Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Durrell management

Unicornjsy said:
I’m not sure it is about change - went to the Egm and there were stories of discrimination and sexually inappropriate comments to young keepers and students

they didn’t get 2 talk about animal welfare too much other than people asking why sloths are in a “rusty stairwell”.

It was a spicy debate! Pleased I was there. I think the first person who stood up used to hr manager there and she said why her party wanted the meeting.

then it was Durrell.

then questions.

Then a man from the other side, then Durrell
Click to expand...
Thank you for the insight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jpbirds said:
I worry a precedent has been set and that Jersey is now locked into what people outside/no longer in the industry think the direction of the zoo should be. Will there be a media campaign and EMG everytime the management makes an unpopular decision or are perseved to stray from the golden path?
As long as they leave the field projects alone.
I hope future, honest and open communication does the trick, though I see people are recruiting for private Facebook group dedicated to removing the board.
Click to expand...

I hope you’re right that does the trick.

What’s the Facebook group? surely the meetings happened and that’s that now?
 
Unicornjsy said:
I’m not sure it is about change - went to the Egm and there were stories of discrimination and sexually inappropriate comments to young keepers and students

they didn’t get 2 talk about animal welfare too much other than people asking why sloths are in a “rusty stairwell”.

It was a spicy debate! Pleased I was there. I think the first person who stood up used to hr manager there and she said why her party wanted the meeting.

then it was Durrell.

then questions.

Then a man from the other side, then Durrell
Click to expand...

Given the lack of emphasis on animal welfare it sounds all about change.

The allegations raised there should be made to employment tribunals or indeed to the police.

It would be better if the vote stood but let’s face it this won’t be the end of it. No positives for the zoo anywhere I can see. But it sounds like reality TV style fun if people like that. And it will run and run I expect.

It’s good to hear from someone who was there though so thanks for sharing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I presume the problems are still there and were not resolved just by one EGM and the fact that its all dropped out of the news now.
 
I was at the EGM and wasnt sure which way to vote having heard all of the arguments. I certainly have a dim view of many things that have happened recently, particularly with regard to species selection, animal welfare issues and staff complaints, but I dont know all of the background so reserve judgment for now.

There was a lot of "lessons have been learned" etc from the platform at the EGM, and I felt like they have been given a chance to prove it after defeating the EGM motion.
Time will tell.

Recent visits have not re-assured me as there is a general air of being run down and lacking interest in the whole park. Im embarrassed to take visitors there now in direct contrast to the past.

I dont understand how a solitary Anteater is in any way contributing to breeding or conservation(!). In several visits, Ive only ever seen it sleeping so its not exciting for visitors either. At least the bears were visible and could be seen in the outside areas.

Many of the animals are classified as 'Least concern' and arent even particularly interesting to look at for the average visitor. Im not sure of their purpose at Jersey Zoo. Perhaps they are cheaper to maintain while filling otherwise empty cages.?

I intend to carry on visiting and watching developments and will attend the AGM. There are a lot of concerned people watching.
 
Just to be clear, I have no agenda or interest other than being a JWPT/DWCT supporter and member for many years (as have my family and friends). We have seen Jersey Zoo grow from its infancy (I have lived within a few miles most of my life and first visited as a child in the early sixties) to where it is now. My concern is purely in supporting the Zoo and Gerald's legacy.
 
GaryA said:
Given they already forced out the disliked management, this now really devolves into 'he said/she said'.

It would be for the insurgents to put in candidates for the board at a future time, I guess?

They really do now need to pull together to get past this, and some sensible decisions need to be made going forward tor animals and people alike.
Click to expand...

Over the past two years, staff, former staff, and volunteers have tried their hardest to work with the management and trustees, with letters, meetings and through the whistle-blowing procedure, but with little result until the EGM was called. I believe there are many better candidates for Trustee positions putting themselves forward for the next AGM.
 
Judging all of this hoo-hah from the North of England, but as a long-time observer/supporter of all things Durrell ..it is very difficult to gauge if there is a massive problem at the zoo or not. A good example being the opposing viewpoints of Durrell legends Quentin Bloxam and Carl Jones, Im proud to know Lee Durrell slightly and if she was greatly concerned at situations/events I know she would speak out firmly. None of us want to see Jersey diminish its conservational ethos, BUT with general tourism figures to the island dropping alarmingly,the zoo must make every attempt to lure people to its site. Conservation will go precisely nowhere without finance. There has to be a happy compromise.
 
I dont know if its a massive problem either, but its not giving a good impression and Ive heard of many visitors leaving disappointed.

Ive always thought that visitors go to the zoo as they have heard of GD and his work, and they want to see or have some experience of rare species being saved. I think they get a warm feeling from knowing they have done a bit to contribute to conservation of endangered species and have been lucky enough to see a few of them.

If they wanted to see exotic species they wouldnt need to come to Jersey to do so.
 
Ah..but many do not come to Jersey expressly to see exotic animals - on the whole, over the years, only one in four of tourists (rough figures) have made their way to the zoo. It may surprise people in Jersey, but many on the mainland (especially younger)people have no longer heard of GD,in the same way that in Germany recently not one young person I asked had heard of Bernhard Grzimek (including two working in a zoo). I have not been to the zoo since 2009 so cannot gauge whether the zoo is good,bad or ugly at the moment..or why people would be disappointed with it.
 
Tim Brown said:
Ah..but many do not come to Jersey expressly to see exotic animals - on the whole, over the years, only one in four of tourists (rough figures) have made their way to the zoo. It may surprise people in Jersey, but many on the mainland (especially younger)people have no longer heard of GD,in the same way that in Germany recently not one young person I asked had heard of Bernhard Grzimek (including two working in a zoo). I have not been to the zoo since 2009 so cannot gauge whether the zoo is good,bad or ugly at the moment..or why people would be disappointed with it.
Click to expand...
No, indeed they don't..if they get to Jersey at all, as its always been relatively
expensive to get to compared to many other holiday destinations. Its not really a destination for young families at all. I've been there six times I think over the years, but not recently.
The atmosphere there is very different to UK mainland zoos. QuIeter and more peaceful somehow. Great for a zoo buff but maybe not for their overall profits. As someone has just said ,people will go if they want a zoo visit irrespective of what is actually there species-wise. The Durrell 'conservation' tag is just something of a bonus I think. Its amazing but perhaps not so unexpected, to realise that younger generations are losing touch, or already have done, with iconic Zoo figures like Durrell and Gzimek.
 
Last edited:
Anyone at Durrell believing that their choice of recent collection planning can positively affect tourism numbers to the island are deluded. Aardvarks and sloths will not help. Keeping up a prestigious conservation legacy and a positive global reputation will help slightly more. If people at Jersey on holiday want to go to the zoo, they will go to the zoo. I do not believe these new species would change that, further work promoting the site on the island is required perhaps (or maybe current branding and marketing isn't working?). Further work and support of Jersey tourism as a whole is one of the main issues here.

Keeping the trust financially viable is obviously incredibly important but any one believing that these new small species will help their situation are fools.
 
I would very much like to agree with Tim Brown, save my last visit was much longer ago. Friends who work in the zoo world visited a couple of years back post-Brexit and were disappointed, but they didnt give me their reasons.
Tim is quite right about the name Durrell. This man was a pivotal influence on those of us over a certain age when books were the source of education and information - along with a list of others, Scott, Wayre, Cansdale, Drabble etc (Keeling even), and to a lesser extent Attenborough.
But many of the current younger generations are poorly informed about history in general, even that which has shaped their lives. I could have said ill-educated or ignorant, but stopped myself just in time. When they dont know there were once two Germanys, why should they know who Durrell, Grzimek or Scott were?
Re-branding is often done to boost the egos of (temporary?) management at the tops of organisations, and I dont really see the sense of re-naming a place after someone most people/visitors have never heard of. Perhaps they should bring back the 'Z' word...?
 
I may be poking my nose a little far outside my wheelhouse, but I would definitely be inclined to agree that Durrell's name is not anywhere near ubiquitous today. I am obviously across the pond and that perhaps plays some difference -- but there are other comparisons I might make. Those above a certain age might remember Jacques Cousteau, whose documentaries won many awards, who has similarly became obscure, and although Jack Hanna was still active in the media until recently and still appears on television regularly, he's still not really known among young people who aren't interested in the zoological field. Neither of those men bare a direct resemblance to Durrell's body of work and accomplishments, obviously, but both were highly visible and associated broadly with animals. David Attenborough is the only naturalist I'm familiar with who seems to retain credit with a casual audience and I suspect much of that is due to his association with specific, high-profile documentaries in recent years and his longevity itself, not because the casual audience may remember or appreciate his earlier work.

I think a factor in this, and I am somewhat thinking aloud, is that even those I know who are very interested in nature and science broadly don't tend to take an interest in 'science history' by association. They want the current facts and what is up-to-date, but they won't seek out or read a book from thirty years ago about the same subject. I think this is why have done invaluable nature science work can slip out of public consciousness very quickly. I think it's very unfortunate - sometimes even outdated and dismissed theories had a profound impact on the history of a field.
 
Tourism has died on Jersey. Visitor numbers are a fraction of those a few decades ago as it is cheaper to go to places where the weather is pretty much guaranteed to be more favourable and your money will stretch further. Whether this will continue to be true as air travel (travel in general) becomes more expensive remains to be seen.
Many hotels have closed. There is very little night life (no shows as there once was) and many attractions have closed.
There is still plenty to do, but its not appealing to the same demographic. Its still a very beautiful Island with a lot of historical/heritage sites etc that can be visited.
This being the case, if 20-25% of the visitors we still get go to the zoo, then I think thats a pretty good percentage, but its a percentage of a much lower number of visitors.
Visitors entry fees only contribute about 10% to the overall income so lets not get bogged down or focused too much on that aspect anyway.
The issue that I see personally, is that long-term supporters and members are expressing concerns over the running of the trust (with the zoo as the figurehead) and as they are regular contributors (some of us have supported the trust for decades) they represent a more stable and long-term income and their loss will be felt more than just a decline in visitor numbers which fluctuates anyway.
As a long-term member I am not alone in being concerned about many things that have happened recently (the recent EGM was an indication of this). Not everything can be blamed on covid.
Its interesting that they are advertising for a CEO and new trustees. Whether this means the incumbents will be stepping down and this is an attempt to inject new life into the senior management, I dont yet know.
It used to be an exciting and interesting place to visit, whether your first visit or a regular. You felt that you were witnessing conservation in action. There is a now whiff of failure about the place, which must be turned around as a matter of urgency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top