Did anyone catch this in the paper today? http://www.news.com.au/business/business-s...r-1225934977128 If I was an Ardent shareholder I would be pretty annoyed, but it's always good to see a little bit of social responsibility from big business these days.

What's to be annoyed about? They don't allow tiger island access because too many people in the public would simply see a group associated with guns and shooting animals being allowed into dreamworlds tiger conservation efforts. I think it's a good decision from DW. Piss off a few people to keep the majority happy. That's business. It's not like they've banned them from the entire park, they have offered several other places to hold the party.

they have offered several other places to hold the party.

AVPX?

^ That would be the most sensible location. It would have set a bad image if they were allowed to have it at Tiger Island. A lot of the comments on the article congratulate Dreamworld for doing what they did - but one seems to be from the gun company...

Nioa are also a long term family business who provide valuable resources to our law enforcement and military. Dreamworld wont see my family's business again.

Thing is, if they had it at Tiger Island, the reality is that no one outside the company would have found out about it. Oddly enough, I think refusing them may have been a great business decision. Whether it was intended or not (and I'm prepared to say it was not) the press they are getting has been nothing but positive. The public clearly see a big company appearing to have some moral conscience, and that is worth way more than the revenue from one function. Even me, with my jadedness was rather impressed, and I totally support Dreamworld in their decision.

What has amazed me is the way this company - Nioa - is handling the situation. Encouraging all of your staff members etc. to jump on Dreamworld's facebook page and constantly post harassing messages is really wrong. Dreamworld is a business and they have every right to make decisions about where events should be held in their park. It is quite pathetic that this company is so offended about it, as though it's the worse thing in the world. They need to grow up and realise that sometimes you don't get exactly what you want in life. They obviously went to the press with it too, but it certainly looks to have backfired on them if they were trying to generate negative sentiment as 'payback' to Dreamworld. And despite their claims, Dreamworld aren't saying that Nioa can't hold a function in their park... JUST ONE AREA OF THE PARK

Good on them, Letting them hold there party in Tiger Island would just make them look hypocritical which means bad press.... If it was me, I'd won't let them have a party anywhere in the park at all!

I've posted this everywhere -> Good on Dreamworld! Standing up for what's right!

Mr Nioa told Dreamworld its position was "almost comical" given its "direct involvement in the caging and exploitation of wild animals for entertainment".

Whichever side you are on, that is a very good point. Personally good on Dreamworld, but at the end of the day, any park, can say no to any group, for any reason, so long as it doesn't break discrimination laws. So - tough shit Nioa.

I am amazed at the naivety of Mr Nioa in his response to Dreamworld, "direct involvement in the caging and exploitation of wild animals for entertainment", I take it he's not aware that tigers are critically endangered and that Tiger Island is an active breeding facility that is used in effort to keep the breed surviving since the species now only exists in captivity. It is not corporately responsible of a business who's primary business is to manufacture weapons then claim that they through provision of funds prevent poaching.

I am amazed at the naivety of Mr Nioa in his response to Dreamworld, "direct involvement in the caging and exploitation of wild animals for entertainment", I take it he's not aware that tigers are critically endangered and that Tiger Island is an active breeding facility that is used in effort to keep the breed surviving since the species now only exists in captivity. It is not corporately responsible of a business who's primary business is to manufacture weapons then claim that they through provision of funds prevent poaching.

I can see where he's coming from, I mean if he used facts, they wouldn't support his argument.