REXANO The Myth of AZA Accreditation exotic animal zoo

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 Americas..... but only if you are a member of their organization.

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 United States (the Act). The AZA is acting as a "wild animal dealer" and "exotic animal dealer" and an "animal broker", all of which are regulated businesses and do require a license as defined by the Act. By organizing and running their "animal exchange" program for its members, the AZA must obtain the proper licenses.

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 America yet," and if someone does not wish to join or follow some private group or association, it is our freedom of choice not to. Especially when the association has shown that it cannot govern its own members from making the same, if not more, mistakes than the people they strive to eliminate.
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 or 1-828-837-4242