It seems almost every one on this thread is swimming in waters they don't understand, and whilst this is obviously an important zoo story the personal vendetta some members are pursuing is quite tiresome and if anything adds the opposite of value to the site (I'm not referring to Paradoxurus here). That being said, and really not knowing much about the situation, it seems to me that if your boss won't let you do your job properly, and there are actual animal welfare consequences to that, then the honourable thing to do would be to resign. Especially if you are management level yourself. Again, I am just responding to the narrative being presented on this site, which is without doubt not the full picture.
I fail to understand how you come to the conclusion in you're first paragraph that people have failed to understand the issues here,I assume when you talk about personal vendettas you are referring to posts from Farmer if it wasn't for people with this sort of dedication then most people on this thread would be unaware of the massive failings of this zoo.Dont forget a large amount of this information was posted long before the national press got hold of this story. Although i whole heartedly agree with your second paragraph when members of management by not taking any action have condoned all the malpractice that has taken place and to this end they should be excluded from any new management team. While on the subject of the so called new management team i see certain posts refer to giving them a chance,if people took the trouble to research this new management team then they would realise it is no such thing. I refer in part to the new CEO Karen Brewer who has been Gills number two for a number of years she attended council meetings as his representative, in the past her name and signature appears on a lot of documentation and press releases for the zoo. When the application for the zoo extension was applied for she was the face of the zoo. I noticed on the zoo website they state they have the opportunity to buy this attraction,they also state they took on this zoo without a penny in the bank,significant liabilities and 80 staff to pay,yet there is no mention of how this is going to be financed.is this been bankrolled by the existing owner who will never give up control There are significant spurious comments on the zoos mission statement but for fear of being accused of having a vendetta against this establishment i will say little else .However i cant refrain from quoting a couple,they say they have had a busy weekend and thank visitors for attending.I can state without contradiction that the numbers visiting since this story broke have plummeted even with free entry.Also they have the pictures of the snow leopard cubs on their facebook page which are the ones mentioned in the inspectors report that were killed. I do fear that this place will receive a new licence and that over the next eighteen months will be proven to be a failing zoo and will eventualy close,although by then the damage will be done and it will give more support to the anti-zoo brigade
The vast majority of the information posted by Farmer has been discussed on Zoochat *long* before they, or you, joined the site so don't try to act like yourself and Farmer - and bigcat speciali before you - are the sole reason people on this site are aware of the vast array of problems at South Lakes. In point of fact, the majority of the Zoochatters taking part in this discussion are long-term critics of the collection themselves......
There are lots of moving parts in this story, and many of them are complicated. Many of the things that presumably are happening behind closed doors are unknown, and may remain so. What I said was just logic. I'm not saying that people can't understand the issues, just that probably no-one understands the whole situation clearly. As TLD points out, this is not true. I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with what you misunderstood me to say or advancing your own point, but to be clear, I did not accuse management of condoning malpractice. I might have some sympathy for that view, but I did not espouse it because, again, I don't have all the facts and do not fully understand the situation. Incidentally, I do hope that on the day South Lakes inevitably implodes in on itself bigcat speciali is given a one day pass to come back to ZooChat. It would be fitting I think.
No we don't need Bigcat speciali back for one day to tell us I told you so,as many of us knew what was going on before he even appeared on his crusade to get Gill! But then how do we know that he isn't already here under a different name? I personally would like to see the place stay open with somebody that does know what they are doing in charge,speaking for myself they have that man in the zoo already,in David Armitage who hasn't been given a chance by Gill because he does know what he is doing,in fact I know that a person that used to post on here has been in just the same boat as,DA is at the moment as nobody else knows how to run a zoo except Gill,and for the record the other person has also forgotten more than Gill will ever know about zoo work,in fact Gill even mentions him in his book but not by name.
I agree with ZG that it would be better if the place could be kept open , if necessary improvements to housing and animal management can be implemented . Closure would give a big boost to the anti-zoo brigade , who it seems already have a list of further targets . Closure would damage the local economy and put quite a few people out of work . I also wonder how easy it would be to rehome a lot of the stock in the collection , I do not imagine there would be a long queue of collections going out of their way to be helpful .
Glad to see I am not a loan voice in wanting it to stay open. Also on the antis they weren't as far as I could tell sniffing around the place that much until the national press got hold of it.then they were all over it like a rash as they saw pond signs flashing past their eyes when that happened!!Yes I bet they have a list ready betting the big boys will not be on it,as they have money to sort things out.What we need is them to come out into the open with the list,but that is never going to happen. As for a que BIAZA I believe have already sounded places out and a good number of animals have already got homes,should the worse happen as some of it is worth keeping and not the dregs that other places didn't want!
i dont want the place to close permanently ,, temporarily if needs be whilst a completely new management is put at the helm , not the ones that have stood aside david gill instead of standing up against him !
How will all this bad publicity affect visitor numbers in the future if it stays open , will it all be soon forgotten about by the public and visitor numbers return to a healthy figure ,or will they stay away resulting in financial hardships?
If the collection closes (which I hope they find new owners to keep it open) will the animals that can't be rehomed be put to sleep. If so will there be as much out cry about the council killing innocent animals and will CRAPS also take credit about putting innocent animals down (thought not)?
As I have hopefully made quite apparent elsewhere in this thread, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you on both of these points - wanting the place to stay open if it is managed by someone suitable, and believing that DA fits this description perfectly Quite apart from the fact that - as I have noted previously - DA has gone on the record in inspection reports and so forth (visible on the Barrow council website) regarding his disagreement with Gill and his methods, and my belief that he chose to weather the year or so he was ignored and overruled by Gill knowing that the latter would soon run out of luck, I would be interested to know whether bantam, Farmer or yourself actually believe that a "completely new management" would volunteer for the task? I suspect that if you don't want the place to close permanently, your only option is to hope that you are wrong that the new management intend to hand control straight back to Gill, and that people like zoogiraffe, Paradoxurus and myself are correct - because I don't see there being much chance of someone entirely unconnected to South Lakes wanting to take the place on.
I think South Lakes is pretty unique in many ways, I can`t remember another collection in the UK ever going through quite so much turmoil as it has throughout its existence.There has been a catalogue of incidents, as we all know, and yes I have been a strong critic of South Lakes, I will freely admit, but I have my own particular personal reasons for that, yet, believe it or not, I don`t want to see the place close either. However, we have to be realistic about it, there has to be a dramatic management change for that to work effectively, otherwise the situation will just continue as before and that is the concern - that nothing will change. On the subject of David Armitage, he is without doubt someone who could turn the place around, he is well respected within the zoo community and has the ability and knowledge to do the job, if he got the chance. But the main problem now is how to reverse that situation, with all that has happened lately, it will be an up-hill struggle, not helped by the anti-zoo fraternity (which will not let go, once they get their teeth into a place) and the wider involvement of the national press - which has obviously led to a greater degree of negative publicity. So it will be very difficult to turn the place around now, to be honest, I can only see two main options - a completely new management team (possibly with David Armitage), and, most crucially, a much better relationship with the council having been developed, because that is a key requirement, along with building and maintaining public confidence in the place which will also be essential to its future, and that will not be easy to achieve.Otherwise we are left with closure being its only other main option, because things have been left, or allowed, to go on for far too long now.
I never thought I'd write this, but ... There's a couple of very good ideas in there. 1. An independent zoo inspectorate - not easy to achieve, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable with Zoo Director A inspecting Zoo Director B's collection; B inspecting C, and C inspecting A, especially when they may have strong professional - and even personal - links. 2. Take it away from District Councils. Way back in 1981 (?) I was asked to comment on the act as it went to the Lords. One of my comments was that it shouldn't go to District Councils. They lack expertise and can have conflicted interests. But I still despise ZooCheck and all who sail in her.
how many of the 500 dead animals were due to lack of care ? and how many down to old age ? does anybody know
To help answer your question Simon, if you follow this link and select Appendix N ... That PDF shows you deaths and causes.. Barrow BC - Licensing Regulatory Committee
Not *quite* accurate; there are five individuals whose cause of death - according to the report on the Barrow council website - is specifically ascribed to old age: 01/02/2016 - Eurasian Spoonbill 25/05/2016 - Sulawesi Babirusa 21/07/2016 - Western Grey Kangaroo 19/03/2014 - Hawaiian Goose 13/08/2013 - Amur Tiger Moreover, some of the animals which died from generalised organ failure or infections appear to have been quite old and as such it is probably fair to assume that age may have been a factor in these cases.
