DaptoFunlandGuy

On this point, no. The gum tree gully canopy around JR isn't likely to suffer as badly as Levi is out on the spit - Keep the white shed - we've discussed colourbond colours and the queensland sun before - the darker colours aren't going to be kind to the temperature inside the shed, so white is fine - just hide it better.

This one irks me a lot - the final brake run could have benefitted from some love here for dual purpose - it would hide the maintenance building, but it can also potentially shelter the train on the brake run instead of baking riders in the sun if the train is stalled here for any reason. Given the fake greenery they've used elsewhere, a 'tunnel' of this greenery would be perfect here to hide the building, and make it look like you are diving back into the leviathan's lair.

I mean it kinda is. Ignoring Universal for a moment, who fit the similar 'movie park stage' exclusion you've offered up for Movie World - Disney's standards are the supposed benchmark for a fully themed, immersive theme park. And even they don't build themed facades around everything you can see from literally every angle in the park. Sometimes they paint it go away green, and call it a day. And that's ok.

Separating an aggressive dog from it's victim is done by whatever method is available. If a dog has a collar you would restrain it by its collar. But if you could only reach the tail, it would be an acceptable method to avoid the dog being violent. It is not a standard treatment, but a method of last resort. Choice of words intended to be inflammatory aren't helpful either. 'hitting it on the face' sounds much worse than 'open hand taps to the facial area' http://dogscience.org/workshop/cortap.shtml I can't believe we're re-agitating a 7 year old incident and trying to misinterpret actions by trained professionals to suggest the animals suffer worse treatment out of the public eye and imply it is the reason for another incident without knowing any of the circumstances.

You don't need a tunnel or diorama either.... just saying...

The highlighted section is false. There was no performance expectation on these animals at the time of the incident. Routinely animals are brought out to TI to simply 'exist' and not all animals are expected to demonstrate behaviours. IN fact even the animals brought into the public enclosure specifically for behavioural demonstrations are never forced to perform the behaviours asked of them. You've got a valid point on this. I have no inside information on Tiger Island, so I can't speak to their compliance with this guideline. On initial reading, it does appear that they weren't following these recommendations (but it is important to note that they are just that - guidelines, not rules.) - i've spelled this out in the next paragraphs so others may understand my thoughts, not to explain it back to you Akasha and Kai are siblings of opposite gender, and not from the same litter - though they were born the same year approximately 4 months apart. Kai is the bigger brother, but it was Akasha that was the aggressor. At the time of the incident, Akasha would have potentially just reached sexual maturity - aged 2, and Kai would have been nearly 2.5 years old. The guidelines state that siblings of opposite gender must be kept separated (obviously inbreeding is a concern) - as the cats were both likely sexually mature, I can only assume that they were either contracepted or (unlikely) neutered - though this part of the guideline only references mated 'pairs' after they have been retired from breeding programs - which would be unlikely given they were immediate siblings:

They do tend to do a pretty good job of hiding the shed from GP sightlines from within the precinct. Sure you can see it across the park from other vantage points, but I could see Nintendo Land from the Waterworld Show in USJ, so... there's only so much you can do. Heck - Disney just paints things go away green and calls it a day so maybe we just paint the back of JR green and move on? (then we can say the ride is 'disney standard'!

Only enthusiasts would value land being right next to a theme park. There are commercial interests that would want to cash in on having complimentary facilities like hotels or other tourist traps, but none of them would be interested in land that was at a 'sky high' premium.

Let's not get carried away, that a tap on the nose is not physically hurting an animal. Separating two animals by physically pulling the aggressor off or away from the victim is not inappropriate. I literally quoted the head of park's life sciences division saying that. So, one animal showing aggression toward another should just be allowed to attack and rip the other animal to shreds, yeah? Bullshit. To be clear i've no objection to protected contact (and I think i've made that clear above) but the risk of one animal being aggressive to another is not at all mitigated by protected contact. Only having one animal in an enclosure at a time would mitigate that risk, but you'll no doubt have people arguing that the animals should be socialised with the rest of the streak\ambush.

i mean, shit happens, but its pretty pathetic that the entire new land you built is completely closed. Nobody would schedule maintenance that way deliberately, so obviously unanticipated issues happen... but for all three? sad.

So i'm pretty sure they already had a bridge\ride sign in that position already, so they've just stuck the vultures in place of what was there already? Honestly - probably where it should have been to start with (i'm looking at you too DC Rivals bridge in front of Batwing), but the relocation raises some questions - did they move it to allow vehicle access into showstage? did they move it because they're planning on redeveloping the rest of the western area into something else? (Probably along with doomsday?) did they move it to expand the park behind showstage? (path lower left of the image above) Let the speculation begin continue!

Dreamworld responds to Tiger Island footage | Parkz - Theme Parks There's this article posted on Parkz from 2017 where Al Mucci made a statement about it. It's amazing how outraged people get about things they have no knowledge over. The behaviour and treatment is not dissimilar to how one would treat two misbehaving dogs. That's just it though, you've reacted without context - failing to understand that there was a threat. there was a danger. the handlers recognised that well before any injuries occurred and corrected the animal in an appropriate manner. Also, you're outraged about how close-contact handlers deal with behavioural issues where there is a serious risk of injury, and simultaneously outraged that they're "caving to animal activists" and realigning to protected contact. Would you pick a lane?

Wait - it was you who made the statement that GD was better - now you're telling me you haven't even been on LLDoD? (and I realise, on re-reading, that you never said you'd been on, just that others had said it) Yes, it's the age limit, hence why I said he isn't allowed to ride for another 18 months. I'm not aware of any other Intamin Giant Drop with an age limit, though I acknowledge that Dreamworld has said the age is a manufacturer's requirement. As for people under 10 riding GD, that may well be, but I don't go against Park Rules on rider requirements, and he understands that parks have rules for a reason. He has seen the story of Tyre Sampson, and he knows its because the park modified the restraint. He thinks it sucks, but he won't ride it as long as the park says he can't, which is admirable. I think its deplorable that parents would lie about their child's age or capability to ride in order to skirt the rules. Realistically both rides fall at the speed of gravity, and despite the differing heights, the drop time FEELS very similar when riding. The view is different, but I would say the intensity of both rides is similar enough that I couldn't really tell them apart save for a side by side comparison (which will never happen when there's a 12 hour flight separating the two rides). The view is my main reason for rating Lex higher, which has nothing to do with intensity. The ride is pretty much the tallest structure on top of a mountain though, so the 'feeling' of being higher may be at play...

What are we on, iteration 8 or 9 of their grand plan to join their property to westfield by some sort of mall or commercial facilities? I'll believe it when they break ground.

Circling back because I must have missed this the first time around. I think LLDoD is better. I really like the overview it gives of the park, and it frequently operates both sides so you get a choice of which view you have (within reason of the sorter). My son also prefers LLDoD, though his opinion is primarily because he's allowed to ride DoD, but isn't allowed to ride GD for another 18 months. That isn't really on the contrary. The original comparison was between two rides of the same type. You've introduced a third, similar ride and argued its better than both, and you could be right on that point, but it isn't comparing apples with apples, which was STRAWS' point, I believe, about two identical ride models.

oh it's definitely a related thread. It's the very nature of discussion forums - especially when the topic at hand has run out of information (until the next update at least) - things are gonna tangent. Whinging about the tangents is doing more damage to the discussion than just scrolling past it. Rest assured the topic will go back to the title when more information is available.

Because of it's similarity to Tarzan, the ride has now been renamed to 'Rush'.

...And one of the bosses at Village promised me world class but i'm still waiting. We have no stats for JR. So I'll wait until I see the STATS. Until then, based on the STATS we know for TNT, FOWW is more thrilling. Because it literally has more than zero.

Let's make a dolphin jump through a flaming hoop of fire - that'll make the shows hugely popular, even though its a completely unnatural behaviour. Zoos tend to have interest in their concept and exposure to their message - they also seem to get donations too, despite not having tigers riding bicycles. In this case though he's right - arguing "why didn't they do it X years ago" is ridiculous. Why didn't Japan stop whaling in the 80s? Why didn't Circuses abandon elephants in the 50's? Why didn't they close down thunder river rapids in 1992? We learn things. these things change our attitudes towards things over time. Shit I wonder what they did with all the circus animals. We have very little information on what they plan to do to ensure tiger stimulation and enrichment continues. All we know is direct contact is going to be discontinued. You're making a lot of big assumptions in "your take on it" but you don't actually seem happy for people to disagree with you, despite your own words to the contrary. Quoting for posterity. When the changes were first posted here the GCB article said it would take effect within 18 months. It's possible they had delays from the storms, but we're in that ballpark about now:

No, and I don't need to have been on it to know that some stats = more thrilling, whereas <null> stats = no thrills. That's why I said 'based on current information'. Quite happy for this to change once "no stats" becomes "some stats"

...and that's why, based on current information, FOWW will be more thrilling.

"Showing people how we can make a big cat drink milk from a carton held above our heads" isn't necessary to continue the conservation efforts and education. "Because that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good enough reason to keep doing something.

As an employer, Dreamworld \ Coast \ whatever have a legal obligation to ensure a safe working environment. If they can't ensure a safe working environment, they can't have the tigers at all. Society is pretty good at prioritising human life over that of animals regardless of the circumstances. Welfare is a different story, so ensure you don't conflate the two. There were attacks on handlers while the long term tiger experts were working there too, so i'm not sure what your point is? I feel for the tigers that have had human interactions and now are finding their handlers interacting less, I do. But change has to start somewhere. You can't simply keep putting handlers into their enclosures - especially if incidents keep occurring. Human life has to be the priority. TI has been one of the most successful facilities from a breeding program perspective. Shipping the animals off to other parks/zoos where they would lose both their handlers and their familiar environment (that is all these tigers have known their whole life and for multiple generations) is a worse idea than simply transitioning to a non-contact model. I absolutely despite organisations such as JFC, but we've seen Sea World transition from "tricks" - humans riding on dolphins and being launched into the air, etc - into more 'natural' behaviours and interactions. The US SW parks transitioned from in-water interaction with Orca to completely out of water interaction - essentially non-contact interactions, due to the risk to the life of the handlers. I support the steps taken by both SW park chains for the sake of animal and handler welfare and I see the non-contact steps by Dreamworld in the same lens. I don't see any links between this and any 'vocal minority' action.