Leaderboard

FYI, the shows aren't the sole moment of enrichment for tigers throughout the day, which is what you're inferring there. Bit my tongue for a hot minute there, will keep it short and brief: 1) Tigers can be as equally as enriched in a no contact environment as they can be with hands-on environment, it just takes a lot more effort. 2) Risk appetite and the current business plan are the two dictators for hands-on vs no-contact. This current Dreamworld has a low appetite for risk from both a comms and workplace safety perspective. The current Dreamworld hasn't placed animal exhibits high in their current business plan, hence why so many high-profile names have since left. Ergo, the transition to no-contact was inevitable. 3) I'd say 90% of folks out there get the handler/animal relationship and the inherent risk in the same way if you sign up for the Army you might anticipate being shot at. It comes with the occupation. There's a lot of benefits to that relationship, it's easier to enrich the animals (for example, animals can go beyond enclosures in a controlled setting, it also exposes them to foreign noises, smells, different environments and makes them more manageable), fostering litters is far easier, opens up opportunities for additional revenue for the program (photos etc.) which then in turn raises additional exposure in market to the cause, etc. etc. My belief is that it's too much risk mitigation, and the money spent transforming an entire compound that was never designed for no-contact would've been better spent in better PR and more education/comms about the benefits of the program and what DWF was doing for conservation. That money would've generated an ROI.

I'm not sure what DW are planning for rocky hollow, you could call a attraction. The problem is, the track layout sucks.

Yeah agree. However a retheme is 100% needed. I think that a new Straddle coaster type train such as quad bikes such as on Juvelon in Denmark would be ideal. Change colour of track, retheme station to be more sympathetic to the Rivertown area and maybe some themed elements without going to huge excess around the course could be done fairly efficiently. I think this would be a viable option and would make an unpopular and uncomfortable ride into a family coaster that would be far more enjoyable. Problem is as stated , I do not think Dreamworld would see this as a priority or even as a real option.

All a matter of perspective. From a capital expenditure perspective perspective, these are a drop in the bucket in the business plan compared to other investments, and it's money spent on assets that were either being poorly utilised or were on the verge of falling over completely. I'd argue it's more prudent business practice to add to the asset list than it is a show of hand to suggest there's a proactive wildlife strategy at play. Hot reminder, you're making sweeping huge assumptions about how the organisation works based on what happened before and after the current CEO came along whilst forgetting the same majority shareholders have been proactively involved throughout. In this case, the board members throughout the last 7-8 years have contributed greatly a number of these calls. I'd therefore be mindful of drawing the correlation or insinuation that those who have since left care less about the wildlife. In fact, I'd argue the opposite was true, which was reflected in the business plan post incident. Which bits weren't up to current standards? Nah, the revenue generated from Tiger Island post-incident was essentially one of the very few profit houses keeping Dreamworld alive. Back of house tours at Polar Bear Shores is a tiny revenue stream comparatively. You're making sweeping statements with very little to back it up here. I've done interviews with wildlife heads which you can find online, and there's plenty of research that shows that the better the interaction is between animal and guest leads to a raft of better outcomes, including individual engagement in conservation plus revenue contributions towards park top-line and conservation donations. I even think I had the former head of life sciences at Sea World almost say a version of that, too. It's not the same in no-contact environments. And it's ultimately an early death knoll for Tiger Island as a whole - I have no doubt in five years someone might go "Jesus, it's not that popular anymore hey" and assume it's just waining popularity and not any of the other changes made and close it entirely.

When the park has given zero info out on how the tigers lives will be enriched post-contact, then the only thing to make is assumptions until such a time as we are made aware. I also have zero issue with people disagreeing if they want to put forward their own thoughts, but comparing tigers standing on hind legs, or climbing a tree, to dolphins jumping through flaming rings or tigers riding bikes is just taking the piss and being condescending for no reason. there was time on this forum where people actually had conversations without being petty and trying to one-up about who knows more than the other. I’ve never pretended that I’m an expert on theme park operations, or that I have contacts with senior management who fill me in on all the comings and goings. I haven’t worked in a theme park though enjoyed 35+ years of regular visitation. Plenty of you know plenty more than I do and I enjoy learning things from those that do, but I come here and give my opinion based on what I believe or the people I interact and speak with. This place would be whole lot more inviting if when someone disagrees with your point of view they don’t turn it into a condescending, passive aggressive, dick measuring contest.

This isn’t done to keep tigers in a better condition and longer, or it would have happened over a decade ago. I can tell you more staff at dw have had injuries from koalas and kangaroos in the park but that doesn’t sell papers like “tiger attack” does, and there has been no decrease in interaction with those animals in the name of staff and guest safety or animal happiness Conversations with people. there are many within the park that firmly disagree with the decision. The interactive presentations were hugely popular and drove home the conversation message, and encouraged donations. I believe, and am not alone in that belief, that the removal of said presentation will decrease interest in the concept, exposure to the message, donations, and therefore the extent to which the dreamworld wildlife fund can have a positive impact overseas. Only time will tell.

The polar bears have never had human interaction in terms of shared spaces like the tigers have however, so it’s vastly different to pull back from something that is all these tigers have known their whole life (and for multiple generations). i strongly believe the step away from human/handler interaction is the wrong call here, and simply being made to placate the vocal minority. The park is between a rock and hard place from a PR perspective but their decades of success with TI and associated conservation efforts was telling enough to weather any outrage and push on imo. Losing their most experienced handlers due to their change in operation should have, imo, seen the entire concept just retired and the tigers moved to other parks/zoos