NOT A PET…UNTIL IT'S PART OF THE SHOW?
Part 1 of 3
Examining whether educational messages and educational experiences always tell the same story.
The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), in partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), encourages the public to remember an important message:
Wild and exotic animals are "Not a Pet."
The campaign highlights the illegal trade in live wildlife, the specialized needs of exotic species, potential disease risks, and the serious consequences that can follow when wild animals are purchased as pets. Featured species include primates, turtles, sugar gliders, reptiles, songbirds and macaws.
It is an important and widely supported message.
But it also raises an important question about educational consistency.
Across AZA-accredited institutions, visitors may also encounter wild animals presented as "ambassadors"—sometimes carried into audiences, positioned beside handlers, walked on leashes, perched on arms or shoulders, or featured in carefully managed close-contact presentations.
These programs are not isolated exceptions. AZA maintains an official Ambassador Animal Policy, requires accredited institutions to develop ambassador-animal policies, publishes species-specific Ambassador Animal Guidelines, and provides professional training devoted to ambassador-animal management and presentations.
The issue is not whether every ambassador-animal presentation is unsafe, poorly managed, or intentionally encourages exotic-pet ownership.
The more difficult question is whether the experience being demonstrated consistently reinforces the message being taught.
When a child sees:
• a wild cat calmly beside a trainer…
• a sloth carried into a classroom…
• an exotic bird perched on someone's shoulder…
• a wild animal walking through a public space on a leash…
Which lesson is most likely to be remembered?
The warning—or the experience?
AZA's own materials describe ambassador animals as a formal and significant component of zoo programming. A 2026 AZA article encouraged institutions to consider ambassador-animal programming and noted that traditional animal shows often attract reliable attendance.
That makes this more than a question about terminology.
It is a question about educational consistency.
People do not learn only from signs, lectures and carefully prepared talking points.
They also learn from what trusted institutions repeatedly demonstrate.
An educator may explain that a serval, sloth, macaw or primate should never be treated as a pet.
But when those same species are visually presented in ways that resemble calm, compliant companion animals, audiences may receive two competing messages at once.
This does not mean every visitor will leave wanting an exotic pet.
It does mean the apparent contradiction deserves careful examination.
Wild animals remain wild animals.
Their participation in educational presentations does not change their biology, their complex behavioral needs, or the realities of private ownership.
If zoos expect visitors to understand that wild animals are not pets, every part of the educational experience should reinforce that message—not compete with it.
Coming in Part II:
What does the scientific literature tell us about how people learn from educational experiences?
Evidence – Education – Accountability
KeepingWildlifeWild.org
