More on AZA....
The Myth of AZA Accreditation
By John Curtis
February 2007
Established in 1924 the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) is a
private organization stating that they are dedicated to the advancement of zoos
and aquariums in the
As stated in the AZA mission statement: "The mission of the AZA
accreditation commission is to establish, uphold and raise the highest
zoological and aquarium industry standards through self-evaluation, on-site
inspection, and peer review." (2007 AZA Guide To
Accreditation).
This is a very noble statement but it must be made clear that the AZA is not a
branch of the government. The AZA has no judicial powers to impose fines or
penalties on any of its members or anyone else that violates any of the
suggested "AZA standards". The AZA has no animals nor do they
own or operate any zoo or aquarium of their own. Also the AZA holds no required
USDA license to conduct any activity as defined under the Animal Welfare Act of
the
The AZA is a business - they sell for a fee "accreditation status".
Some of the costs include a $1200 filing fee, a deposit of $1000 towards the
inspection expenses, and membership dues up to $8,000. And as the AZA states in
the AZA's 2007 Guide to Accreditation, "Our
objective third party position has been an effective tool to lobby local
authorities to support member facilities". This statement by the AZA
solidifies the position that the AZA itself does not own or operate any zoo or
care for the animals held in captivity, only the individual members can make
that claim. The AZA's admitted "third party
position" shows that the AZA is not running any zoo, it just makes
suggestions on how to.
This brings us to the main point of "the accreditation myth",
the AZA has spent millions of dollars and lots of time in convincing the public
by making statements like: "We are the recognized leader in the
industry" and "It is imperative that regulatory agencies, governing
authorities, international allied groups etc. can have trust and confidence in
our efforts to establish high standards and be assured that members
comply." While on the other hand the AZA is "selling"
accreditation status to zoo's, and even throwing buyers incentives (they call
them benefits) like: the "eligibility for grants" and "helps cut
the red tape" and "exempts institutions from certain government
requirements primarily at the state level" - the coveted
"get-away-with-anything card".
This self love and chest pounding done by the AZA has worked so well that the
general public and, it seems, our government officials have been fooled! The AZA,
nor the zoos that are members of the AZA, cannot make claims such as: "only
the AZA can rightfully claim to be meeting a critical need in our society"
and "accreditation is a recognized badge signifying excellence in, and
commitment to, collection management, veterinary care, ethics, physical
facilities...safety and security" and "guiding private and
governmental agencies that frequently need our expert opinion". (All
quotes taken from the AZA 2007 accreditation guide).
The AZA is a fine organization - it "strives to raise professional
standards and to influence development of superior zoological parks and
aquariums". But the plain truth is that the AZA is nothing more than a
glorified chamber of commerce. The AZA is not the one to set
"standards" to try and govern non-members when the AZA has no power to
enforce its "standards" on its own members! If the AZA is "the
recognized leader in the industry" then why does AZA "member
zoos" have more than their fair share of animal escapes, humans getting
injured or killed and a death rate for the animals in their care that is
unacceptable.
Just a few of the hundreds of examples are: Lincoln Park Zoo fined by the
USDA for animal deaths and a gorilla attacked one of its keepers (2006); a zoo
volunteer was killed by snake at the L.A. Zoo (12-99), a gorilla escaped from Dallas
Zoo (had to be shot to death); a Sumatran tiger escaped from Lowry Park
Zoo in Tampa, Florida (it, too, had to be shot to death); and a male
chimpanzee at the North Carolina Zoo was killed by an-unnecessary routine
checkup when given too much anesthetics (the zoo later claimed that the animal
had "heart problems"). Again, just a few of the documented cases of
"mistakes" or just plain incompetence exhibited by AZA members.
And what did the AZA do to punish these members for these blatant violations of
its "standards"? Nothing - because they have no power to. The AZA
cannot claim absolute impunity and be allowed to say whatever they want, to be
taken as the truth, without exposing themselves to the light of doubt and
criticism.
The underlining truth and motive that drives the AZA can be summed up as
follows: Money -the AZA is a private association (club or group etc...) that
relies on the dues collected from its members to pay for its operating costs,
and with a very limited population of potential new members it is important that
the AZA retain its current members for its continued survival. In return for the
payment for fees and dues, the AZA sells "accreditation status". One
of the selling points the AZA uses is that "accreditation is a publicly
recognized badge" (much like "the seal of good house keeping" or
"member of the chamber of commerce" or "member of the Better
Business Bureau") which would bring in more paying customers because the
"member" zoo would be shown to be "superior" to non-member
zoos (discrimination).
The truth is that in the present economic climate a vast majority of AZA
accredited zoos (most are city, county or state funded) are having to endure
funding cuts totaling in the millions - the Buffalo Zoo, the Philadelphia Zoo
and the North Carolina Zoo, too name a few.
The funding cuts would mean that the zoo would have to rely more on their gate
(which studies show are declining). And, if your zoo is open and wants to remain
open, you must take actions to make up for the lost income. This could include
cutting staff, raising admission prices, phasing out high dollar exhibits, or
cutting out "bell and whistle" items such as advertising or even
membership dues to certain associations whose admitted main benefits is to show
that, by being a member, your zoo is better than the place down the street!
After all, the zoo is open and the majority of people would not even notice or
care if you were "AZA accredited". How many people do you think stop
and look at the health department report card at a Wendy's or McDonald's or to
see if they belong to the Chamber of Commerce, etc? If the public is hungry they
will eat, even if only relying on name recognition alone. The same can be said
for a zoo - if someone wants to see exotic animals they will go to the zoo - any
zoo - no matter what you have hanging at the door.
Now put yourself in the AZA's position of the
possibility of seeing members dropping out or not renewing their memberships.
When the AZA asks its members "Why?", the
members will state the obvious reasons - lost funding, low attendance, and
internal budget cuts. The members will tell the AZA that something more has to
be done in exchange for their membership dues to help offset lost income and low
attendance. This scenario is very real and is the last thing an association such
as the AZA wants to see.
The AZA has shown their answer to this scenario in the wordings of the slew of
recent state and federal bills, like HR5909, and NC1032 or IN482,
seeking to simply put all legitimate private (non-member) zoos out of business
and making only AZA accredited zoos exempt from the new laws. By this action the
AZA could guarantee its members more income through increased attendance by
eliminating any competition to them. The AZA would be, in fact, breaking the law
by using unfair methods of competition as outlined in section 2 of the Sherman
Act that makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to
monopolize", trade or commerce. And the AZA would be guilty of illegal
business practices by using legislation to try and force non-members to follow
their "standards" or "code of ethics" because it would
unreasonably restrict the ways businesses may compete.
Motive: Money. It all boils down to the money! If you are not making enough,
knock off your competition to get their share - it's that simple.
In conclusion, I would like to re-state that the AZA has no power to enforce
their "standards or code of ethics" on any of their members with any
amount of fear of punishment. The biggest thing they can do is revoke
accreditation status, which is no big deal because that alone will not stop
people from visiting the zoo. The AZA is "all blow and no show" on
this point. Only The U.S. Government has the power to fine and even imprison you
for violations of the animal welfare act. For this reason (among others) the AZA
should keep its views and suggestions on how to manage zoos (or anything else
for that matter) to and for the benefit of its members.
This is not
The United Communist States of
Hence the term 'The Myth of Accreditation"... because labeling someone
or something "accredited" does not necessarily mean that it is the
best nor the absolute expert on anything, because, no matter how good something
seems to be, there's always something better.
John Curtis and his father have 99 years of combined experience in the care
and handling of all types of exotics. He lives in NC and can be reached at
kingkong@webworkz.com
Home About Us Native Wildlife Exotic Animals Education Out Reach Programs Links
Adoptable Animals Contact Info Proposed Laws & Regulations Future Plans/Wish List Support Page Thank You Page