Over the last decade, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has made elephants a priority in their husbandry recommendations and accreditation requirements. Never before to the extent of my knowledge, has this organization taken such emphasis on a particular taxa over all others. So a question stands - "Should the AZA collectively regulate the husbandry of all taxa, and if so what taxa should become the next emphasis?" The debate of husbandry practices and exhibit design is not unique to elephants. Cetaceans, carnivores, and primates have all been subject to heated debates. However, the AZA has never taken a collective stance on a taxa before to the same magnitude as elephants. SSPs may require certain requirements before a zoo can receive some species (ie exhibit design, holding capacity, conservation funding). But none of these requirements affect a zoo's accreditation status. It is well understood that to create a self-sustaining population of captive animals there must be cooperation between the various holding facilities. And for years, there has been little/no cooperation amongst elephant holding zoos to promote a long-term captive program. Many zoos are reluctant to see an elephant, who has been a decades long resident and created much community support, leave for another zoo. This and many other factors led to the establishment of more stringent regulations to sustain a captive program. However, elephants are not the only taxa that suffers from unsustainable captive numbers. A recent overhaul in the AZA's Species Survival Plan (SSP) has developed categories to determine the health of each program. Red is the least sustainable - with species unable to maintain genetic diversity for 100 years and less than 50 individuals. Sun Bears, Koala, Malayan Tapir, Beluga, several crocodiles, lemurs, and cranes are red programs. SSPs were developed to correct unsustainable captive populations. After 30 years, new challenges exist that the SSP design cannot correct. These challenges for elephants led to the creation of current AZA regulations. Could further regulations be developed for other taxa and still respect the ownership rights and the free will of institutions to house/create new exhibits? The AZA could regulate cetacean husbandry and design, but do the Sea World parks need AZA accreditation to sustain their business?
Many of the Red programs are very close to being Yellow or Green programs. These designations are new to AZA and will continue to be refined. For example a program with >90% genetic diversity but only 49 animals is still Red but a few births could push it to Green.
