Regional tv news at lunchtime was flagging up possible closure if Mr Gill is no longer considered a fit person to hold a licence. Might be worth watching North West Tonight at 6.30 if Zoochatters want further details. (I'm at work!)
Hence why he gave out a very punitive, bemusing and nonsense ridden statement on the parks FB page. Also on his own web page where he states he is the owner and employee of a new company. "The council’s licensing regulatory committee will discuss if David Gill, who owns South Lakes Safari Zoo in Dalton, should be allowed to keep the attraction open when it meets on Tuesday. Closing a zoo is one" "On November 19, the zoo owner and his trading company were convicted of allowing the birds, which are native to sub-Saharan Africa, to fly away. During Mr Gill’s trial, it emerged that he shot at some of the birds with a rifle. Any zoo closure direction can be appealed against in the magistrates’ court." Personally, I feel the council are a load of flatheads with no back bone and give in to the whims and to the false cries of a madman called David S Gill. Which will keep the park open and have the madman still running about. We know how his team of idol worshipers throw their knickers at the man and even on here we have dublinlion who believes we are all nitpickers who give the man a harsh time. Again, two camps of thought here. Either you love the man or you hate the man. Dave Gill has a very natural habit of speaking out and doing things his way which gets him into so much hot water that even Harry Houdini could not get out safely. We shall wait and see what happens, but knowing how Lazarus rose from the dead, may be Gill might keep on rising and falling again! Some of the comments from FB regarding Dave Gill: " He always blames the council if he doesn't get his own way. He blamed the police for not telling him the birds got out. Very poor management that doesn't even know that animals are missing. What happened to the monkeys that got out ? Yet more animals that they didn't know where missing. What happened to bella the giraffe? And for mr gill the conservationist to go and shoot the poor birds. He should at least have his firearms licence taken off him. The place needs to be run better. The council haven't got the balls or the money to do anything to the place." "Its a shame that somebody more competant isnt owning and managing the zoo. Although it has managers he has a direct hand in managing the zoo and I feel the zoo would be better off in somebody elses hands."
I would not much worry about Messrs. Gill's ego nor the posters that to varying degree seem to applaud a possible closure of the facility. It is no good on SLWAP animal collection nor its zoo staff. Alas, they get all the flack and have to deal with the disastrous consequences (for animals and staff) of any closure decision -. An ibis escape equals closure is a typical airhead bureaucrat's choice / policy decision. Allthough, I do not condone any negligent animal escapes, I do feel it would be totally unjust on SLWAP animals' or their dedicated staff. Better if / when a personal sentence is past, if any would be deemed just within the license review / judicial due diligence process. I sometimes wonder if there would be a possibility of putting another CEO in charge and save SLWAP all further agony. But even then the authorities will have acknowledge they will still have to deal with Messrs. Gill as the owner of the zoo whether they like it or not.
The council told Gill that he needed to provide the hippos with a heated indoor pool. I'm sure that time frame has since passed and yet the hippo's are still wandering about in the old enclosure with no indoor pool.... you would think that the council would be more proactive where it can be. Gill isn't going to give up his Zoo. It'll always be the councils fault that things aren't going right as he believes they are all against him. I do wish that he'd sell the park and let someone else have a go, but I can't see that happening unfortunately
Schooled! Thanks (seriously), I did not know that. The links are a bit of a mish-mash, and some not that relevant, to be honest but I'll take your word on it -I can see the logic of not charging VAT where the receipts themselves are effectively re-donated. It's always nice to learn something though I'm unsure I'll ever need it. All that said, none of the above changes my original point (to Shavington Zoo) which is that it's hardly a big deal that a charity and/or business arrange their affairs in the most financially efficient manner -everyone does it (including your family). Are we going to pillory Gill for stashing money in an ISA next? Personally I think charging a lower entry fee in winter or possibly free entry is a good idea (extra bodies and secondary spend through the gates when otherwise visitor numbers would be minimal) although there's always a risk that people then feel full price entry is expensive. Suggesting free entry and then flip-flopping or strong-arming money is wrong and unethical, in my opinion, but that sort of sneakiness isn't restricted to Gill alone -I remember visiting York Minster once which, at the time, had "free entry" but you had to go through a turnstile with suggested donations on a board behind it!
And I'm sure DublinLion could quote some positive opinions from FB, it's not really adding anything to the argument is it?* *Excuse my hypocrisy, I know my comment doesn't add anything to the argument either -I'm just a little bored watching two polar extremes grinding axes at each other. I'm going to try to make this my last post on this topic for a while, I've been caught up in the storm and I don't think I'm helping.
I don't really think it matters to the future of South Lakes in the big scheme of things what zoo chatters think, but it does matter what their regular visitors think, and reading some of the reviews posted the tide seems to be turning. Many of them seem to be by regular(ish) visitors who've had dreadful experiences and won't be going back, and are telling the world about. Maybe this is one of the reason Gill isn't going in all guns blazing to the council? About the pricing debate, I'd be pretty miffed if I'd been told something was free then been forced to pay. It's the principle of the thing not the price. Set the price or 'donation' at £5 - don't say something is free when it's not!
Presumably that came from the Zoo Licensing officials originally as a council aren't animal experts and wouldn't know themselves about correct animal management. But its up to them to implement the recommendations perhaps.This sort of thing is not limited to SL, its rather like the situation Chessington had with their Gorilla accomodation for some years- being advised of necessary improvements and given time limits and even threats about possible License removal, but still not doing anything about it, or Twycross with their 'Green Mile' Chimp enclosures. Unfortunately there are often quite long periods between inspections and these sorts of things frequently just get left in between times for whatever reason e.g. financial. I agree with Bongorob, I can't see the Council ever forcing closure on this Park either- whatever its management problems its far too important a 'feather in their cap' as a local and economic amenity for the region. I think that any talk of possible closure is just the press creating dramatic scenarios.
"Kids free this weekend: As announced earlier this week children can visit SAFARI ZOO for free And It’s the last couple of weekends to take advantage of reduced admission for adults - we are asking for a minimum donation of £5 (normally £15) we’ve a good forecast for tomorrow, and a full days talks & feedings – including hand feed giraffes, penguins, big cat feeding (max 4 children per adult – we have enough free roaming animals to keep an eye on"
I fear more trouble ahead for the SAFARI PARK feeding big cats 4 children and an adult a time please (lol) thought I would try and lighten this thread a bit.
hmmm ZSL or South lakes? The question is, which one gives more to conservation? As ZSL have repeatedly failed to disclose exactly how much they give to conservation, but yet South Lake have. While some people might not like this Safari Zoo, it does give money to conservation.
I'm sure South Lakes gives plenty to conservation - but ZSL does conservation. Itself. It is a conservation charity, and invests directly in multiple projects as well as operating them itself: Endangered Animal Conservation | Zoological Society of London (ZSL) That may be why the ZSL can't come up with 'what it gave' to conservation. Because it isn't a cheque written at the end of the month (not that that isn't very valuable) - it's part of the operation of their organisation. In particular, their EDGE programme is one of the most important being run from the UK, to my mind: EDGE of Existence EDIT: And I just broke my promise to myself not to get involved in this thread!
Somewhat blinkered and closed comment. South Lakes Safari Zoo is and has nothing to compare as to to what it does and gives with regards to conservation and monetary means to any such. You can not compare ZSL to South Lakes as its not the same, its like comparing apples to oranges, chalk to cheese. Many other zoological collections by far outstrip and outdo South Lakes within the conservation and how much is spent.
Ha ha BSspecial, That's a bit rich, coming from such an unbiased and open minded individual. I am beginning to suspect you are winding us all up.
At least bigcat specialli doesn't claim to be neutral,but yet blindly defends a place that they have never visited!
!!!!! He could not possibly be so animated and dedicated to the smear campaign, unless there were some very strong personal reasons. So maybe I am treading on dangerous ground. If you can find any post where I actually defend anything blindly or otherwise, please point it out and I will edit the offending words. Routing the bullies and rubbishing patently unfair scandalmongering is my objective. And the bristling indignation of the complainants can be very amusing.
