So the South Lakes fiasco has now led to CRAPS propaganda being posted on this site! All I can say is that it shows just how bad this place must have sunk, but I'm rather disappointed to find that supporters of the anti zoo lobby are able to freely post on this, a pro-zoo site!
All i can say is I love Zoos but I have to add I would only condone and frequent those Zoos that I deem kind to the animals there. But in any case of extensive proven bad treatment I would say it as it is. And in the instance of any single Zoo being proven to have treat any animals badly then if that makes me an anti zoo. I have been to other zoos and had great times. And in no way would I want them to close.
It is www.zoochat.com. This does not imply that we are a pro-zoo environment; the URL is not www.zoosaregreat.com or something similar. A quick read-through of the terms of service (Terms of Service and Rules | ZooChat) and forum rules (Forum Rules | ZooChat) did not indicate that anti-zoo members or posts were not allowed on the site.
Glad you've read the rules. I've already posted that I believe this zoo is bringing shame on UK zoos & should close, I object to anti zoo organisation propaganda being posted that's all! I'm pro zoo, I apologise for that, but the problems suffered by the UK zoo community as a result of this shambles may rebound on your part of the world eventually. Actually I wish as I said originally, that I'd stayed off this thread, because it's boring, dominated by the same old members (who only seem to be interested in South Lakes) and totally repetitive! Good night!
It was posted to make you aware of what is happening rather than to encourage you to donate to caps. Did you read the beginning of the post? "It would be good if this could be wrapped up quickly. The vultures are circling with the hope that this can be the example that leads to the closure of all UK zoos. I had this email from CAPS today." CAPS are all over this, on TV, the radio and in the newspapers. I don't know when they first started campaigning against this zoo. Are they jumping on the bandwagon or have they been active for a long while.
While I'm not sure of exact timeframes, I'm somewhat sure that South Lakes - somewhat ironically - has been receiving direct criticism from members of this site for longer than it has been receiving such criticism from CAPS.
Okay, I'll bite. Really? Where do you find the time? It seems you're on a 24/7 mission re South Lakes.
i am glad somebody is on a mission to get that place closed , it seems so many blind or rather stupid people still trust the new management !
Yes, in truth there is no "new management", its the same old bunch of people led by Gill from backstage, pretending not to have anything to do with it, so he can avoid any criticism - so he thinks!
Can't disagree with the sentiment, or most of Farmer's points (although there's a lot of re-posting links to pummel points home that I think most members of this site agreed with long, long ago) just slightly bewildered that South Lake's all they've ever posted about on this site. I'm not sure such singular obsession is healthy (or adds that much to the site). Additionally, in the end I don't think their posts on here have had any impact on the closure or not of the place. That ultimately fell to the (too) glacial council and other authorities.
Surely (hopefully) the authorities can see through this transparent "ruse" (if it's even opaque enough to be called a ruse)?
The world can see through "ruse", as well as the council, who have already noted this within the reports. A lot of people could see things a lot earlier, but he was some kind of golden child" no matter what he did he wasn't pulled up on it for years, some buildings up there right now and fencing haven't got planning permission. What has caused this, is the fact that the worlds media has jumped on it and there's absolutely no back door. But, some people keep referring to it as a "new management even though it is the same ones for 10 years in some cases actually on this "new" management. The land is supposedly leased with animals and buildings (like Mareba) Even the Facebook site is still "Safari Zoo" promoting his book and Charities, Sumatran Tiger Trust etc, Using the videos of the dead Snow Leopard cubs to infer they are there to go and see? Will the council actually cross him??? time will tell, but there are some that say they wont dare. The difference now is the world is watching.
Going against the consensus, I really hope the zoo stays open and am prepared to see what the new management can do. I concede that Gill appears to have been in control of 'new management' in the past but I'd like to see convincing evidence that he is still in the driving seat before I join the mob. I am still championing DA and, given his loyalty to the place despite extremely difficult circumstances, I am prepared to give the team the benefit of the doubt. Does any one of you posters actually have firm evidence that Gill is still in control? The inside rumours drifting my direction (admittedly that's all they are) suggest that he's not. If the new management are successful in their appeal to the council I am quite sure that the authorities will have considered all the evidence. Now that its such a widely publicised issue, they can't afford not to. There are enough respectable zoo professionals involved in the case that I am quietly confident, but not complacent, that the place will have a successful future if it can successfully re-aquire a licence.
i dont honestly believe gill is the only one who should be held accountable for all the failings at s/lakes his number two`s should be to in my opinion and thats my problem with the new management
His "number two's" is, the "new" management. Which was mentioned at the meeting ( which I attended), and in the reports.
There is a common misapprehension that councils can/should act against development carried out without planning permission in all cases. This is not so. Of itself it does not mean he has been receiving special treatment.
Fair enough. That is a legitimate opinion. However, if Gill is/was as big a control freak as I believe him to have been then I can understand how the hands of all other members of the management team must have been tied. He had a position of extreme power and I doubt any other members of the team (despite what it says on the paperwork) had any say whatsoever in the running of the place. If the investigations by the authorities were thorough then this would have been discovered. The official reports certainly seem to back up this theory. Yep. That's plain for all to see and I don't think anyone is trying to hide that fact. I hope that, without the duress of the previous regime, the current head, with proper support and experienced guidance, can turn the place around.
Given the fact that the inspection reports and other information found on the Barrow council website explicitly states that various members of staff - including DA - had said any dissent they voiced about Gill and his vision for the collection was entirely ignored, I would certainly agree..... A description which - as I have made clear in the past - I continue to believe very much applies to DA, even if certain individuals both on Facebook and in this thread have stated their belief that the fact he remained at the collection at all renders his decades of experience and high reputation in the zoo world irrelevant. Personally I would be more inclined to believe that DA knew that Gill would soon come to the end of the road, and that he felt being overruled and ignored in the short-term would be worthwhile if he was well-placed to help turn the place around once Gill fell.
