• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Chessington World of Adventures Resort

Ah... By that standard, if you don't like torture, don't do it but don't criticise and let torturers and their unwilling victims get on with it.

What an ignorant comment.
 
Don't ride. As Jared said. Chessington will ensure very carefully that they comply with laws and animal welfare requirements.

Never visit any Safari Park, Meat! Let them all out into the African Savannah to be shot by poachers instead!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
Don't put words in my mouth.

Zoos working as conservation institutions are great, provided that enough care is taken to provide them with decent enclosures (which current animal welfare laws do not go far enough). But using the animals for entertainment and robbing them of their own independent territory is abuse.

You're right, as a matter of principle I won't go on this attraction, but I'm not going to shut up and refuse to criticise the park's abuse of these captive creatures and those customers happy to say nothing but enjoy themselves, as they are compliant in that abuse.
 
Edit - Apologies, terrible case of Straw Man.

Hopefully the park would inform the guests of appropriate behaviour whilst in the animals' territory.
 
How do you know that the animals will be 'abused' or not enjoy their lives? The attraction seems plenty big enough to give large open spaces for the animals to roam without being distracted by the vehicles too much.

An attraction like this is also much better than a generic safari park which would, on a busy day, have queues of people constantly driving through back to back.

Also, animal welfare and captivity is a double edged sword. For zoos and theme parks to care for their animals and help them to thrive in captivity they need to come up with ways to raise the money for this. An attraction like this will do just that.

I fear that this conversation may be taking the thread off topic too far and as such, a discussion on zoos and animal welfare may be more worthwhile in Corner Coffee perhaps?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
 
Although I don't really see where MP is coming from on this one, I have to strongly object to Jared's "just don't go on it" attitude.

If someone thinks something is morally and ethically wrong, then they have a right to register their protest in various ways. Because there's a difference between simply personally not liking something and thinking that it shouldn't happen.

I don't like baked beans, but I don't try and stop anyone else eating them. I also don't like torture, but instead of just refraining from torturing anyone, I want to stop other people doing it. If MP thinks this is ethically wrong, then "just don't go on it" isn't really a valid response. :)
 
Rupert, how is that a defence? Another industy is worse so let's let Chessington terrify animals with their new attraction? And even though it has nothing what-so-ever to do with this discussion, no I am a meat eater but I try to buy from ethical or responsible sources when I can and am transitioning to a low-meat diet as it is healthier for the planet. I happen to campaign on improving animal welfare for the food industry too.

Scott, invading the space of these creatures is abuse, they have a right not to have humans driving through their enclosure every five minutes. Whether it brings in money or not should not come into it as that doesn't absolve the wrong-doing here. It doesn't somehow make it better.
 
I would want to see some genuine research on whether such a scenario does distress animals. If it doesn't and is linked into a good conservation programme and education plan then I have no issue. Based on the fact vehicle based safari attractions continue to exist and a quick search doesn't display any research that suggest the scenario distresses animals I would assume there is no problem but its worth checking.

You can't assume something is stressful to an animal without research, and the zufari paddocks are big so the animals won't be forced up against the trucks. The one time I went to a safari park the animals seemed to be quite comfortable with the cars.

That's my thought anyway but the captivity of animals has such a broad opinion base i don't think you can ridicule MP for his views even if you disagree.
 
When I went on Rhino Rally at Busch Gardens in Florida, the animals in the safari area looked like they couldn't care less about the trains and trucks that passed them. Some didn't mind walking up to see what was going on and there was even one Ostrich that laid an egg right next to the train track. :p
 
My one concern in this area would be the potential danger of the exhaust fumes, which would be research I'm sure institutions like Longleat would be keen to keep quiet... But equally perhaps keeping animals in an urban area will do the same damage inhalation wise anyway...
 
It's very odd. Obviously Longleat can't do this, but given the very small number of actual vehicles they'll need, you would have thought they'd get electric trucks to sidestep the exhaust fumes issue?
 
I know it's stupid but for a new addition in 2013, it just feels really weird for a key part of the ride to be running on diesel powered vehicles, given the range of transit systems and alternatives available these days... Maybe that's just me.
 
I was also wondering how the vehicles could get close enough to the animals to make it a great experience.

Obviously we don't know exactly how this is going to work yet, but I hope that the vehicles don't distress the animals.
 
Electric power from batteries would struggle with vehicles that size that have to negotiate a little rough terrain and they couldn't run from a rail as the ride dives into water pools. Diesel is probably the best option.
 
I dread to think what you think of Atlantis at Legoland, MP...

Anyway, Chessington make a big deal of their conservation efforts. From a completely non-caring, business perspective, if they were to mistreat their animals in any way it would be suicidal to their public image, and the business would suffer terribly. For this reason alone (though there are many others), it's not difficult to be assured that the welfare of the animals will be paramount.
 
Chessie do their absolute best to treat their animals well...

If these safaris were deemed to be unethical, they wouldn't exist at all... Quite simple really, as lobbyists will make a fuss (as has happened at Chessie before, hence the Gorilla enclosure getting major expansion recently) and get things sorted out...

Chessie have no reason to mistreat their animals, and I have no doubt they will have actually done research into the effects of not only diesel fumes (which using red diesel, will not be exceptionally high or damaging really) but noise, spacial issues, etc. The zoo is the most important asset to the park, and they would ensure the animal's health and safety moreso than anything else... Especially with an addition of this size...

Thing is with the zoos, is that they do a lot of work in keeping certain species in existance, just because the houses are clean and sterile does not mean the animals are being mistreated (indeed, as the houses are a place to do medical tests and what-not, you'd WANT it to be clean, tidy and sterile), similar goes for the safari, as the park will no doubt send the trucks around a LOT (possibly with food attached to allow animals to associate trucks with food and hence come closer) just so they can adapt to their existance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top