Pros and Cons of ZAA

Similarly to the Pros and Cons of AZA thread I started, I was wondering what people's opinions were on the ZAA. Is it better than the AZA or worse than the AZA? I think everyone can agree that there are significant differences between the two organizations, although that doesn't make one inherently better than the other.

 

The Downtown Aquarium Denver is the only AAZ facility I have been to, but my impression is that they are a second tier AZA, for facilities that don't reach AZA standards, but are still not roadside zoos. Looking through the gallery, some very fine major zoos (Fort Worth, Pittsburgh) as well as some not so nice zoos (Natural Bridge)

 

I believe that one huge difference is that AZA members create standards that they require all member organizations to abide by. An organiation that does not follow those standards cannot join or is dropped from the organization.
ZAA opposes such strictures and is therefore open to a wider range of facilities... for good or evil. If a facility is not in AZA it seriously limits their ability to obtain animals or participate in SSPs. So ZAA becomes a venue for obtaining animals form other institutions. ZAA is the anti-AZA

 

Downtown Aquarium in Denver and in Houston are both AZA accredited. Fort Worth is accredited by both.

From what I know of ZAA, they are less concerned with overall rules that all facilities need to follow such as free contact (the main reason Pittsburgh left AZA). While any accreditation is good to have for a facility, not all accreditation bodies are built equally or look at the same things. For example, here are the accreditation requirements for both associations for conservation:

ZAA:

AZA:

While similar on the surface, especially with animal management, the AZA seems to be more concerned with specific aspects of a facility's conservation program. AZA is more of a micro-manager per say. This IMO is a good thing as specificity can force facilities to improve these aspects rather than put on a facade of "conservation" and require proof that things are actually being done.

Another probably better example of this are the requirements of both bodies for Education and Interpretation:

ZAA:

AZA:

Here you can see a real difference. ZAA requires only that education be a part of the mission statement, that they have a written plan regarding education goals, and that they have educational graphics. AZA requires that depending on the size and category of the facility, that they have a dedicated staff (or full department) dedicated to education, have some sort of contact with local academia, outreach, etc. Much more in depth and IMO in line with what an accredited facility should be striving to do. To me, the requirements for ZAA accreditation allow for a facility to get by without having dedicated education staff or programming as long as they have a "written plan" and education is a part of their mission plan. Not enough in my opinion.

Here are both bodies' accreditation standards for anyone who wants to compare and make their own opinions (AZA) (ZAA).

 

The disparities between the two are very easily seen, especially when seen it writing like that. Personally, I am not a fan of the ZAA- particularly do to the fact conservation is not a primary purpose of the organization, and the absence of an SSP-type program.

 

The ZAA's AMP is an SSP like program but only for a handful of species. But if a ZAA facility doesn't have any of those species, then there is no requirement for conservation breeding program.

 

The difference being there are only 6 AMP species. This becomes even more problematic when you take a deeper dove into what these six are-
1. Generic Giraffe- essentially no conservation value.
2. Schmidt's Guenon- least concern in wild, minimal conservation value.
3. Southern White Rhino- near threatened in wild, although population is increasing due to good in-situ programs, value also minimal.
4. Cheetah- vulnerable, has good conservation value although not a necessary program, plenty of other groups are doing more work to save cheetahs.
5. Mandrill- vulnerable, good conservation value.
6. African Penguin- endangered, high conservation value.

Out of these six species, only one is endangered and only three are even threatened at all. Versus the AZA where the SSPs are for over a hundred species and many more of them, albeit not all, are of conservation value.

 

Ignoring the facilities that are also AZA accredited (probably looks good to have more memberships, especially to things like city councils), the ZAA are definitely inferior to AZA. I went to several within the last year and heavily looked into several others for various reasons. A few could pass as AZA if not for some less obvious things, but by and large, their exhibits as a whole aren't great quality, signage is lacking and less accurate, and keepers and other employees seem much less knowledgeable about their facilities and animals in general. Things like exhibit quality can be partially excused due to funding, especially zoos that are clearly trying to upgrade what they have, but some exhibits are roadside quality.

The Natural Bridge you're thinking of isn't ZAA. Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch in Texas is, and VA Safari Park in Natural Bridge VA is, but Natural Bridge Zoo in Natural Bridge, VA isn't.

 

It is well-known that the ZAA is a second-tier AZA, with many of the same platforms (conservation, education, etc.), but just on a slightly lower level. There are annual conferences, arguably a greater range of species at the zoos, and also accredited facilities that must undergo inspections. If the AZA is the 'cream of the crop', I would like to point out that there are many quality ZAA institutions as well.

ZAA facilities of a decent standard:

Bearizona
California Living Museum
Dakota Zoo
Fort Worth Zoo
Fossil Rim Wildlife Center
Jackson Zoo
Montgomery Zoo
Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch
Niabi Zoo
Pittsburgh Zoo
San Antonio Zoo
Tanganyika Wildlife Park

I chose to highlight the dozen zoos above because I've personally toured all of them and there are many nice sections (and a few dodgy ones) at each establishment. A couple of those zoos are also AZA accredited and I would recommend all 12 of them. They are certainly a whole level above many roadside American zoos that I've also visited, proving that the ZAA organization is at least pushing zoos in a positive direction.

List of ZAA accredited facilities (I've visited exactly 30 out of the 63 zoos):

Zoological Association of America - Accredited Facilities

 

I'd add Virginia Safari Park to the list of good ones, as well.

I'm still not completely sold on tanganyika, as much as I want to be from their species list.

 

From what I know about the Virginia Safari Park, I'm fairly certain the only reasons it's not AZA is either by their own choice or some sort of technicality in the rules. Exhibits seem up to par- AZA might not like their contact policies?

 

What is so good about their species list? They seem fairly average. Almost certainly not AZA because of all their contact, they market themselves as 'one of the most interactive zoos' where you can 'touch over 10 animals'

 

Clouded Leopard, Honey Badger, Javan Langar, Zorilla.

 

Major cheetah breeding facility (plus cloudeds and snow leopards), okapi, lots of carnivores including honey badger. All things I really like. The interactive tours that I've looked at aren't out of the scope of what AZA allows, but I could have missed something.

When did they get zorilla?

 

They no longer have zorilla.

 

When did they have one?

 

Thanks! I hadn't looked that far back

 

I've actually seen a zorilla at RainForest Adventures Discovery zoo in kentucky, but that was over 6 years ago. I am very happy that I took the time to look at it, think it was something I had never seen before, and remembered it. I didn't realise they were so rare in captivity.

 

Tennessee, not kentucky