What do you think the solution is? Stop criticizing exotic pets or stop using animal ambassadors on harnesses?
The latter. I don't see the AZA ever stopping their criticism against exotic pet ownership. So it would be great of they abolish showing at least canines and felines being harnessed.
I don't think this is a good idea- mainly because there is no evidence that wearing an appropriate harness causes any harm on a trained animal. Instead, it would be a better idea to change the stance from criticizing exotic pet ownership to advocating for responsible pet ownership of captive bred animals. If they still want to be against exotic pet ownership, then maybe they soften their tone on the topic some. I've known at least one zoo to say bearded dragons make a bad pet because they're difficult to keep. This radicalism has no place in zoos that are meant to inspire people to care about animals and conservation.
I mean they are soft when it comes to birds and reptiles, it is mammals that they have a big problem with. Knowing the bromance with hsus I doubt that the AZA will treat exotic mammal owners with respect. Heck, in another forum someone who has listened to lectures from people in AZA zoos said "AZA officials that we had as speakers were against it, and damn proud to be against it, too!". And this statement was made five years before the two organizations got closer to each other.
I am not a fan of AZA. My opinion (and it is an opinion) is based on my personal experience volunteering at an AZA facility for over a decade and based on personal conversations with directors at both accredited and non-accredited facilities. (There are some high level staff at AZA facilities that are not fans of the organization either). I don't feel like going into my long list of reasons, but here is the single most damning reason: the average amount of money donated to field conservation by AZA facilities is less than three percent of annual budget. I don't see how they can have the nerve to call themselves conservation organizations with a statistic like that.
What is the percentage the EAZA give donate for in-situ? That and I forgot to mention how self congratulating AZA sometimes gets.
The three percent of budget doesn't bother me, seeing how much it costs just to feed the animals, keep the gates open, AND build new Exhibits to keep up with the times. So many zoos struggle as it is, that giving more would likely be an impossibility for many. However, I do think there are ways the AZA can improve when it comes to conservation, such as participating in more local conservation projects, and doing a better job at conservation education at their facility. There's more to conservation than just giving money to the right organization. Furthermore, the AZA should be giving much more focus to the amphibian conservation crisis and have more amphibian captive breeding projects.Currently, there are only SSPs for 5 amphibian species- despite their being more amphibian extinctions than any other class of vertebrates. If the AZA did a better job supporting amphibian captive breeding projects, it wouldn't necessarily matter that only 3% of proceeds went to field conservation.
@Neil chace Why wouldn't it matter? If they don't give to field organizations to save the wild, what good will it do to breed animals that will have no wild to return to?
I don't doubt the importance of field organizations, I just think that the primary goal of zoos should be ex-situ conservation and find giving 3% to field conservation completely adequate, especially as field conservation has other sources of funding as well.
For reference, a smaller AZA institution with an annual budget of $10 million on average donates $300,000 to conservation field work. This is not a small amount of money and overall AZA is the 3rd largest conservation organization in the world in terms of amount donated to conservation (in no small part to the larger facilities donating a majority of the money).
