Bengal Tiger
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you meant to phrase it this way, but not all non-AZA facilities are bad. Some can be of quite high quality and just happen to have reasons for not trying to become AZA members.
How is "roadside zoo" defined?
- Thread starter La Cucaracha
- Start date
The post you quoted isn't hating on non-AZA zoos, it's hating on non-AZA zoo haters. So, in other words, saying very similar things you said.
Bengal Tiger
Well-Known Member
I see, I guess I misinterpreted said post. Thanks for the clarification.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Yep, totally agree.
I know an industry standard for good zoos in needed, but in some ways I feel AZA accreditation is a vanity project.
The AZA isn't a vanity project by any definition, even remotely.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
"Make sure the zoo you go to is AZA accredited!"
It is a literal label and stamp of approval.
.... I'm not sure you know what vanity project means, then?
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Back that up, please.
And "cliquish" and "vanity project" are two very different words.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
cli·quish /ˈklēkiSH/ adjective (of a group or place) tending to form or hold exclusive groups and so not welcoming to outsiders. "a notoriously cliquish political club"
Word by word.
Or would you prefer I back it up with examples of how the AZA isn't inclusive or upholding of non AZA zoos?
Last edited:
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
There was a guy I heard years ago who, when asked about AZA, dismissively referred to it as "a country club for zoos." We all kind of scoffed at him as a crank. Ten years later, everyone in the US knew his name (or at least his pseudonym), Joe Exotic.
There are some great un-accredited facilities in the US - and a whole lot of mediocre ones, plus a few truly awful ones. Some facilities have great enclosures but poor welfare or shady logistics. Some are upright and honest, but don't have the money or resources they should. I usually tell folks that if it's AZA, I trust them (not that I haven't encountered some skullduggery in AZA facilities). Non-AZAs, I take on a case by case basis to separate the good, the bad, and the ugly.
There are some great un-accredited facilities in the US - and a whole lot of mediocre ones, plus a few truly awful ones. Some facilities have great enclosures but poor welfare or shady logistics. Some are upright and honest, but don't have the money or resources they should. I usually tell folks that if it's AZA, I trust them (not that I haven't encountered some skullduggery in AZA facilities). Non-AZAs, I take on a case by case basis to separate the good, the bad, and the ugly.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
I didn't ask you for the definitionI asked you to back up your statement.
I didn't ask you for the definition
Would you like me to quote you their guidelines on animal transfers? Because the only way that will seem to happen is if they are vetted by an AZA facility or professional. Or would accreditation requirements for things that don't even remotely affect animal welfare, ie having a guest services director, be more convincing?
Well I don't think anyone here would argue his facility wasn't a roadside zoo. But nobody here has said Wildlife World Zoo isn't a roadside zoo, either.
And despite the many shady dealings and cramped enclosures of Dallas World Aquarium: everyone here will argue they are not in fact a roadside zoo. Is it just coincidence in that argument that they're AZA accredited?
Neither of those are examples of being a clique. Requiring a facility for transfer be approved by AZA ensures the animal is going to a safe, clean place where the animal won't be sold to auction or for hunting, or heavily abused in some manner. It's the Association of Zoos, not just animal welfare; a guest services coordinator helps the zoo run smoothly and works with the public, an important part of any place that relies on visitors.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
AZA accreditation takes a lot more into account than just animal welfare - eg Columbus losing AZA accreditation over the management scandal.
It's definitely a good qualifier, and one much discussed elsewhere.
DWA is interesting in terms of shady dealings, but apparently not enough to lose AZA. They're certainly not the only AZA to have involvement in some questionable dealings though. And frankly quite a few zoos still have some rather cramped spaces. Many tropical houses come to mind for one thing.
That is cliquish by definition, as much as you may not like the word.
1, you still haven't really proved anything.
2, by that definition there's as much a clique of the shoddy zoos that shunt animals around illegally and swap animals back and forth as they get in trouble. It really goes both ways.
Also I'm curious, why the hate for the AZA? Have you had a bad experience working in an accredited facility or something?
What are some examples of other AZA places with shady animal dealings?
Might just be me, but I don't think these two definitions match up word for word. Could be wrong though.
Attachments
That is cliquish by definition, as much as you may not like the word.
Not remotely. If it were a clique, they would be keeping out facilities that apply and meet all guidelines, just because they don't like them. Do you have evidence of that? Having standards and rules does not make something a clique.
Shady might be a touch strong, but the large pangolin import some years back was certainly questionable. Not coordinated by zoos to be fair, but they did take animals and supposedly a few actually decided to back out over concerns over the import.
One of Zoo Tampa's directors in the not-to-distant past was shunting animals to his private place.
Also worth remembering all our Fijian iguanas and Ethiopian Mountain Vipers are/are descended from illegal imports (although not directly imported by zoos iirc). Some facilities are offloading animals in questionable places occasionally, such as Tanganyika.
Generally though shady business is not too much of an issue within the AZA. Higher scrutiny and standards. Certainly not falling to the level of federal imprisonment for wildlife trafficking as has happened to a few roadside/dealer owners not too long ago.