It is raised by dedicated and constant work by the staff every day during talks and special events and via regular donators and by the large personal donations of Mr Gill himself who gives his time and money to the project and has done constantly for 14 years.
And who donates at the talks, us the visitors! Additionally I don't know (as I'm not acquainted with his personal finances and where his income/wealth comes from) but it's possible that some of his donations come from income from the company (again paid by us the public). By the way, I've enjoyed the staff talks during my visits -they're very good, if arguably a little overlong.
I think that this zoo is an example to all in that it is a privatley operated limited company
I agree that what has been achieved in around 20 years, from scratch, is very impressive and wish that other collections were able to develop so rapidly in a reasonably good style. Personally I think South Lakes going into bears when no-one else was interested was a bold move which caused other places to consider and later hold them (which I am very happy about).
my reaction to opinion is one of upset and yes sometimes anger as when i read blatently negative comment , factually incorrect or just plain wrong statements I do not feel it appropriate that these should be posted as thye simply convey the wrong image, facts and then create wrong images for others to read. so defending the zoo is something that needs to be done in these posts to recify and highlight some of the false comments and perceptions aired by people with axes to grind or simply inexperienced people who put mouth first and without any experience to back up comment. the web has become a place to critise without need to justify in every aspect of our world and zoos are no different.
I agree largely with what you saying, but personally believe that, by and large, the website polices itself and inaccuracies are corrected.
the blinkered zealot is the person who does not read but then calls names sir.
I have provided factual inforemation to answer the comments being made and will back them up as I am a regular visitor and supporter of the charitable works of the zoo. I certainly will not allow the good name of a very positive establishment be damaged by people who sit hidden behind computer screens and fire off loaded guns without thinking of the collateral damage and upset it causes professional staff who read it.
if you voice an opinion then give quality arguments, reasoned and balanced evidence and then a fair debate can be had.
Absolutely agree with most of that again, especially the bold -however, your initial post which I reacted too was nearer a rant than an argued position. Additionally you have to accept that South Lakes have made, and will continue to make, mistakes and enact policies some people will disagree with (all zoos do). The mixed South American exhibit may be impressive to the general public but I understand there are inherent dangers to some of the species involved -that doesn't necessarily mean the exhibit shouldn't be done that way, but it's not unreasonable to expect differing views either.
how many of the regular commentators on here I wonder are decision makers who have to balance it all as their job and it seems no matter which way they decide someone out there will pull them apart for it.
Whilst not working in a zoo, my job includes all the factors you mention and I know it's hard balancing everything and pleasing everyone. However, I've learnt that just calling someone an idiot or fool (as your post basically did) rarely achieves anything positive.
Finally, don't take the above personally, I'm sure you're knowledgable and very passionate about South Lakes, Mr. Gill, etc. I just stepped in to pour some water on the rising flames.
Absolutely finally, contrast your reaction to fans (for want of a better word) of Twycross or Colchester, two zoos that get a lot of criticism but no-ones overreacted (yet)........
.
! Thats what u get for handleing it on the day of birth!
]. As I've already stated, my comment wasn't a criticism, simply answering a question. Somebody asked something along the lines of: "Why would it be unwise to name the animal" and I answered along the lines of "It is considered unwise by some incase it doesn't survive." I hope that you can't see criticism in that, and I'm sorry if that is how it came across. I was simply trying to answer a question and using text isn't an easy way to do so 
