Columbus Zoo and Aquarium Columbus Zoo May Lose AZA Accreditation

Neil chace said:
Is there anything saying Columbus *needs* to go back after AZA accreditation? They're a big enough name that they could probably do just fine out of the AZA, like Pittsburgh has for the past few years.
Click to expand...

The zoo prides itself on being one of the best country, and they'll need to be AZA to continue pushing that. If they stay out of AZA, they'd likely lose a lot of animals (okapi, for one) and have even more issues with bringing in funding. Most big donors are going to be reluctant to give money to an organization that had a big financial scandal and isn't AZA accredited.

I'm not sure if they have city charters, or anything else, that says they must maintain AZA.
 
TinoPup said:
The zoo prides itself on being one of the best country, and they'll need to be AZA to continue pushing that. If they stay out of AZA, they'd likely lose a lot of animals (okapi, for one) and have even more issues with bringing in funding. Most big donors are going to be reluctant to give money to an organization that had a big financial scandal and isn't AZA accredited.

I'm not sure if they have city charters, or anything else, that says they must maintain AZA.
Click to expand...
Damn I didn’t know this was happening at all… I do wonder how many animal transfers or SSP programs will cease due to this :/
 
I think this is a wake up call to all currently accredited institutions. That just being world renowned or being accredited for years prior does not mean that the AZA will overlook these things that I think plague a lot of facilities. Mismanagement is a career killer and I hope to see positive change in other zoos because of this.
 
Neil chace said:
What animals, if any, do you think they'll lose in the near future if they're not AZA short term? Okapis? Koalas? What Else?
Click to expand...

Short term, I don't think they'll lose any if they're very eager to get re-accredited as soon as they're allowed to. I think they have enough good will over their 40+ years of being a member to have a bit of leeway before action is taken; it usually takes a year or so for transfers to happen, anyway. If they stay out of AZA, or continue to have "scandals", is when I think they'll start losing animals.
(This is all speculation, of course).
 
Echobeast said:
I think this is a wake up call to all currently accredited institutions. That just being world renowned or being accredited for years prior does not mean that the AZA will overlook these things that I think plague a lot of facilities. Mismanagement is a career killer and I hope to see positive change in other zoos because of this.
Click to expand...

100% agree. The end of Dan Ashe's statement really stood out to me:

" Large and small, zoo and aquarium, internationally famous and locally loved, all AZA members are accountable to our standards. If they do not uphold them, they will not be accredited"
 
For context two relatively smaller facilities got accredited this year with zero major or minor concerns which has only happened a handful of times before. Shows that you cannot judge a zoo by its size or how many species they hold. Some of the big zoos have the largest problems but most people overlook them because they have nice exhibits.
 
Echobeast said:
For context two relatively smaller facilities got accredited this year with zero major or minor concerns which has only happened a handful of times before. Shows that you cannot judge a zoo by its size or how many species they hold. Some of the big zoos have the largest problems but most people overlook them because they have nice exhibits.
Click to expand...

Which two are new?
 
TinoPup said:
Which two are new?
Click to expand...
I say got accredited because to the AZA there’s no such thing as “reaccreditation”. You apply for accreditation every 5 years so neither facility is new. Akron and Cheyenne Mountain had no major or minor concerns which is rare in itself let alone two in one year.
 
Echobeast said:
I say got accredited because to the AZA there’s no such thing as “reaccreditation”. You apply for accreditation every 5 years so neither facility is new. Akron and Cheyenne Mountain had no major or minor concerns which is rare in itself let alone two in one year.
Click to expand...

Ah okay. There were a lot that were up this year!
 
Echobeast said:
I say got accredited because to the AZA there’s no such thing as “reaccreditation”. You apply for accreditation every 5 years so neither facility is new. Akron and Cheyenne Mountain had no major or minor concerns which is rare in itself let alone two in one year.
Click to expand...
How did you find out there were "no major or minor concerns"? Is there a report available online for all the zoos or something?
 
AZA accreditation will inevitably be restored, and it'll be business as usual. The real struggle will be public opinion in the Columbus area.

I can remember their last ballot initiative in the not-too-distant past. Many people were looking at their proposed project (the proposed downtown rainforest) and saying the zoo was "greedy" and pointed to its rapid growth and lavish exhibits as the reason why that amount of money was unnecessary.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of issue that tends to keep a long memory. At least in my experience. Everyone is going to take the opportunity to question what their zoo will do with their money.

I saw a Facebook post of local wildlife advocates saying the zoo should lose all its large predators. Obviously, that's won't and shouldn't happen. I only bring it up because the post cited the Cbus Zoo's public stance on how non-AZA accredited institutions should not be allowed to hold carnivores in captivity. Just interesting, is all.
 
Tiramtortlephant said:
I saw a Facebook post of local wildlife advocates saying the zoo should lose all its large predators. Obviously, that's won't and shouldn't happen. I only bring it up because the post cited the Cbus Zoo's public stance on how non-AZA accredited institutions should not be allowed to hold carnivores in captivity. Just interesting, is all.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious, that Cbus had a stance on how non-AZA accredited institutions should operate, but now they don't think that those ideas should apply to themselves.
 
Julio C Castro said:
Posted a couple hours ago on Twitter, a link to a FAQ regarding their standing with the AZA and anything in relation to it.

Columbus Zoo and Aquarium - Frequently Asked Questions
Click to expand...

Really weird that they throw Jack under the bus, but try to make light of the financial stuff.

The part about Jack:
Can you explain the "intentional and repeated animal transfers with non-AZA members intended to supply baby animals - mainly big cats - for entertainment purposes" which the AZA President Dan Ashe references in his statement?
In previous years, the Columbus Zoo appeared on national television shows to advocate for wildlife conservation and to talk about the conservation and education work of zoos and aquariums. In some media appearances, the animals that appeared on the show were acquired or on loan from non-AZA accredited facilities.

Even though these acquisitions did not meet our internal standards, they were not illegal and did not break any laws. Previous Zoo decision makers ignored the Zoo’s policies when acquiring animals like those referenced by Dan Ashe. Under new leadership, significant changes in the Zoo’s oversight of animals acquired for the animal program were made. These changes represent the Zoo’s new foundational philosophy in the appropriate use and care of animal ambassadors.

Animal welfare is the guiding principle of the Zoo, and the Zoo strongly opposes any animal abuse or substandard care. When guests come to the Zoo and visit the animals, they can be assured that these animals receive the highest level of care which includes nutrition, enrichment, health and welfare that meet the AZA standards.

How animals are used in media appearances has changed, and we support these changes. We look forward to proving to our supporters and the AZA that the positive changes the Zoo has made since March 2021 are profound, address all concerns, and will be sustained.
Click to expand...

The part about the financial stuff:
How did the loss of AZA accreditation happen?
The Zoo has gone through a significant transformation in leadership and culture since March, and the process is continuing. There were mistakes made, for which we are sorry. Actions by a small number of people, made negative impacts on the Zoo. In those times, challenges to those actions or questions raised were usually ignored or dismissed by the former CEO and CFO.

The Zoo’s new leadership has made extensive changes to address these concerns and is committed to fostering an environment that is mission-driven and places the welfare of animals first always.
Click to expand...
 
TinoPup said:
Really weird that they throw Jack under the bus, but try to make light of the financial stuff.

The part about Jack:


The part about the financial stuff:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if they are making light of anything. They admit fault in both regards. I think they just needed to explain the animal related charges because that is what most people are going to latch onto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top