Position Statements

Unaccredited Zoological Facilities: Risks and Recommendations

April 1, 2025

Position

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) holds that non-domesticated (wild/‘exotic’) animals held under human care for any purpose have highly specific physical, mental, and social needs, and their captivity can potentially place them as well as other animals, people, and the environment at risk. The CVMA calls on all Canadians to ensure that zoological facilities they support meet standards set by established accrediting bodies. Animals should only be held in zoological facilities where the benefits of a captive existence are linked to biodiversity conservation, and/or when ongoing dedicated care by experienced caretakers is necessary for the animal's wellbeing. All facilities holding non-domesticated animals for any purpose should be required to comply with nationally harmonized and widely accepted standards set by recognized animal health, husbandry, and behavioural experts. The CVMA calls on the federal government to promote conservation, biodiversity, and work collaboratively with subject matter experts to protect species.

Summary

  • Zoological facilities refers to zoos, aquariums, wild/exotic animal sanctuaries and rescues, private collections (‘menageries’/‘roadside zoos’), and exotic animal entertainment enterprises (e.g. petting zoo, circus). It does not refer to animals held in facilities where research is the primary focus and covered by government oversight or under the auspices of the Canadian Council for Animal Care (CCAC).
  • Owing to the biodiversity crisis, modern zoological facilities with a focus on in-situ and ex-situ conservation and care efforts, research, and education are necessary.
  • Animals, the public, and the environment can be at risk when wild animals are held in unregulated facilities.
  • Governing accreditation bodies exist to ensure appropriate and safe management of zoological species.
  • Accreditation is considered the gold standard for ethical holding of zoological species. Standards such as those set by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA1) , the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA2) and the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS3) are science-based and developed by experts, and all wild/exotic animal holding facilities should be mandated to adhere to these standards.
  • Guidelines and standards should be harmonized nationally.

1 CAZA’s accreditation program revolves around the principle that zoos and aquariums have a critical role to play in supporting species conservation and biodiversity and that to play that role effectively, they must be guided by the highest standards of safety and animal care, as well as by clear education strategies and goals. CAZA’s accreditation standards are designed to promote professionalism in all aspects of zoo and aquarium management, ensuring the best possible care for the animals the facilities are entrusted with.

2 AZA is committed to being a global leader in promoting species conservation and animal welfare by leveraging the size, scope, expertise, and public trust of its member institutions. Its performance-based accreditation standards are scientifically based and publicly available and examine the zoo or aquarium’s entire operation, including animal welfare, veterinary care, conservation, education, guest services, physical facilities, safety, staffing, finance, and governing body.

3 GFAS has a mission to accredit and recognize sanctuaries and rescue centers, support them to achieve the highest standards of excellence, promote collaboration, and raise awareness of their work.

Background

  1. Increasingly, over the past 40+ years, there has been a positive coordinated movement of modern zoological and aquariological facilities around core values based on animal care, health and welfare, public safety, and conservation-based research and education.
    1. Modern zoos and aquariums are conservation-based organizations that are accredited through national or regional associations with robust accreditation standards that evaluate best practices in animal care, health and welfare, biodiversity conservation initiatives and funding, research and education, and green practices.
    2. Loss of global biodiversity is an EcoHealth4 issue that impacts animals, people, and the environment (1). There has been increased awareness of the worsening biodiversity losses (‘biodiversity crisis’) over the past few decades. To address this crisis, zoological institutions have evolved their missions to be increasingly conservation-based and contribute to in-situ and ex-situ biodiversity conservation. This can include many types of programs, including wildlife and botanical reintroductions and translocations (2,3).
  2. In Canada, CAZA serves as the national accreditation body for zoos and aquariums, while AZA sets standards that can be referenced throughout North America for zoo and aquarium accreditation. These associations will grant accreditation after a rigorous and thorough inspection of each facility and its operations and will provide guidance and standards to operate under the best science and evidence-based practices. There is annual attestation required and a cycle of accreditation inspections (4,5). The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries is responsible for a similar accreditation process for sanctuaries and rescue centers (6).
  3. Unfortunately, accreditation is not mandatory and the care of animals and public safety at non-accredited facilities is left to provincial government oversight that may provide only minimal regulatory protections and limited enforcement.
  4. Across Canada, there remain numerous unaccredited zoological facilities keeping wild (indigenous and/or non-native or ‘exotic”) animals in captivity on a long-term basis (up to and including the entirety of the animals' lives), generally with a recreational and/or educational goal, with profits being driven by public attendance.
    1. While many persons with animal holding facilities have good intentions and may accept wild animals that have been abandoned by people who purchased them as pets but were unable to provide for their needs, they are often ill-equipped to meet the highly specific health and welfare needs of these animals.
    2. Currently, there is no national or consistent provincial legislation ensuring the welfare and protection of these animals, public safety and/or preventing environmental (biosanitary) contamination (e.g., escape proof facilities) from these unaccredited facilities.
    3. What rules exist are inconsistently enforced, placing animal welfare, human safety, biodiversity and ecosystem health at risk (7-12). Examples include:
      1. Facilities that accept payment to interact with large exotic cats, bears, or primates, where these animals are segregated from their dam prior to weaning to maximize the likelihood of complacency.
      2. Inadequate separation and escapes (non-intentional and intentional) can lead to human maulings and other injuries, death of people, and destruction of animals.
      3. Competition with, and introduction of disease (e.g. chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis, avian influenza), into native wild species or spillover to humans and/or domesticated species.
      4. Inadequate housing, space and enrichments to provide for animals’ needs.
      5. Staff training and expertise in the basic physical, mental, social, environmental, nutritional, and veterinary needs of the animals is substandard in many of these facilities.
      6. Financial stability may not be sufficient to provide for the long-term care of these animals, and in such a case, there is often no contingency plan for them, which can lead to dire outcomes (seizure, euthanasia, exotic animal menageries, etc.).
      7. As accreditation is not mandatory to operate a zoological facility in Canada, non-accredited facilities continue their operations with very little accountability related to animal welfare, public safety and environmental damage.
  5. The CVMA supports the national harmonization of regulatory oversight and compliance with a recognized zoological accrediting organization (e.g. CAZA, AZA, GFAS) science-based standards for all facilities holding captive wild/exotic animals for any purpose to ensure good welfare and wellbeing, and support conservation efforts (13).
    1. Other than the Canadian Criminal Code, which is intended for egregious willful harm to animals, there is currently no national regulatory body that governs the welfare of wild animals held in animal holding facilities.
    2. Federal bills have been proposed to protect individual species, but provincial laws are designed to address concerns related to the welfare of animals within specific provinces.
    3. The CVMA supports randomized third-party audits against accepted standards and the rigid enforcement of non-compliances.
    4. The CVMA also supports public education on the importance of accreditation programs for zoological facilities (14).

4EcoHealth is a field of practice and research that focuses on sustainable interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to promote the health and wellness of animals, humans, and ecosystems.

References

  1. Cork, SC, Whiteside DP. Introduction to EcoHealth, One Health, and ecosystem health. In: Cork SC, Whiteside DP, editors. Case Studies in Ecohealth: Examining the Interaction between Animals and their Environment. 5m Books Ltd; 2024. Pp1-7
  2. Olive A, Jansen K. The role of accredited zoos in the recovery process for species at risk in Canada. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien. 2017; 61(3):319-333.
  3. Whiteside DP. EcoHealth, conservation medicine, and the role of the modern zoo. In: Cork SC, Whiteside DP, editors. Case Studies in Ecohealth: Examining the Interaction between Animals and their Environment. 5m Books Ltd; 2024. Pp 11-23.
  4. Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums. Accreditation. Available at: https://caza.ca/process-and-criteria 
  5. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. About AZA Accreditation. Available at: https://www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation
  6. Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. Accreditation. Available at: https://sanctuaryfederation.org/accreditation/
  7. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Keeping Wild (Native or Exotic) Animals as Pets. 2022. https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/policy-and-outreach/positionstatements/statements/keeping-wild-native-or-exotic-animals-as-pets/.
  8. Riedman KK, Cunningham GB, DiVincenti L. Does accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums correlate with Animal Welfare Act compliance? J Appl Animal Welfare Sci. 2023; 26(4): 685-692.
  9. Sanaba MG. USDA vs. AZA: Playing with Tiger Cubs Isn't All It's Cracked up to Be. J. Corp. L.. 2022; 48:407.
  10. Nyhus PJ, Tilson RL, Tomlinson JL. Dangerous animals in captivity: Ex situ tiger conflict and implications for private ownership of exotic animals. Zoo Biol: Published in affiliation with the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2003;22(6):573-86.
  11. Big Cat Alliance. Position statements. https://www.bigcatalliance.org/learn-more/
  12. Thomas VC. Roadside Zoo: A Term in Search of Legal Definition? Michigan Bar Journal (2022). 52-53. Available at https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=libsp
  13. Jodidio RL. The Animal Welfare Act is lacking: How to update the federal statute to improve zoo animal welfare. Golden Gate U. Envtl. LJ. 2020; 12:53.
  14. Sayers J. The influence of animal welfare accreditation programmes on zoo visitor perceptions of the welfare of zoo animals. J Zoo Aqua Res. 2020; 8(3):188-193.