Big Zoo

Closure notice. Says the animals were being transferred

Does somebody else use the land now?

That is worse somehow

The turn could have been added. Do you have anything longer?

I remember the gift shop. Never thought about what was behind that gate afterwards

The position is the stop on the public road. You can see the sign at the beginning.

someone tell Voss this park has been closed for years

Even if it was an ordinary camera, why is your mum's voice in their advert?

The picture is from inside the enclosure. Look where you are standing

They've always had a surveillance role. This wasn't the first time people were listened to at the gardens.

The signs probably say they film people

Video won't load now

The old link is unavailable. I heard it on Tuesday, before anybody starts saying it was always a dead player.

When there is one somewhere else it is described as an escape. That puts it back inside the zoo explanation even while it is outside the zoo.

No report and no animal are not the same observation. But I agree that a map of reported sightings would be more useful than repeating “Africa”.

And put ticketed places on that map differently. It is still a claim about where somebody was allowed to look.

Are we counting places without them, or places nobody here has checked? Those are not the same list.

They put other names on the list. Even their own recording wouldn't account for that

I keep seeing this cropped at the certificate. The families at the bottom are the reason for the hearing

Was there another report after it?

is that the same Edwin Voss from the circus paper?

This is close to what I meant in the state discussion. The argument begins when the institution gets to decide which question counts as reasonable.

I came back to this because the other threads keep treating the zoo as a neutral place to check the claim. That is the assumption being argued over here. Sending someone back to the enclosure does not answer it.

Commercial income and conservation are not necessarily incompatible. You have not established a contradiction just by putting the two descriptions next to each other.

A display selling tickets is not enough to establish a fabricated animal. That is the step I do not find in the financial argument.

Does Voss get a cut of the tickets or is that a separate conspiracy

It would not need to record everything. Knowing who stops and who comes back could be useful on its own.

Tall enough to look at us over whatever fence they put around it.

A high place where equipment could fit is not evidence that equipment is there.

The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.

What I want to know is whether the vote is supposed to disappear because the person is absent, or because the hunt has become the whole political argument. We are still giving two explanations for one “instead”.

I would still need numbers before accepting the electoral result. How many people have to choose the hunt, and where are their votes being lost?

Most of the replies still argue about how much it eats.

I don’t agree with its conclusion. But I know exactly the crowd it means.

The sample still loads even though the book listing says sold out.

The power notice says the service yard. It doesn't say they're disconnecting the giraffe.

I read this three times before noticing the notices are from two years ago.