“Program animal welfare:
A scoping review of animal interaction programs and their welfare impact on zoo-housed animals.
What happens when the guest has paid—but the animal is supposed to be able to say no?
ㅤ
AZA Says Welfare and Conservation Come First. What Does That Mean in Practice?
ㅤ
Ambassador animals appear in zoo presentations, outreach programs, private encounters and premium experiences—sometimes for an additional fee.
ㅤ
AZA openly acknowledges this commercial reality. In its article “Striking a Balance: Ambassador Animals and Revenue Generation,” AZA says revenue-generating programs can benefit institutions, but draws an important line:
ㅤ
Animal welfare and conservation should come before revenue.
ㅤ
So what does that mean from the animal’s perspective?
ㅤ
AZA emphasizes choice and control. Animals may decline participation, appearances can be changed or canceled, and programs may limit frequency and duration. These principles matter particularly when guests have paid for an experience. If choice is meaningful, an animal’s ability not to participate must remain meaningful too.
ㅤ
But policies describe what responsible programs are intended to look like. Welfare science asks what animals actually experience.
ㅤ
A 2026 scoping review in Applied Animal Behaviour Science examined 22 years of research on animal-interaction programs. Only 49 peer-reviewed articles met the researchers’ criteria. Reported welfare outcomes were 46.1% neutral, 28.1% positive and 25.8% negative.
ㅤ
Those numbers are not a scorecard. The researchers found an uneven evidence base, often involving small numbers of animals, with important questions about long-term effects and individual differences remaining unanswered.
ㅤ
One observation is particularly important:
ㅤ
The absence of negative welfare indicators does not necessarily demonstrate positive welfare.
ㅤ
There is nothing inherently wrong with zoos generating revenue, and charging for an encounter does not establish poor welfare.
ㅤ
But revenue introduces legitimate questions. How frequently does an animal participate? How is it transported? What behaviors are expected? How is welfare measured? And can the animal genuinely decline—even when people have paid to see it?
ㅤ
If conservation education is the purpose, we can also ask whether the educational message remains more important than simply providing unusual proximity to a wild animal.
ㅤ
None of this means ambassador programs are inherently harmful. Nor should we assume established practices are automatically benign.
ㅤ
AZA says welfare should come before revenue. Science tells us welfare needs to be measured.
ㅤ
Which leaves an important question:
ㅤ
When an animal becomes part of the experience being sold, how do we ensure the ambassador hasn’t gradually become the attraction?
ㅤ
Sources:
AZA — “Striking a Balance: Ambassador Animals and Revenue Generation”; AZA Ambassador Animal Resources.
ㅤ
Cooper-Rogers, B., Klingner, P., Whittaker, A., Forder, R., & Fernandez, E. J. (2026). “Program animal welfare:
A scoping review of animal interaction programs and their welfare impact on zoo-housed animals.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 297, 106919.
KeepingWildlifeWild.org
Evidence – Education – Accountability
