By Stephen Le Quesne
There needs to be an independent inquiry into what has passed within the walls of our famous Jersey Zoo over the past number of years. All parties need closure and answers. Without this, the Zoo risks irreparable damage to its reputation and legacy.
When I read a book by Gerald Durrell, it immediately fills me with joy, wonder and fascination for the natural world. The love he had for the animals of this planet was magical and inspiring.
My book collection has a few first editions of his books and there is a determination to eventually own a first edition of every book he wrote. The fondness and connection I have to his writing and life’s mission leaves me torn when it comes to writing about the Zoo.
I never once thought when I started writing these short opinion pieces that I would turn a critical, yet balanced, eye upon it. With the current situation regarding Jersey Zoo, we need an outcome that is best for all parties, for some balance and reflection to take hold and we currently do not have this.
The conversation about the Zoo’s overall strategy and its board of trustees is not going to just disappear, despite the Zoo being determined to move on from it.
I would like to focus on one aspect that has left a mark in my mind and raises many questions. Within the recently published Christmas video, it was said that: “If any member feels they cannot support our leadership as we enter this new period in Durrell’s history, we encourage them to reflect on whether Durrell is the right fit for them.”
This statement has been repeated more than once by individuals who oversee Durrell’s legacy, vision and direction. Questions, so many questions. Why would a charity openly say this? Why alienate its current membership? Why trap yourself in a corner? And why be so aggressive and forthright to remove members who may have genuine, professional concerns?
Conservation and wildlife charities are built on kindness, warmth and empathy, and a desire to do good for the benefit of people and nature. It is about helping and protecting the animals and plants who cannot stand up for themselves. This kindness and empathy are a cultural necessity, whatever the circumstances and even when you view yourselves as being under siege or being criticised within the public domain.
It is safe to say that the Zoo has felt under siege recently. It is acceptable and okay to disagree with the aims of the We Love the Zoo movement and what it was trying to achieve. The quality of the candidates it put forward for the recent AGM was astounding and provides evidence that its professional complaints and concerns with the board of trustees is justified.
As my mind has explored this situation, processed the statements and tried to make sense of it all, the one thing that stands out is how the collective group of individuals has been wrongly portrayed as “rebels”. It is too simple to say this, an easy label for a complex situation. The group has never wanted to be seen as this. The name of the group is literally about caring for the Zoo. Tagging it as “rebels” creates an easy narrative that it is aggressive, threatening and uncompromising and out to destabilise for the sake of it.
This is far from the case.
Imagine living your dream job, and believing passionately in a mission, in your workplace, to put your heart and soul into your place of work and then to be treated unprofessionally, to be pushed out, or forced to quit because of a toxic workplace culture. Then for your concerns to be effectively thrown out, ignored, as you are labelled as a “rebel”.
The kindness and warmth that these individuals had for the organisation has never left them; they have just wanted answers and for the right things to happen so that these situations and the toxic culture never have the chance to happen again.
It takes courage to air these grievances and to try to create constructive and positive change. They should be treated with kindness and understanding. These are personal stories with details and experiences of unprofessional and abusive behaviour by an organisation from which we rightly expect higher standards.
Where do we go from here? It would benefit all parties for there to be an independent inquiry into all the claims that have been aired and for the many stories and experiences that have not been. An inquiry initiated and overseen by a higher authority. The results of the inquiry need to be made public, and all individuals and parties must be heard and listened to.
No organisation in any sector of work can truly be objective or balanced when trying to repair its culture and learning lessons. I am sure everyone involved wants this situation to be professionally, independently and objectively solved and put to rest.
To appear to shove it under the carpet, try to move on and then say that if you do not agree, you should think about supporting someone else puts the blame on others.
Being self-reflective, humble and kind when one is “under attack” and openly criticised is incredibly hard to do, but it is also incredibly important, especially when your charitable mission depends on these qualities.
Stephen Le Quesne is a naturalist, conservationist, forest school leader and nature connection advocate.
