BigKev
-
Posts
306 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by BigKev
-
-
Some animals NEED to breed in order to keep them healthy. An elephant for instance MUST have a mate, and together, they're going to try breeding naturally, whether you like it or not. So captive breeding be-damned. An animal bred in captivity doesn't know any different to what it means to be in the wild - like a dog or a cat - this is the only reality they know...
The point of blackfish is all of the Whales were captured from the wild. Few of them (None of the ones with problems)were bred in captivity... An animal that is rescued, and is able to swim, interact, play in the water with guests, but is unable to defend itself in the wild means it's better at Sea World in a safe environment where it has the best food and veterinary care, protection from predators, and all the while at the same time raising funds (through ticket and merchandise and animal encounters) to support more rescue and rehab at the animal hospital.
Nobody is crying over Alma Park or Australia Zoo... why are marine animals different?
So it's ok to lock them up if they're the last ones? You can't have your cake and eat it too - if the animal is land or water, endangered or plentiful, beautiful or ugly - why do any of these factors matter as to whether you're 'comfortable' with it. You're either ok with captivity for wild animals or not....
Just to be clear I'm not just talking about SeaWorld I have mixed feelings about any zoo, circus, etc….
I certainly agree with the rescued animals part and I see the benefits of having captive animals perform natural behaviours to generate revenue to aide conservation.
Where we differ though is the breeding in captivity issue. I see housing rescued animals as perfectly fine if they are unable to be returned but I see breeding them to sustain the captive population (if that is what happens) as being a different proposition altogether.
I do think captive breeding is a better option than extinction though but I must admit I don't know where Dreamworld's tigers came from in the first place.
As I said though I'm certainly not taking the high moral ground here, I'll be at SeaWorld in a couple of weeks taking in the shows and loving them, same as many times before, but I do have some sympathy for the view that some aspects of captive animal management require more scrutiny.
-
So do u have the same stance on Tigers at DW?
And other animals at Dreamworld, paradise country, australian outback spectacular, Australia zoo. I hardly see people complain about these. What's the difference?
I feel the same way about all animals in captivity, slightly uncomfortable but not enough to stop me going along for a look.
Animals performing makes me more uncomfortable again but again not enough for me not to enjoy it. Not claiming to be a moral beacon here but I do have mixed feelings.
I'm more comfortable with the Tigers being bred because they are endangered, and an animal in captivity is better than none at all I guess.
-
That's why I thought the doomsday tower concept was great, similar to pandemonium it looked like it may have have 2 settings, light and full on. It catered for everyone whilst still providing good thrills.
To me, going that high, even on a 'light' setting is pretty intense.
There is no way I would go on it for example and I'd imagine a lot of kids would be the same.
-
I find myself a little torn on these matters.
I'm not entirely comfortable with animals in captivity and animals performing, but I also recognise the positive aspects in terms of generating money for research and conservation.
The part I am least comfortable with is breeding the animals in captivity as opposed to housing animals that are rescued and unable to be returned to the wild.
-
Or Escape from Madagascar.
Yeah another good example.
I'd love to see MovieWorld have another one or two in that ilk to add options for everyone on busy days.
-
It always seems pretty popular when I am there, its a gateway ride between kids rides and thrill rides in my eyes.
Sort of like Road Runner at Movie World.
-
I think it is a shame to see Reef Diver go.
To me rides like that are a big part of the family attraction to DW.
They might not be the marquee rides but they hold plenty of people and are great 'fillers' during the day.
I think MovieWorld could do with a few of these.
-
Maybe they should change the name of the park so the theming fits.
Marine animals, Hippos and Gorillas.
Hmmmm
Got it.
Wet'n'Wild.
-
I've seen SW shut a ride in the kids area for a while and then staff members swap and close another one.
-
It is a very interesting question actually, no doubt the parks have an idea because they always ask postcodes when you enter.
My feeling visiting has always been Movieworld was the most popular park with international visitors.
-
This wouldn't be just a Dreamworld issue though would it?
I have been a couple of times at the start of the year, last year in early March we found all parks really quiet.
At MovieWorld we went around and around on Scooby Doo for 45 minutes and never had to wait once.
At Seaworld on a rainy afternoon there would have been lucky to be 100 people at the afternoon dolphin show (which was great cause my daughter got chosen to be in the show).
I guess people tend not to take their kids out of school early in the year.
-
Whilst that may be true Flea, the fact is there is no a single zoo/animal attraction in QLD that has Gorillas, so that is a drawcards in itself
That's a good point from a Queensland perspective, I didn't know that.
What would be the breakdown of park visitors in terms of 'locals' and interstate/overseas visitors?
-
Nobody's interested in Wild anymore by the sounds of it.
I'm interested but to be honest the thought of Seaworld (separate or not) having Gorillas or Hippos holds very little appeal.
As a 'mexican' the beauty of heading the the GC parks is they are unique.
The rides and shows are great and the reason Seaworld is my favourite park is because it had the extra elements of the animal shows and seeing dolphins close up which you can't do in Vic.
We have excellent zoos here at Werribee and Melbourne that have excellent primate and hippo collections and Seaworld is unlikely to top them.
It would be disappointing to go to Seaworld and think 'same same but different' or not as good.
It would be same thing you experience at Funfields or Adventure Park where you think this is ok but also just a worse version of the GC.
I think WB should concentrate on keeping their parks unique, one-off experiences, which they may well do with Wild, but if it just an animal exhibit I think it would be poor investment.
-
So how does Wild fit with the whole discussion re the Dreamworld theme v amusement park.
Seaworld obviously has a whole park theme but the dinosaurs and potentially Wild sort of change that.
Will it take on a new theme as a zoo type set-up with rides or have WB just turned its back on the theme concept?
-
On an different tangent...
I see today that DW has a new pass available for a limited time - 30 days of unlimited access to DW, WWW and Skypoint for $30.
March must be a quiet month for them historically
It's a smart play I reckon.
We (and a few thousand others) recently bought a accommodation voucher at Seaworld result through a Deals website that we are using in March and I bet lots of others are as well as there were limited dates,
Comes with admission to the three WB parks but for $30 you would consider going to DW even just for a day.
I bet that is the market they are after.
-
What really!?
Yes really!
I've always been a bit of a chicken but now my kids are getting older I have vowed to join them on rides.
So far they haven't been tall enough for the TOT.
-
But you noticed the turbine though! Didn't you??!
I have a shocking confession to make, I've never noticed any turbines at Dreamworld, although I've never been on the TOT.
-
I guess this is the difference between your real park aficionado and your average punter.
I'd be in the second group and I wouldn't even notice most of the theming stuff.
Using Shockwave as an example, my kids and I enjoy the ride. We couldn't care less if it is an ocean style ride or not, in fact I've probably been on it 25 times and I couldn't even tell you anything about the surrounds.
I understand the overall park experience and how somewhere like Movie World is great because the surrounds and the actors add to the experience but at the end of the day I see it more as 'icing' that is nice but worth very little compared to the cake.
-
So is an amusement park a bad thing to be?
Or just compared to a theme park?
-
Ahhh ok so theme park v amusement park.
To be honest I just thought they were interchangeable terms.
-
as long as they keep trying to call themselves a "theme"park in their current state.
Could you explain what you mean by this please reanimated, for those of us not great with the terminology?
(Serious question by the way!)
-
Yeah, they are good points.
I guess it is going to be a difficult decision at some point for MW.
I do think WWF is getting very rough around the edges though.
The movie theme is very old and not even very popular in its prime, the theming throughout the ride is getting a little shabby as well as the sound issues you mentioned.
I think the ride generally has an outdated feel to it, although that does work with the theme!
It is a great ride though, I agree, let's hope it ages gracefully and is kept in good nick.
A question for all those on here that have heaps of knowledge about different ride types. Could some of the space be utilised with a high roller coaster type ride that used some of the space in the lake area? Would that be possible?
-
But what if it could be replaced with other family/water rides but just more of them?
I actually think both those points also indicate MW's big weakness.
The queues are too long because they don't have enough attractions and the options for families are limited.
-
Agreed AlexB. The time is very near where the parks will need to expand onto virgin territory-especially in the case of MovieWorld and Dreamworld. This will mean some involved planning and some real thought for the future as both parks decide on attractions and the direction that that each park will take over the next 5-10 years
As much as the Wild West Falls is an enjoyable ride at MovieWorld, it must have a limited life span remaining I'd have thought.
It seems to take up such a huge area of the park, with the ride space, queue and other WW area. I'd imagine if it were reconfigured they could have 3 or 4 rides in the same area.
How does it compare to the space used by JL, GL, SE and Batwing area?
Going to do the Gold Coast and doing all theme parks. A big question?
in Theme Park Discussion
Posted
Our experience has always been that carrying a backpack is not a problem and most rides we can either carry it in the ride or leave it on return side of ride platform where it is perfectly safe, especially if you have cash, phone etc in pockets anyway.
We haven't been on the 'thrill' rides much however as mentioned on some of those rides you can't have anything even in pockets.
Options then become a locker or having a too-scared-of-big-rides person hold them.
At this time of year queues will be short and I often just leave bags etc near ride and get them again after disembarking. I'm pretty trusting in that regard but have never had a problem in the 10 years I've been doing it.