Unfortunately, it is attitudes like theirs which the anti-zoo brigade love to jump on as valuable ammunition in their attempts to: a) paint all zoological collections with the same negative brush and b) paint zoo enthusiasts as callous and lacking any regard for the welfare of the animals they view. I would have hoped that none of our members here on Zoochat would hold such an opinion, but I have the distinct feeling that I *have* heard sentiments like this posted by one or two individuals......
A lot of people who have responded on the local paper Facebook page(see link on post 57, this thread) seem to be of the same opinion, in fact just about 100% of them. One of the main complaints focuses on animals being exhibited in the currently muddy conditions. I was surprised none of the supporters of SL posted in defence of it but maybe this is just not the place they'd do that.
we actually even pointed out the unnatural amount of deaths at the park , but none of that seem to matter as long as they got the right photo , i really was in shock , this is a person who come across as very well to do if you get my meaning
The problem is that it's not quite as simple as just closing the place down. There are hundreds of animals living there, and that is a very expensive food and heating bill! Not to mention paying staff to care for and clean up after the animals. With the zoo closed, there is no income going to support all of this, meaning that the council will be responsible for what happens next. And rehoming large animals like rhinos, giraffes, bears and big cats is probably very difficult! There aren't a lot of zoos with space immediately available for new arrivals of that size. That leaves very few options as to what they can do. So in my eyes, it seems that the zoo and the council have backed each other into a bit of a stalemate.
Giant anteater.... you say.... " The problem is that it's not quite as simple as just closing the place down" Do you know of Mareeba wild animal park ? He left the whole Zoo and country and nearby neighbours had to try to do the animals... he ran like hell
The Council can only act in accordance with the law, and if that says they can continue trading while any application/appeal is pending then that's the law.
Just a little bit to add... I am by no way protecting South Lakes because this is completely different to animal welfare but I just think that this is an interesting debate. The place has its flaws, agreed but I am a strong believer that especially nowadays everywhere has its good and bad points. The conservation output is something that I think most places should strive to beat, don't forget there are still some collections who very rarely support any conservation efforts - Even just from a guidebook point of view, most of the SL guidebooks are full of conservation information not just the token page you get in some others. This is something that I think South Lakes is overlooked for (naturally some of you may argue). A few years ago I went to a tiger lecture at London Zoo where the speakers there confessed that the majority of funding for Sumatran Tiger Conservation had come from South Lakes Wild Animal Park. A figure that now totals over £1.5 Million. Now I think, yes flaws, some massive agreed but that figure for tiger conservation we must all agree is impressive. Now for me the question is it is a shame that if David Gill can manage this, why not other collections? Just a thought...
I think this thread reveals some misconceptions about Zoo Licences. There is a code of practice which zoos must follow (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/69596/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdf) in the same way as road users must follow the Highway Code. Drivers who usually drive well, but make one big mistake or several smaller ones will lose their licences: the same is true for zoos. The Council have to consider whether the recent record of SLWAP/SZ, as revealed in the Zoo Inspectors' reports and various legal cases, makes it reasonable to issue a new licence. Obviously some factors are more important than others, but a very good record in one area cannot override another problem, any more than driving a car which has passed its MOT can excuse running a red light.
I understood that DEFRA had banned David Gill or anyone else connected with the current management from applying for a licence. That is why I said that the council should act. If my information is incorrect then I apologise for any confusion.
The Sumatran tiger Conservation / trust IS David Gill's charity / trust, the 1.5 figure is a figure made by David Gill and is strange because the accounts of the trust / charity do not show 1.5 million. And has never shown 1.5 million. All of this can be checked at the UK.Gov charity register, Some of the camera footage he uses of the tigers are from reputable conservation groups and then puts his brand logo over it and then reposts them giving the impression of his own work, this can be checked when looking at the camera footage. 2012 showed 146K reducing for the following years. So as I said there is no 1.5 million. Charity Details also Contact and trustees this reads a little clearer... if you were to add every incomong amount and every outgoing amount the figure in no way could ever explain his declaration / claim of this 1.5 million. look at this and its easy to see. Charity overview
I just have to add that since April 2015 there has been no accounts submitted of which of which the charities commission have put an " out of date" notice on these charities.
I know that SL also operate another charity so I dont know if that also adds. Either way even if it is not that figure... £146,000 in one year is still a very impressive amount for a reasonably small collection.
Also the charity comission website only shows financials from 2011 (as a general the commission only show the last 5 years) although the charity has operated for 20 years. So without the previous 15 years for all we know the 1.5 million figure could be correct. Also it only shows they are 5 days overdue? Please correct me if i am wrong?
Since 2011 the trust has spent just under £300,000 in 5 years. If you take that as an average than the trust would have spent 1.2 million since its conception , which makes 1.5 a bit more realistic with more spending initially. If that makes sense?
the details available on the charities commission site show registration of the Wildlife Protection Foundation dated 6 March 2006 ( 10 years ) and the Sumatran Tiger Trust is from August 2000. The 146k in one year is impressive as you say but, when you subtract the amount from that particular year of 89.8k the amount in question for that year is only 55k ish... to take a mean average over the years it has been an active charity would /in no way amount to the claimed 1.5 million. you have to take into account the incoming and OUTGOINGS which for 5 years simply adding those incoming figures and deducting the outgoing, leaves a figure of £ 67, 976 EXACTLY, even if we multiplies this 5 year figure four times it would be no where near the 1.5 million.... However I try to achieve the 1.5 million from everything, I cant get it but anyway it is what it is. it all comes down to some people cant believed at all. even if one day they do tell the truth The ONLY source / claim we have for the figure of 1.5 is David Gill Himself... Absolutely no where else is this claim verifiable or substantiated.
All I can go by is that only five years are shown and I added the money spent each year together which came to just under 300,000 since 2011. Once the money is spent it has left the trust and gone towards the charities purposes in sumatra. The SPENT money is the money that has gone towards tiger conservation. Unfortunately no one here has the figures before 2011 so none of us are able to comment on verifying whether or not the 1.5 million has been acheived. But even if it hasn't the conservation ouput is very large compared to other collections.
The incoming was a total of £ 464,168..... the outgoings were £396,192 subtract the latter from the former figure and you get .. £ 67, 976..... easy. so even if you mention the spent figure of £396,192 this figure being " spent" is an overall figure and not totally attributable to this fund.. when you look at a Zoo like London Zoo for instance their accounts show Many millions .. https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2016-06/ZSL - Annual Report and Accounts 2015.pdf so in the grand scheme of things South Lakes Zoo is very small in comparison .
