Disgusted with AZA...

kc7gr

kc7gr

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
I've chosen not to renew membership in AZA, starting this year. This was due mainly to some changes they made in their bylaws which renders the 'Associate' category open only to those working in the zoo field.

Their new category, for individuals who are not actively working in the zoo field, is euphemistically called 'Friend,' priced at $50/year ($70/year if you want their magazine 'Connect'). What benefits do you get for your $$ in this category?

An AZA member card and (maybe) a 'good feeling.' That's it.

Where the old 'Associate' category made itself an excellent value by granting free or discounted admission to quite a few zoos all over the country, that particular benefit has now been limited to 'Professional Associate' and above. Also, unless I misinterpreted the info on their site, it appears access to the membership directory has been cut off for anyone below 'Professional Associate' as well.

The impression I get is AZA is deliberately trying to thin its member rolls to the point where they're made up of nothing but zoo professionals. I don't have a problem with such a position in and of itself; as a private organization, AZA is free to limit membership in any way they see fit, and they have made significant contributions to the zoo field.

What I do have a problem with is the way they've gone about it. If they really want to limit their membership to those actively working in the field, they should have just come out and said something like, "OK, thanks for your support in the past, but now we're only interested in extending membership to those who are actually working in the zoo field."

Although such a statement would still have stung, it would have been honest. I'd have ended up with a lot more respect for them than I currently have. Tossing out a worthless 'bone to the dogs' thing like "Friend" is something I find downright insulting in this context (and I've been an Associate member since they were AAZPA!)

What I find particularly disturbing is IMATA followed a similar path a few years ago: The yearly pricing for 'Associate' went way up and benefits went way down. Oh, they have something called 'Web Affiliate' at $40/year, true, but the only real "benefit" is a discount for attending the conferences and access to their oh-so-informative (ha!) "forums" and publications. Again, no access to the member directory for anything less than 'Active' level.

I pray AAZK and IAATE don't go down the same hole...

Happy travels.
 
I just spent some time on AZA's website and it does seem that the brand-new "Friend" category for folks that do not work within the industry no longer includes free of discounted admission to a couple of hundred zoos and aquariums. I'm hugely disappointed by that fact, as with my many family road trips my wife and I have gotten in free to loads of AZA-accredited facilities in recent years. Our Woodland Park Zoo membership will still have a reciprocity agreement with many zoos, but on any future road trips it will be much more limiting than the previous AZA set-up.

There might be some folks who think that we should have been paying all along, but whenever we visited a zoo on our road trips (50 zoos in 50 days in 2012) we always either took our kids on a carousel ride, had a big lunch, bought a souvenir, paid for parking, and not a single day went by when we didn't at least place a few dollars into the pockets of the zoo. AZA will now surely phase out and annoy just about every single individual who does not work within the industry, and that exclusivity will not be a popular move.
 
Well, that's disappointing. :( It was a *very* good deal, but I reckon they could have just jacked up the price to retain visitation rights, rather than axe it altogether.
 
I couldn't agree more. IMATA, as I mentioned, went down that same path. Despite their protestations to the contrary, I cannot help but think of them, now, less as 'IMATA' and more as the 'SeaWorld Social Club.'

Granted, IMATA membership had no such free/discounted admission thing going, but they still used to be a fun organization to be a part of (when Sonny Allen was still around).

In any case: Whatever consequences come out of this for AZA, they have brought it entirely on themselves. The degree of respect I once had for them, as an organization, has dropped right off the metaphorical cliff.

Happier travels...
 
I wonder how many non-zoo workers were actually members of the AZA? I would be surprised if it was very many at all.

Although I really have no feelings one way or the other about this particular development (I have never been a member), I do have a hard time deciding what I think about the AZA. There is no question that their zoos as a general rule have MUCH nicer exhibits than zoos that are not AZA. (Of course there are exceptions to every rule). But I know some private zoo directors (both personally and through hearsay) who loathe the AZA and would never consider joining, because they are too restrictive. I do wonder if there is really a value in zoos contributing money to pay for a nice DC suburb office with high paid staff that do nothing much other than tell them how to run their own zoo. Also, the AZA claims to be conservation driven, yet I just read that the average contribution to field conservation from all AZA facilities comes out to 2% of their total budgets. That figure is appalling.
 
Last edited:
I do wonder if there is really a value in zoos contributing money to pay for a nice DC suburb office with high paid staff that do nothing much other than tell them how to run their own zoo.
Click to expand...

This statement shows that you don't have a grasp on what the AZA is. The people employed by the AZA only provide support and organization to its members both institutional and individual. The decisions that "move and shake" the zoo industry are made by committees of individuals working in zoos and conservation organizations that in many cases are voted in or recruited by their peers, not the AZA. These people in committees are not employed by the AZA, but by many zoos across America. For many of these people, participate in the AZA is part of their job description. For others, they do this on a volunteer basis with their own time and money.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Also, the AZA claims to be conservation driven, yet I just read that the average contribution to field conservation from all AZA facilities comes out to 2% of their total budgets. That figure is appalling.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of this comes from the WCS? I never was able to become a member of the AZA because I can't independently visit zoos but I always planned to become one because of this great deal. Of course that's over and that will hugely restrict many future American zoo trips. What exactly is the point of becoming a member now without the free zoo entry deal?

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
What exactly is the point of becoming a member now without the free zoo entry deal?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you join an organization because of its mission or purpose, not because it offers freebies. Yes, the freebies are nice, but they're not necessary.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I wonder how much of this comes from the WCS? I never was able to become a member of the AZA because I can't independently visit zoos but I always planned to become one because of this great deal. Of course that's over and that will hugely restrict many future American zoo trips. What exactly is the point of becoming a member now without the free zoo entry deal?

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

Well the Wcs is definetly the largest zoo organization in the country. The society as of 2011 spent 40% of its budget on its global programs. The WCS spends 84 million a year on conservation. This most likely makes up at least half of the AZA's total conservation spending. It is also interesting to note that more money is spent on conservation rather then there zoos and aquariums.

Page 28:
http://www.wcs.org/files/pdfs/wcs-2011-annual-report.pdf
 
cleusk said:
I was under the impression that you join an organization because of its mission or purpose, not because it offers freebies. Yes, the freebies are nice, but they're not necessary.
Click to expand...

True but as said above they don't spend too much in field work. That's one of the reasons why I'm currently a WCS member and not an AZA member. The free zoo visits was a great idea and is probably what got many people on here to join them. Based on the topic of this thread, it seems like its creator feels that way. Don't get me wrong, I love the AZA and their mission and support them but I don't really agree with all of their decisions (like their decision to take the Toronto Zoo's accreditation away because they sent their elephants to a reserve instead of another zoo).

~Thylo:cool:
 
like their decision to take the Toronto Zoo's accreditation away because they sent their elephants to a reserve instead of another zoo
Click to expand...

That's not exactly why Toronto Zoo lost its accreditation. The zoo lost its accreditation, because its governing authority (the city council) made the decision about the elephants - something that is against AZA standards. Basically the AZA standards ensure that zoo professionals are making day-to-day decisions regarding a zoo's operations and animal collection, and not politicians or bureaucrats.
 
gerenuk said:
That's not exactly why Toronto Zoo lost its accreditation. The zoo lost its accreditation, because its governing authority (the city council) made the decision about the elephants - something that is against AZA standards. Basically the AZA standards ensure that zoo professionals are making day-to-day decisions regarding a zoo's operations and animal collection, and not politicians or bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Oh ok. Thank you for that. I still find that outside the zoo's control so they shouldn't of been punished.

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Oh ok. Thank you for that. I still find that outside the zoo's control so they shouldn't of been punished.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

The action by AZA is intended to restore to the Zoo the authority that was taken away from them in an arbitrary and ill-informed political decision (by the City Council). While in the short term it may limit what the Zoo can do, in the long run it will help put them into a better position, where they can professionally manage the animal collection in their care.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
True but as said above they don't spend too much in field work.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...


Association of Zoos and Aquariums Please read this over. They have a steering committee which recomends which organizations and projects zoos and aquaria fund.

Also, it is pretty standard that a zoo membership from an AZA facility can get you into the majority of other AZA facilities for half price if not free. I have a membership in Dallas and have gotten into zoos in twelve states.
 
loxodontaafrica said:
Also, it is pretty standard that a zoo membership from an AZA facility can get you into the majority of other AZA facilities for half price if not free. I have a membership in Dallas and have gotten into zoos in twelve states.
Click to expand...

I think the whole purpose of this thread is that that has changed.

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I think the whole purpose of this thread is that that has changed.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

No, Loxodonta is saying that by joining the membership of his local zoo society, he gets reciprocal rights at other AZA facilities. But he doesn't necessarily belong to the AZA.

:p

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top