Howletts Wild Animal Park Misinformation at Howletts

Damian Aspinall is at it again for the holidays it seems.

Who needs animal rights activists when you have idiots like him trying to tear down zoos and aquaria from within with the same kind of misinformation that the animal rights people spread?

If people like him have their way, yes, then we are losing the battle and zoos and aquaria will be phased out in the coming decades.

I hope not too many people will listen to him. He's clearly been drinking the animal rights Kool-Aid.

Millionaire zoo boss slams keeping wild animals in captivity as 'barbaric' and urges parents to stop taking children to wildlife parks... including his own

Don't take your children to the zoo, wildlife park owner urges parents

 

What is he going to do when they heed his advise and he can no longer afford to keep the animals?

Also that first link the first picture says its a leopard....clearly its a cheetah.

 

What the hell did he smoke during these days?

 

It's almost unbelievable how they manage to make this mistake... it's like calling a koala a bear.

 

But highlights the issue most people who read it, probably would not pick up on it and therefore will believe the tripe he (Damien Aspinall) comes out with.

 

Well,we can accuse Aspinall of all sorts of things - some people on this chatroom are even prepared to concede some ground to his "philosophy", but we cannot escape the fact that he is a massive hypocrite who remains in EAZA whilst hating all of his bedfellows(and myself). Nor does the Howletts website say"dont come here"...no,its"plan your great day out" via treetop walks,glamping and all the other trappings of a commercial philosophy that rather indicate that he doesnt care much for financing his zoos out of his own pocket if he can help it.Ive directly asked him if the WCS,WWT,Durrell etc are also worthy of his displeasure and he didnt answer the question...presumably he hates them and their work too(in fact he rather indicated that they, like myself apparently,are "evil").

 

Last time I was at Port Lympne there were quite a few toys in the gift shop. I'm assuming that these have all been removed in favour of signed photos of Virginia McKenna.

 

Love it

 

Looking forward to the new tannoy announcements on the safari tour: "Are you enjoying yourselves yet, you vicious scum?"

 

Surely all that is happening is that one very clever businessman is using a lazy media to promote his own businesses? Anyone who has had any direct contact with the media will know that the truth has little to do with any story. Successful big business can use this to promote its own ends, and many a small business often wishes it could! Whilst everyone worries about the fine detail, the headlines are all that matters...

 

BIAZA have formally complained to EAZA over Damian Aspinall's comments. Decision pending.

 

He is Britain's version of Donald Trump ...... (kinda).

 

If they went for a nuclear option and expelled the Aspinall Foundation parks, what does that mean for the animals?

My best guess at a legal outcome is that ‘ownership’ of animals bred at the parks would revert back to Aspinall, and vice versus for animals they brought in from EAZA zoos?

 

Nothing, in practice. The likelihood of large zoos issuing legal proceedings over technical ownership is negligible. We took legal action to resist the 'recall' of an important animal by a notorious private zoo owner, and after many thousands of pounds of legal bills the matter was settled out of Court, just before Court action commenced. I doubt big zoos would go that route, especially given the adversary....

 

So would the animals at the Aspinall parks simply be lost to the EEP programs?

 

Difficult to say, as there is probably no real precedent to follow. Non EAZA collections take part in EEPs, and zoos of all sizes have left EAZA. Some have been resignations, others must have been ejections, and some have returned. Every case will be different. I would have thought that the likelihood of other zoos taking action on their own or together to repossess animals is remote, so I would assume their future to be largely in the hands of the current possessor. Most animal moves take the form of official donations, so legal ownership would be passed with this. Formal detailed breeding loans or other terms are rare now.

 

Aren't species which are part of EEP breeding programmes effectively under ownership of the EEP rather than the individual zoos that keep them?

 

EEPs are independent of ownership - but 'effectively' yes probably, whilst the relationship continues. Once one party ejects/divorces the other, and no formal legal agreement is in place, then who knows... As with any divorce, it is then down to the determination and finances of either party, as to how far any dispute is taken. Even with a formal legal agreement, its enforceability depends on the will and wealth of the enforcer, especially across country borders with widely varying legal systems.

 

When Dvur resigned from WAZA and EAZA, pretty much the only animals they had return was breeding pair of Okapi (but they kept the young male). Some orangutans left the zoo around that time too, but I'm not 100% if it had anything to do with it.

I was asking about that when the first news about Pont-Scorff appeared and apparently, it depends on the form of ownership (loan, donation,...) as stated by @Andrew Swales. But I think EEP as an institution doesn't hold any animals.

 

So far as I know, Okapi have always been a (very) special case, and not a standard EEP. Very large financial 'donations' are required, by newly invited collections, to take them on; and there is also Government involvement channeled via Antwerp Zoo - but please check this detail.