I haven’t really seen this discussed before, but in 2020 the AZA began a mentorship program of sorts to help guide facilities towards accreditation. It also gives a useful look into what zoos are applying and where the industry might be heading. None of these are guaranteed eventual admission, of course. Neither of the facilities applying for first time accreditation next month are in the program, so it is clearly still possible to be admitted without it. (Side note: why do insect zoos bother with the time / money involved in accreditation? Does it ease importation requirements? The Bailey-Matthew National Shell Museum would be the third accredited insect house.) The full list is here: Pathway Toward Membership Program To summarize some interesting trends: Two facilities in UAE are on the list. As a trans woman who is trying to visit every AZA zoo I wish they didn’t do this, but whatever. Lots of aquariums. Very few actual zoos. The zoos are on the list are mostly former AZA members who either had their accreditation revoked or quit to start their own club, only to come crawling back when they realized it violated their lease. A few dolphinariums are on the list. They’ve also accredited a few more over the last few years, including three “swim with dolphin” sort of deals in Latin America. They don’t seem to be shying away from cetacean husbandry at all, even after they temporarily lost two major (Toronto, Pittsburgh) members over elephants. Orlando Science Center is on the list. Hilariously, they don’t actually have an animal gallery open to the public right now. Theirs reopens in 2023, although they apparently still have some ambassador animals. World of Birds is there as well. Curious if that would eventually open the door to more AZA facilities getting some of the bird species they keep. Any thoughts on the members list and their actual chances of getting accreditation? What does this say about the AZA’s direction? Can someone please tell me why a shell museum needs to be AZA accredited?
On Zookeeper facebook groups, I sometimes see people say that they think AZA is a relic, too controlling, to closely tied with HSUS/PETA/etc, and that ZAA is the future. I've never bought that argument, and the fact that so many former facilities are so eager to get back in speaks a lot to the sway that AZA has and how valuable accreditation is, whether for obtaining animals, smoothing relations with government officials, or any number of other benefits. I've spent about a third of my career outside of AZA, two-thirds inside, and I must say - as big of a hassle as accreditation can be, life is a lot easier on the inside than on the outside, and there's certainly no level of community in ZAA like there is in AZA
