The Great Divide

The statement made by AZA CEO Dan Ashe about the Netflix docuseries Tiger King was a necessary one.  It did, however, strike a little bit of a nerve within some corners of the zoo community.   It highlights the difference between AZA and non-AZA zoos and aquariums, and offers a somewhat simplistic answer.  One is good, we are told, and one is bad.

Few things are truly simple.  Accreditation is one them.

For starters, it's worth pointing out that being a member of AZA can be expensive.  That expensive is tailored to the size of the facility, but the price tag can still be hefty.  There are also many requirements that are not directly related to animal care or welfare, but branch out into every aspect of the zoo.  At one small facility where I worked, the AZA inspection team critiqued the size of our parking lot, for Pete's sake.  Animal people by nature tend to be a fractious lot, each convinced that they and only they know what they are doing (Pittsburgh's decision to leave AZA was motivated by a dispute over how it manages its elephant program).  It's a joke that I've heard that if you put ten zookeepers in a room, the only thing you will be able to get nine of them to agree on is that the tenth one is doing something wrong.

Some keepers are suspicious that AZA is too cozy with animal right's groups, such as PETA and HSUS.  It's true that there have been collaborations in the past, part of what Ashe calls his "Politics of Addition."  Carole Baskin's avowedly anti-zoo Big Cat Rescue, depicted prominently in Tiger King, applied for AZA membership but was rejected years ago.  This has led some keepers to call for an exodus from AZA and a clean start elsewhere.

The call doesn't seem to be getting traction.  Almost every zoo I know of that's left AZA in recent years - willingly or otherwise - is trying to get back in.  Even Pittsburgh, the original rebel, is facing increasing pressure from its community to rejoin the fold - especially since its lease with the city specifically requires it to have AZA accreditation, a point that had been overlooked for the past few years.

I still maintain that there are many good zoos who are not AZA members.  Some participate in Species Survival Plans and are vital to the sustainability of animal populations, which Ashe would do well to not ignore.  Some could be coaxed into joining.  Some have stubbornly insisted on their independence - and that's fine.  We can all still work together for conservation and animal welfare.

Ultimately, I do think, despite some flaws, that AZA is the best thing, the most active force for good that the zoo community has.  Only within its framework do we have the managed breeding programs for keeping sustainable populations of endangered species.  It has the power to speak with one voice at the federal level, to help steer legislation, to work with government and private entities, and to coordinate conservation programs (the new signature SAFE programs).

Like any of its member institutions, AZA isn't perfect, but it is the best we have right now.  We should be working to make it better.