I'm aware of why the enclosure became free. The zoo themselves have not said anything about how the enclosure may be used when posting the news of the wolves being euthanised - I'm not sure what you want Dartmoor to have done differently to be more respectful in terms of reporting the news. As for Kim Ellis' facebook page - it gives a very one sided view of the situation imo. On the one hand you could say the zoo 'forced' the wolves to be signed over. On the other hand you could question why the Ellis family found themselves unable to care for them and as such - why the zoo should be expected to provide indefinite 'temporary' accomodation. There are always two sides to a story. As this one appears to be full of bad feeling on all sides I don't think one persons social media is going to provide much perspective. Incidentally - I also don't think you can criticise the zoo for deleting comments when Kim Ellis is doing exactly the same thing.
I understand the zoo has not said anything about it - but then I wasn't replying to a comment from the zoo when I made that comment. Could not agree more that Kim's facebook page tells a very one sided view of the situation - I simply quote that as an example of - if you do not think my posts have been fair or balanced or are exaggerated - then read these posts. I am very well aware that there are two sides to every story and I am not so naive as to think one presented story is any more absolutely accurate than the other - that is why my post was as balanced as I could make it. I did not at any time say the zoo had forced them to sign the wolves over - I quoted circumstances - and yes I am aware that the wolves were not being cared for as well as they could have been. Also I did not criticize the zoo for deleting negative comments - I simply stated what I know to be true - but it does make them as guilty of managing the fallout as anyone else. As for what they could have done differently - since you have read Kim's grief stricken post - you already know the answer to that. And that is what her post is - grief talking. And I fail to see why you asked the initial question about use of the enclosure when you already knew ALL the answers - other than you wish to provoke a row - which you wont do - because I am not on one side or the other - which if you had read all my posts you could have worked out. It is simply this - I have followed these wolves forever (artistic licence before you scream) and I know the circumstances surrounding signing over the wolves was complicated and I know Shaun Ellis is a contentious figure who will always provoke debate - and he - like you and I - will never always be in the right - but having witnessed life kicking them whilst down and taking everything from them - in death (of the wolves) could someone have not found it in their heart to be kinder to them? To have done something to heal the rift rather than ripping it back open? A general observation of life is that people have zero tolerance of others' shortcomings and a million and one excuses for their own. And if Dartmoor Zoo was to crash and burn - metaphorically speaking - and suddenly became the South Lakes of South Hams - would you wish for us to kick them whilst down - or rally round to help them up?
For what it's worth I didn't say the Leopards would be going in the old Timber Wolf exhibit. I clearly stated that the Zoo had been looking to move on Carlos the Iberian Wolf, so the other Iberian Wolves could be moved along into Carlos' exhibit as they had to be separated, and it was the larger Wolf exhibit and land next to it, which runs up to Hayley Bears paddock, that would be used for off show and on show Amur Leopard exhibits. This has been planned for a while. so is nothing new. The death of the Timber Wolves means there is now an exhibit free, so if the Zoo wished, they could now move Carlos into that exhibit whilst they look to move him on, and move the other Iberian Wolves over into Carlos' paddock which would enable them to start work on the Leopard exhibit. @Red Fox, there is also nothing wrong with South Lakes, they have a good collection, work with Eaza and have good breeding records with a number of their animals. The old owner was the issue, not really the Zoo. So I personally find it rather rude to crab South Lakes for no reason .... Their issues were caused by being run by an absolute arse, nothing else. Dartmoor is now a charity with some very good trustees and a new team coming on board who have some decent plans which include Orangutans, Macaques, Amur Leopards, Jaguar exhibit Improvement, Small primate walkthrough and so on. So I don't see there any chance of Dartmoor crashing and burning as you put it. Benjamin Mee has got a good team together now, and has some plans to really improve the zoo in the next few years with big improvements which will aid many conservation projects.
It was a rhetorical question - I was simply making the point that whether or not discussing use of the enclosure is appropriate is all a matter of perspective. I honestly havn't got time to respond to all of your post - but the thing that is genuinely confusing me is that you have taken issue with one persons post on this forum and seem to be projecting that onto the zoo in some way. Who does 'someone' refer to if not the zoo? It is all a bit muddled. Other than changing history I don't think there is a lot the zoo could have done that would heal the rift at this point.
I think the discussion has moved on from your original comment about the enclosure and I have answered that several times. I am not crabbing South Lakes for no reason, however, my apologies if you took the comment as rude. I know it has worked hard to repair the damage - but the situation was what it was and again - everyone misses the point - I said if - and would you want people to kick you or rally? That is the question to answer - but we all know the answer don't we - we would hope that people would rally.
I wasn't aware that you were referring to a wider context or indeed that such a context even existed. Now that I am I can see that your hyperbole (in which I still believe) is much more justified. I won't take the time to get in the personal ins and outs of the story, frankly I have better things to do, but from what you and others have written it seems a total mess and it is absolutely a shame that people sometimes behave poorly.
And can I just add if you can be bothered to read it and you are not to busy listening to your own voice - that we did our best to support the zoo and the wolves after the Ellis family 'left'. We raised money for the 'new' enclosure - secured a pledge of a corporate donation from my employer - and raised our own funds - simply because we wanted to side step the rights and wrongs and just ensure the wolves had a nicer enclosure and ended their days being better cared for. Out of everything I have read and heard so far your attitude makes me want to sign the on line petition. So - well done.
Online petition for what ? It comes across as you are rather close to the Ellis' ? Maybe even work for them ?
I've no idea who the 'we' are you refer to or what online petition you are talking about... so basing your decision to sign it or not on my posts seems a tad foolish. Good for you if you have assisted in fund raising - but I'm not sure what that has got to do with the two points I have made. Which are: 1. Whether or not discussing the use of the enclosure is appropriate is all a matter of perspective. 2. There are always two sides to every story and social media is unlikely to provide the full picture. You are clearly very emotionally invested in this and the rhetoric in your posts suggests you are not completely impartial. That's not a problem imo - but not everyone is going to have the same view as you.
Absolutely don't. Shaun Ellis would not know who I was if I stood in front of him. I am just a Jo blog member of the public - no clout - no important connections - just a person with an opinion. The wheels of commerce will not stop turning if I veto Dartmoor Zoo. Nothing to worry about at all. I understand that you hold the Zoo very dear and that is quite frankly lovely. Anyone coming on this forum who supports any organisation should always bear in mind they are representing their zoo. From keepers to support staff to volunteers to supporters/friends of. How you present your comments and opinions reflects on your zoo - good old Jo Public does not differentiate between you all - you are your zoo.
