Moderator note: topic split from this thread: Rosamond Gifford Zoo [Rosamond Gifford Zoo]
The AZA continuously failed over the past two decades in their mission to build sustainable zoo populations and conserve endangered species. With each redefinition of the "Species Survival Plan" (SSP) model, more and more species have found themselves excluded, unadvertised, disenfranchised, and ultimately ignored/forgotten. It effects all reaches of Animalia, but most notably in recent years North American primate and hoofstock populations have taken a massive blow.
There are a growing number of curators and even zoo directors out there in AZA zoos that are simply not interested in working with or promoting any species that is not an SSP or otherwise AZA-sponsored. Combine that with the fact that the AZA redefined the SSP program for, what, a third time to narrow the qualifications to already popular and well-established species (increasing the qualifying minimum number of holding institutions from 3 to 15). It's an absolute disaster.
But considering the fact that Dan Ashe, CEO and President of the AZA since 2016, simply does not care about nor does he think zoos require biodiversity in their collections, and it's no surprise that the situation is getting worse and worse. I remember back in 2018, I met one of the head hoofstock keepers at the LA Zoo. She described putting Dan Ashe in charge of the AZA was like handing the keys over to the 'enemy'. I was optimistic that she was exaggerating and that zoos like LA, the San Diegos, Bronx, etc. would continue pioneering for lesser represented yet highly endangered wildlife. Sadly, it seems I underestimated just how much Dan Ashe simply does not care about the animal aspect of zoos (an increasing and extremely worrying trend across zoo leadership in both North America and Europe) and I underestimated just how many zoo folk would simply give up. What does it say about the state of modern AZA zoos when management--most, if not all of which have zero animal keeping experience--force individuals such as Steve Metzler (formerly SDZSP) out of the AZA entirely for refusing to not phase-out taxa the AZA does not want to promote.
The modern AZA does not concern itself with preserving endangered species when it's hard, it concerns itself with preserving whatever populations are already large and healthy because that's good publicity. The modern AZA does not concern itself with good taxonomy, it concerns itself with whatever cross-breeding looks good for their genetics metrics.
The Brazilian government entrusted us with endangered Brazilian Ocelots, but today the studbook recommends cross-breeding with generic and South Texas cats because "genetic diversity". The AZA maintains the only captive assurance population of the undescribed Panay Warty Pig (
S. cebifrons ssp. nov.), but today the TAG either wants them crossed with Negros Warty Pigs from European zoos or phased-out entirely because "genetic diversity". Transvaal Lions (subspecies
krugeri under traditional taxonomy,
melanochaita under modern) are now being admixed with a male from Sudan (
nubica under traditional taxonomy,
leo under IUCN) who has a top breeding priority recommendation because "genetic diversity".
There is, of course, more problems in AZA zoos than simply the "big bad AZA and Mr. Ashe". The aforementioned trend of putting non-zoo and non-animal people in charge of animal collections. Then there's the simple, yet astonishing lack of interest from curatorial staff in working with most species. It's difficult to say how intertwined this lack of interest is with the AZA systematic promotion vs anti-promotion of certain species, though I expect their is a link. How could a hoofstock curator become interested in picking up Gaur or Bactrian Deer when all the information coming from the AZA/TAG is that the populations are small, aging, inbred, and non-viable; meanwhile, the populations of both (each held by 3 holders or less in North America) exceed that in European zoos with regular annual breedings and increasing population trends.
And then there's the resistance to working with private keepers. Being a zoo keeping an animal = good, but a person keeping an animal = bad, even though many keepers and curators are private keepers themselves. This issue has a huge amount of nuance, grey areas, and complications to it, but there seems to be a pretty blanket stance within the zoo leadership community that private keepers have no place in conservation breeding. I wonder where the TSA would be in their chelonian efforts if they did not relay on their large network of private turtle breeders and public zoos. I remember how badly the AZA reacted to Fort Worth sending the last female Anegada Ground Iguanas to Iguanaland. To swing back to the initial topic, the White-Lipped Deer program relied on cooperating with the large population of privately managed deer on Texas ranches, something that today is largely looked down upon.
I don't really see the situation getting any better for US zoos. We're on a fast-track to every AZA zoo keeping the same selection of two dozen mammals, three dozen birds, 10 fish, etc. But that's exactly what the AZA under Dan Ashe wants, he's practically said as much. Remember, biodiversity doesn't matter. A shocking thing to hear come out of the mouth of someone who used to manage the USFWS...
~Thylo
