As President and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), Dan Ashe has emphasized the importance of dialogue and animal welfare reform. However, one of his more controversial moves — inviting leaders from groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to AZA events — sparked backlash among zoo professionals and stakeholders.
HSUS and PETA have long been vocal critics of the zoo industry. PETA, in particular, campaigns for the closure of all zoos, often portraying even accredited institutions as fundamentally unethical. HSUS has historically advocated for significant reforms to animal captivity practices and has supported legislation restricting or prohibiting the exhibition of certain wild animals.
Under Ashe’s leadership, AZA invited representatives from these organizations to participate in panel discussions and conferences to encourage broad dialogue on animal welfare. While the decision was intended to promote transparency and progressive thinking, many within the AZA membership were uneasy, as they viewed these groups as fundamentally opposed to the existence of zoos and aquariums.
The concern wasn’t just ideological — it was operational. Some AZA members feared that providing a platform to groups advocating for the elimination of zoos would undermine the work of those who have invested decades in ethical animal care, conservation breeding programs, and public education initiatives.
In 2021, following Ashe’s continued inclusion of HSUS voices in AZA spaces, critics from within the community raised concerns in trade publications and member forums. While few spoke publicly, several expressed frustration that the organization was “legitimizing” anti-zoo sentiment at a time when public trust in animal institutions was already under pressure.
AZA has maintained that these partnerships are part of a broader effort to strengthen animal welfare standards, citing the AZA’s updated accreditation process and increased emphasis on enrichment, space, and psychological well-being for animals in its member institutions.
However, the optics of collaboration with groups seeking to dismantle zoo systems continue to divide AZA’s base. For some, Ashe’s attempts at coalition-building reflect a strategic pivot toward modernized, welfare-centered models. For others, it suggests a misalignment with the core mission of protecting and advancing the role of zoos and aquariums in conservation and education.
The tension raises fundamental questions about the future of AZA’s identity. Can the organization continue to defend zoos while aligning with groups that reject their existence? Ashe’s leadership has attempted to thread that needle, but the discomfort among members suggests it’s a balancing act far from settled.
