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

[Narra]

1 hour ago, themagician said:

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!”

Wayback machine has a snapshot of the page from the 24th of August where it doesn't say this, everything else after is the same. They do mention the daily presentation below all the tiger information still

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

17 hours 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.

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.

16 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

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

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. 

17 hours 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 

Shit I wonder what they did with all the circus animals. 

14 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

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.

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.

14 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

I think if we skip forward to say 2030, TI no longer exists in any form. 

Quoting for posterity.

13 hours ago, themagician said:

“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. 

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:  

On 24/11/2022 at 12:49 PM, Brad2912 said:

Just found this in the GCB article:

One of the biggest changes coming for the park will be on its renowned Tiger Island, where direct contact between tigers and handlers is set to be phased out within 18 months as public amid shifting public sentiment around performing animals.

 

[Brad2912]

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

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.

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.

[Tricoart]

30 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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.

My issue here is that you've been doing that exact thing with animal husbandry, pretending like you know the intricacies of what Dreamworld has been doing to keep their tigers enriched both pre and post protected contact both through your expertise and your contacts, and that both definitively show that the tigers welfare will be significantly worse post-protected contact, without giving any reason why other than that they wont be participating in shows, and either ignoring any comparison I've made to try and explain to you why that isn't the case, or saying it's completely unrelated due to a separate third factor that has no bearing.

I'm not trying to condescend you when saying any of this, it's become an argument (like everything else seems to recently) 'cause everyone involved comes in with rock-solid beliefs, skims the other's message without interpreting any of it & repeats their first point with increasing aggression, til someone else comes in, mentions it is an argument, gets reactions and hopefully moves it along.

30 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

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.

So, a final summary: Noone here knows exactly how they enriched/will enrich their tigers on a day-to-day, all we knew they did in the past was bring one out for a show sometimes. But, having enough general info about how reputable zoos and sanctuaries keep their animals stimulated can be used to get a general idea of what they could do, and it's been shown that ex-show animals can be fulfilled without needing to continue those shows, and that similar training exercises to those for the purpose of shows can be done with (and would ideally be done for) protected contact, for purposes other than shows.

Edited September 3 by Tricoart

[Brad2912]

37 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

My issue here is that you've been doing that exact thing with animal husbandry, pretending like you know the intricacies of what Dreamworld has been doing to keep their tigers enriched both pre and post protected contact both through your expertise

Really?? Suggest you go back and read my comments, which have all been prefaced with it being my own personal opinion. As you can see below. I've never stated i am wildlife expert

22 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

i strongly believe 

21 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

From my understanding

19 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

I believe

17 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

in my opinion 

 

40 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

all we knew they did in the past was bring one out for a show sometimes

But thats not what they did. If that was all they did then this transition would be minimal. They previously had numerous tigers on the island at once, with numerous handlers also on the island interacting and being present - for the entire duration of park opening. It was not just dragging one tiger out of a BOH enclosure to be on the island to do tricks and then putting it back away.

End of the day, its changing and time will tell if it was good for the animals in the long run and for the parks overall conservation efforts. 

[Slick]

20 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

it's been shown that ex-show animals can be fulfilled without needing to continue those shows, and that similar training exercises to those for the purpose of shows can be done with (and would ideally be done for) protected contact, for purposes other than shows.

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.

[Tricoart]

21 minutes ago, Slick said:

FYI, the shows aren't the sole moment of enrichment for tigers throughout the day, which is what you're inferring there.

Of course, that’s why I say all they’re going off is 1 tiger in one show a day, not what’s been done for the other tigers backstage throughout the history of the park.

21 minutes ago, Slick said:

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.

I mean, this coincides with the multi-phase renovation of Tiger Island, which is coming after their reopening/renovation of the nocturnal house & repurposing of the store beside the Salties into a larger Bilby enclosure, so they’ve done more in recent years than Dreamworld management prior seemed to be doing before they switched. Zoos just tend to change slower than amusement parks do, especially established ones that don’t need changes. Which Tiger Island, though established, was in need of change, not just for current risk mitigation but also to future-proof their backstage facilities by aligning with the current standards (which includes but likely isn’t limited to just renovating with protected contact in mind).

21 minutes ago, Slick said:

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.

You can still have those money-making opportunities, and handler/animal relationships, through protected contact. Prefacing by again saying this isn’t close to the only instance, just one that is apt to be compared, Sea World offers backstage tours for their Polar Bears, where you can get close to them without directly interacting or posing for photos, with the added benefit of getting an insight into how they’re ‘managed’ by talking to keepers that (at least seem to) have a strong bond with the animals, whilst still recognising they are their own potentially dangerous beings that aren’t to be directly interacted with. And, if you’re not interested in backstage tours, there’s always the myriad of (Polar Bear related or otherwise) merchandise you can buy, or direct donations you can make. 

Edited September 3 by Tricoart

[Slick]

6 hours ago, Tricoart said:

I mean, this coincides with the multi-phase renovation of Tiger Island, which is coming after their reopening/renovation of the nocturnal house & repurposing of the store beside the Salties into a larger Bilby enclosure, so they’ve done more in recent years than Dreamworld management prior seemed to be doing before they switched.

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.

7 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Which Tiger Island, though established, was in need of change, not just for current risk mitigation but also to future-proof their backstage facilities by aligning with the current standards

Which bits weren't up to current standards?

7 hours ago, Tricoart said:

You can still have those money-making opportunities, and handler/animal relationships, through protected contact. Prefacing by again saying this isn’t close to the only instance, just one that is apt to be compared, Sea World offers backstage tours for their Polar Bears,

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.

[Brad2912]

The footage that’s begun circulating on social media today showing handlers pulling/dragging a tiger by its tail and hitting it in the face isn’t great. It’s actual really disappointing tbh… I know many of the keepers love those animals like family, but hitting a tiger across the face except in a circumstance of danger/threat just isn’t acceptable… and then raised unnecessary (or maybe necessary) questions as to how they are treated back of house, if that led to the recent incident etc 

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

The footage that’s begun circulating on social media today showing handlers pulling/dragging a tiger by its tail and hitting it in the face isn’t great.

You mean this 15 second clip from 2017?

Because, yes, this doesn’t look good, and the comments of the post from 2017 saying it doesn’t matter as it’s a larger animal aren’t really getting the point (though the comparison to things like animal races are needed, as even anti-zoo people seemed mostly fine with those), but it also seems to me like another necessary evil of how they previously ran the shows with direct contact. Animals will misbehave, and wild ones especially have the potential to cause injury in the process, so when you’re bringing multiple out at the same time with keepers in between ‘em, situations could occur where you’ve got to keep them from acting on those instincts. Whereas, in a protected contact environment (Polar Bear Shores comparison), or even one similar to the Crocuseum at Australia Zoo (which benefits massively from having the species be relatively slow on land & predictable) these situations should also no longer occur.

Edited September 5 by Tricoart

[Brad2912]

Not sure of its origins in terms of timing. Had not seen it prior to this evening where it’s popped up on numerous page and groups 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

7 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

Not sure of its origins in terms of timing. Had not seen it prior to this evening where it’s popped up on numerous page and groups 

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.

Quote

Mucci stated that these are standard techniques used in tiger handling and are based on natural interaction between tigers:

"Open hand taps to the facial area is the safest way to refocus tigers who are challenging each other and this is consistent with the way in which tigers communicate with each other in similar situations. The tiger’s tail is one of its strongest parts of the body. Tigers and handlers routinely play with the tail.

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.

8 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

hitting a tiger across the face except in a circumstance of danger/threat just isn’t acceptable

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. 

Quote

"The media commentary to the circumstance misrepresents the context of what was occurring in the brief footage. The handler’s actions to refocus Akasha were explained to guests immediately after the tigers were separated."

"The tigers in this video were showing antagonistic behaviour and needed separating before they had an opportunity to hurt each other."

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?

[New display name]

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

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.

I have never hit my dog and I never would, but I do concede, I know nothing about tiger handling.

[Tricoart]

22 minutes ago, New display name said:

I have never hit my dog and I never would, but I do concede, I know nothing about tiger handling.

Yeah, no matter the animal, resulting to physically hurting it isn't something that should be normal or justified. They way I see it here, though, is that it's a result of the situation they would commonly put the tigers & keepers into at that point in time. Like how you don't need a bullhook to keep an elephant unless you're trying to force it to do something, or you don't need a shock collar for a dog unless you're trying to force it to not do something, so the issue is trying to force the animal to adhere to what you want it to do, instead of allowing it to do what it wants to. In recent years, I only remember seeing one tiger out on show at a time instead of the 2 in that video, so one would hope situations like that shown have been made more uncommon, but it's another risk almost entirely mitigated once protected contact is adhered to. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

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.

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

the issue is trying to force the animal to adhere to what you want it to do, instead of allowing it to do what it wants to.

So, one animal showing aggression toward another should just be allowed to attack and rip the other animal to shreds, yeah?

1 hour ago, Tricoart said:

another risk almost entirely mitigated once protected contact is adhered to. 

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.

[Tricoart]

40 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

So, one animal showing aggression toward another should just be allowed to attack and rip the other animal to shreds, yeah?

Never said that and never would. Again, the situation was a direct result of having multiple tigers out at the same time, with keepers present trying to get them to perform also likely leading to them being more agitated.

40 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

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.

In the wild, tigers are mostly solitary, and are generally kept as such in reputable captive environments, apart from special instances such as bonded siblings or mothers & young cubs (which is what I was getting at with yet another ‘Polar Bear Shores comparison’ mention, as those relationships can be seen now with Hudson & Nelson, or in the past when Liya had her cubs). And, if either of those pairings began to show signs of aggression, they would be split up via other, more humane means (once more, with Polar Bear Shores, Hudson & Nelson are cohabitated most of the year, except during Polar Bear breeding season as they have shown to get antsy with one another during that time, so are split into separate enclosures in anticipation of that ‘til breeding season ends). As such, the risk of those interactions would be almost entirely mitigated without the need of keepers resorting to methods like what’s shown.

If you wish to read a bit more than that paragraph, from something a bit more official & with a bit less Polar Bear Shores comparisons, below is the AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) guidelines on keeping tigers. Social groupings are on Page 28.

https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/tiger_care_manual_2016.pdf

Edited September 6 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

a direct result of having multiple tigers out at the same time, with keepers present trying to get them to perform.

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. 

10 minutes ago, Tricoart said:

Social groupings are on Page 28. 

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:

Quote

after recommended breeding has been completed, most male/female pairs that are retired from reproduction (i.e., contracepted or neutered) can be maintained together for the rest of their lives if they are tolerant of one another; however, individual tiger personalities and potential aggression should be taken into consideration.

 

[Brad2912]

5 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The behaviour and treatment is not dissimilar to how one would treat two misbehaving dogs.

No one who cares about their dog is pulling it by the tail or hitting it on the face 

 

5 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

corrected the animal in an appropriate manner

I don’t believe that is an appropriate manner, but I wasn’t there and didn’t see what preceded it.. 

 

5 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

you're outraged

You clearly have zero idea of the definition of the word  “outraged”. Saying you are not comfortable or dislike something doesn’t amount outrage, in any shape or form

5 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Would you pick a lane?

Is your life entirely black and white? Because it seems it. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 06/09/2024 at 1:11 PM, Brad2912 said:

No one who cares about their dog is pulling it by the tail or hitting it on the face 

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

Quote

Your nose tap should be more abrupt than simply reaching out and touching your dog. However, it should fall very far short of what any rational person would describe as brutalizing the animal. Somewhere, then, halfway between simply touching your dog and a more forceful act that might somehow hurt the animal, is the sweet spot that we call tapping your dog.

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.

 

[Slick]

On 6/9/2024 at 12:02 PM, Tricoart said:

trying to get them to perform

Sorry mate, but this right here tells me you have no idea.

[Tricoart]

1 hour ago, Slick said:

Sorry mate, but this right here tells me you have no idea.

If you want to bring this back up after 3 days, sure. ‘Trying to get them to perform’ was said when I thought the video was taken during or nearby a show time, but apparently that wasn’t the case. Still, it wasn’t meant to be taken as ‘forcing them to perform’, instead just exactly as how it was written, (worded somewhat differently as) them attempting to get the tigers to cooperate. As it’s now been said that it didn’t happen during showtime, I’d just remove it as an additional factor that could’ve made the tigers more agitated, as I now know it wasn’t one. But, when I believed it could have been at the time, I don’t see why saying that could have added to the tigers agitation is wrong.

Edited September 9 by Tricoart

[Slick]

They don’t perform, they don’t do tricks, and they’re not in the circus. They were at one point a global leader in tiger conservation, and as such none of that language would ever fly front of house or back of house. Again, from literal first hand experience I can very confidently say all of the handlers there have a profound respect for the animals, and suffice to say as a result I don’t think a single one of them is happy to see the end of their hands-on relationship with these creatures. 

[Tricoart]

17 minutes ago, Slick said:

They don’t perform, they don’t do tricks, and they’re not in the circus.

Performing doesn’t mean doing something against the will of the animal like in a circus, it just means doing something for the entertainment of the audience, which is/was the main purpose of the tiger presentations.

17 minutes ago, Slick said:

They were at one point a global leader in tiger conservation, and as such none of that language would ever fly front of house or back of house.

Maybe the word ‘perform’ has a stigma due to circuses that I wasn’t aware of, and they’d prefer to use a different term (like using ‘presentation’ instead of ‘show’), but in that case they’d use a less stigmatised term for what ultimately means very similar things, with the differences only coming from how they’re managed & presented.

17 minutes ago, Slick said:

Again, from literal first hand experience I can very confidently say all of the handlers there have a profound respect for the animals, and suffice to say as a result I don’t think a single one of them is happy to see the end of their hands-on relationship with these creatures. 

Though that is unfortunate, it’s ultimately about more than the animal handler’s viewpoints on it. If you have a wild animal that could (& should) behave as a wild animal does, the best move for all parties is to let it do so without endangering yourself in the process. Handlers being used to the previous system doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.

Edited September 9 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

10 hours ago, Tricoart said:

If you want to bring this back up after 3 days

Just bear in mind the forums aren't a live chat. Not everyone logs in every day to stay current and participate in the current chat in real time. I routinely avoid Parkz most weekends to spend time with my family and get things done around the house so things said friday night don't get replied to until Monday morning. The lateness of the reply doesn't invalidate someone's thoughts on a topic. (Though a mega bump on a topic that is long since settled after several months is a bit far, IMO)

9 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Handlers being used to the previous system doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.

I'm 100% with you on this point. As for the rest - your choice of words is poor and shows your lack of knowledge on the topic. it is important to differentiate, and the fact you make comparisons to a circus, acknowledge the differences, but then say 

9 hours ago, Tricoart said:

they’d use a less stigmatised term for what ultimately means very similar things

just continues to show your lack of awareness. 

The folks who work at tiger island are some of the world's most passionate supporters of tiger conservation and education, and continuing to compare them to circus performers is just downright insulting. 

[Tricoart]

34 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The folks who work at tiger island are some of the world's most passionate supporters of tiger conservation and education, and continuing to compare them to circus performers is just downright insulting. 

My point is that that wasn’t the intention, I just said the word ‘perform’ as that’s what it is. I didn’t make the comparison, but now that I know that there’s a stigma around the word ‘perform’ due to others making that comparison to mistreatment in other places, using a different word (with similar meaning) makes sense, but would still functionally be what they’re doing. Like zoos choosing to refer to themselves as a ‘sanctuary’ or a ‘wildlife park’ without changing a whole lot behind the scenes to make them such, I see why they would do so due to people not really liking ‘zoo’ right now. But that stigma, in both cases, doesn’t roll into my interpretation of the word or the facilities, so if I’m going to the zoo, I’ll still personally refer to it as such.

Edited September 9 by Tricoart