteering and is given as a cost of doing business, an expense, and as businesses get bigger the almighty bottom line becomes more important... They are giving the money because the execs would have had a meeting and weighed up how to deflect critics, thought we'll give money to tiger conservation and then decided on a dollar figure (or more likely a %), whether conservation was the right thing to do wouldn't have come into the equation... I view that money as tainted, the fact inbred cats are used to raise it a few hundred metres away from a roller coaster makes it more tainted IMHO...

Comparing elephants and tigers is apples and oranges; one is a carnivore for starters... A leash on a tiger when it turns is just as useless as one on an elephant...

Zoo's have direct contact with elephants because:
- In many cases it is the only way for any enrichment
- The facilities for non direct contact with elephants are hugely expensive (much more so than tigers)
- Many Zoo's (particularly in America, insurance related?) are phasing out their elephants in part due to the cost of keeping them but also because of the danger...
Elephant keeping is the most dangerous profession in America with 1 in 660 deaths annually...
Whenever you mix big cats, elephants, bears etc and direct handling trouble will soon follow...

Sorry for posting again when I said I wouldn't, I would also like to say I applaud Dreamworld for the excellent care they seem to take of their animals, the facilities they have provided and the money they have given to conservation but IMO it is dirty money that has provided these things and I worry about someone getting hurt...
 
@Jakari- We fund 21CT admin as well as Phoenix fund projects and FFI projects through 21CT.

@NZ Jeremy- Sorry you consider the money "dirty". We tried to wash it. I earlier stated that we do not recieve criticism about the program we run with the tigers. Quite simply the staff here thought it was a great opportunity to give something back to conservation and management agreed. You may look for the most sinister rationale, I guess that goes with being a cop.

We have a duty not to just stick animals in cages and think that is sufficient. I am proud of what we accomplish with the tigers and provide for the bigger benefit in the wild. Sorry that you do not agree but that is what makes the world go round.

Later
 
I strongly disagree with having the public interact with large cats, even 14 month olds...they are still big, strong, and can inflict life threatening injuries within seconds. This has been proven time and time again, unfortunately. Recently in BC, the fiance of a private zoo owner was killed by one scratch through an artery while she was going to say good night to the Tigers. It was a playful scratch, but she bled to death on the spot. The cat was later euthanized. This cat, and the owners remaining cats, are used for photoshoots with the public and were both hand raised... as awful as the accident was, it was pure luck that it wasn't a member of the public that was killed. The cat had to pay the price.

If staff want to risk taking a cat for a walk before the zoo is open, I think that there should be an agreement that if the cat attacks, it won't be punished for a decision that those in charge of it came to. The staff obviously realize what the risks are, and if they're willing to take that risk, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to and I see how it could enrich the cats life.

However, I don't think seeing a big cat on a leash or chain instills a sense of respect into the public and instead makes them think of them as large cuddly potential pets.
 
There is good manging, and bad managing.

A small private zoo, often loves it animals the same as any keeper, but often that is shdowed, and they can be injured, and in the above case killed. But to critisise a place like Dreamworld, i think needs all facts known.

It has more than 100 years of combined handling experience, and strict policies and stategies invloved to stop such as inccident. when with a big cats, at least 2, if not more keepers must be in with each cat. If public interacts, then 3 or more would be around. I do not agree with wlaking big cats through open public spaces, whilst the public is around- yes an accident waiting to happen.

But if zoo is closed, it reduces stress pon cats, and more so is very enriching. The cats at dream world and australia zoo, ahve the highest quality of staff, and programs. Institutuions as such provide a hands on, interactive, and connecting expeirence with the public, forefilling a great role in eduaction, and fund raising. Other zoos, can hold breeding pairs, and breed on exhibit, without handiling.

It is vital that zoos maintain safety, but i also beelive zoos, and places such as oz zoo and dream world, need to cnnect animals and people, because in the end people and humans will only conserve what they love.
 
I agree that if staff want to walk them that's fine, as long as they animal won't be killed if it acts naturally and ends up injuring the staff.
 
100% agree, animals should never be destroyed for doing anything that comes naturally, and good management should not allow cats to be put in that situation. You will find, most handlers have a huge respect for cats, and if the cats do not wnat to co-operate, they will leave them be.
 
NZ Jeremy. the money may go far in India, but it still cost me $15,000 to live in Sri Lanka for three months and I wasn't actively funding conservation efforts. Jeremy get your facts right - the most dangerous job is not elephant keeping, it is deep sea crab fishing, followed by coal mining. a leash is more of a control measure than an ankus.

Were you involved in the decision making process as to what is done with the funds. Saying the money is dirty, well what a crock of ****. How much money do you think Taronga or any other zoo would make to contribute to conservation if it didn't have animals. Dreamworld is a tourist attraction yes. but they do donate to tiger conservation, it's not like it's from drug money, they donate upto 20 times more than others. look at the figures. Zoos are businesses as well. The managment there is hired to help the zoo make a profit for te state government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top