American Humane Association Accreditation

Just recently, Busch Gardens, the Tampa amusement park and zoo, announced that its animal facilities had been accredited by the American Humane Association (not to be confused with the Humane Society of the United States).  You might know AHA as the organization that posts in the credits of movies that no animals were harmed in the production of the film.  AHA is now turning their eye on zoos and aquariums, offering facilities a chance to secure the title of "Certified Humane."

I'm still not 100% sure what to make of this.  On the one hand, it seems like a lot of extra paperwork considering that my facility (and almost all of the facilities that I've reviewed on this blog) is already accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, generally considered to be the most rigorous, stringent reviews available to zoos and aquariums in this country.  What's another few letters on the institutional resume really worth?

On the other hand, I can see some advantages.  For one thing, AHA accreditation looks solely at animal care and welfare; AZA accreditation looks at that, to be sure, but also at every other aspect of the zoo, from staff salaries (*cough*) to education programs to support of conservation programs.  AZA membership also comes with a price, so I could imagine that smaller, less well-funded zoos might be open to the idea of getting this certification to demonstrate their commitment to animal welfare, even if they can't afford to join AZA.

What I'm torn about is an accrediting body that's not made of zoo and aquarium folks.  I wonder, do they really know what they are talking about (I'm not being facetious, I just don't know - I've encountered remarkably few people who know anything about the welfare of exotic animals under human care except for those who actually do it).  That being said, a critique that anti-zoo folks sometimes lobby at zoos is that they police themselves - that we are supposed to accept that some zoos are good just because other zoos say that they are.  Perhaps having an outside force that has less skin in the game would be advantageous, if only for credibility's sake.

I don't imagine anyone dropping AZA-membership just to get this, and I'll admit, I think I'll wait a while longer to see how much of a thing this AHA-accreditation ends up being before I decide to look at membership or not.  Despite my skepticism, it could always be said that more oversight and transparency can always be beneficial.  It can help us remain focused on improving our standards, while also reassuring our communities that the animals remain our top priority.