Columbus Zoo and Aquarium Columbus Zoo May Lose AZA Accreditation

According to local news the Columbus Zoo may lose its AZA accreditation over recent scandal's. This comes the same day the zoo announced a new director yet Columbus will have to file a successful appeal in order to maintain its accreditation.

Sources: Columbus Zoo to lose accreditation | NBC4 WCMH-TV

 

Well, here we have America’s best non-AZA zoo.

 

I'd largely agree although given the incoming directors comments today blaming "a few bad apples" it seems like the zoo still hasn't realized the peril its management put it in. The AZA like any professional organization needs to make clear that fraud (millions of dollars, not some small sum) and flaunting multiple rules is unacceptable, even if it is one of the largest institutions within it. I think we can all agree we hope the zoo gets itself together and becomes more transparent on these issues and rejoins the AZA in a year.

Edit: And all this is ignoring the smaller big cat scandal that broke AZA's own rules.

 

I would like to know who produced the unspecified documentary claiming Jack Hanna misrepresented the source of his cats for his television appearances. As far as I know he either never said where they were from or named the source even if it was non-AZA (I know he mentioned Niabi Zoo in a few shows). I think that is just animal extremist talk because they want to stop all captive breeding and that documentary is irrelevant to the discussion at hand of misuse of zoo property/funds for personal benefit.

 

'Conservation Game' review: Questions raised about Jack Hanna, zoo

columbus zoo cats tv - Google Search


The Columbus Dispatch discusses this in what I feel was a good look at the documentary. Its definitely sensationalist but that doesn’t mean that Jack Hanna, the zoo, and his production company were utilizing animals from cat breeders that were definitely not reputable institutions. I can imagine plenty of the cubs shown would later end up in suboptimal situations (maybe some were from Niabi but it would seem plenty were not). The zoo gladly made a change in policy as a result of the documentary which is really the best possible outcome for everyone.

 

IMO, this situation seems very similar to the scandal Lowry Park got tangled into over a decade ago, which also centered around the then-CEO using the zoo’s resources for personal benefit, and cost that zoo its AZA accreditation, albeit briefly. If Lowry Park could bounce back from that sort of situation, then Columbus should, as well.

 

I imagine they will bounce back but the zoo has left itself open to a lot of liability considering the state’s attorney general is doing a wide ranging probe of the institution. Which probably means more shoes will drop in the coming months. I just hope the zoo can clean house and restore donor trust in it, as that’ll majorly affect them if they can’t.

 

Pretty much every zoo person that goes on national shows uses animals from elsewhere. I still don't understand that "scandal", at all.

 

Not just donor trust. The zoo depends on the public choosing to vote for the regular bond issues. That will be a challenging sell next time around

 

Wow. This is a HUGE deal and completely unexpected. Does this mean The Wilds will be leaving the AZA as well? And what do you think is the next step for the zoo, ZAA?

 

Not really HUGE at all.
This will be very temporary. Columbus will need to demonstrate improved financial safeguards and then be re-admitted. This has happened with other zoos over the years and there are no long term negative repercussions (think Atlanta Zoo - as it was called, Honolulu Zoo, Niabi Zoo and others).

 

The Zoo has hit a very rough patch to be sure. and I feel very sorry for staff.
But to be clear we are not looking at a swindle of millions of dollars. Awarding contracts without going through proper protocols is suspect but has anyone indicated that these officials or their families/associates benefited financially? The other charges are serious but not high monetary value. No, it's not the sums that are the issue, it's the poor financial oversight and lack of proper controls. And that is cause for loss of accreditation. (Think of it, from the perspective of AZA requiring proper animal care, that if these improprieties could occur then anything could occur including financial activities that actually threatened the stability of the zoo)
On the bright side, Tom Schmidt is a clear-eyed strong leader.

 

If anything it's just a major embarrassment for a long regarded leader in AZA. No doubt the new CEO will have a challenge on his hands, but will probably be back in the fold real soon. I doubt any of Columbus's SSP programs will be affected, but some transfers may be delayed perhaps. Not sure how it works for administrative situations like this.

 

Yeah, if someone could explain it, that would be great. I saw Jack Hannah at a show once and he never hid where the animals came from.

 

From what I understand the bidding issues are part of a larger probe that is ongoing from the state AG. I believe all the information we have (released in August) is from an a different analysis which only looked at executive spending. Yet as you stated the lack of oversight is astounding and makes future asks for money (especially from the public) difficult. I wonder if they even had an independent auditor like many organizations of this size (as the media is the one who found the discrepancies). I am fairly confident they’ll quickly rebound from this but imagine AZA wants to see a plan for the future with better financial safeguards. The new director did a great job at TSA so I expect some great things at Columbus are to come.

 

Is there anything saying Columbus *needs* to go back after AZA accreditation? They're a big enough name that they could probably do just fine out of the AZA, like Pittsburgh has for the past few years.

 

They really don’t “need” to rejoin. However, it would be in the best decision for them as being accredited makes a whole lot of things (such as transfers) easier for them. And, being accredited gives them a better reputation. Pittsburgh seems to always be targeted for not being AZA, and people often assume the zoo is “bad” just because it’s not AZA accredited.

 

I mean has the trajectory of Pittsburgh been great in recent years? Most people on this site would say its not been going too well. Yet even Pittsburgh is now attempting to get reaccredited.

To @Neil chace question no they don't need to but they definitely want to. This has been the case with almost every zoo suspended from the AZA at one point or another. These actions speak louder than words and I think its clear that major institutions see a variety of benefits to AZA involvement. Often its minimized to just transfers of species, but that's just one part of the calculation.

 

AZA released a statement on the zoo

AZA Statement on AZA Accreditation Commission’s Denial of Accreditation to Columbus Zoo and Aquarium

 

Here's the zoos statement as well

Columbus Zoo and Aquarium to Appeal After Denied Accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums