he had no animal knowledge, and that he let the animal team get on with it!
And yet you want him back.
Strange that you specifically want him back and no-one else.
Are you still bitter that the old zoo director, a guy you were pals with and who naively told you everything you wanted to know, was suspended from his role, allegedly for reasons to do with the zoo's finances? The same guy who, during the middle of the subsequent investigation, suddenly decided to retire (i.e. run) before the investigation could conclude so that he could not be sacked.
I imagine that the new management are far less open and accommodating towards you. No more tours or endless inside info anymore I'm afraid; something you probably resent.
You're also contradicting yourself...
zoogiraffe logic:
- "The new management is rubbish!"
- "Bring back the old management, the zoo was much better then!"
- "Actually, the new management were really running the zoo during the old management!"
- "The new management is rubbish!"
Does it annoy you that under the 'new management' the zoo is currently better than it ever was under the old director? Might be something to do with the fact they seem to have more funds these days, I wonder why that could be.
There's also the fact that recently the zoo has been breaking their own various attendance records, records which have stood for decades. And the fact I can't think of a single empty enclosure at the zoo right now. Doesn't sound like a zoo going backwards to me.
It's funny how you only seem to repeatedly have issue with Dudley, with nothing positive to say, when there are far worse places in the UK with much bigger problems, but they all get off lightly for some reason.
Like you say you've been berating the zoo for over two years now, right from the start of when the 'new management' took over, without giving them the slightest chance. This tells me your criticism is more likely a personal agenda than anything else. The 'old management' was in place for 22 years, for the majority of that time the zoo was a wretched place. It was only the last 6 or 7 of those 22 years that the zoo started to edge forward (maybe after the members of the animal team you say is allegedly now running the zoo became more senior and influential).
You say the 'new management' are useless, but you never say why or give any examples/specifics.
I also highly doubt that the 'new management' really had full control back then. A few months after the new director took over he did an interview where he basically said now their main plan is to focus on upgrading all the zoo's old existing enclosures (enclosures that had been neglected and complained about for decades under the old management), with few major projects or new species. This is what we've been seeing over the past 2 years. There has been a noticeable difference in the rate, type, ambition and quality of improvements since the new management took over in spring 2015. Just because it's a different style don't mean it's bad. Do I really need to list all the improvements which have been made just in the 3 years since the 'new management' took over? Improvements which you always seem to ignore.
When improvements finally started under the 'old management' they only liked to make the big major improvements. These would happen every 1 or 2 years, e.g. lemur walkthrough, penguins, lions, chimps, geladas. Small improvements weren't made or were very poor. The rest of the zoo’s enclosures, and visitor facilities, really were neglected and stagnated for years.
The new management isn't perfect by any means, I've been very critical about some of their decisions. I've also never said that Dudley is an amazing, world class zoo or anything like that; I wouldn't even put them in the top 20 collections in the UK. But, for what they are, I think they're alright, and I think they're currently better than ever.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this is just mine, and everyone can criticise whatever they want, but to say things like the zoo is a mess, it's the worst it has been since the 80s and it will likely be closed in 10 years, without giving any evidence, detail, specific examples or explanation as to why is frankly ridiculous. All foolish conjecture and sad bias from those who I fear would love to relish in the zoo's failure.
just past this old enclosure is another unused enclosure to the right just after the Chimp Enclosure this could be used to put a new Orangutan House on and give them half the Chimps outdoor enclosure but I guess under this management thing like this are to big
Neither the old or new management did/have done this, so I don't see your point.
all they seem to do is extend or refurbish enclosures...
Yep, just like the new director said they would. Isn't it awful all those enclosures that were neglected for years under the 'old management' are now being upgraded to improve the welfare of the animals which live in them
… and must admit under this management not for the better in 95% of cases
Give me 4 specific examples and why.
I guess under this management things like this are too big to even think about, all they seem to do is extend or refurbish enclosures
A new management team is required that looks to the future and not just the next day
The bear ravine project, the orangutan project, the chimpanzee project, the tiger project. All major developments which are all in the pipeline for the future (the token voting system is to allow the public to decide what order they happen in, and I imagine to give them some extra time). Oh and all the improvements to the visitor facilities which are big investments for the future
There is hardly any more space at the zoo to build huge new enclosures, so they have to extend/refurbish what they've got.
