Since there is nothing to stand on regarding the "In violation" reasoning, one must assume we are back to the original slanderous statement made to Lee by Director, Peterson blaming her for a "false alarm". ... Again, how does Lee's call affect me? Again, how does Lee's call affect her?
The call was made in accordance to the information on the Request the Animals sign. The way it was dispatched is the responsibility of the Zoo employee who answers that phone line.
The Security staff member, Gisella who we talked to the day of the Bear incident, made a curious statement to me last Saturday. She said, "They (Zoo Management) were mad that when they got to the Bear Grottos, there was nothing there." ??? Thankfully! Thankfully there was no one on the animal side! Thankfully there wasn't someone harming the animals. Thankfully there wasn't someone entering an animal enclosure, which could have ended with one of our Animals losing their lives. ... Would they have been happier if there was someone there offending? Would that have made the code response more worth it to them?
Just because there wasn't at the time of their arrival doesn't mean there never was. Does this mean, because the offender had returned to the Visitor side by the time they got there, that they are considering this incident the result of a prank call? Even though there was a call in addition to ours stating there were three people over the barrier. Since their system does not include taking the callers information, they only have us. Are they using us to take the blame? It sure seems like that is the angle of Director Peterson. And again, how is my Membership in jeopardy with this reasoning?
All I can do at this point, since the Zoo Management team has not had the courtesy to act professional and give a reason upon refund or request, is ask these questions of assumptions as to what that reason could be, based on the information I have.
I have additional assumptions, but those would really shed a bad light on the Zoo , even though may possibly be their bottom line angle. As much as I am hurt by how horrible the Zoo has treated me, I can not publicly call attention this angle and possibly jeopardize the Zoo's existence, BUT that is only for the sake of the Animals who live there.
The call was made in accordance to the information on the Request the Animals sign. The way it was dispatched is the responsibility of the Zoo employee who answers that phone line.
The Security staff member, Gisella who we talked to the day of the Bear incident, made a curious statement to me last Saturday. She said, "They (Zoo Management) were mad that when they got to the Bear Grottos, there was nothing there." ??? Thankfully! Thankfully there was no one on the animal side! Thankfully there wasn't someone harming the animals. Thankfully there wasn't someone entering an animal enclosure, which could have ended with one of our Animals losing their lives. ... Would they have been happier if there was someone there offending? Would that have made the code response more worth it to them?
Just because there wasn't at the time of their arrival doesn't mean there never was. Does this mean, because the offender had returned to the Visitor side by the time they got there, that they are considering this incident the result of a prank call? Even though there was a call in addition to ours stating there were three people over the barrier. Since their system does not include taking the callers information, they only have us. Are they using us to take the blame? It sure seems like that is the angle of Director Peterson. And again, how is my Membership in jeopardy with this reasoning?
All I can do at this point, since the Zoo Management team has not had the courtesy to act professional and give a reason upon refund or request, is ask these questions of assumptions as to what that reason could be, based on the information I have.
I have additional assumptions, but those would really shed a bad light on the Zoo , even though may possibly be their bottom line angle. As much as I am hurt by how horrible the Zoo has treated me, I can not publicly call attention this angle and possibly jeopardize the Zoo's existence, BUT that is only for the sake of the Animals who live there.
I made a call that day because I saw a man coming back over the railing from the animal side of the enclosures. Security wasnt there, the crowd was big and boisterous.... I followed the procedure on the sign posted to call the front office there. The lady that answered said someone was on their way and cut me off before I could finish. I was shocked by the reaction of the zoo staff making it a code red when I had only called to ask that security be here. Later in the Lion House, I spoke to security and she said they had heard our calls and then a third person called and said they saw three people over the fence. Yes, since then, the zoo employees and security have changed their stories, mine remains true and honest. We were assured we had done the right thing, now, for no reason, the zoo is upset that there wasnt an emergency in progress once they got there?
ReplyDelete@Lee- Yea, that "mad, there wasn't" statement was disturbing. ... I have witnessed many un-truths in this place and have ignored making them known to the appropriate VIPs. This time is different.
ReplyDelete