Can you cite the examples of unfounded criticism that you are talking about? That would help people understand your position.
The criticism that started this thread is clearly empirically founded, the picture on the sign is NOT a pygmy hippo.
Furthermore, isn't it this zoo's job to get people enthusiastic and aware of pygmy hippos and their conservation status if conservation is really this zoo's primary mission? Having accurate interpretive material seems like the very minimum that the zoo should be doing.
This sign looks like it is a piece of laminated paper. How expensive and difficult would it be to fix it? A teenage volunteer could get a free-use picture of a wild pygmy hippo on the net and Photoshop it into the sign. Problem solved.
This site is not aimed to be pro zoo or even anti-zoo. It is a forum for users to chat about zoos. Hence the name is zoochat.com not lovezoo.com or closezoos.com.
Any forum that is pro a subject or anti a subject is a total waste of time in my opinion. A forum needs discussion and differences of opinion. If comments from this freely accessible internet forum are used as a basis in court or as part of a 'damning report' would get laughed at by the experts.
And looking through your previous posts, everything is linked to South Lakes in someway. I have a feeling (this is opinion and not fact) you are somehow involved with this zoo at quite a high level. You know about the recommendations the EEP has made for breeding programs within the zoo, how much money this privately owned organisation spends on ex-situ projects, which animals are pregnant long before anyone else does (even the parks own facebook site).
It just so happens to be my local zoo and the only time I am reminded about Zoo chat is because they send me an e mail every now and then to say read this . It is usually about a thread related to one i have previously commented on.
anonymity on this site I suppose encourages comments that would not be made if the names were posted. this does not preclude accurate or indeed reasoned comment.
I have made it clear a while ago that the sign needed changing and it was a stupid mistake to make ... my subsequent comments were generalized about the whole site and based on my own concern raised by EAZA Zoos this week in a number of newsletters warning of the impending mass attack by Born Free and CAPS, if you dont wish to accept the facts that they are using this site to collate negative information on ALL zoos then you are all living in a different world to me. I will not partake further as I know when to withdraw gracefully, but please take heed and concentrate on the positive aspects of zoos, that is if you want to see them in the Uk in the future . It is THAT serious if they change European law next week. I just saw a post on SLWAP Facebook page and made a comment myself about the same issue as it is a ridiculous idea by Born Free but they will not stop until they have closed all zoos good and bad. did none of you see the totally anti zoo article in the mail this week? Good night and sort it out between you.
So did the European Parliament end up closing all of the zoos of Europe because of comments that the animal rights activists collected on Zoochat as yorik prophesized?
So did the European Parliament end up closing all of the zoos of Europe because of comments that the animal rights activists collected on Zoochat as yorik prophesized?
Curiously I couldn't find any mention of anonymous posts on Zoochat being used as evidence, but then I did only give it a cursory once-over. To give them their due, Born Free certainly do put a lot of effort into their cause, even if the results are drivel. For their England report they surveyed just 25 zoos I think it was, and what an odd and eclectic mix it was, including the Blackpool Tower Aquarium, Noah's Ark, Trotter's, Amazon World, and, er, Bowland Wild Boar Park (?!).
Curiously I couldn't find any mention of anonymous posts on Zoochat being used as evidence,
For their England report they surveyed just 25 zoos I think it was, and what an odd and eclectic mix it was, including the Blackpool Tower Aquarium, Noah's Ark, Trotter's, Amazon World, and, er, Bowland Wild Boar Park (?!).
it would have been funnier if they had. No, the 25 collections in England (page 19) were Amazon World, Banham, Blackbrook, Blackpool Tower, Blue Reef, Bowland Wild Boar Park, British Wildlife Centre, Combe Martin, Cotswold, Dinosaur Adventure Park (?!), Drayton Manor, Dudley, Escot, Exmoor Falconry, Exmoor Zoo, Huxley's Bird Of Prey Centre, Noah's Ark, Paignton, Porfell, Seaview, Jungle Zoo, Living Rainforest, Tilgate, Trotter's, West Midlands.
I think most here would agree that's an odd selection?
it would have been funnier if they had. No, the 25 collections in England (page 19) were Amazon World, Banham, Blackbrook, Blackpool Tower, Blue Reef, Bowland Wild Boar Park, British Wildlife Centre, Combe Martin, Cotswold, Dinosaur Adventure Park (?!), Drayton Manor, Dudley, Escot, Exmoor Falconry, Exmoor Zoo, Huxley's Bird Of Prey Centre, Noah's Ark, Paignton, Porfell, Seaview, Jungle Zoo, Living Rainforest, Tilgate, Trotter's, West Midlands. I think most here would agree that's an odd selection?
That is an odd selection, if you were going to make a point you'd stretch it out over every level, so many from the very top end [Chester, Whipsnade etc], then going right through to the smaller or more run down places.
That is an odd selection, if you were going to make a point you'd stretch it out over every level, so many from the very top end [Chester, Whipsnade etc], then going right through to the smaller or more run down places.
Paignton was probably used because of the solitary elephant (there's a photo in the report), Dudley was orangs (with photo), the rest just seem to be picked on because they're smaller collections or had problems in the past!
Very unfair in my eyes!
