sorry, one last thing Jeremy. does that mean any contributions to any conservation projects from Canberra's National Zoo and Aquarium and Australia Zoo (or wildlife warriors) dirty money. they also take part in public interaction with predators, or Mogo Zoo, playing with white lion cubs (inbred mutants in your opinion).
Respect for Big Cats
- Thread starter Ara
- Start date
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Since when has Sri Lanka been India..?
I assuming whatever poll you’ve got your info from didn’t take into account elephant keeping (its an obscure profession) as coal miner deaths rate about 1 in 10,000 annually... Both a leash and an ankus are no control when the animal makes up its mind it’s not going to do what it tells you too...
Of course I wasn't involved in the decision making process... Dirty was the wrong word I should have re-used tainted, I apologise... Again Jarkari you have missed my point...
Most of the best Zoological institutions are registered charities or run by local councils as not for profit edutainment attractions and their websites end in .org, etc...
I’m making a distinction Jarkari, are you capable of those..? These places are set up with animals in mind for better or worse not as a for profit theme park... I do think direct handling is a dangerous practice that can result in unnecessary loss of human life...
Please don’t misquote me, I said white tigers are inbred and on this there can be little debate due to the fact that the only white tiger ever to be captured (Mohan, Bengal sub species) in India in 1956 was bred with a female cub of his to promote the white coated gene... There has already been a lengthy thread on white tigers...
I apologise again that is poor form from me, tainted is what I meant... Not a single person has a bad word to say either in person or written form..? Your exhibit must be the only un-criticised human undertaking in history... So your saying you nine or so keepers went to the executives and said, “Can we please have 1 million to give to the tigers in the wild” and they said, “Sure why not its not like were running a business here”... If that’s the case I better buy a couple of shares in Dreamworld and go and complain at the next shareholders meeting in person...
While I’m still technically a Cop, I’m on extended leave without paying to study at University but maybe I’ll never lose, as you put it, this “sinister rationale” or as I put it realism, business executives are trained for years not to spend a single cent they don't have to, it may have gone down just as you say but we'll never know to a certainty the motive, they may be as you say philanthropist tycoons with hearts of gold to who money and their targets are second to doing the right thing or is it equally likely they took the opportunity presented as something to point to if some animal libber one day gets a fire lit under them, or as justification for having them..?
OK, so maybe I am playing Devil's advocate a bit now but I think people are thinking a bit black and white here (myself included)...
@NZ Jeremy- I never said that Dreamworld gave one million all at once. That is the collective donation since Tiger Island has been there. The money is not dirty or tainted, just your cynical way of looking at it. As a matter of fact in the early years management was approached about creating an in situ tiger fund and shortly afterwards we donated our first funds.
Also I said that we have only had 4 or 5 emails that were from an animal liberation point of view. Almost all of them were from fringe elements that had no idea of what they were talking about.
Also the original white tiger Mohan was captured in 1951 not 1956. I had a chance to talk to the Maharaja's son a couple of years ago and see Mohan's stuffed head.
Don't let the .org thing confuse you there is not a zoo that seeks to lose money. They too run like a business. Most are doing many things to increase revenues. Elephants, back of house tours, premium experiences.
Also I said that we have only had 4 or 5 emails that were from an animal liberation point of view. Almost all of them were from fringe elements that had no idea of what they were talking about.
Also the original white tiger Mohan was captured in 1951 not 1956. I had a chance to talk to the Maharaja's son a couple of years ago and see Mohan's stuffed head.
Don't let the .org thing confuse you there is not a zoo that seeks to lose money. They too run like a business. Most are doing many things to increase revenues. Elephants, back of house tours, premium experiences.
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
I never claimed it was anything but my opinion others can choose to agree or disagree with me as they see fit although it seems they have to agree with you...
You don’t seem to be disputing the fact he did breed with his daughter to promote the white gene though so while I stand corrected on year, all white tigers are inherently inbred...
I’m not confused nor am I a *****, in my life I have been able to grasp the concept that losing money is a bad thing and making it a good thing...
@NZ Jeremy- I do not think that you a *****. I just do not see the problem with a business making money. I guess that makes me a capitalist.
I was only letting you know when Mohan was born. I fully understand the lineages of white tigers and know of the tremendous inbreeding that has taken place, especially in the 60's and 70's.
I just see the contributions that they have given conservation.
I was only letting you know when Mohan was born. I fully understand the lineages of white tigers and know of the tremendous inbreeding that has taken place, especially in the 60's and 70's.
I just see the contributions that they have given conservation.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Jarkari: 1. It's not merely the amount of money You invest in conservation; it's rather the quality of Your investment, in what You invest-and the ratio between money earned/money spent.
2. Elephants are another good example where the handling of animals in zoos has considerably changed due to newer risk assessment-see no contact/protected contact husbandries. However, unlike tigers (with sole exceptions of alleged hunts by maharajahs & circus work) direct work with elephants (not domestication!) has been and is still done in many countries worldwide for a long time. This does not reduce the risk which I see in direct contact with both big cats and elephants (and what is underlined by the high security husbandry of bull elephants in zoos), but the approach is a different one due to the different (historical & modern) background of husbandry experiences.
@ptig: Let's make something clear; my initial post, as well as the following posts of mine were general statements of mine considering the (in my point of view) too risky and not really recommendable "exercise" of taking big cats around on a leash. I mentioned that most major zoos do not longer support such actions and gave reasons for that. Additionally, I briefly mentioned my personal dislike of amusement parks and highly inbred colour morphs.
If You insist on interpreting this as a personal insult of You and of Dreamworld, then this is Your cup of tea; it certainly isn't and wasn't meant to be. However, if Your sole reasoning consists of attempts to depict the disccusion as "mud-slinging", and if You try to bring this down to an emotional level, by permanently trying to abate my personal qualification, then I'm sorry to tell You that I won't do Your this favour. Any remarks, like line 6-8 or 16-17 of Your last post, which are intended to insult me personally, are all in all useless and counterproductive; they just underline You inability to accept an opinion that contradicts Your "faith" as at least equivalent-and Your immunity to suggestions contrary to Your belief (see Your emotional remark about my critique about white tigers). Your following posts, with their insistence to provoke, kind of contradict Your previous statement: "We do have polar views. I will leave it at that." If You are really tired of this waste of time for both of us, I'd suggest leaving it to that.
Thanks for the spelling; yet this doesn't answer the question regarding the ratio mentioned above and the actual use of the money. But let's leave You with this fig leaf-which certainly doesn't disprove the previously uttered critique.
2. Elephants are another good example where the handling of animals in zoos has considerably changed due to newer risk assessment-see no contact/protected contact husbandries. However, unlike tigers (with sole exceptions of alleged hunts by maharajahs & circus work) direct work with elephants (not domestication!) has been and is still done in many countries worldwide for a long time. This does not reduce the risk which I see in direct contact with both big cats and elephants (and what is underlined by the high security husbandry of bull elephants in zoos), but the approach is a different one due to the different (historical & modern) background of husbandry experiences.
@ptig: Let's make something clear; my initial post, as well as the following posts of mine were general statements of mine considering the (in my point of view) too risky and not really recommendable "exercise" of taking big cats around on a leash. I mentioned that most major zoos do not longer support such actions and gave reasons for that. Additionally, I briefly mentioned my personal dislike of amusement parks and highly inbred colour morphs.
If You insist on interpreting this as a personal insult of You and of Dreamworld, then this is Your cup of tea; it certainly isn't and wasn't meant to be. However, if Your sole reasoning consists of attempts to depict the disccusion as "mud-slinging", and if You try to bring this down to an emotional level, by permanently trying to abate my personal qualification, then I'm sorry to tell You that I won't do Your this favour. Any remarks, like line 6-8 or 16-17 of Your last post, which are intended to insult me personally, are all in all useless and counterproductive; they just underline You inability to accept an opinion that contradicts Your "faith" as at least equivalent-and Your immunity to suggestions contrary to Your belief (see Your emotional remark about my critique about white tigers). Your following posts, with their insistence to provoke, kind of contradict Your previous statement: "We do have polar views. I will leave it at that." If You are really tired of this waste of time for both of us, I'd suggest leaving it to that.
Thanks for the spelling; yet this doesn't answer the question regarding the ratio mentioned above and the actual use of the money. But let's leave You with this fig leaf-which certainly doesn't disprove the previously uttered critique.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@MARK: That'd be OK with me, Mark.
I see a parallel between the problems of misguided humanitarian aid organisations and profit oriented big cat sanctuaries. The crux of the issue is whether the methods have good bang/buck and is morally conscienable as opposed to simply counting how much money is generated.
Breeding white tigers which are inherently genetically defective smacks of teacup dogs and kangaroo cats.
Breeding white tigers which are inherently genetically defective smacks of teacup dogs and kangaroo cats.