AZA: The Governing body of zoological institutions

The Association of Zoos & Aquariums: Are they really the #1 conservation organization?

The Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) can be described as controversial at best. Founded in 1924, the organization was designed to create a higher standard of zoos and aquariums which is admirable, since it can be argued that the association created higher standards for zoos and forced them to evolve. Nowadays, with zoos becoming under constant pressure from animal rights groups and worried citizens alike, the AZA  has enacted tougher and tougher standards to keep up their fresh face. Let's dive into the world of the Association of Zoos & Aquariums: the governing body of all zoological institutions and who really calls all the shots of the zoo community. 

When the AZA started, it had a tough time getting off the ground. After a series of failed experiments of being affiliates of various park departments, the organization voted to become independent in 1972. But it picked up in steam in the 70's and 80's. Why? With the impact of nature documentaries, zoos suddenly wanted to simulate the "naturalistic" aspects of African savannas, Asian jungles, and South American rainforests to compete with the close-up beauty of those documentaries. The AZA took advantage of the craze to provide accreditation to the zoos that did it successfully. Accreditation is still incredibly important in American zoos now. Accreditation is handed to about two hundred different zoos, aquariums, safari parks, and theme parks around the United States (a few in Canada and Mexico). No circuses or roadside zoos are allowed. Most for-profit companies are turned away (Sea World is a notable exception). 

Accreditation is pretty much key in the zoo business. If you don't have accreditation, you can't qualify for all the cool programs and grants the AZA offers. Forget about charismatic megafauna like elephants, rhinos, or hippos if you're not in the AZA, they're pretty much all controlled by AZA-accredited facilities. Don't even think about red pandas, Chinese alligators, snow leopards, or whooping cranes. Endangered species in the United States are pretty much in the hands of the AZA, so your zoo's name would not be eligible for Przewalski's horses, gorillas, California condors, or any species designated vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. Think of AZA as a really cool fraternity with animals. If you're in, great. But if you're not, you're screwed. Take the Pittsburgh Zoo whose accreditation was pulled after they disagreed with the AZA's mandatory elephant management program. Without accreditation, Pittsburgh's sea turtle program is being shut down and it's $5,000 grant for an educational playground has also been cancelled. 

The AZA styles itself as the nation's largest conservation organization by combining nature with education, conservation, and science. And they've done wonderful things, donating around $160 million to various wildlife projects around the world. Their standards of animal management are among the highest in the world. To be honest, when you look at zoos in Europe or Asia, the complaints that many have about American zoos are minimal. The AZA holds classes, seminars, and summer camps for children. They are responsible for training hundreds of zoo professionals, including veterinarians, directors, curators, keepers, and educators. Thousands of scientific papers have been penned by the AZA and its allies. The AZA has turned the zoo into a "cool" scientific field where the smartest can gather over their love of animals. 

The dark side of the AZA? There's always a dark side. To be honest, the AZA is a bit like a clean-up crew. Whenever something bad happens in a zoo, their job is to cover it up. For instance, nothing galls the AZA more than an elephant death. As you might know, the two animals that animal rights groups love to capitalize on is killer whales and elephants. With the notable exception of Sea World, no one else in the AZA has killer whales (everyone gets really pissed off about killer whales). However, elephants are a different story. 

In 1989, more than half of the 147 zoos accredited by the AZA had elephants. Today, only one-third of the 224 accredited zoos have them. Zoos accredited by the group house around 300 elephants (both African and Asian), though the number on display is lower because some males are segregated for behavioral reasons and some animals are in sanctuaries that are generally not open to the public. Elephants are simply dying out in American zoos (the situation in Europe is apparently worse) and while zoos are investing millions of dollars to unlock the elephant reproduction secrets, it's clear that zoos are sometimes not the best home for elephants. The AZA has insisted that elephants are fine, but most do not make it past the age of fifty-five. However, the AZA has improved its elephant policies greatly. In 2011, they implemented rules that elephants could not be kept alone or in pairs and forced keepers to work with their elephants in a protected-contact method to keep both the elephant and the keeper safe. 

There is also the issue of "entertainment" with the AZA. However scientific the organization is, the main focus is still on entertainment for human guests. Zoos mainly focus on pleasing their guests before its animals which is why many exhibits are still designed to please human senses, rather than actually improve animal welfare. Rides, shows, and other forms of entertainment have been devised to keep visitors pouring in. Which is not to say that the AZA has been improving. With changing technology and a growing interest in wildlife (which means more money), zoos are now building exhibits that are beautiful, naturalistic, and in the best interest of animals. 

The AZA is not perfect. But its crimes against people have been far blown out of proportion. It's true that zoos cannot save all the species in the world. Success stories are thrown around: Przewalski's horses, Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarins, California condors. But what the AZA has failed to mention are the unsuccessful stories: both African and Asian elephants, hippos, polar bears, cheetahs. You can't fault them for shying away from the stories. They are dealing with life here. No one faults anyone when they can't find the cure for cancer. A lot of people treat animals like humans, but rag on zoos for being abusers. Zoos can't save all animals, but they can be valuable, tremendous resources in our battle to preserve wildlife in our ever-growing world. 

Wildlife Sanctuaries: The Blurred Line

The Blurred Line of what defines a Wildlife Sanctuary 

Wildlife sanctuaries have garnered a lot of media attention in the recent years. Seen as the pinnacle of care in the area of captive animals, they serve as homes for animals that are old, sick, injured, crazy, or just need a home. But there is a darker side to the wildlife sanctuaries in the United States. Many are not actually sanctuaries, but private zoos or menageries that use their collections to make money and exploit animals. Sure, there are relatively good sanctuaries in the U.S., mot notably the PAWS Sanctuary, Big Cat Rescue, and Center of Great Apes. But these few "good" sanctuaries are bursting to capacity and the need for sanctuaries is ever increasing. This blog post will attempt to make clear the blurred line of what defines an animal sanctuary. 

What is an animal sanctuary? Most define an animal sanctuary as a facility where animals are brought to live and protected for the rest of their lives. "True" sanctuaries do not breed, sell, buy, or trade their animals, they simply are provided the best of care for the rest of their lives. They are not open to the public and do not allow direct contact with their animals. Unfortunately, many "sanctuaries" in the United States do just that. The best example of an animal sanctuary is pictured above, the Performing Animal Welfare Society sanctuary located in San Andreas, California. The 2,300 sanctuary is home to six African elephants, three Asian elephants, tigers, African lions, bears, and other abused or performing animals. 

Many so-called sanctuaries provide their visitors with the once-in-a-lifetime experience of petting and feeding baby tigers. Sounds cute, right? Your money goes to protecting wildlife and you get a photo opportunity that you can show at every family gathering. Wrong. Many of these "sanctuaries" breed baby tigers by the hundreds in order to keep up the demand, creating a huge surplus of captive tigers. But what happens when the baby tiger is no longer cute and tiny and can bite off a human head?

Unfortunately, this is the destination for many animals that are bred by the hundreds to be petted by visitors. The sanctuaries claim that they provide life-long care for their animals, but what happens when they need room for the crowd-pleasing babies? They are confined to tiny cages to be gawked at roadside menageries, gas stations, exotic animal auctions, or animal shows. True animal sanctuaries are filled to capacity with these animals.

Breeding tiger cubs is a major industry and when you consider that many private breeders extend their practices to lions, leopards, chimpanzees, orangutans, capuchin monkeys, and other exotic animals, you have a serious problem on your hand. However, it is not totally the "sanctuaries" fault that they breed animals for crowd contact. In order to stay afloat in the difficult economy, many have turned to the petting and photo opportunities that pay very well to feed their animals. It's hard to rely on donations when you have several dozen hungry mouths to feed. 

Even true sanctuaries have their problems. The PAWS sanctuary, considered one of the best and brightest of animal sanctuaries have had a recent problem with tuberculosis, with two of their elephants dying in the past year alone and additional four in the past six years. Big Cat Rescue, the top big cat sanctuary has come under fire for breeding and buying cats (although they haven't done the practice in a decade). Even the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is not without its critics, their co-founder was forcibly ejected from the sanctuary and filed a lawsuit against the board of directors, alleging that she was forced to delay telling a wildlife agency that one of the elephants had tested positive for tuberculosis. 

The line between sanctuary and zoo continues to be blurred, as sanctuaries who allow visitors and public contact with animals insist that they are educating the public and their facilities are better than private ownership or injuries. Certainly some sanctuaries who forgo the very philosophy of sanctuaries still provide good care for their animals and are not instantly labelled as pure profiteers. The exotic animal surplus still remains and we need fully-equipped sanctuaries to deal with the issue, not sanctuaries that will feed the problem by breeding even more animals. It is time for sanctuaries to step up and help the exotic animal issue. 

Woodland Park Zoo Elephants: An analysis

Woodland Park Zoo Elephants: An analysis

Baby elephants have always been crowd pleasers and ways for zoos to keep their profits up. In 1962 at the Oregon Zoo, an Asian elephant named Belle gave birth to Packy, the first elephant to be born in captivity. It was clear that elephants, the world's largest land mammals, were indeed "glamour beasts," box-office stars that would help America's zoos through the 20th century and into the 21st. Across the country, the race to produce baby elephants was on. This blog post is an analysis of the controversial elephant program at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington. You might notice that many blog posts are devoted to the welfare of elephants. If you look closely at the war between animal rights vs. animal welfare, you will notice that the species involved usually consist of the so-called "glamour beasts" or animals that people love and gravitate toward. Most notable now are elephants and killer whales, but also extends to tigers, lions, bears, (oh my), dolphins, rhinos, and great apes (gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees). 

It took decades, but Seattle finally got its own baby elephant. In 2000, an Asian female named Hansa was born at Woodland Park Zoo, instantly bewitching the public. But 6 ½ years later, when she was found dead on the elephant-barn floor early one morning, zoo officials knew their gamble had failed. A strain of EEHV or elephant herpes virus had been ravaging baby elephants and little Hansa had fallen victim to the deadly disease. What's the story behind this story?

Up until recently, the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington has held three elephants: two Asian females called Bamboo (47) and Chai (35), and a single African female elephant called Watoto who died this year at the age of 45. Hansa, Chai's daughter, lived from 2000 to 2007 before dying of the feared elephant herpes virus. The controversy raging over the Woodland Park Zoo elephants now is that after Watoto's death, the zoo has chosen to send Bamboo and Chai to another zoo, while activists have protested this decision, insisting that they be sent to a sanctuary instead. 


So the debate between the remaining two Asian elephants at the Woodland Park Zoo rages, with neither side giving way. On one side, the growing majority of zoo members and animal rights activists lobby for Bamboo and Chai to be sent to a sanctuary after their long time in captivity. Meanwhile, the zoo administration is insisting that their two elephants will be sent to another AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) facility. The controversial move is being explored by the zoo and a decision will be made by the end of spring of 2015.

First, there is a mound of evidence that Bamboo and Chai have fared poorly at the Woodland Park Zoo and sending them to another zoo would be not the best idea. Bamboo and Chai have exhibited stereotypical behaviors common in distressed zoo elephants who bob their head and rock back and forth. Not to mention Seattle's less than mild climate that is not ideal for elephants or that the their exhibit is quite small, even for zoo elephants. And of course, one should not forget the attempts to artificially inseminate Chai dozens of times. Wouldn't it be better to send them to a sanctuary where they could live out the rest of their days?

On the other hand, consider the zoo's point of view. Bamboo and Chai has been part of their family for decades and have lived in the hearts and souls of many Washington residents. The zoo argues that Bamboo and Chai can live out their days as ambassadors to species which is a valid point. The fact that people are inspired to do conservation work after visiting zoos works well for the zoo's argument that no one would be able to see Bamboo and Chai at the sanctuary. Plus, there are zoos that are equipped with state-of-the-art facilities for elephants. For example, the Los Angeles Zoo spent $42 million of their Elephants of Asia exhibit which only holds three elephants (it's maximum capacity is eight elephants with their young).

The debate is going back and forth and the zoo will soon make a decision. Will they choose to send their elephants to a sanctuary like so many zoos before them or will they continue the increasingly controversial method of keeping elephants in zoos.

What's do you think is best for the elephants?

Blackfish Backlash: Future of the Orca in Captivity

Blackfish Backlash: Future of the Orca in Captivity

One of the largest issues in the world of captive animals today is the issue of the orca in captivity. Animal rights groups have long condemned marine mammal parks and how they train killer whales, dolphins, sea lions, and other marine mammals for shows. I have since written two articles on the Blackfish issue since the issue still remains as large as it did when Blackfish was released in 2013. The Blackfish issue still rages over the Internet, but it seems like the critics of Sea World seem to be winning the war. Sea World reported a declining profit margin for the year and plans to cut back costs. In addition to this, Sea World announced the Blue World Project, a massive multimillion dollar expansion of the orca habitats to be implemented in all Sea World parks, beginning with Sea World San Diego. However, the arguments still remain in effect. What's the big deal? I'll tell you...

In my opinion, people fall into three categories about orcas in captivity: that they should be set free and breeding programs should be halted, that orcas are fine in captivity, or just indifferent/uncaring about the issue. This is not about Blackfish or Sea World, although certain peoples' biases affect their judgment about the orcas in captivity. Simply watching the movie Blackfish or visiting Sea World once is not enough to become an expert. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this nor do I claim to do so, so I will admit their is a margin of error on my part. The people who have been afforded a full frontal view of the orca in captivity are very few indeed, Sea World employees who benefit from seeing the animals on an almost daily basis while facing the severe criticism from activists and animal lovers alike.

There are five main issues that people have with killer whales being in captivity:
The killer whales breeding program
The fact that Sea World breeds and trades its captive killer whales is a big issue. Since capturing marine mammals from the wild has been illegal since 1972, most of the twenty nine killer whales Sea World cares for are captive bred. Only five remain wild-caught, including the infamous Tilikum who was responsible for the death of senior killer whale trainer Dawn Brancheau. The breeding program also remains controversial as killer whales are not endangered in the wild, so breeding killer whales in captivity is purely for Sea World's use for entertainment or genetics.

The separation of calves from mothers
According to the movie Blackfish, killer whale calves are often viciously ripped away from their mothers at a young age and shipped to other Sea World parks. While this remains controversial, Blackfish has blurred the lines. Despite statements that female calves stay with their mothers for life, this is untrue as their are exceptions where the calf needs to be separated from the mother for her own good. In addition to this, Blackfish sensationalized the calf and mother bond, while in reality, the calf was much older than it was implied. However, I still do not condone treating the killer whales like items, to be traded throughout the Sea World parks like rides or shows.

The size of the killer whale tanks
Probably one of the largest issues people have with Sea World, it has become clear that despite our advanced technology and intelligence, we cannot hope to replicate even a fraction of the habitat that killer whales call home in the wild. I remember visiting Sea World San Diego in 2007 and wondering how they were able to cram six killer whales in small tanks.

Killer whales performing
Another large issue about killer whales in captivity is Sea World's killer whale shows. Since killer whales are highly trainable due to their intelligence and compliance with trainers, Sea World implemented shows, where killer whales jump, flip, and dive much to the awe of many customers. However, many people feel that killer whales performing are not natural and should not be forced to perform tricks for entertainment.

The safety of the killer whale trainers




Since the death of Dawn Brancheau, an experienced killer whale trainer, the safety of the killer whale trainers have come into question. Sea World has been banned from placing their trainers in the water with the killer whales and have implemented safety protocols to prevent further incidents. However, if you think about it, one fatality in over forty years is a pretty good track record, considering that killer whales are top predators. The death of Dawn Brancheau was tragic and unnecessary, but she and hundreds of other trainers had interacted with the killer whales thousands of times before with little problem. There was little reason for the killer whale to "lash out" at her. Many blame that Tilikum had been driven insane from captivity, but if that was the case, wouldn't there be more incidents? Tiger and elephant trainers know the risk of their job, so do killer whale trainers.

I'm not saying on any level that the death of Dawn Brancheau was justified or okay. The fact that she died from a killer whale is enough for most to stop going to Sea World. However, I am saying that most likely, she believed that Tilikum would not harm her until the moment he did. For now, Tilikum remains performing at Sea World Orlando, where he will probably remain for the rest of his life.

Modern day example: Lolita and the Miami Seaquarium
Lolita is a 20 ft, 3.5 ton killer whale who lives a solitary life at the Miami Seaquarium in a small tank, only 60 by 80  foot by 20 ft. deep. She was caught from the wild in 1970 and has lived at the aquarium ever since. She has been the source of controversy and criticism from animals rights activists and animal lovers alike. Due to her advanced age, it is unlikely that she will be transferred to another facility or her tank be renovated. Lolita is an example of how, despite heavy criticism, the killer whale remains in captivity. While her trainers argue that Lolita remains happy and healthy, many wonder how a predator used to swimming for miles can be happy in a bathtub.

What lies in the future of the killer whale in captivity? Killer whales are Sea World's biggest asset and their greatest liability. Think about other theme parks in Orlando, Disney World and Universal Studios. While the two theme parks have evolved with a Harry Potter themed world and Frozen themed fireworks, what does Sea World have? A bigger tank for killer whales and a revamped sea lion show. Sea World must change its vision if it needs to survive in the hostile theme park competition. It can no longer rely on killer whale shows to bring in visitors. Sea World must evolve again, otherwise they will lose their most prized animals forever.

Author's Note:
Sea World is not an evil institution. The Sea World team rescues thousands of sea lions, seals, turtles, manatees, dolphins, and other marine life and returns them to the wild. They are the most prominent marine life research institutions, having some of the largest marine facilities in the world. However, it has become clear that something must change with their killer whales. An increasing number of people do not condone keeping the large predators in captivity. Public opinion toward Sea World has turned black, a Sea World rescue team was even allegedly bullied and taunted while trying to save a sea lion. There are two possible outcomes for the orca in captivity. One, and the most likely, will be that public opinion toward Sea World will turn so much, that Sea World will voluntarily release its killer whales back into sea pens and halt their breeding program. Or Sea World will evolve, as Disney and Universal parks have done so many times, and bull their way through the criticism and suspicion. Only time will tell for what the marine giant will decide.