I've never fully understood the role and importance of the AZA. I know that they're important for creating a governing body for American zoos, but I still don't fully understand the ins and outs of what their role is. Also, how important is a zoo being AZA accredited? I've heard of big city zoos like Pittsburgh and Columbus losing accreditation, and they both seem to be doing just fine. Is not having AZA accreditation supposed to serve as a death sentence for any self-respecting zoo, or is it something that a zoo is fine without?
Being AZA accredited isn't the end all be all for a zoo, but it certainly has its perks. It allows facilities to more frequently participate in SSPs (non-AZA places have to be vetted first) and makes it easier to acquire certain species that otherwise would be largely unobtainable (notice how you don't see any gorillas outside of the AZA minus Pittsburgh, for example). More than anything it just looks good to the general public and reassures people that they're supporting a reputable organization that has high animal welfare standards. Columbus regained their accreditation last year. They only lost it briefly because of issues with upper management, nothing to do with the actual quality of the zoo itself.
Lacking AZA accreditation can also have legal repercussions, at least in some states. It can effect what kind of animals a facility is allowed to keep! Typically animals that the public regard as inherently dangerous/capable of killing a human, such as: Big cats, great apes, bears, even certain species of canids. With animal rights activists courting politicians now more than ever before, having some form of accreditation is just common sense and future-proofing IMHO. (By the way: Pittsburgh Zoo got a new CEO in 2021. And he's been quite vocal about his intention of re-seeking AZA accreditation.)
I wouldn't know myself, but I would hardly be surprised if that was the case. City officials are politicians too, after all.
Excellent response. It's not the only good standard for a zoo, but it's one the most recognized and easy to explain to the public.
To me, AZA is a recognizable standard that not only are animals well taken care of there with a focus on real and measurable conservation, but that there is an overseeing board and management that has integrity and functions in a professional manner true to the zoo's missions. When a zoo is not AZA, I do not just look at animal welfare when deciding to visit or not. A zoo's exhibits and overall care are just part of the equation. Animals can be very well taken care of at a zoo, but if the people running it are sourcing them unethically, are not responsible with money/don't fund real conservation initiatives, and don't practice safe and ethical animal handling/training, these are red flags to me just as big as poor exhibit design/welfare. AZA ensures all of these boxes are ticked. Typically, I will be OK with visitng a non-AZA zoo if it is associated with a city or state and has a transparent and readily visible board/clear mission statement with meaningful contributions to conservation. The focus on their website and marketing materials should be about connecting with nature to help preserve it, not just a place that's just there to sell birthday parties and stuffed animals. If not directly conservation based, a zoo that gives permnant refuge to illegally trafficked wildlife or otherwise unwanted and discarded animals would also be OK to me as well, so long as that is their clear mission and that the animals are well cared for. The Cohanzick Zoo in New Jersey is a good example of this, as it is run by the city and is home mostly to animals who did not fit in elsewhere. The exhibits aren't exaclty up to AZA standard completely, but they are certianly adequet and it's a good place for people to see these animals and foster a connection with them.
There are numerous benefits of AZA accreditation: Acquiring animals: For some species, AZA accreditation is essentially the only way to acquire them. For example, there are no non-AZA zoos in the United States with Matschie's tree kangaroos, koalas, bonobos, Coquerel's sifakas, etc. Even when possible to acquire a species without accreditation, accreditation can make it much easier and cheaper. If an AZA zoo wants a new fennec fox, it can contact the AZA and will likely receive one on loan from another zoo, only having to pay the transfer costs. For an unaccredited zoo, they'll likely have to purchase a fennec fox, and for a reputable institution they'd of course have to heavily vet the source the fox came from. The AZA zoo has the much easier time, in this case! On the flip side: these benefits to acquire animals may not apply to all institutions. Many of the best unaccredited zoos are ones that specialize in native species, as generally speaking native species are typically acquired from state agencies/wildlife rehab facilities, instead of through AZA cooperative breeding programs. That said, there are still benefits to accreditation for all zoos if they want to: Professional Development, Conferences, etc.: The AZA offers a plethora of professional development, networking opportunities, conferences, and other resources for zoo staff. These can be very beneficial for institutions and their staff, as it helps to gain access to all the newest developments in the field. For example, suppose an AZA-accredited zoo develops a new dietary regiment for a particular species. Upon their research, they find their animals do significantly better under this new diet. There are easy ways to share that data with other AZA zoos, and this collaboration could greatly benefit other zoos keeping this species. Permitting/Legal Benefits: AZA accreditation can make the process easier to apply for certain government permits, etc. This can be especially important when housing species covered under the Lacey Act or Endangered Species Act. There's a reason that in the US almost all meerkat holders are AZA-accredited, unlike in Europe where they are an extremely common species. What I find interesting is the increasing number of AZA-accredited zoos outside of North America. In the past few cycles, there has been an increasing number of zoos gaining AZA-accreditation in other countries, including Colombia, Argentina, South Korea, Spain, Bermuda, and United Arab Emirates. I wonder what the rationale of these zoos in pursuing AZA-accreditation is, and how their benefits of accreditation compare to those zoos in the United States and Canada, who likely gain much more of the animal acquisition-related benefits.
As noted, the AZA is generally beneficial to ABC type zoos for a variety of reasons. However, many private specialist zoos are not part of the AZA, some of the best in the USA are not. There are a variety of reasons these specialist zoos are not, often due to their side business of animal sales. Some top specialist facilities that are non-AZA that come to mind are Iguanaland, Reptilandia (Johnson City), and Sylvan Heights Bird Park. Also some more typical ABC zoos that are largely quality places that are involved in animal sales such as Brights Zoo, and the Zoofari Parks (Virginia Safari Park, Gulfbreeze, etc.).
