Dreamworld staff member mauled by tiger with “multiple deep lacerations” to body

[Nick]

A woman has been rushed to a hospital after being mauled by a tiger at Dreamworld on the Gold Coast.

The victim, a tiger handler, suffered several cuts and scratches while working with a tiger. Paramedics provided initial care for her deep lacerations before transporting her to Gold Coast University Hospital. The female handler was working with a tiger about 9am this morning when the incident occurred.

A Queensland Ambulance Service spokeswoman said medics were called to Dreamworld at 9.01am “following an incident involving a tiger”. There, they treated a woman aged in her 30s before taking her to Gold Coast University Hospital.

The spokeswoman said the handler was in a stable condition, with injuries to her arm.

Edited September 2 by Nick

[Tricoart]

Lucky they're already going ahead with the protected contact plans, 'cause these incidents are an unavoidable cost of being in direct contact with wild animals, no matter how trained they may be. Hopefully the keeper/handler makes a quick recovery. And, to the surprise of absolutely no-one...

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[Whombex]

Wow, a news article about the incident that DOESN’T (as yet) refer to the 2016 incident: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-02/tiger-attack-dreamworld-queensland-woman/104299036

Edited September 2 by Whombex

[New display name]

56 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

Lucky they're already going ahead with the protected contact plans, 'cause these incidents are an unavoidable cost of being in direct contact with wild animals, no matter how trained they may be. Hopefully the keeper/handler makes a quick recovery. And, to the surprise of absolutely no-one...

It wouldn't surprise me if we have now seen last of the interactions.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

INB4 someone starts saying this happened because they were reducing contact with the animals - as there have been several incidents over the years well before the no-contact aims were first touted. I agree, these are inevitable so long as humans share the same spaces as tigers and full no-contact is the necessary end-game. 

They do have to transition though - the tigers will apparently suffer depression if the handlers simply stop interacting with them. I don't know what they do now, but the welfare of the handlers should be the first priority.

[New display name]

I thought the first priority would be with the tigers.  Nobody is forcing the the handlers to be there, but the tigers have no choice.

[Tricoart]

19 minutes ago, New display name said:

I thought the first priority would be with the tigers.  Nobody is forcing the the handlers to be there, but the tigers have no choice.

I don’t see them completely neglecting their tigers, instead transitioning them into more ‘natural’, non-human interaction based forms of enrichment. Which I’m sure they can do, and may have already begun doing. Yes, it’ll be a change for the tigers now, but it’s to their & the keeper’s benefits in the long run, as it allows the tigers to display more natural behaviours using more varied forms of enrichment, rather than relying solely on human interaction & set show routines.

For example, the closest situation to the tigers, both geographically and that I know enough information about to mention, are the Polar Bears at Sea World. They don’t have direct contact with their keepers, so that is supplemented by doing training exercises through protective barriers, and by giving them varied environments, food items, toys, etc. to play/interact with throughout the day (should be noted, this is not a unique thing, most zoos do this, I just mention Sea World’s Polar Bears due to their similar circumstances). Some tigers may take to this quickly, some might not, but it’s for the benefit of all involved, as it lets the tigers be seen more as their own wild species than as ‘domesticated’ or ‘tamed’ individuals to be presented, and lets them behave accordingly as much as a captive environment allows.

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[Whombex]

I’ll add that I’m happy to see the handler is okay and I hope that there’s no calls for the Tiger’s euthanisation. 

[Gobbledok]

Perhaps they shouldnt have pushed out their long term tiger experts hey

[Brad2912]

37 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

the closest situation to the tigers, both geographically and that I know enough information about to mention, are the Polar Bears at Sea World

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 

[Tricoart]

15 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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 

Where would they have moved their tigers to? Most zoos nearby already have too many tigers (mostly consisting of specific species for conservation purposes) to support an offloading of Dreamworld’s mostly zoo-mix, sometimes albino (meaning *very* genetically unimportant) individuals. And, even if they could find a facility elsewhere for them to be moved, it would likely have been either one that’s significantly worse than Tiger Island is for them, or a reputable one that uses protected contact anyways. Individuals can be moved into and out of direct contact, that is more or less the purpose of animal sanctuaries/zoos that take in retired circus animals, to give them the best life they can have without relying on the human interaction they once did. Yes, it can be harder on some, like I said, but it is the best situation for Dreamworld, and for their tigers, to move to protected contact and continue the presence of Tigers at Dreamworld, at least for the time being, then considering what to do once they pass.

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

48 minutes ago, New display name said:

I thought the first priority would be with the tigers.  Nobody is forcing the the handlers to be there, but the tigers have no choice.

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.

17 minutes ago, Gobbledok said:

Perhaps they shouldnt have pushed out their long term tiger experts hey

There were attacks on handlers while the long term tiger experts were working there too, so i'm not sure what your point is? 

4 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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 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.

6 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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 

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.

[Tricoart]

14 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

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.

Also, something worth mentioning, they had an overhaul of their Orca facility in the plans that would have given them a more natural and enriching non-contact/show focused environment, not too dissimilar to what I imagine the purpose of Tiger Island’s overhauls (remember, this is all ‘Phase One’) to be, but they cancelled that as a result of laws being passed that restricted them from breeding the species or obtaining any more individuals, then reallocated that money into a problematic & now closed trolley ride. Whether or not that was the right decision, Dreamworld doesn’t have a similar law to abide by, and could choose to keep tigers exhibited longer than their current individual’s lifespans, so making the facility better suited for the present means they’ll also be better suited in the future.

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[Brad2912]

From my understanding, the change to operational model has nothing to do with decreasing risk of injury to humans, and everything to do with bending to societal pressures around wild animals in captivity and the unnatural relationship they therefore have with humans. 
 

And whilst that’s not an entirely ridiculous decision, i think in some select environments where that interaction has decades of success and flow on benefits to the conversation of a species, that you can stand by your successes and not flip it around n its head., 

[New display name]

I can't wait to see the tigers sit in small cages all day.  /s

[Tricoart]

20 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

From my understanding, the change to operational model has nothing to do with decreasing risk of injury to humans, and everything to do with bending to societal pressures around wild animals in captivity and the unnatural relationship they therefore have with humans. 

Your understanding stemming from where? And, even if it is solely to ‘pander to woke’ like you seem to be getting at (it’s not), if it has the knock-on effect of improving the future (&, possibly, present) welfare of their animals, and giving their staff a safer work environment in the process, does that matter?

20 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

And whilst that’s not an entirely ridiculous decision, i think in some select environments where that interaction has decades of success and flow on benefits to the conversation of a species, that you can stand by your successes and not flip it around n its head., 

The purpose of this project, no matter the reasoning behind it, is to work towards keeping tigers at Dreamworld in a better condition & for longer. Doing nothing would directly impact these ‘flow-on benefits’ (not just by letting the area fall to the wayside, but by allowing incidents like these to continue to occur), whereas renovating their space as to display the species in a more naturalistic & stimulating environment, and to allow DW to keep their conservation message present at the park further into the future with less risk to staff, would directly help them.

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

18 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

i think in some select environments where that interaction has decades of success and flow on benefits to the conversation of a species, that you can stand by your successes and not flip it around n its head

"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.

[TBoy]

Hope the trainer is alright and isn't hurt that bad

3 hours ago, Tricoart said:

And, to the surprise of absolutely no-one...

"A person fell over at Dreamworld today. This comes after an accident on the Thunder River Rapids Ride in October 2016 where 4 were killed"

[Brad2912]

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

The purpose of this project, no matter the reasoning behind it, is to work towards keeping tigers at Dreamworld in a better condition & for longer. Doing nothing would directly impact these ‘flow-on benefits’

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 

 

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

Your understanding stemming from where?

Conversations with people. there are many within the park that firmly disagree with the decision. 
 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

"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.

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. 

[Tricoart]

11 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

This isn’t done to keep tigers in a better condition and longer, or it would have happened over a decade ago.

Did you miss the part where Dreamworld changed management?

11 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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.

There are other ways to increase interest in them that doesn't involve having keepers in the enclosure during a presentation. Using the Polar Bears as an example again, they have a daily keeper talk that goes over their ecology, history at the park, enclosure design, etc., all while the keeper is outside of the enclosure & the polar bear is left to it's own devices within, which they sometimes end by throwing some food into the pool to entice the Polar Bear to swim while the keeper waits around for a bit & answers guest's questions. This draws more than enough crowds, and focuses on spreading knowledge about the species without having an apex predator hug a guy for some Pauls full cream.

Edited September 2 by Tricoart

[Narra]

3 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

and there has been no decrease in interaction with those animals in the name of staff and guest safety or animal happiness

Except for them blocking off almost the entire Kangaroo area as a rest area where guests aren't allowed. I also no longer see Koala holding as an option on their website

[Brad2912]

6 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

Did you miss the part where Dreamworld changed management

Are you a passive aggressive f**kwit in real life too? Or just save it for internet forums? 
 

Not every decision prior management made is immediately wrong and needs correction because someone else is now in charge. 

8 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

There are other ways to increase interest in them that doesn't involve having keepers in the enclosure during a presentation. Using the Polar Bears as an example again, they have a daily keeper talk that goes over their ecology, history at the park, enclosure design, etc., all while the keeper is outside of the enclosure & the polar bear is left to it's own devices within, which they sometimes end by throwing some food into the water for the Polar Bear to swim & get. This draws more than enough crowds, without having an apex predator hug a guy for some Pauls full cream milk.

Once again, entirely irrelevant as the polar bears have not been hand reared since birth and accustomed to being interacted with daily by humans. They are not having their major stimulus removed 

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

Once again, entirely irrelevant as the polar bears have not been hand reared since birth and accustomed to being interacted with daily by humans. They are not having their major stimulus removed 

Your point there was not involving the tiger's welfare, but that guests would no longer being able to watch a presentation and be educated, which is shown to be untrue by the many zoos all over the world that do educational presentations without needing direct contact with the animal in the process (as was the case with the first instance of me mentioning the Polar Bears, too, it had been proven hundreds of times over that what you're saying isn't the case, and using the Polar Bears was just a local example to give an easier perspective).

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

Are you a passive aggressive f**kwit in real life too? Or just save it for internet forums? 

I didn't consider that to be aggressive, I don't know if it was or if there's some other misinterpreting going on (wouldn't be surprised, my posts are ripe for misinterpetation), but if it was then I didn't mean it as such.

[Brad2912]

46 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

Your point there was not involving the tiger's welfare, but that guests would no longer being able to watch a presentation and be educated, which is shown to be untrue by the many zoos all over the world that do educational presentations without needing direct contact with the animal in the process (as was the case with the first instance of me mentioning the Polar Bears, too, it had been proven hundreds of times over that what you're saying isn't the case, and using the Polar Bears was just a local example to give an easier perspective).

I didn’t say that there would not be presentation, I said a contactless presentation is likely to generate not as much interest, and in turn may have consequential effects on how popular TI is (and therefore its ROI), the conservation message, and donations to the DWF. 

I’m not arguing that zoo’s have run contactless presentations with wildlife for the past century - but their mission, their reason for existence in the first place - was not based around human interaction, and TI’s was.

I'm happy for you or anyone to disagree with my take on it, but in my opinion the removal of human interaction is bad for the park, and more importantly is bad for the tigers wellbeing and enrichment. I think if we skip forward to say 2030, TI no longer exists in any form. 

[themagician]

Not sure if this change happened today due to this incident or was made prior, but the tiger presentations are now longer listed in the daily entertainment schedule. Also, on the Tiger Island page there’s this statement:

“Changes are on the horizon at Tiger Island! With over $50 million invested in new attractions and area upgrades at Dreamworld, we're adjusting the behind-the-scenes operations and enhancing our guest-facing habitats. Our goal is to create more immersive and intimate experiences for our guests, allowing you to get closer than ever to our magnificent tigers. 

During the construction phase, you might notice some temporary changes to your visit, including reduced daily presentations and occasional absences of tigers from display areas. We’re working hard to minimize any impact on your experience and ensure the well-being of our tigers. For the latest updates and to plan your visit, please check our daily entertainment schedule here. We appreciate your understanding and can’t wait for you to see the exciting new developments!”