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

[Antimony96]

As countless others in many threads on this website have already said... AZA accreditation is really difficult for small zoos to maintain. It's not for free, either.
That's just the facts.

AZA accreditation is a privilege, not a right. It's not as if large, prestigious zoos are above scrutiny either--look at Columbus.

 

[USZOOfan42]

AZA accreditation is a privilege, not a right. It's not as if large, prestigious zoos are above scrutiny either--look at Columbus.

Well said. Not to mention how beneficial it can be; you can tell when a zoo is non-aza for a while (Pittsburgh) in terms of exhibitry and the environment.

 

[Sheather]

I'm not a fan of it. I'd like to see all the big zoos dump them at once and do their own thing, but they won't. AZA zoos tend to have big funding and so are nicer to visit, but I appreciate smaller, independent facilities that aren't restricted in the same ways. AZA zoos are going to continue to see a loss of species diversity in order to maintain a small, consistent collection of common animals at every facility, living in very large and modern enclosures. There is good and there is bad in that. But it makes things less interesting, more sanitized.

 

[La Cucaracha]

AZA accreditation is a privilege, not a right. It's not as if large, prestigious zoos are above scrutiny either--look at Columbus.

The Columbus Zoo scandal is an overt case. I'm talking about minimum requirements to be disqualified for accreditation.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Lol, you don't even know how many calves were produced over in Europe this year. Besides, since when are America and Europe in a race to see who can produce the most elephant calves per year?

Four afaik. The decline of the North American Asian elephant population comparative to the European one is a topic that has already been discussed before on ZooChat. I don't have a dog in the fight.

One would hope that there aren't many of them left.

I have mixed feelings about this. I do think they still have a wealth of information to share, regardless of how you feel about circuses. Many of these people literally grew up with elephants. Not all of them are animal abusers. Could be my zoo historian bias.

You really do think that I'm anti-zoo, don't you?

What do you think about Blackfish?

 

[La Cucaracha]

Sixty years is a pretty long time, especially when it comes to what's known about animal welfare.

Also, Oregon Zoo still gave elephants walks in the 2010s...
Edmonton Zoo does to this day.

 

[JVM]

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wishing they did better.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wanting to support the conservation of ungulates, bearded pigs, exotic reptiles and so forth.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and supporting responsible private keepers.

There is no contradiction with supporting an institution and being disappointed in their actions sometimes, in fact.

It feels like this thread's premise is to insinuate it is not possible to try to hold these beliefs and that there is some hypocrisy in doing so; there is not. It is also unfair to silly this hypocrisy implies to ZooChat as a whole for obvious reasons.

It would be nice if private keepers had them. The AZA doesn't even want experienced herpetoculturists taking their surplus animals. They'd rather freeze Komodo dragon eggs than let Tom Crutchfield keep them.

You had a welcome opportunity to name one of the countless responsible private reptile keepers in this country, a few of whom I have met personally.... and instead you choose for your example to name an individual who has been investigated three times for illegal animal trafficking, convicted, served prison time and openly admitted guilt. In fact, headlines about his convictions specifically highlighted his work with AZA institutions which proves the entire reason the AZA would want to avoid these sorts of associations in the first place. A number of reptile breeders don't even do business with him anymore as his past has become more publicized. Truly an unforced error.

Oh absolutely. The AZA has a whole website dedicated to besmirching private keepers by and large.
Not a Pet | Illegal Trade of Live Wildlife as Pets

It is alarming that a to a page focused on opposing the "illegal wildlife trade" would be framed as besmirching private keepers by and large. There is one mention of legal trade that is negative but the overwhelming focus is on explicitly illegal actions. All but one of the sub-pages seems squarely focused on the illegal trade as well. As a private keeper I would be more insulted to have someone imply this page applied to me.

Whoops forgot to mention earlier: the guy who is the current CEO of the AZA, Dan Ashe, used to work for the Obama FWS. Is it not any more crystal clear that the current AZA loathes the private trade?

Can you please explain, in your own words, how Ashe working for the Fish & Wildlife Service, specifically under President Obama you seem to emphasize, makes it "crystal clear" that the AZA loathes private trade?

I forgot to mention Gladys Porter actually does have Bornean bearded pigs. Unfortunately, not a lot of facilities to work together with on them.

That's interesting, as I had read a few years ago there were no Bearded pigs left anywhere in the United States. I'm glad to hear if Gladys Porter is still keeping them! That said, you use them as an 'AZA' example, but our friends in Europe have not done so well with these species either -- they were phased out at the London Zoo and Berlin has gone out of them as well. Sounds like they may be suffering a global lack of support rather than a problem with only the AZA? They also seem to have died out at unaccredited US institutions as well.

Side note whatever the freak happened to the bush dogs? They used to be so common and now only a few holders have them. I miss those dogs

Very short lifespans and few breeding facilities, so lots of them died out, and with the loss of small mammal houses they became less ubiquitous in favor of larger megafauna. They've hovered at four or five holders for several years, with some coming out and others in, but there has been a limited but continuing interest, and there was a recent import and they have been breeding better in European and EAZA facilities. There does not appear to be any institutional opposition to facilities keeping them.

Has anyone actually lost accreditation for displaying the “wrong” species? Sedgwick County and Gladys Porter are loaded with uncommon stuff and have been accredited for a while.

My go-to example has always been this -- Dallas World Aquarium has remain accredited despite being privately owned and managed, despite having a number of uncommon and unique species including species on AZA phase-out lists, despite multiple attempts to wild capture new species and breed them in captivity, despite a number of allegations about animal welfare and staff treatment outsized those aimed at a typical zoo, founded or otherwise. All of these things "AZA zoos can't do/won't tolerate" are happening at DWA and it has maintained accreditation for close to thirty years without error. I can think of some reasons it may be a unique case but I've never seen anyone even bring them into this conversation.

We're veering off-topic but what rarities does Sedgewick actually hold? Just curious.

AZA accreditation is a privilege, not a right. It's not as if large, prestigious zoos are above scrutiny either--look at Columbus.

This is what is so circular about this argument whenever it comes up here. When an AZA facility has a poor exhibit or a private facility has an excellent habitat, it is an example that the AZA does not do enough and is therefore hypocritical. When an AZA facility is penalized for actually doing something wrong, either the wrong action is actually acceptable or the AZA is being petty and stupid for enforcing unnecessary rules, also making them hypocritical. The AZA doesn't enforce it's rules enough, which is bad, but also enforces them too much, which is also bad. Either way can be used as evidence of the AZA being bad -- therefore, they can be wrong in any situation, and those who oppose them do not have to be held to any consistency so much as they can continue to poke holes.

There are many people I've spoken with on this board who criticize the AZA and some who have also uplifted and highlighted private facilities in a positive way, and those can be valid conversations to have and do ahppen; but most of the people on this board I've spoken with who obsessively criticize the AZA seem to be those who have an instinctive suspicion of any oversight bodies or outright oppose any form of institutional oversight -- these obsessive types also tend to oppose protection laws like the ESA, which are also a form of oversight. In that respect, an institutional body like the AZA cannot possibly win such a person over.

 

[Sheather]

AZA's stance on exotic pets may have originally been a reasonable one but seems something like 30 years out of date. As someone reasonably well familiar and involved in the private trade of (small) exotic species, just about everything except some aquarium fish and some of the small reptiles and amphibians has been captive bred for at least 25 years. Very long gone are the days of monkeys in pet stores (good luck finding one at all, in most states, but if you do he's several generations bred in the US by now), and gone are poached parrots imported from south America (they're now mass bred in captivity, by now mostly from captive-born parents, and this is an issue itself because they are often poorly cared for, but no longer are these birds at all affecting wild populations.) Gone are most of the cheap, "disposable" newts and fire-bellied toads imported from Korea as children's pets by the millions (expect to pay hundreds for captive bred stock.) in 2025, even a significant variety of tropical saltwater fish are now raised in tanks by Biota and have never lived in the ocean, and virtually all coral is locally raised in aquaria. The exotic pet trade of today in the United States is very different from the wild west it used to be, and the vast majority of the animals now available are not wild-collected, but by being available to buyers who would want them regardless, they prevent more wild animals from being taken out of their natural habitats.

The costs listed for pet ownership seem completely made up. $20,000 for the lifetime of a gecko? I can't say either of mine cost more than $100 a year to maintain after initial habitat cost, but maybe they will live a couple more centuries.

 

[Lafone]

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wishing they did better.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wanting to support the conservation of ungulates, bearded pigs, exotic reptiles and so forth.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and supporting responsible private keepers.

There is no contradiction with supporting an institution and being disappointed in their actions sometimes, in fact.

It feels like this thread's premise is to insinuate it is not possible to try to hold these beliefs and that there is some hypocrisy in doing so; there is not. It is also unfair to silly this hypocrisy implies to ZooChat as a whole for obvious reasons.


You had a welcome opportunity to name one of the countless responsible private reptile keepers in this country, a few of whom I have met personally.... and instead you choose for your example to name an individual who has been investigated three times for illegal animal trafficking, convicted, served prison time and openly admitted guilt. In fact, headlines about his convictions specifically highlighted his work with AZA institutions which proves the entire reason the AZA would want to avoid these sorts of associations in the first place. A number of reptile breeders don't even do business with him anymore as his past has become more publicized. Truly an unforced error.


It is alarming that a to a page focused on opposing the "illegal wildlife trade" would be framed as besmirching private keepers by and large. There is one mention of legal trade that is negative but the overwhelming focus is on explicitly illegal actions. All but one of the sub-pages seems squarely focused on the illegal trade as well. As a private keeper I would be more insulted to have someone imply this page applied to me.


Can you please explain, in your own words, how Ashe working for the Fish & Wildlife Service, specifically under President Obama you seem to emphasize, makes it "crystal clear" that the AZA loathes private trade?


That's interesting, as I had read a few years ago there were no Bearded pigs left anywhere in the United States. I'm glad to hear if Gladys Porter is still keeping them! That said, you use them as an 'AZA' example, but our friends in Europe have not done so well with these species either -- they were phased out at the London Zoo and Berlin has gone out of them as well. Sounds like they may be suffering a global lack of support rather than a problem with only the AZA? They also seem to have died out at unaccredited US institutions as well.


Very short lifespans and few breeding facilities, so lots of them died out, and with the loss of small mammal houses they became less ubiquitous in favor of larger megafauna. They've hovered at four or five holders for several years, with some coming out and others in, but there has been a limited but continuing interest, and there was a recent import and they have been breeding better in European and EAZA facilities. There does not appear to be any institutional opposition to facilities keeping them.


My go-to example has always been this -- Dallas World Aquarium has remain accredited despite being privately owned and managed, despite having a number of uncommon and unique species including species on AZA phase-out lists, despite multiple attempts to wild capture new species and breed them in captivity, despite a number of allegations about animal welfare and staff treatment outsized those aimed at a typical zoo, founded or otherwise. All of these things "AZA zoos can't do/won't tolerate" are happening at DWA and it has maintained accreditation for close to thirty years without error. I can think of some reasons it may be a unique case but I've never seen anyone even bring them into this conversation.

We're veering off-topic but what rarities does Sedgewick actually hold? Just curious.


This is what is so circular about this argument whenever it comes up here. When an AZA facility has a poor exhibit or a private facility has an excellent habitat, it is an example that the AZA does not do enough and is therefore hypocritical. When an AZA facility is penalized for actually doing something wrong, either the wrong action is actually acceptable or the AZA is being petty and stupid for enforcing unnecessary rules, also making them hypocritical. The AZA doesn't enforce it's rules enough, which is bad, but also enforces them too much, which is also bad. Either way can be used as evidence of the AZA being bad -- therefore, they can be wrong in any situation, and those who oppose them do not have to be held to any consistency so much as they can continue to poke holes.

There are many people I've spoken with on this board who criticize the AZA and some who have also uplifted and highlighted private facilities in a positive way, and those can be valid conversations to have and do ahppen; but most of the people on this board I've spoken with who obsessively criticize the AZA seem to be those who have an instinctive suspicion of any oversight bodies or outright oppose any form of institutional oversight -- these obsessive types also tend to oppose protection laws like the ESA, which are also a form of oversight. In that respect, an institutional body like the AZA cannot possibly win such a person over.

An excellent and well reasoned post and a useful contrast to the hyperbole and exaggeration and 'what about Blackfish' off topic stuff which is actually just about having a row for the sake of it.

I believe one of the best parts of your post is the note that it is perfectly possible to have nuanced views on any organisation or event and that things are not all 'four legs good two legs bad' black and white...something some posters here might want to consider when make statements about chucking out all wildlife legislation or rules on zoos, just so they can have whatever they want captured from the wild at any price. 'I want to break the law so damn the law' is not a good basis for an argument.

 

[PossumRoach]

Very long gone are the days of monkeys in pet stores (good luck finding one at all, in most states, but if you do he's several generations bred in the US by now)

I agree with many of your points and I don’t want to go “errm ackshually” to this specific one, but there has been a increase of zoos accepting baby spider monkeys confiscated in the US Mexico border. Meanwhile I have come across posts of spider monkeys kept as pets on social media along with news of animals escaping from their owners, of course that’s just what I saw. Just some food for thought.

 

[Jana]

But, those spider monkeys seem all illegal wild-caught babies. Different situation than legal monkeys offered openly in pet stores I would guess.

But real source of all those spider monkeys is ominous to me, or rather what change has happened that resulted in such marked increase. Was there increase in wildlife crime in some part of Mexico recently? Is it tied to drug mafia maybe?

 

[PossumRoach]

But, those spider monkeys seem all illegal wild-caught babies. Different situation than legal monkeys offered openly in pet stores I would guess.

I admit that I didn’t have stores specifically in mind when I was bringing up my point. I recall seeing American reptile and exotic pet stores on the internet that sell primates but those usually sell common marmosets.

I brought up spider monkeys because of the “several generations bred in the US” part of the statement which I wish was true for every monkey in the US, but unfortunately is not the case.

 

[birdsandbats]

Monkeys are fairly common in the exotic pet trade in the US. Mostly smaller species like marmosets and squirrel monkeys, but a large variety of species are floating around. Many are captive bred, but not all.

 

[La Cucaracha]

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wishing they did better.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and wanting to support the conservation of ungulates, bearded pigs, exotic reptiles and so forth.

There is no contradiction between wanting to support the AZA and supporting responsible private keepers.

There is no contradiction with supporting an institution and being disappointed in their actions sometimes, in fact.

It feels like this thread's premise is to insinuate it is not possible to try to hold these beliefs and that there is some hypocrisy in doing so; there is not. It is also unfair to silly this hypocrisy implies to ZooChat as a whole for obvious reasons.


You had a welcome opportunity to name one of the countless responsible private reptile keepers in this country, a few of whom I have met personally.... and instead you choose for your example to name an individual who has been investigated three times for illegal animal trafficking, convicted, served prison time and openly admitted guilt. In fact, headlines about his convictions specifically highlighted his work with AZA institutions which proves the entire reason the AZA would want to avoid these sorts of associations in the first place. A number of reptile breeders don't even do business with him anymore as his past has become more publicized. Truly an unforced error.


It is alarming that a to a page focused on opposing the "illegal wildlife trade" would be framed as besmirching private keepers by and large. There is one mention of legal trade that is negative but the overwhelming focus is on explicitly illegal actions. All but one of the sub-pages seems squarely focused on the illegal trade as well. As a private keeper I would be more insulted to have someone imply this page applied to me.


Can you please explain, in your own words, how Ashe working for the Fish & Wildlife Service, specifically under President Obama you seem to emphasize, makes it "crystal clear" that the AZA loathes private trade?


That's interesting, as I had read a few years ago there were no Bearded pigs left anywhere in the United States. I'm glad to hear if Gladys Porter is still keeping them! That said, you use them as an 'AZA' example, but our friends in Europe have not done so well with these species either -- they were phased out at the London Zoo and Berlin has gone out of them as well. Sounds like they may be suffering a global lack of support rather than a problem with only the AZA? They also seem to have died out at unaccredited US institutions as well.


Very short lifespans and few breeding facilities, so lots of them died out, and with the loss of small mammal houses they became less ubiquitous in favor of larger megafauna. They've hovered at four or five holders for several years, with some coming out and others in, but there has been a limited but continuing interest, and there was a recent import and they have been breeding better in European and EAZA facilities. There does not appear to be any institutional opposition to facilities keeping them.


My go-to example has always been this -- Dallas World Aquarium has remain accredited despite being privately owned and managed, despite having a number of uncommon and unique species including species on AZA phase-out lists, despite multiple attempts to wild capture new species and breed them in captivity, despite a number of allegations about animal welfare and staff treatment outsized those aimed at a typical zoo, founded or otherwise. All of these things "AZA zoos can't do/won't tolerate" are happening at DWA and it has maintained accreditation for close to thirty years without error. I can think of some reasons it may be a unique case but I've never seen anyone even bring them into this conversation.

We're veering off-topic but what rarities does Sedgewick actually hold? Just curious.


This is what is so circular about this argument whenever it comes up here. When an AZA facility has a poor exhibit or a private facility has an excellent habitat, it is an example that the AZA does not do enough and is therefore hypocritical. When an AZA facility is penalized for actually doing something wrong, either the wrong action is actually acceptable or the AZA is being petty and stupid for enforcing unnecessary rules, also making them hypocritical. The AZA doesn't enforce it's rules enough, which is bad, but also enforces them too much, which is also bad. Either way can be used as evidence of the AZA being bad -- therefore, they can be wrong in any situation, and those who oppose them do not have to be held to any consistency so much as they can continue to poke holes.

There are many people I've spoken with on this board who criticize the AZA and some who have also uplifted and highlighted private facilities in a positive way, and those can be valid conversations to have and do ahppen; but most of the people on this board I've spoken with who obsessively criticize the AZA seem to be those who have an instinctive suspicion of any oversight bodies or outright oppose any form of institutional oversight -- these obsessive types also tend to oppose protection laws like the ESA, which are also a form of oversight. In that respect, an institutional body like the AZA cannot possibly win such a person over.

Pretty reasonable post.
Only thing I really have to add is I didn't actually start this thread perse.
Yes, Gladys Porter Zoo has a Bornean bearded pig; just one left.

An excellent and well reasoned post and a useful contrast to the hyperbole and exaggeration and 'what about Blackfish' off topic stuff which is actually just about having a row for the sake of it.

If someone claims to support zoos but gets bent out of shape on the topic of bullhooks, then I want to see them put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

If someone claims to support zoos but gets bent out of shape on the topic of bullhooks, then I want to see them put their money where their mouth is.

Criticizing an archaic device that has historically seen use as a method to abuse elephants doesn't make me anti-zoo. Lol

 

[La Cucaracha]

Criticizing an archaic device that has historically seen use as a method to abuse elephants doesn't make me anti-zoo. Lol

Actually, it wasn't historically used to abuse animals. This is a more recent trend. Not only in western zoos and circuses, but by mahouts in situ. A lot of it is because of the business of providing elephants for religious celebrations.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

Actually, it wasn't historically used to abuse animals. This is a more recent trend.

The Second Jungle Book literally describes an ankus being thrush into the heads of young elephants. The book was published in 1895.

While obviously fictional, it does suggest that ankus' have been used to the extent of drawing blood from elephants for a very long time indeed.

 

[Lafone]

Pretty reasonable post.
Only thing I really have to add is I didn't actually start this thread perse.
Yes, Gladys Porter Zoo has a Bornean bearded pig; just one left.



If someone claims to support zoos but gets bent out of shape on the topic of bullhooks, then I want to see them put their money where their mouth is.

If someone claims to be pro zoo and persistently talks about things which harm conservation or animal welfare, I wonder what sort of 'zoo' they actually like. As mentioned by other posters, no zoos are perfect and in my view dogmatic views are actually just tedious and childish. This thread had run it's course for me, enjoy the view under the bridge.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

But, those spider monkeys seem all illegal wild-caught babies. Different situation than legal monkeys offered openly in pet stores I would guess.

But real source of all those spider monkeys is ominous to me, or rather what change has happened that resulted in such marked increase. Was there increase in wildlife crime in some part of Mexico recently? Is it tied to drug mafia maybe?

The illegal animal trade and trafficking is a mafia operation onto itself with big profits and lax in effective law enforcement.

 

[Nile Hippo Expert]

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

@ThylacineAlive provided an good, insightful post on another discussion on the true stability of the AZA a few months back.