Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals. This article written by the CEO of the American Humane Association reveals: "[The] American Humane Association launching a global initiative to elevate the welfare standards of zoos and aquariums worldwide. The Humane Conservation program will be the first third-party certification devoted solely to verifying that animals living in these institutions are healthy, positively social, active, safe, and living with proper light, sound, air, and heat levels. And these standards will be set not by zoos but instead an independent collection of world-renowned experts in the fields of animal science, behavior, and ethics—a sharp departure from most existing accreditation programs, which are vulnerable to accusations of conflicts of interest and leniency." I wanted to know what you guys thought of that. I think it is a great idea. It will make more people begin to support zoos, in my opinion, because it is not like we are setting our own standards, and those standards that we set may be lower than need be, just because they are easier to reach.
If done properly this could be one of the best things to happen to the zoo sector in many years. Done improperly and it could be the opposite.
I'm curious to see how their standards would match up with the AZA's standards, and in what ways the two might diverge. I'm also very curious about who would be on this "independent collection" of experts. What would "independent" mean, exactly? That anyone who worked in animal husbandry would be excluded, or just people who currently work for accredited facilities? And would any of the experts be noted anti-captivity advocates or would they be impartial?
This will make zoos seem less like a golf club, where people on the inside keep making new rules that are already fairly easy for them to follow, or make it hard for others to join the club.
I agree with Coelacanth18; I, too, wonder about the expertise and individual bias said unnamed "world-renowned experts in the fields of animal science, behavior, and ethics". For example, no mentioning of expertise in the fields of zoology, zoo/wild veterinary medicine, zoo biology, zoo design, husbandry etc.? I've had my share of experience sitting in councils with people who lacked the factual knowledge, education and practical experience to evaluate the animal husbandry for the species in question correctly and adequately, yet nevertheless were confident that their input was productive (which it wasn't, most of the times). Unfortunately, taking care of stray cats for years doesn't result in knowing how to safely house a pack of lion. And an academic degree in philosophy doesn't mean that you're an expert for the height requirements of fruit bat enclosures or the filtration systems for giant salamander tanks...
a global initiative? I think that may be over-stretching a little. Maybe they should start with the problems in their own country's zoos and work their way up. Anyway, this might be worth reading: https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Zoo_Report_060916-2.pdf
and this about the first zoo to receive their medal: Brookfield Zoo And Shedd Aquarium Are Nation's First Facilities To Achieve Humane Certification From American Humane Association The link in the article goes to this page, with a list of the people on the committee: Scientific Advisory Committee - Humane Conservation I would question some of the statements in the article, e.g. "...American Humane Association, which has been at the forefront of virtually every major advance in the protection of animals over the past 140 years..."
