South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes 2014 #3
- Thread starter alfiethetortois
- Start date
- Status
Either that or set it up at the zoo. What a muppet. I can appreciate accidental escapes, every zoo has had them. But letting the ibis free-range and then feigning ignorance should cost him more than a couple of grand.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
A COURT has heard a zoo boss shot a number of sacred ibis birds with a rifle after Cumbria Police warned he faced prosecution over their escape.
50068034B006
BOSS David Gill, owner of South Lakes Safari Zoo in Dalton. JON GRANGER REF: 50068034B006
David Gill, director of South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd, told South Lakeland Magistrates’ Court yesterday he felt he had no option but to take the drastic action in a bid to contain the creatures.
Mr Gill, 53, of Dalton, was found guilty at trial of three counts of allowing the wading birds to escape the attraction last year under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
He had already accepted the park itself was guilty of failing to prevent the birds – which are classed as an invasive species – from leaving the confines of the park, now known as South Lakes Safari Zoo.
The hearing, in Kendal, was told by Mr Gill that Cumbria police visited the premises with a warrant on October 30 last year following sightings of the bird, a native of Sub-Saharan Africa and Iraq, on Roanhead beach.
Giving evidence via video link, former apprentice keeper Charlotte Lewes-Park, 18, also claimed the sacred ibis birds escaped daily – and that it was known by all staff at the zoo. We used to count them on a daily basis but we didnt know which ones we were seeing.
“All the keepers knew about it. They were flying through the air, the public could see it as well.”
Andy McWilliam, an investigating officer from National Wildlife Crime Unit, who attended on the day, said he witnessed four of the heron-sized birds flying from their enclosure and out of sight.
He subsequently interviewed Mr Gill, the only director and shareholder, under caution at Ulverston Police Station later that day with PC Helen Branthwaite, Cumbria police’s dedicated wildlife officer, district judge Gerald Chalk was told.
Mr Gill denied he had any knowledge of the regular escape of the birds – stating he was made aware with a Facebook video of a sacred ibis in Aldingham by a bird watcher in mid October 2013.
He added he had believed their wings had been clipped or pinioned to prevent free flying. Attempts to contain them humanely failed, he went on.
Gill, who is licensed to keep 1,400 animals at the park, then described how he returned to the zoo from the police station and shot 13 of the flock with his rifle.
“I was shocked no-one had said a word to us about it,” he told the court.
“Wildlife conservation is my life. It was an extreme embarrassment to me to find that my park was involved in this issue. I didn’t want it to rumble on for one more single minute.
“I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.”
The court had been told the sacred ibis is one of six species of birds to which a formal action plan is in place to prevent colonisation in Great Britain.
Judge Gerald Chalk said: “I am aware that the sacred ibis is a significant threat to the British countryside but equally I accept that there is no evidence that tells us the escaped birds had begun to colonise outside of the park.
“However, I find it unbelievable that no one at the zoo noticed that the birds were flying out when they were observed doing so.”
South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £250 plus a surcharge of £120.
Gill was fined £2,000 and told to pay costs of £750 and a £120 surcharge.
North West Evening Mail | News | UPDATE: Dalton Zoo boss guilty of allowing birds to escape
50068034B006
BOSS David Gill, owner of South Lakes Safari Zoo in Dalton. JON GRANGER REF: 50068034B006
David Gill, director of South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd, told South Lakeland Magistrates’ Court yesterday he felt he had no option but to take the drastic action in a bid to contain the creatures.
Mr Gill, 53, of Dalton, was found guilty at trial of three counts of allowing the wading birds to escape the attraction last year under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
He had already accepted the park itself was guilty of failing to prevent the birds – which are classed as an invasive species – from leaving the confines of the park, now known as South Lakes Safari Zoo.
The hearing, in Kendal, was told by Mr Gill that Cumbria police visited the premises with a warrant on October 30 last year following sightings of the bird, a native of Sub-Saharan Africa and Iraq, on Roanhead beach.
Giving evidence via video link, former apprentice keeper Charlotte Lewes-Park, 18, also claimed the sacred ibis birds escaped daily – and that it was known by all staff at the zoo. We used to count them on a daily basis but we didnt know which ones we were seeing.
“All the keepers knew about it. They were flying through the air, the public could see it as well.”
Andy McWilliam, an investigating officer from National Wildlife Crime Unit, who attended on the day, said he witnessed four of the heron-sized birds flying from their enclosure and out of sight.
He subsequently interviewed Mr Gill, the only director and shareholder, under caution at Ulverston Police Station later that day with PC Helen Branthwaite, Cumbria police’s dedicated wildlife officer, district judge Gerald Chalk was told.
Mr Gill denied he had any knowledge of the regular escape of the birds – stating he was made aware with a Facebook video of a sacred ibis in Aldingham by a bird watcher in mid October 2013.
He added he had believed their wings had been clipped or pinioned to prevent free flying. Attempts to contain them humanely failed, he went on.
Gill, who is licensed to keep 1,400 animals at the park, then described how he returned to the zoo from the police station and shot 13 of the flock with his rifle.
“I was shocked no-one had said a word to us about it,” he told the court.
“Wildlife conservation is my life. It was an extreme embarrassment to me to find that my park was involved in this issue. I didn’t want it to rumble on for one more single minute.
“I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.”
The court had been told the sacred ibis is one of six species of birds to which a formal action plan is in place to prevent colonisation in Great Britain.
Judge Gerald Chalk said: “I am aware that the sacred ibis is a significant threat to the British countryside but equally I accept that there is no evidence that tells us the escaped birds had begun to colonise outside of the park.
“However, I find it unbelievable that no one at the zoo noticed that the birds were flying out when they were observed doing so.”
South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £250 plus a surcharge of £120.
Gill was fined £2,000 and told to pay costs of £750 and a £120 surcharge.
North West Evening Mail | News | UPDATE: Dalton Zoo boss guilty of allowing birds to escape
Why would he think they would've been clipped or pinioned? Where were these birds kept? In an open topped enclosure? It's quite easy to see if a bird has been clipped, and B, pinioning ibis is ridiculous so I'm confused as to why he thought that they had been pinioned in the first place?
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
Dave Gill is truly one of the most hated people within the UK zoo industry and is among a growing number of people who are bringing the zoo keeping industry into disrepute. We could all name some bad practices within our own animal collections and we could also name some people who are just as bad. It is a good thing that keepers and staff alike are engaging within what is about good ethics of exotic animal keeping and what it takes to make good in a zoo. Now, we can all be guilty of being over-harsh and voicing opinions which at times we should keep to ourselves that we agree on. However, the issue now arises that we have a man, Mr Gill, who has gone way beyond what is termed as normal behaviour. The timing of Mr Gill’s “sudden” resignation as “director” from South Lakes, was seen at first as a red-herring and rightfully so. After all, Dave Gill then came back and said that he is still in charge and still taking the safari zoo towards newer and greater sights. Now, we can see that this “sudden” resignation was pre-meditated in timing with his legal team and this court action, knowing full-well that he was facing a guilty action.
When a zoo director or person of any sort states: “I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.” Then I find such comments to be lies, foolish and so fantasy-filled nonsense that it beggars belief if such a person is actually sane or insane. Contradicting himself whilst under oath could indeed be seen as a criminal offence as is discharging a firearm unlawfully. He “waited until all people were out of the park” is completely different to “told people to stay away from that part of the park.” And again, to impose that he fired his rifle as to kill two with one shot” and “three with one shot” is also questionable if not verging on the impossible.
Having an ex-keeper give evidence, Dave Gill tried to alter his excuses and make or create even greater excuses under oath. It is not that difficult to count birds that are moving in an enclosed area, afterall, we all have to do our annual counts and should be well-versed at doing so. Pinioning or wing clipping has been mentioned within the Secretary of States Standards of Modern Zoo Practice as well as other media, it is a recognised method. We also know that Dave Gill went on Facebook seeking to find out if anyone has knowledge regarding bird sightings and the regulations.
Given the state of the Owner and his continued breaches of NOT following rules, telling lies and blaming others for his own mistakes, surely by now the local authority must act and be seen to act. The staff must be fed-up with their boss; the staff also have the right to be treated fairly and with distinction with trying to do their job. A ship requires a good captain at the helm that can command as well as steer, otherwise it founders. Alas, the sorry state of affairs shall continue…
When a zoo director or person of any sort states: “I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.” Then I find such comments to be lies, foolish and so fantasy-filled nonsense that it beggars belief if such a person is actually sane or insane. Contradicting himself whilst under oath could indeed be seen as a criminal offence as is discharging a firearm unlawfully. He “waited until all people were out of the park” is completely different to “told people to stay away from that part of the park.” And again, to impose that he fired his rifle as to kill two with one shot” and “three with one shot” is also questionable if not verging on the impossible.
Having an ex-keeper give evidence, Dave Gill tried to alter his excuses and make or create even greater excuses under oath. It is not that difficult to count birds that are moving in an enclosed area, afterall, we all have to do our annual counts and should be well-versed at doing so. Pinioning or wing clipping has been mentioned within the Secretary of States Standards of Modern Zoo Practice as well as other media, it is a recognised method. We also know that Dave Gill went on Facebook seeking to find out if anyone has knowledge regarding bird sightings and the regulations.
Given the state of the Owner and his continued breaches of NOT following rules, telling lies and blaming others for his own mistakes, surely by now the local authority must act and be seen to act. The staff must be fed-up with their boss; the staff also have the right to be treated fairly and with distinction with trying to do their job. A ship requires a good captain at the helm that can command as well as steer, otherwise it founders. Alas, the sorry state of affairs shall continue…
Sorry if I misread your post but pinioning and wing clipping are two different things. Pinioning is frowned upon now as people are finding alternatives and is seen as a bit dated and effectively disables a bird. Birds in UK zoos are still pinioned but I find pinioning ibis as extremely odd which is why I couldn't understand why Mr Gill would think they were pinioned in the first place.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
I am well aware that both are different and have experience with both methods for 30 years now. Where I said: “Pinioning or wing clipping has been mentioned within the Secretary of States Standards of Modern Zoo Practice as well as other media, it is a recognised method.” That is correct, and this is what the WWT said last year regarding such methods.
“AN ANIMAL WELFARE charity has attacked the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) for its policy of pinioning birds in its collections. The Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) accused the WWT and other zoos of “illegally mutilating” captive birds in their care. Pinioning is the amputation of the outer part of one of a bird’s wings, where the primary flight feathers would grow, in order to render the bird flightless.
It is classed as a form of mutilation under UK law, though the technique is permitted at zoos, where birds are to be kept in opentopped enclosures. Normal practice is to pinion birds at only a few days old. But now CAPS is campaigning for a DEFRA review to find out how many captive birds in the UK are pinioned, and for MPs to demand a change in the law to ban pinioning altogether.”
Also Twycross Zoo also published the following: Pinioning Waterfowl (Downies) (Techniques)
I do enjoy our visits to South Lakes. One can only hope that things might start to improve soon. I noticed that the Hippo's still don't have the indoor pool when I was there last.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
Mr Gill is one of those rare breeds who enjoys and relishes his own ego and self-pontification of his own authority. Many a time he has gone on his Facebook page or his parks Facebook page to give his audience a bark and growl at his displeasure of other people who make comments regarding him in a negative manner, we also know how his behaviour can change within a second from this to that. It is without doubt that this man is the main reason for the downfall and for the wrongs of his own park and its running.
However, blame also falls upon the Local Authority, for not complying with and following the strict rules and laws that govern zoos. Such as the Zoo Licence Act along with all the other Acts that help give a Zoo its foundation. This also includes The Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, Zoo’s Expert Committee Handbook, Managing Health and Safety in Zoos Handbook and so on. Many reasons exist regarding the failure of the Local Authority for not doing anything with any real bite. We have an attraction that brings in monies which in turn brings in revenue for the local area as well as to the treasury. However, this is also a cause for concern when that attraction fails to comply with the rules and laws that govern both itself and of commerce. Therefore, we now have a strain on the local areas because an establishment has breached numerous laws in aid of itself, and this is not good nor is it seen as being moral ad legally right.
The zoo community must also be seen as failing, we are in fear that if we stick our heads above the parapet, we shall get shot. Keepers, managers and others within the zoo keeping industry must take account of how a few rotten apples are bringing the industry into disrepute. Mr Gill is not the only bad apple in the barrel; we can all name and shame some awful people and animal collections, but do we have the guts to carry on and say that these bad apples should be removed? Like all industries, we have the habit to cover and hide, to sweep under the carpet. If the zoo industry wants to be seen as a true vehicle for conservation, preservation and education, then it must have the heart and guts to rid out such bad apples. As a collective, we owe it to ourselves and to our charges we care for. Either that, or the animal anti-zoo lobby groups shall do it and then we have lost and lost for good.
However, blame also falls upon the Local Authority, for not complying with and following the strict rules and laws that govern zoos. Such as the Zoo Licence Act along with all the other Acts that help give a Zoo its foundation. This also includes The Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, Zoo’s Expert Committee Handbook, Managing Health and Safety in Zoos Handbook and so on. Many reasons exist regarding the failure of the Local Authority for not doing anything with any real bite. We have an attraction that brings in monies which in turn brings in revenue for the local area as well as to the treasury. However, this is also a cause for concern when that attraction fails to comply with the rules and laws that govern both itself and of commerce. Therefore, we now have a strain on the local areas because an establishment has breached numerous laws in aid of itself, and this is not good nor is it seen as being moral ad legally right.
The zoo community must also be seen as failing, we are in fear that if we stick our heads above the parapet, we shall get shot. Keepers, managers and others within the zoo keeping industry must take account of how a few rotten apples are bringing the industry into disrepute. Mr Gill is not the only bad apple in the barrel; we can all name and shame some awful people and animal collections, but do we have the guts to carry on and say that these bad apples should be removed? Like all industries, we have the habit to cover and hide, to sweep under the carpet. If the zoo industry wants to be seen as a true vehicle for conservation, preservation and education, then it must have the heart and guts to rid out such bad apples. As a collective, we owe it to ourselves and to our charges we care for. Either that, or the animal anti-zoo lobby groups shall do it and then we have lost and lost for good.
Mr.Gill has just posted the following statement onto the parks Facebook:
It is with regret that South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd allowed by accident a few Sacred Ibis to fly out of the Zoo confines over a period of approximately 12 weeks during the summer of 2013. We pleaded guilty to the fact that this occurred after being provided with external evidence of the events.
Despite the assumption made that the Zoo staff were aware of this matter for a long time that is completely untrue and not factual. We were made aware of this issue solely by a video placed on our Facebook Page in early to mid October 2013 of a Sacred Ibis feeding at Aldingham on the beach.
The director took immediate action to investigate and if necessary take action to prevent the issue by instructing managers to inform staff of the action needed to check our birds and take the action to prevent any bird from flying away which was clipping of flight feathers.
We are very concerned about the way the Police Wildlife Crime Unit and AHVLA along with other witnesses handled this whole issue and a formal complaint to the Independent Police complaints Commission is being drafted.
It was made clear that a bird watcher first recorded a Sacred Ibis at Roanhead beach just 2 miles from the Zoo in Late July of 2013 , however that person reported it on a specialist Birdwatchers web site and did not report it to the Zoo.
Further a purported Bird expert saw birds out on 18th and 19th September 2013 and attended the zoo and saw birds flying out. This person clearly had no intention of informing any member of zoo staff on that day or after the event. However he did report it to the Police Wildlife Crime Unit. This behaviour in itself was irresponsible and causes the zoo concerns as to the motives.
The Police Wildlife Crime Unit were aware of the issue for many weeks , possibly 6 weeks before they informed the zoo. We submit that this in itself was a highly irresponsible action and increased dramatically any risk to the ecology and wildlife in the UK. It was their duty of care to inform the Zoo of their information immediately to protect the environment and resolve the issue at the earliest possible opportunity. They didn’t.
The way the Police advisors handled this and withheld vital information from the Zoo then made clear to us the serious legal implications of continued flight. This sudden release of information and risk led to only one responsible action to euthanase immediately the threat to the ecology of the UK left by this failure of the Police to inform us ealier. The Police forcefully made clear the serious consequences and yet did not assist anyone and this drastic action would have been totally avoided if the Police or witnesses had given us the information they had earlier and the birds would still be alive today.
To clear up a press error, a Shotgun was used to humanely euthanase the birds not a rifle. This was a very upsetting issue for all the staff, however it certainly was done privately with only one assistant present.
It is clear from the evidence given the Police did not have wildlife protection or protection of the environment as their focus or priority as they were solely focused on getting a prosecution and not stopping any potential risk.
We believe the Police Wildlife Crime Unit could well have contributed to damage to the environment by their failure to inform the zoo as soon as they were made aware and increased dramatically the opportunity for the birds to fly off and establish themselves in the wild and this focus on building a conviction case prioritising over protection of the environment is the wrong way to uphold the law.
We made a complaint to the Police involved about this issue at the time when they first informed us and this was dismissed.
What we have concluded from this whole issue is that none of the people who compiled reports or visited the zoo or dealt with the issue in the Police had any urgency, concern or worry about the issue because not one of them took any action to inform us and resolve it immediately. In our view each one of these so called “experts” were irresponsible towards the environment and to the aims of the legislation and regulations. Whilst the Zoo accepts its staff failed to clip the wings of the specific birds at the correct time, all these witnesses were also responsible for the continued problem for up to 12 weeks, when it could have been resolved within a few days.
This irresponsible attitude has to be changed and acknowledged by the authorities to assist the protection of wildlife and eco systems in the uk.
However other issues are disputed and an appeal is being prepared by the Zoos legal advisors .
Legal action is being sought against a former zoo keeper who in the view of the Zoo acted maliciously in this and other matters.
Let us make it very clear to all.
ALL these birds were present in the Zoo every single morning and evening, they roosted at the zoo and the only thing they were guilty of was a short 5 minute flight to the beach between 1pm and 4 pm on some days for a 12 week period.
The birds always flew out the back of the zoo and no one at the zoo had ever seen the birds fly out of the zoo. In our view they had not escaped but were still under the care of the zoo and being fed and cared for within the zoo.
New protocols have been introduced last year to check all birds regularly for any signs of flight.
One aspect of this case that was positive for the Zoo was that it was accepted that the Macaws and Parrots along with the Storks were all flying freely legally and under the exemptions of the law.
There was no suggestion whatsoever that any other species free flying at the zoo was in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
So the long and short of it... Its everyone's fault except for that of himself
It is with regret that South Lakes Wild Animal Park Ltd allowed by accident a few Sacred Ibis to fly out of the Zoo confines over a period of approximately 12 weeks during the summer of 2013. We pleaded guilty to the fact that this occurred after being provided with external evidence of the events.
Despite the assumption made that the Zoo staff were aware of this matter for a long time that is completely untrue and not factual. We were made aware of this issue solely by a video placed on our Facebook Page in early to mid October 2013 of a Sacred Ibis feeding at Aldingham on the beach.
The director took immediate action to investigate and if necessary take action to prevent the issue by instructing managers to inform staff of the action needed to check our birds and take the action to prevent any bird from flying away which was clipping of flight feathers.
We are very concerned about the way the Police Wildlife Crime Unit and AHVLA along with other witnesses handled this whole issue and a formal complaint to the Independent Police complaints Commission is being drafted.
It was made clear that a bird watcher first recorded a Sacred Ibis at Roanhead beach just 2 miles from the Zoo in Late July of 2013 , however that person reported it on a specialist Birdwatchers web site and did not report it to the Zoo.
Further a purported Bird expert saw birds out on 18th and 19th September 2013 and attended the zoo and saw birds flying out. This person clearly had no intention of informing any member of zoo staff on that day or after the event. However he did report it to the Police Wildlife Crime Unit. This behaviour in itself was irresponsible and causes the zoo concerns as to the motives.
The Police Wildlife Crime Unit were aware of the issue for many weeks , possibly 6 weeks before they informed the zoo. We submit that this in itself was a highly irresponsible action and increased dramatically any risk to the ecology and wildlife in the UK. It was their duty of care to inform the Zoo of their information immediately to protect the environment and resolve the issue at the earliest possible opportunity. They didn’t.
The way the Police advisors handled this and withheld vital information from the Zoo then made clear to us the serious legal implications of continued flight. This sudden release of information and risk led to only one responsible action to euthanase immediately the threat to the ecology of the UK left by this failure of the Police to inform us ealier. The Police forcefully made clear the serious consequences and yet did not assist anyone and this drastic action would have been totally avoided if the Police or witnesses had given us the information they had earlier and the birds would still be alive today.
To clear up a press error, a Shotgun was used to humanely euthanase the birds not a rifle. This was a very upsetting issue for all the staff, however it certainly was done privately with only one assistant present.
It is clear from the evidence given the Police did not have wildlife protection or protection of the environment as their focus or priority as they were solely focused on getting a prosecution and not stopping any potential risk.
We believe the Police Wildlife Crime Unit could well have contributed to damage to the environment by their failure to inform the zoo as soon as they were made aware and increased dramatically the opportunity for the birds to fly off and establish themselves in the wild and this focus on building a conviction case prioritising over protection of the environment is the wrong way to uphold the law.
We made a complaint to the Police involved about this issue at the time when they first informed us and this was dismissed.
What we have concluded from this whole issue is that none of the people who compiled reports or visited the zoo or dealt with the issue in the Police had any urgency, concern or worry about the issue because not one of them took any action to inform us and resolve it immediately. In our view each one of these so called “experts” were irresponsible towards the environment and to the aims of the legislation and regulations. Whilst the Zoo accepts its staff failed to clip the wings of the specific birds at the correct time, all these witnesses were also responsible for the continued problem for up to 12 weeks, when it could have been resolved within a few days.
This irresponsible attitude has to be changed and acknowledged by the authorities to assist the protection of wildlife and eco systems in the uk.
However other issues are disputed and an appeal is being prepared by the Zoos legal advisors .
Legal action is being sought against a former zoo keeper who in the view of the Zoo acted maliciously in this and other matters.
Let us make it very clear to all.
ALL these birds were present in the Zoo every single morning and evening, they roosted at the zoo and the only thing they were guilty of was a short 5 minute flight to the beach between 1pm and 4 pm on some days for a 12 week period.
The birds always flew out the back of the zoo and no one at the zoo had ever seen the birds fly out of the zoo. In our view they had not escaped but were still under the care of the zoo and being fed and cared for within the zoo.
New protocols have been introduced last year to check all birds regularly for any signs of flight.
One aspect of this case that was positive for the Zoo was that it was accepted that the Macaws and Parrots along with the Storks were all flying freely legally and under the exemptions of the law.
There was no suggestion whatsoever that any other species free flying at the zoo was in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
So the long and short of it... Its everyone's fault except for that of himself
Every time I think there is no way this man can get any worse, somehow, he does it! What sickened me though is his attitude towards the birds themselves and how he happily admits to shooting the whole flock, describing it in such a way that implies he is some sort of hero figure for killing his own animals. Was it really necessary? Could the birds not have been placed in an enclosure with - shock horror - a roof? And how on earth could the zoo have wrongly assumed the birds couldn't fly out of the premises?
I seriously hope that South Lakes will lose its zoo licence, and soon. It is doing untold damage to the zoo community and it beggars belief that many of the things that have happened there in recent times have not resulted in its closure.
I seriously hope that South Lakes will lose its zoo licence, and soon. It is doing untold damage to the zoo community and it beggars belief that many of the things that have happened there in recent times have not resulted in its closure.
In other words:
"We're suing the former keeper who dared to speak out against us - let that be a warning to any of our past or present staff who disagree with the party line"
Someone on Facebook asked the following question and posted below is Gill's response to it
QuestionCould you explain why were these birds a danger to the ecology? Was it in case they decided to breed or mix their genes with the indiginous birds. I don't really understand.
Gills response: Yes of course. This bird is not a resident to the Uk and it is a scavenger. The Government asseses risk to the environment of any possible invasive species to the ecology of the uk. This bird is very well established in Northern France ,Holland and Italy. there they felt it would destroy the populations of Terns and other native species. However recent research shows that the risk was not actually realised and the birds do not pose any undue issue to the countryside. Our government has listed this species as of special risk and concern as it easily breeds and could colonise in the wild here . There have been many sightings of Ibis in the UK over many years . We fully understand the reasons for regulation of this bird and accept this however our major concern was and is that the Police and Government agencies failed to inform us of these birds flying out and waited up to 12 weeks to inform us leading to a huge increase in the risk presented. So the risk is simply that they dont usually live here and they do not want them to establish here although scientist recognise that within the next few years they will start to colonise the UK from France.
QuestionCould you explain why were these birds a danger to the ecology? Was it in case they decided to breed or mix their genes with the indiginous birds. I don't really understand.
Gills response: Yes of course. This bird is not a resident to the Uk and it is a scavenger. The Government asseses risk to the environment of any possible invasive species to the ecology of the uk. This bird is very well established in Northern France ,Holland and Italy. there they felt it would destroy the populations of Terns and other native species. However recent research shows that the risk was not actually realised and the birds do not pose any undue issue to the countryside. Our government has listed this species as of special risk and concern as it easily breeds and could colonise in the wild here . There have been many sightings of Ibis in the UK over many years . We fully understand the reasons for regulation of this bird and accept this however our major concern was and is that the Police and Government agencies failed to inform us of these birds flying out and waited up to 12 weeks to inform us leading to a huge increase in the risk presented. So the risk is simply that they dont usually live here and they do not want them to establish here although scientist recognise that within the next few years they will start to colonise the UK from France.
BongoHardwood
Well-Known Member
So if people who had seen the birds escaping had let them know as soon as they saw it happening they could've not killed the birds, but a few weeks later the only option was to shoot them all. That makes sense.....
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
For David S. Gill to throw out a very childish and very immature rant regarding his and the parks legal court case is both silly and fraught with misguided nonsense.
Mr Gill and that of South Lakes Wild Animal Safari Park were found guilty and rightfully so. Now we have the very infamous rotten apple himself now giving a disgraceful and disgusting statement on Facebook. Apart from laying blame at everyone else, Dave Gill tries to purport himself as some kind of saviour and God-like person with the best intentions. Dave Gill says that he used a “shotgun” rather than a rifle. Therefore and most worryingly, Dave Gill has now knowingly committed perjury by stating to the Court: “I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.”
Indeed, where Mr Gill blames his staff for their failures is out of order and unjustifiable:
The buck stops with the person incharge, which are the owner and then director of the park. How dare this feeble man lay the blame at his staff when in truth he has repeatedly said that he in in the driving seat of the zoo and its development?
Factually he and his team are legally wrong and I laugh at his pathetic attempt to blame others when in truth he the man at fault. To raise an Appeal, you must find error within law, which he and his team have not done. He cannot sue the ex-keeper by civil means because the court initially found him and the park guilty. To sue for vexatious and malicious means, one put prove beyond reason that such actions merited such, in this case, he cannot.
However, again, he cannot legally show and give account unless he falsifies records. To account for every bird, he must show that he counted them in and out and records must show this along with signature’s etc. He cannot and sadly the fool jumps up and down and is now causing fear and distress among his own working staff.
Mr Gill and that of South Lakes Wild Animal Safari Park were found guilty and rightfully so. Now we have the very infamous rotten apple himself now giving a disgraceful and disgusting statement on Facebook. Apart from laying blame at everyone else, Dave Gill tries to purport himself as some kind of saviour and God-like person with the best intentions. Dave Gill says that he used a “shotgun” rather than a rifle. Therefore and most worryingly, Dave Gill has now knowingly committed perjury by stating to the Court: “I took my gun out and waited until all people were out of the park and told people to stay away from that part of the park and I shot every one that could fly. I lined them up and took two with one shot or three with one shot.”
Indeed, where Mr Gill blames his staff for their failures is out of order and unjustifiable:
The buck stops with the person incharge, which are the owner and then director of the park. How dare this feeble man lay the blame at his staff when in truth he has repeatedly said that he in in the driving seat of the zoo and its development?
Factually he and his team are legally wrong and I laugh at his pathetic attempt to blame others when in truth he the man at fault. To raise an Appeal, you must find error within law, which he and his team have not done. He cannot sue the ex-keeper by civil means because the court initially found him and the park guilty. To sue for vexatious and malicious means, one put prove beyond reason that such actions merited such, in this case, he cannot.
However, again, he cannot legally show and give account unless he falsifies records. To account for every bird, he must show that he counted them in and out and records must show this along with signature’s etc. He cannot and sadly the fool jumps up and down and is now causing fear and distress among his own working staff.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've edited your post to put the quotes from Gill into quote boxes to make it slightly easier to read, bigcat 
and also removed the paragraphs where you accidentally reposted an earlier post.
and also removed the paragraphs where you accidentally reposted an earlier post.bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
Thanks...I've edited your post to put the quotes from Gill into quote boxes to make it slightly easier to read, bigcat
I haven't seen the lady who used to be in charge of the birds for a while. She seemed very good. I wonder if she is the 'keeper' who spoke out.
As a keeper of birds (we have a few hens) it's pretty ridiculous to put birds ANYWHERE and not expect them to fly off. I don't understand why they thought this wouldn't be a problem. First thing birds do when your not looking is fly off!!!!
Whole thing is ridiculous.
As a keeper of birds (we have a few hens) it's pretty ridiculous to put birds ANYWHERE and not expect them to fly off. I don't understand why they thought this wouldn't be a problem. First thing birds do when your not looking is fly off!!!!
Whole thing is ridiculous.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
Stone the Crows, the man just can't help himself. Here is what he has just put on FB.
"South Lakes Wild Animal Park to all who have asked..... the ONLY reason the birds were euthanised was because the Police informed us that they had been flying out without our knowledge for up to 12 weeks and this gave real deep concern that if two had decided to fly off for whatever reason we would have been responsible for introducing the bird to the UK. The warnning and threats made by the Police about the issue left us with no other alternative but to do this as it was impossible to catch the birds in the huge natural are they live within the zoo. Whatever action we took we would have been critisised but sadly the option of guaranteed capture immediately was impossible and we had to prevent any further risk of them actually going to the wild. This was forced upon us by the Police failing to inform us in reasonable time and to give us a chance to do this by other means. ."
"South Lakes Wild Animal Park to all who have asked..... the ONLY reason the birds were euthanised was because the Police informed us that they had been flying out without our knowledge for up to 12 weeks and this gave real deep concern that if two had decided to fly off for whatever reason we would have been responsible for introducing the bird to the UK. The warnning and threats made by the Police about the issue left us with no other alternative but to do this as it was impossible to catch the birds in the huge natural are they live within the zoo. Whatever action we took we would have been critisised but sadly the option of guaranteed capture immediately was impossible and we had to prevent any further risk of them actually going to the wild. This was forced upon us by the Police failing to inform us in reasonable time and to give us a chance to do this by other means. ."
- Status