I can't tell how Zoochat feels about the AZA.

[SwampDonkey]

One of my favorite zoos is non-AZA (Wildlife World in Arizona). I don't particularly care if a zoo is AZA or not, I more care that the animals are reasonably well cared for and their exhibitory is decent or improving. My biggest reason for caring if a zoo is AZA or not is whether I get a reciprocal discount from my local zoo membership.

The AZA is really good at being the standard of whether a zoo will be "good" or not, in terms of exhibitory, financials, and education. It holds facilities to a high level. But that does not mean that there are not decent places outside of the AZA. There are a number of reasons that facilities choose to avoid AZA membership, often they do private sales. Places like Iguanaland and Sylvan Heights are at the top of their respective categories with exhibits and species list that are better than nearly any AZA zoo.

However, the AZA has also seemed vindictive at times and will strip a zoo of accreditation if their financials are not in good order, which can remove otherwise good facilities.

 

[Maguari]

Moderator note: topic split from this thread: Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes


I can't tell how Zoochat feels about the AZA.
If I criticize them, I'm a quack like Joe Exotic. If someone else is sore about their favorite random ungulate being taken out of collection, then by all means the AZA seems to be going to hell.

PS Your favorite ungulate was taken out of collection because you becry wild captures every chance you get.

Like almost all organisations, the AZA does good things they deserve praise for, and occasionally make what (at least from the outside) appear to be mistakes that they deserve criticism for. There is almost no vaguely-legitimate organisation I would be prepared to defend on every single point, or indeed to attack on every single point.

In addition, 'ZooChat' is a community, who will have different opinions on which cases fall into which category.

Given both the above, it's reasonable and actually encouraging that the opinion on the AZA you get won't be consistent - it's not the sort of situation where an absolute dogma is helpful, I'd say.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Like almost all organisations, the AZA does good things they deserve praise for, and occasionally make what (at least from the outside) appear to be mistakes that they deserve criticism for. There is almost no vaguely-legitimate organisation I would be prepared to defend on every single point, or indeed to attack on every single point.

In addition, 'ZooChat' is a community, who will have different opinions on which cases fall into which category.

Given both the above, it's reasonable and actually encouraging that the opinion on the AZA you get won't be consistent - it's not the sort of situation where an absolute dogma is helpful, I'd say.

My point is less the criticisms themselves and more, "Who is allowed to make them?"

I've been called all sorts of names for saying zoos need wild caught animals by the same people that will bemoan the removal of Bornean bearded pigs.

 

[Lafone]

My point is less the criticisms themselves and more, "Who is allowed to make them?"

I've been called all sorts of names for saying zoos need wild caught animals by the same people that will bemoan the removal of Bornean bearded pigs.

What names were you called here and can you link the posts?

but I was just being facetious.

You say this a fair amount, perhaps you should indicate where you are being serious and where you are just saying very silly things for the sake of it.

You’re not alone. I feel the exact same way every time I criticize the AZA as well, and I too honestly feel like I get viewed as one of those pesky Joe Exotic/Doc Antle types when I do so. We also need more wild captures (in limited quotas of course) so we can create and maintain captive breeding programs, boost genetic diversity and save animals from their decaying natural environments when we can’t really do much about them in an effective enough manner (*cough cough* Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands)

Given in another thread you want to remove all wildlife protection in the USA, who would regulate this wild capture going forwards? You and the thread starter?

 

[La Cucaracha]

Given in another thread you want to remove all wildlife protection in the USA, who would regulate this wild capture going forwards? You and the thread starter?

Can you link the posts where I said that?

 

[PossumRoach]

Can you link the posts where I said that?

You do realize that the particular section you are responding is a response to Iguana_Cabana’s post, right?

 

[La Cucaracha]

You do realize that the particular section you are responding is a response to Iguana_Cabana’s post, right?

And he was agreeing with me.
That still sounds heavily generalized.

 

[birdsandbats]

And he was agreeing with me.
That still sounds heavily generalized.

@Lafone was referencing these posts made yesterday in another thread by @Iguana_Cabana:

Not a fan of Colossal or Thiel myself (why must man play God?), but the ESA, MMPA, and the other “protection” legislation must go, as they are doing more harm than good (especially these days).

Especially the ESA (shout out all my USA Chelonoidis niger and Astrochelys radiata keepers/breeders)

 

[La Cucaracha]

@Lafone was referencing these posts made yesterday in another thread by @Iguana_Cabana:

There's solid reasons for criticizing those legislatures specifically, and it's definitely not "all wildlife protection in the US".
The ESA doesn't do enough. The MMPA also makes it practically impossible for AZA zoos in the lower 48 to get polar bears. Don't get me started on the MBTA; what's the point if American hunters can just go to Mexico and shoot all the birds they want?
That's not the same as wholly advocating against wildlife protection.

 

[dillotest0]

Like almost all organisations, the AZA does good things they deserve praise for, and occasionally make what (at least from the outside) appear to be mistakes that they deserve criticism for. There is almost no vaguely-legitimate organisation I would be prepared to defend on every single point, or indeed to attack on every single point.

In addition, 'ZooChat' is a community, who will have different opinions on which cases fall into which category.

Given both the above, it's reasonable and actually encouraging that the opinion on the AZA you get won't be consistent - it's not the sort of situation where an absolute dogma is helpful, I'd say.

Lest we forget...
The IUCN... yes, that IUCN, who operates the Red List which is the golden standard for what is or isn't an endangered species, once upon a time in 1980 moved the Masaai of Kenya out of the Naimina Enkiyio forest... and they tried to move them out again in the 1990s.
But even with the misdoings of the IUCN, I still think we're all better off in a world with the IUCN than without. And so whilst I do have my grievances with the AZA, as I definitely do... I do still think the USA is better off with the AZA than without. Even if I may not see eye to eye on some of what the AZA does.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

The MMPA also makes it practically impossible for AZA zoos in the lower 48 to get polar bears.

No, it doesn't? The AZA's polar bear population is static currently because of a lack of successful breeding.

Which has been caused by a number of factors: suspected sterilization caused by previous contraception, incompatible pairs being kept together for years on end, and yes, the MMPA prohibiting rescue bears from breeding.

The AZA knows about the sterilization, has recently undertaken great efforts to re-pair breedable bears, and the MMPA no longer prevents the breeding of rescue bears.

 

[birdsandbats]

There's solid reasons for criticizing those legislatures specifically, and it's definitely not "all wildlife protection in the US".
The ESA doesn't do enough. The MMPA also makes it practically impossible for AZA zoos in the lower 48 to get polar bears. Don't get me started on the MBTA; what's the point if American hunters can just go to Mexico and shoot all the birds they want?
That's not the same as wholly advocating against wildlife protection.

I generally agree. ESA and MMPA both have a lot of issues, however that's not the same thing as "cause more harm than good". All three of the mentioned legislation definitely are quite the opposite in fact.

I think "doesn't do enough" and "caused unintended consequences" are fair criticisms of most legislation tbh. That doesn't mean you get rid of the legislation, it means you amend it (or pass new legislation) to fix those issues and make it better.

 

[PossumRoach]

Don't get me started on the MBTA; what's the point if American hunters can just go to Mexico and shoot all the birds they want?

The Mexican “Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals” is incorporated to the MBTA. So no, American hunters just can’t go to Mexico to hunt, capture, breed, and sell birds in Mexico.

 

[La Cucaracha]

No, it doesn't? The AZA's polar bear population is static currently because of a lack of successful breeding.

Which has been caused by a number of factors: suspected sterilization caused by previous contraception, incompatible pairs being kept together for years on end, and yes, the MMPA prohibiting rescue bears from breeding.

The AZA knows about the sterilization, has recently undertaken great efforts to re-pair breedable bears, and the MMPA no longer prevents the breeding of rescue bears.

I should probably have specified wild polar bears, namely orphaned cubs.

I generally agree. ESA and MMPA both have a lot of issues, however that's not the same thing as "cause more harm than good". All three of the mentioned legislation definitely are quite the opposite in fact.

I think "doesn't do enough" and "caused unintended consequences" are fair criticisms of most legislation tbh. That doesn't mean you get rid of the legislation, it means you amend it (or pass new legislation) to fix those issues and make it better.

The Lacey Act is the real backbone of the ESA.
21 species were delisted two years ago, because they went extinct. Who does the ESA hold accountable for that?

 

[La Cucaracha]

The Mexican “Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals” is incorporated to the MBTA. So no, American hunters just can’t go to Mexico to hunt, capture, breed, and sell birds in Mexico.

Sadly, they really can. Check out a Mexican dove hunt listing if you don't believe me.
There's hunting and there's slaughter IMO. Dove hunting in Mexico is a slaughter fest.

The bag limit in Texas is 15 btw.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

I should probably have specified wild polar bears, namely orphaned cubs.

But orphaned cubs have been placed in AZA-accredited zoos before? The female polar bear at my local zoo is a rescued wild orphan!

 

[La Cucaracha]

But orphaned cubs have been placed in AZA-accredited zoos before? The female polar bear at my local zoo is a rescued wild orphan!

How old is she?
Aren't there limitations on whether they can breed or not from the MMPA or USFWS?

 

[Lafone]

Can you link the posts where I said that?

As others have mentioned, not addressed to you.

Still waiting to see what names people called you. Selective reading?

 

[Chlidonias]

The Lacey Act is the real backbone of the ESA.
21 species were delisted two years ago, because they went extinct. Who does the ESA hold accountable for that?

Just in case anyone takes what is said in this thread at face value, the 21 species are listed here: for 14 of the 21 species, the last confirmed sighting was from before the species was listed under the ESA.
21 Species Delisted from the Endangered Species Act due to Extinction | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

 

[La Cucaracha]

As others have mentioned, not addressed to you.

Still waiting to see what names people called you. Selective reading?

Rich coming from the guy who called me a "Willard Price book in real life" himself.