Beyond the Headline Wins: What Dan Ashe’s AZA Isn’t Talking About

By Sachin Wason

Dan Ashe, former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and current President and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), has spent the past several years positioning the AZA as a leader in wildlife conservation, animal welfare, and environmental education. Under his leadership, the organization has launched billion-dollar fundraising goals, formed strategic partnerships, and consistently described its network of over 200 accredited institutions as representing the “gold standard” in animal care. But behind the tightly managed press releases and polished annual reports, a more complicated picture emerges—one that raises fundamental questions about priorities, accountability, and the actual cost of consensus.

Behind the Accreditation Curtain

At the center of the AZA’s public credibility is its accreditation process, touted as a rigorous standard that separates top-tier zoos and aquariums from the rest. However, critics—including former staffers and animal welfare advocates—have increasingly questioned the independence and robustness of that process. During Ashe’s tenure, notable updates have been made to the accreditation standards; however, the model remains self-governing. Zoos are evaluated by their peers, raising questions about whether industry relationships influence the oversight process.

While the AZA emphasizes continuous improvements, there is limited transparency into how facilities with documented animal welfare concerns have been addressed. Are failing institutions held accountable? Or are reputational considerations given undue weight in decision-making? Some argue that the “gold standard” designation may rely more on internal consensus than on consistent scientific or ethical benchmarks.

Captive Breeding vs. Conservation in the Wild

Another area of growing scrutiny lies in the ethical debate over captive breeding versus situ conservation. Many AZA-accredited institutions claim conservation as a core mission, often citing species survival programs and reintroduction efforts as key components of their conservation efforts. However, critics point out that a significant portion of resources and breeding programs benefit populations that will never return to the wild. The line between conservation and entertainment becomes increasingly blurred when charismatic species are bred primarily to draw visitors rather than to restore wild ecosystems.

Despite high-profile campaigns and financial pledges, some question whether the AZA’s efforts are translating into measurable biodiversity outcomes. Comparisons with field-focused organizations suggest that while AZA facilities may outspend their peers, their impact on wild populations is harder to quantify.

The $1 Billion Question

In recent years, Ashe has promoted the AZA's $1 billion conservation impact goal—a substantial figure intended to convey bold ambition. But where that money is going and how the impact is measured remains unclear. Critics note that much of the investment may be directed toward in-house initiatives, captive care, or education programming, rather than field-based conservation. Without standardized reporting or third-party audits, it’s difficult to assess how much of that billion is reaching species and habitats in crisis.

The AZA’s PR framing emphasizes conservation as a unifying theme, but behind that messaging are persistent questions about effectiveness and transparency. The organization’s claims are often backed more by internal metrics than peer-reviewed data, leaving room for skepticism.

Alliances and the Politics of Addition

Perhaps the most politically charged element of Ashe’s leadership is his strategy of forming alliances across ideological divides. The so-called “politics of addition”—an approach that seeks to broaden support by including a wider range of stakeholders—has led to unexpected collaborations, including with historically adversarial groups like PETA.

While such outreach might suggest a more inclusive AZA, it also raises concerns about diluted standards and a potential drift from the mission. Can an organization uphold strict animal welfare benchmarks while aligning itself with groups whose views on captivity are fundamentally opposed? The result has been occasional mixed messaging and internal friction, with some questioning whether this form of diplomacy sacrifices clarity for the sake of coalition-building.

A Legacy Still in the Balance

Dan Ashe’s AZA has undeniably expanded its profile and ambitions, positioning accredited zoos and aquariums as key players in the fight for biodiversity. But questions remain about transparency, accountability, and the actual conservation impact of its member institutions.

For an organization that brands itself as the global gold standard, the stakes are high. As the public becomes more critical of traditional models of wildlife captivity and conservation, it’s fair to ask: Is the AZA truly evolving, or simply managing the optics? Under Ashe’s leadership, the AZA has effectively conveyed its message, but the outcomes behind the headlines remain an open question. [NG-FA]