clarity
If its the latter I think its appropriate to question whether the pressure of her situation has changed her morales to some degree, I don't think thats tall poppy syndrome, do you..?
No - now we're having a civil discussion.
TPS was first mentioned with regards to the way the media chose to highlight that particular zoo's lack of compliance for the release of rehabilitated wildlife. I guess - mentioning the zoo is a money spinner for the media, but there is a choice on whether to highlight its good points or bad.
ptig came in with "The law requires permission from state government for release into another area. Simply all Australia Zoo had to do is request with explanation. How hard can that be. Do not defend doing the wrong thing as the "tall poppy syndrome". They are screwing up a lot recently."
I don't think anyone was defending the zoo's breach of law and passing it off as TPS; rather, that the media should capitalise on the breach of law - this was being perceived as TPS.
Following this, I reached "the over the top commercialisation of Australia Zoo by Terri c.s. that has obviously produced a rift with good old Bob. Terri was the financial mastermind, whilst Steve was the conservation buddy (now that he is gone and she is at the helm alone it shows - so no anti-US bias, it has to do with policy and direction). This entire selling the zoo business is exemplary for Terri's attitude/"vision"." ... "Oncemore, this is Terri's attitude/"vision" at play here".
This was followed by Jay quoting "Comments like 'What can you expect of a bloody yank, marry your way in then and then think of only the money." "Shrill harpy voiced yankie woman" "Money grubbing Yank" etc. Maybe it's just the circles I mix in but Terri was always the least popular. He may have been embarressing but 'but at least he was a true Aussie - and he had a heart of gold and really cared about the bush and stuff""
Re-reading the thread I think I misinterpreted these 2 posts. I took it that these were jelle and Jay's stances and read subsequent discussion in that light.
My apologies. It seems the contributors to this thread aren't themselves cutting down poppies - even when they acknowledge they disagree with aspects of the zoo's management.
Returning to your concern: "what I do think would be sad is if it became a mall and a stadium surrounded by a zoo, surrounded by a theme park" - and Liecoboy's shared sentiment: "Their focus is becomming more and more to entertain guests and become theme park like, that I fear the animals will become an afterthought."
Imo I guess it still comes back to whether the zoo's stated goals are being met. If the goals are to promote conservation ("conservation through exciting education" comes to mind) - then we'd need to ask the question: are they capitalising on the accommodation/theme park drawcard and educating visitors about conservation? Is this education - and any other project - leading to real conservation benefits? And is the stadium, surrounded by a zoo, surrounded by a theme park, really also surrounded by solid conservation plans and projects?
We can't know at this point, but on the available evidence that has been the driving force behind the entire effort to date. Noting Terri's business sensibility doesn't negate the conservation work she was doing long before she put foot in Australia, which also stands in favour of suggesting the conservation goals will remain central.
Again, this is all opinion (mine in this case).
Lastly, the breach of laws regarding koala release was, unfortunately, tarnishing. I say "unfortunately" not to excuse the lapse, but because really - every person and organisation makes mistakes from time to time (and may or may not rightfully suffer the consequences). I don't think this mistake is indicative of a total collapse of the conservation vision however.
(Sorry for being long-winded)
