South Lakes Wild Animal Park Finally!!
- Thread starter Nisha
- Start date
Rant???? I am just pointing out that these issues are private matters and not public ones. I reiterate how would you like it if every tom, dick and harry told you how to look after your pets? i have been watching the site for a while without getting involved and now i shall dissapear again as what you dont read cant upset you. but there are alot of people on here who do cause a lot of anguish for the people who are actually doing the job as opposed to just talking about it. It seems that a good number of people on this site also dont like being critisised back? Two way street and take it as it was intended please.constructively.
Panthera Puss
Well-Known Member
If a tiger belongs on the EEP, its upbringing is a public (or at least a corporate) matter, to a degree.
My last post... you are wrong. Regardless of EEP or not the legal responsibility and ownership of any animal is with the owner, that will be the holder or a zoo that has loaned it to another zoo in a legal contract. the tigers in the EEP are managed genetically and as a member of EAZA a zoo is obliged to carry out all EEP recomendations unless it has a very good reason not to. Ownership and legal status is that the animal has no monetary value of course but the full responsibility for every aspect of the animals life and welfare is with its owner this will either be a private person, company or charity. One way or another it is a private affair unless the owners decide otherwise. I suppose South Lakes made it a public affair in one respect by putting it on the web in the first instance, but they still own the animal legally and have a right to do with it what they wish within EAZA Guidelines of course.
So if they decide to hand rear it is their decision at the end of the day not anyone elses. however where it goes to is an EEP matter after that as under EEP agreements this is a requirement. I still assert that what any zoo does within EAZA or other guideleines is for its own private domain. we should be grateful there are zoos that put all the critisism aside and work hard focused on what matters , the animals, the future of the species and most importantly morte than any other criteria, protecting them in the wild. bets regards to all Yorik.
So if they decide to hand rear it is their decision at the end of the day not anyone elses. however where it goes to is an EEP matter after that as under EEP agreements this is a requirement. I still assert that what any zoo does within EAZA or other guideleines is for its own private domain. we should be grateful there are zoos that put all the critisism aside and work hard focused on what matters , the animals, the future of the species and most importantly morte than any other criteria, protecting them in the wild. bets regards to all Yorik.
You are forgetting the local licensing authority, which grants the zoo licence to any approved zoo. Without which they cannot operate as a zoo, whether privately owned, a charity, etc. The licensing authority are perfectly within the rights to allow or refuse a licensed zoo to do anything within the frame work of the SSSMZP (the local authority of course being fully staffed by public servants, whose wages we pay). This of course has nothing to do with hand rearing a tiger cub, just pointing out that the supposed independece of a zoo from public opinion is in actual fact a fallacy. All zoos are under the scrutiny of public servants at all times, and whether they like it or not, are answerable to them. This has been the case since 1981 when the zoo licensing act was enforced, and further enhanced since 2000 when the SSSMZP was released.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
If a zoo doesn't like public comments on Facebook, they shouldn't have a facebook profile. Stupid public, huh? We should all shut up and pay, accept whatever conditions our local zoo provides the animals we see. If public opinion didn't matter, we'd all still be staring at bears in pits.
As for the case of babirusa breeding, this has more to do with the animals they recieved, the captive population is very old and inbred, that isn't the same as providing the right conditions for this species to breed. To suggest that South lakes is somehow above criticism becuase it has been successful with a species of wild pig is particularly naive, and implies that all other collections sitting with non-breeding pairs are somehow providing inferior husbandry to South Lakes.
Don't get me wrong, I love this collection, but I equally love the fact that we live in an age where a decision to show an endangered tiger cub to the public is questioned, rightly or wrongly, the scrutiny is important.
As far as I can tell, noone criticised the decision to hand rear on this thread. I am assuming these were comments made on Facebook. ZSL hand-reared their only (Sumatran) tiger cub of recent decades, he has gone on to be well-socialised enough to mate and father cubs of his own.
As for the case of babirusa breeding, this has more to do with the animals they recieved, the captive population is very old and inbred, that isn't the same as providing the right conditions for this species to breed. To suggest that South lakes is somehow above criticism becuase it has been successful with a species of wild pig is particularly naive, and implies that all other collections sitting with non-breeding pairs are somehow providing inferior husbandry to South Lakes.
Don't get me wrong, I love this collection, but I equally love the fact that we live in an age where a decision to show an endangered tiger cub to the public is questioned, rightly or wrongly, the scrutiny is important.
As far as I can tell, noone criticised the decision to hand rear on this thread. I am assuming these were comments made on Facebook. ZSL hand-reared their only (Sumatran) tiger cub of recent decades, he has gone on to be well-socialised enough to mate and father cubs of his own.
Last edited:
Panthera Puss
Well-Known Member
I wasn't entering a debate on the technicalities of hand-raising or the risks or otherwise of human interaction, just that a notion (at the least) of communal care is by definition invested in any young animal in the studbook. I think this is right and proper, in fact it's part of the honour and kudos (and responsibility) of contributing to the breeding programme.
mazfc
Well-Known Member
I have only ever seen south lakes on the tv and thought it looked very interesting. It's definitely on my places to visit list.
I'm off the opinion that if the baby is in danger then save it, but I've spoken to people who work with animals who have pointed out that hand rearing can have serious implications in adulthood for some species.But still my instinct says do it.
What I am having an issue with is how a supporter of south lakes is reacting to this. Comments made on Facebook are not comments made on zoo chat.
A facebook page gives the zoo the ability to reply to criticism/questions directly and the fact that south lakes has a fb page and has kept it open tells me that it is very open to hearing the publics opinion, maybe it's supporters should follow suit.
I don't particularly have any issue with the arguments that yorik has put forward apart from two.
1 - if an organisation (in whatever area) charges people to come in, then people have a right to their opinion of it. Charity fund raising often comes from the public and I'm not sure your argument of it's not yr money so shut up would be agreed with mr gill - who needs to carry on fund raising in the future (and know I don't know him I'm just surmising).
2 - however you mean your argument to come across. It does come across as a rant. In general I think zoo chatters are intelligent, fair minded and most importantly open to criticism. I actually read through your posts twice because the first time I was so incensed your Insults I actually missed the validity of some of your points.
I'm off the opinion that if the baby is in danger then save it, but I've spoken to people who work with animals who have pointed out that hand rearing can have serious implications in adulthood for some species.But still my instinct says do it.
What I am having an issue with is how a supporter of south lakes is reacting to this. Comments made on Facebook are not comments made on zoo chat.
A facebook page gives the zoo the ability to reply to criticism/questions directly and the fact that south lakes has a fb page and has kept it open tells me that it is very open to hearing the publics opinion, maybe it's supporters should follow suit.
I don't particularly have any issue with the arguments that yorik has put forward apart from two.
1 - if an organisation (in whatever area) charges people to come in, then people have a right to their opinion of it. Charity fund raising often comes from the public and I'm not sure your argument of it's not yr money so shut up would be agreed with mr gill - who needs to carry on fund raising in the future (and know I don't know him I'm just surmising).
2 - however you mean your argument to come across. It does come across as a rant. In general I think zoo chatters are intelligent, fair minded and most importantly open to criticism. I actually read through your posts twice because the first time I was so incensed your Insults I actually missed the validity of some of your points.
Last edited: