It’s unclear what, if any, qualifications letter-writer Len Bach has to opine on the terms of the Pittsburgh Zoo’s lease with the city (“Pittsburgh Zoo’s accreditation doesn’t break lease,” March 15, TribLIVE). As a law professor, I assure you that if the lease requires accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) — and I’ve reviewed the lease, and it unequivocally does — and the zoo has forfeited such accreditation — and it did, rather than follow elephant handling safety requirements — then the zoo is violating the lease.
And contrary to Bach’s assertions — and the suggestions of this paper’s editorial board (“Pittsburgh should OK zoo accreditation,” March 6, TribLIVE) — the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) is not “just as qualified” as the AZA. As I’ve written about in peer-reviewed scholarship, the ZAA was created to promote the interests of animal exploiters. In contrast to the AZA — widely recognized as the gold-standard accrediting body for animal exhibitors — the ZAA’s standards are weak and vague.
As a result, the ZAA routinely accredits exhibitors with records of animal abuse and neglect. The Pittsburgh Zoo is no exception: Over less than six years, it racked up three federal animal welfare enforcement actions.
The zoo’s lease specifically requires AZA accreditation for good reason: because it is meaningful.
Delcianna J. Winders
Portland, Ore.