How To Get Accredited By The Association Of Zoos And Aquariums

Over the years, the role of the zoo has changed dramatically, starting thousands of years ago as a display of wealth and power, morphing into places for entertainment, then education, and now incorporating aspects of conservation as well (“History”). What their priorities should be is something that is up for debate however. Do the animals take precedence over the visitors? Should the main objective of the zoo be to entertain and educate the public, or support and fund as many conservation projects as possible? Much has been written on the subject, and depending on who is asked, the answer may be very different. This paper will focus on examining the contributions of primarily AZA accredited zoos and aquariums to conservation around the world,

The AZA has a panel of 12 experts that work in zoos and aquarium around the country that evaluate whether or not a zoo/aquarium meets their standards (“How”). The institution must first fill out and submit a 76 page questionnaire about nearly every aspect of the zoo: policies and procedures, veterinary practices, staff, facilities for guests such as food vendors and restrooms, and security, among many other things (“How”). Also included on the survey is the institution’s involvement in conservation, education, and research (“How”). This is an important aspect that the AZA takes into consideration. The AZA then sends a team of their experts to evaluate the institution in person (“How”). After their visit, a meeting is set to deliberate on whether the zoo or aquarium deserves accreditation (“How”). If accredited, the accreditation is not permanent. Zoos and aquariums are reevaluated every five years, and must go through the entire evaluation process again, meeting any new standards that have been put into place

Sometimes zoos may breed animals for other reasons, such as increasing the numbers of certain animals in their care without any conservation goal in mind (“Captive”). In the conservation context, however, there is usually a very specific goal in mind that includes a captive breeding aspect, a reintroduction aspect, and a monitoring or management aspect (“Captive”). Captive breeding can be instrumental in a species’ survival, but it is not always the best choice in every situation. Captive breeding is expensive, and is usually only used as a last resort (“Captive”). In situ conservation is usually preferred because it is more effective and works on a larger scale. When only small numbers of a species exist though, captive breeding may be a viable option. It may sometimes become necessary to begin a captive breeding program when numbers of a species in the wild dwindle to the point that extinction seems inevitable (“Captive”). Zoos may then remove some individuals from the wild or use animals already in their care to increase their numbers. These individuals may then be released back into their native habitat, usually with some kind of monitoring program. This is not always the case though, so some attempts to increase wild population size have failed because the breeding and reintroduction programs did not factor in the initial cause of the decline along with other