South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes to Close to the Public

From the beginning of December - Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:53PM
Disputes set to continue over zoo entrance chaos. Last modified Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:47AM
Disputes set to continue over zoo entrance chaos

 

Interestingly, there is nothing on the South Lakes website about this news - and a few people on other websites claim to have rung the zoo today and been told it is NOT closing for good and that the media have taken it out of all proportion... what is actually going on here? Also seems crazy to blame the media when they have posted such dramatic statements on their own Facebook pages for all to see!

Reading the links provided, the Council seem to be doing their job - identifying issues and telling the zoo to correct them. In such cases I think its pretty stupid to pick fights and say they are being victimised - whether you agree with the rules or not, 'rules is rules' and must be followed!

As an aside, did anyone see that David Gill had posted on his own Facebook page that he hopes for a peaceful Christmas as it may be his last? Apparently all the stress is making him seriously ill!

 

Comments in red.

 

Ponder:

A company is 100% owned by one person.

The company has, in recent times, had either one or two Directors.

The three most recent Directors have been:
the owner
the owner's wife
an employee

And this company then claims to have created a management structure to take the business forward and wants the licence transferring out of the owner's name.

I have been a company director in the past. Never in a structure like that!

 

Not trying to prove anyone wrong, only to clear my own confusion, but is the Safari Zoo in BIAZA ?? i can't see them listen as members here

BIAZA Zoos and Aquariums - Biaza

or is it something they have to do but dont need to advertise....??

if true its the only zoo i know who isn't in BIAZA...

thanks.

 

South Lakes is not a member of BIAZA, although they were previously. There are a couple of other collections which aren't members - Cotswold and Hamerton spring to mind. I believe that arguments about selling stock and dealing with private holders had something to do with it.

Other points:
The whole exercise of 'shutting down' reminds me of a shop with a 'closing down' sale sign to sell off old stock.

I really do not understand why anybody would maintain a heap of used straw and faecal matter inside an enclosure??? Surely from a purely aesthetic point of view, let alone hygienic one, it would be moved outside the enclosure perimeter. Very odd behaviour.

I don't wish to add to the ongoing commentry of David Gill, his relationship with the council and his overall management of South Lakes, but if anybody thinks he is not in charge of the management of the zoo than you must be off your rocker.

 

Interestingly the Council report gives 3 reasons for wanting the muckheap moved/removed:

1. animal welfare
2. risk of pollution to watercourse
3. risk of baboon escape

Curiously all the attention seems to be on 3

 

Yes indeed - it's a bit rich (if not downright deceitful) to say it's been 'blown out of proportion by the media' when you've actually announced it yourself on your own social media page in no uncertain terms.

I really do think Mr. Gill ought to be giving serious thought to stepping back, for the good of everyone - the zoo, its animals and employees and indeed himself.

 

Council responds to Dalton zoo 'harassment' comments

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/News/Barro...ments-b3d6869d-db9f-4b89-a01c-21a449fc7591-ds

 

Dave Gill on his high horse

 

So, he is in denial that he has very little to do with the zoo? and reading between the lines, he says he will no longer be the "operator"?

 

Yes, I stand corrected, my error and I have edited the url in post 30

 

According to the newspaper reports (see last lines of Post 35 above), they have a right to appeal against any such Directive over 28 days, and the Directive can't come into effect until after that. So you could have a situation where the walkways were, or were deemed to be, unsafe but they could not be compelled to close them immediately while the 28 day appeal period was running. It does seem that they are trying to address this problem quicker than that now though. Without the walkways operating, as they say, much of the park is virtually not accessible/open.

Despite the onrush of local/social media support, I think closing from the January date mentioned albeit temporarily e.g. for a couple of months may still happen- if only for them to address this and the other current issues raised by the council. As always, nothing is ever straightforward here but if there is still any closure after all this publicity, I'd be surprised if they weren't open again by Easter though..

 

There is a lot of discussion about this situation.
But at the end of the day it is very, very simple.
David Gill has to comply with the councils wishes. That`s it is.
They hold the strings, and he needs to realise that.
He thinks he is above the law, but he`s not.
I firmly believe the council are sick of him and they are now looking for any excuse they can find to get rid of him, I have no doubt whatsoever that they would take his licence away given enough reason. From the very start the two parties have never got on, and that is a situation you do not want when you are a zoo owner. You must have the council on your side, it is absolutely crucial to the long-term survival of any zoo.
Unfortunately Gill has dug himself a huge hole over the years, with all the things he has done, but he is that stupid, he doesn`t know when to stop digging!

 

Another odd number of rants from David Gill

 

It seems that Dave Gill has had plans about giving the zoo up, reading between the lines in his messages posted.