Ambassador Animals and the Animal Welfare Act: A Regulatory Gap in Law and Practice

Olivia Sedita

Introduction

In zoos and wildlife centers across the United States, visitors are often invited to interact with live animals through experiences commonly referred to as “ambassador animal” programs. These encounters are typically presented as educational opportunities intended to teach the public about different species and encourage conservation—a framing that obscures more difficult questions about what the programs actually accomplish and at what cost. In particular, these programs raise significant concerns about animal welfare and whether such encounters produce the educational or behavioral outcomes they purport to achieve. They also implicate broader ethical questions about the use of individual animals as means to serve human educational ends.

Despite these concerns, the primary federal law governing animals used in exhibition, the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”), does not directly address the distinct conditions or justifications underlying ambassador animal programs. The result is a regulatory framework that leaves much of this practice unexamined, reflecting a broadening gap between evolving animal welfare concerns and the scope of existing legal protections.

What Are Ambassador Animals?

While the term ambassador animal is widely used in zoological and wildlife educational contexts, it has no formal legal definition under the AWA.1 Due to a lack of formal legal definition, the term is defined and operationalized by industries, primarily zoological organizations such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (“AZA”).2 The AZA defines ambassador animals as animals presented to the public for educational and conservation purposes that are used in live demonstrations, outreach, and interactive programming.3 The resulting regulatory gap created by the lack of formal definition causes ambassador animals to function as a category defined by practice rather than regulation, emphasizing their role as tools for education and connection rather than as a legally distinct class of animals with specialized protections.

Within this framework, exhibitors select ambassador animals for use based on their individual temperament, species traits, and most importantly, their ability to be trained or conditioned for human interaction.4 Animals that are more tolerant of handling and less reactive to novel environments are ideal candidates because ambassador animals are repeatedly used in educational programming that often involves direct or near-direct human interaction.5 Typical activities for ambassador animals include live demonstrations at zoos or other animal related facilities, classroom visits, or other public outreach events.6 Unlike animals passively displayed in wildlife centers or zoos, ambassador animals are regularly handled, exposed to unfamiliar humans and environments, and frequently transported between locations for the programs.7 These conditions, characterized by chronic interactions with humans, are unnatural to the animals and cause cumulative stress that can manifest physically and behaviorally.8 The persistence of these programs despite documented welfare failures suggests that the educational and institutional value of ambassador animals to humans is often prioritized over the animals’ welfare.

This model of use stems from ambassador animals’ origin; they are often sourced from wildlife rehabilitation programs and consist of individuals deemed non-releasable due to injury or habituation to humans.9 The core justification given by program administrators for this model is that ambassador animals promote conservation awareness in and emotional connection with the public.10 Despite this reasoning, there is a clear tension between the welfare of individual animals and advancing species-level welfare or educational goals.

Legal Framework: Animal Welfare Act

The AWA regulates the use of animals on public display through its oversight of “exhibitors,” a category which includes individuals and entities that exhibit animals to the public for compensation or educational purposes.11 This broad definition encompasses well-known entities such as zoos and aquaria but also captures smaller wildlife centers and individuals that incorporate animals into educational programming.

The expansive scope of the exhibitor definition is particularly significant because it dictates the breadth and limits of federal oversight of ambassador animals. Because the AWA focuses on exhibitors and not specific uses of animals, it primarily regulates the conditions under which animals are maintained rather than the purposes for which they are used.12 As a result, ambassador animals are subject to the same baseline standards that apply to all exhibited animals including animals in static zoo enclosures or circus shows, despite their unique role in educational sessions entailing repeated handling and close interaction with the public.

The AWA is enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”).13 APHIS establishes minimum standards for the humane handling, housing, feeding, sanitation, and transportation of regulated animals.14 APHIS standards are intended to ensure basic levels of animal care across a range of settings and address enclosure requirements, environmental conditions, veterinary care, and general handling practices.15 While the standards cover a wide array of animal care issues, they do not account for the unique conditions ambassador animals face: frequent handling, prolonged public interactions, and repeated exposure to novel environments.

These limitations reflect a broader structural issue: the AWA treats all exhibited animals as functionally equivalent for regulatory purposes, regardless of the nature or intensity of their use. Even more concerning, some scholars have observed that the current APHIS standards regarding the care of ambassador animals are structured around minimum standards which may permit, and in some cases normalize, practices that fall quite short of promoting animal well-being;16 this creates a regulatory gap in which the unique welfare considerations associated with ambassador animal programs fall through the cracks.

Welfare Risks

Because ambassador animal programs inherently involve repeated human interaction and mandatory animal participation or performance, they raise significant animal welfare concerns, many of which are unique to the ambassador animal model. Research has indicated that ambassador animals experience frequent and direct contact with humans which can function as a stressor depending on the animal’s ability to control or predict the interaction.17 Studies have revealed behavioral and physiological indicators suggesting that high-intensity handling and prolonged participation in ambassador animal programs may negatively affect welfare, including increased glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations, increased undesirable behaviors, and reduced rest in some species.18 Although animals may seem calm to handlers or the audience, their demeanor does not necessarily indicate positive welfare, as animals frequently adapt behaviorally to mask stress through a condition called “learned helplessness” in which an animal learns that, no matter what it does, it cannot escape an aversive stimulus and subsequently gives up trying.19

Another central welfare concern for ambassador animals is the reduction of choice and control which research has identified as a key determinant of overall well-being.20 When animals are required to participate in handling or programming, particularly under time or performance constraints, interactions can quickly become coercive rather than voluntary.21 Because ambassador animals are often hand selected and trained specifically to tolerance human handling, suppression of species-typical avoidance or defensive behaviors can easily result.22 This dynamic creates a disconnect between observable behavior and underlying welfare, complicating assessments of whether ambassador animals’ experiences are truly positive.23

Ambassador animals are also frequently housed and managed in ways that prioritize ease of access, preventing the full expression of natural behaviors.24 Even compared to animals in static zoo or aquarium exhibits, they may have less space, reduced social opportunities, and more disruptions to their routines.25 While industry guidelines may emphasize welfare considerations in public facing materials, ultimately these protections are highly dependent on institutional practices and have no uniform enforcement mechanism across facilities.26

Taken together, existing research suggests that ambassador animal programs may involve notable tradeoffs of ideal animal welfare for educational accessibility.

Educational Effectiveness

Ambassador animal programs are frequently justified on the basis that they enhance public education and promote habitat conservation.27 Industry advocates emphasize that close encounters with live animals create memorable experiences and inspire visitors in a way that other educational presentations cannot.28 In fact, 75% of institutions included in the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums use ambassador animal programs.29 While the educational benefits of ambassador animal programs are widely cited and accepted as justification for their existence, the extent to which they produce measurable changes in knowledge or behavior remains questionable.

Empirical research examining ambassador animal programs has found no clear evidence that such interactions significantly improve visitors’ conservation knowledge or related behaviors.30 In particular, a recent study suggests that while visitors may report positive experiences after viewing the ambassador animal program, these interactions do not necessarily translate into lasting cognitive or behavioral change.31 Other research questions whether ambassador animal programs in zoos meaningfully influence conservation outcomes at all, noting that self-reported engagement often exceeds any demonstrable impact.32 Ambassador animal encounters can increase visitor curiosity and perceived connection to animals in the short term, but these effects do not typically lead to long-term behaviorally significant changes.33 At the same time, some studies suggest that the welfare impacts of ambassador animal programs may vary depending on species, individual temperament, and program design, indicating that outcomes are not uniform across institutions.34

In summary, the available research suggests a distinction between audience engagement and true effectiveness. While ambassador animal programs may succeed in generating curiosity and capturing attention, evidence that they provide meaningful changes in knowledge or conservation-related outcomes is limited. The gap between the industry justifications for use of ambassador animals and the true impact on the audience raises important questions about whether the educational benefits used to justify such programs are sufficient to outweigh the potential welfare costs associated with these programs.

Ethical Concerns

Even setting aside concerns about animal welfare and the uncertain educational effectiveness of ambassador animal programs, a more fundamental ethical question emerges: is it appropriate to use individual animals as instruments for education in any context? From an animal ethics perspective, ambassador animals may be understood primarily as instruments for achieving the institutional objectives of education and conservation messaging.35 In this framework, animals are valued principally for their utility to humans rather than as individuals with independent interests.36

A central ethical issue regarding the use of ambassador animals is the extent to which animals can exercise meaningful choice over participation in handling, transport, or public interaction. Research emphasizes that control over one’s environment is a key component of animal welfare, suggesting that even low stress programs that have limited schedules and minimize physical contact with the audience can involve ethically problematic constraints.37 More broadly, critiques of animal exhibition argue that using animals for display or education inherently involves prioritizing human interests over the autonomy and natural lives of animals, regardless of the quality of care provided.38 Ethical concerns are only amplified where the benefits of ambassador programs remain uncertain, undermining arguments that such use is justified by conservation or educational outcomes.

Ultimately, ethical concerns surrounding ambassador animal programs extend beyond questions of welfare and effectiveness and suggest that the use of animals in this context may be difficult to justify even under improved welfare conditions.

Law vs. Practice Gap

The AWA provides a framework for regulating animals used in exhibitions, but its protections are limited to general standards of care and handling that govern the conditions under which animals are kept, rather than the purposes for which they are used.39 As a result, animals used in intensive educational programming are treated no differently from those in traditional zoo exhibit settings, despite significant differences in handling, transport, and human interaction that create distinct welfare risks. Notably, industry guidance reflects an awareness of these risks: the AZA has issued recommendations addressing factors such as handling duration, frequency of interaction, and animal suitability.40 However, these standards are all voluntary and do not have enforceable protections under the AWA.41

At the same time, the AWA does not evaluate or condition its regulations on whether the use of ambassador animals produces meaningful educational or conservation benefits, despite those benefits serving as the primary justification for the practice. More fundamentally, the statute does not engage at all with the ethical implications of using animals as instruments for human education. These conclusions reflect a broader limitation of the AWA as a regulatory scheme: it is one designed to mitigate harm within accepted uses of animals, rather than to question or restrict those uses themselves. Through this lens, a gap emerges between the realities of ambassador animal programs and the scope of existing legal protections, leaving significant welfare, effectiveness, and ethical concerns unaddressed within the current framework.

These limitations are compounded in practice by persistent challenges in the enforcement of the AWA’s preexisting standards.42 Enforcement actions by the USDA have been widely criticized as inadequate.43 A recent analysis of enforcement data found a sharp reduction in the use of penalties for AWA violations, with the USDA increasingly relying on official warnings that carry little or no meaningful consequence.44

As a result, even the AWA’s most basic protections are failing to operate effectively, which only serves to widen the gap between the statute’s formal requirements and the living conditions of animals used in the ambassador program.

Conclusion

Overall, ambassador animal programs are widely used across zoos, aquaria, and sanctuaries, where they are typically justified as educational tools that promote conservation and public engagement. However, a closer examination of these programs reveals well-supported welfare risks to the animals and limited evidence of educational effectiveness. Additionally, an ethical examination raises the question of whether the use of ambassador animals can ever be justified, even where welfare standards are high and educational benefits are demonstrable. Despite all of these concerns, the only regulatory body for ambassador animal programs, the AWA, fails to contemplate many of the above issues. At a minimum, these findings suggest a need for more targeted consideration of how ambassador animal programs are regulated, particularly with respect to distinct welfare and ethical concerns associated with their use.

Endnotes

1 Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2132 (defining regulated terms but not “ambassador animal”).

2 See Karlyn Marcy, Striking a Balance: Ambassador Animals and Revenue Generation, Ass’n of Zoos & Aquariums (Apr. 27, 2022), https://www.aza.org/connect-stories/stories/striking-a-balance-ambassador-animals-revenue-generation.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 See id.

6 Id.

7 Linda Lanzl, The Ethical Concerns of Using Wild Animals as Ambassadors, Safe Worldwide, https://safeworldwide.org/the-ethical-concerns-of-using-wild-animals-as-ambassadors/ (last visited June 9, 2026).

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 7 U.S.C. § 2132(h).

12 See id.; 7 U.S.C. § 2143.

13 9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1–3.168.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 See, e.g., Justin Marceau, How the Animal Welfare Act Harms Animals, 69 Hastings L.J. 925, 955–59 (2018).

17 E.g., Margaret Ramont et al., The Welfare of Domestic Goats (Capra hircus) in a Zoo-Based Animal-Visitor Interaction Program, 8 Animal Behav. & Cognition 493, 503–04 (2021).

18 Sarah L. Spooner et al., Conservation Education: Are Zoo Animals Effective Ambassadors and Is There Any Cost to Their Welfare?, 2 J. Zoological & Botanical Gardens 41, 54 (2021).

19 Steve Martin et al., A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Training Practices and Welfare in the Management of Ambassador Animals, 14 Animals 736 (2024).

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Lanzl, supra note 7.

25 Id.

26 See Marcy, supra note 2.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Daniel Kirsch et al., Ambassador Animals Do Not Have a Clear Effect on Visitor Conservation Knowledge and Attitudes, 44 Zoo Biology 36, 37 (2025).

30 Id. at 36.

31 Id.

32 Spooner et al., supra note 18, at 61.

33 Shelley J. Rank et al., The Impact of Ambassador Animal Facilitated Programs on Visitor Curiosity and Connections: A Mixed-Methods Study, 8 Animal Behav. & Cognition 558, 569–71 (2021).

34 E.g., Spooner et al., supra note 18, at 60.

35 Dale Jamieson, Against Zoos, in In Defense of Animals (Peter Singer ed., 2d ed. 2006).

36 Id.

37 Martin et al., supra note 19.

38 Jamieson, supra note 35.

39 Tala M. DiBenedetto, Detailed Discussion of Welfare Standards for Animals Used in Zoos and Exhibition, Animal Legal & Hist. Ctr., https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-welfare-standards-animals-used-zoos-and-exhibition (last visited June 9, 2026).

40 Ambassador Animal Guidelines, Ass’n of Zoos & Aquariums, https://www.aza.org/ambassador-animal-guidelines (last visited June 9, 2026).

41 Id.

42 E.g., New Analysis: Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Deteriorates Following SCOTUS Ruling, Animal Welfare Inst. (Oct. 8, 2025), https://awionline.org/content/new-analysis-animal-welfare-act-enforcement-deteriorates-following-scotus-ruling.

43 Id.

44 Id.

Author Bio

Olivia Sedita, J.D., is a practicing attorney based in Washington, D.C. with experience in regulatory law. She is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Animal Law at Lewis & Clark Law School and anticipates completing the program in 2027. Olivia serves on the board of the Wildlife Rescue League of Northern Virginia, where she supports efforts focused on wildlife rehabilitation, education, and community engagement. Her primary interests in animal law include farmed animal protection, wildlife policy, and the ethical and legal implications of human use of animals. Olivia’s advocacy is grounded in a commitment to advancing systemic change for animals through legal and policy reform.