The Ambassador Animal Business
A Child’s Sloth Bite at Aloha Safari Park Raises Questions About Exotic Animal Encounters at it's Sister Facility
A child was bitten on the face during a sloth encounter at Aloha Safari Park in Cameron, North Carolina. Management told USDA inspectors that interactions with the sloth had stopped. Yet paid exotic animal encounters remain part of the business at Aloha and its sister facility, Zootastic Park in Troutman—including sloth encounters still advertised at Zootastic.
ㅤ
The two parks share an ownership history associated with Scottie Brown. Aloha’s own annual-pass page identifies Zootastic as its sister park and extends pass admission to both locations. That relationship makes the response to the bite relevant beyond one animal and one encounter: what lessons have been applied across the connected businesses?
ㅤ
What the USDA finding documented:
ㅤ
According to news coverage of the April 8, 2026, USDA inspection, visitors at Aloha were permitted to sit with a sloth placed in their lap while an attendant supervised. A manager told inspectors that the attendant was answering a parent’s question when the child leaned toward the animal to kiss or hug it. The sloth bit the child, who received treatment for a small wound on her chin. The exact incident date has not been independently established.
ㅤ
Inspectors found that the facility had failed to provide sufficient distance or a barrier to protect the public. Local reporting described the finding as a critical animal-handling violation. Management said public interactions with the sloth had been discontinued and the animal placed in quarantine.
ㅤ
The finding concerned the facility’s protective arrangements. Visitors had reportedly been instructed to keep their faces away from the animal, but that instruction did not prevent the injury. A child’s predictable movement during an encounter is a reason to design effective safeguards—not a reason to shift responsibility away from the business arranging the contact.
ㅤ
The encounter business continues:
ㅤ
As reviewed on October 8, 2026, Aloha’s website continues to offer 15-minute animal encounters and a one-hour package with a choice of four animals for up to four people, priced at $400. The park says available animals are rotated and advises visitors to call ahead. A supplied Aloha promotional graphic advertises capuchin and spider monkeys, kangaroos and African servals, as well as a two-toed sloth. Because that graphic is undated and still includes a sloth, it cannot establish that Aloha resumed sloth encounters after the USDA finding. It does document the range of animals used to market the encounter program.
ㅤ
At Zootastic, the continuing sloth offering is explicit. Its current website lists a 15-minute two-toed sloth encounter for $150 and encounters with ruffed lemurs, spider monkeys or servals for $125, for groups of up to five people; admission costs extra. Longer packages also advertise hands-on interactions with exotic animals.
ㅤ
The supplied social-media screenshots add context. A Zootastic post dated August 16 promotes a baby sloth for one-on-one encounters using the phrase “cuddle buddy.” A September 6 post advertises 15-minute encounters, including sloths and primates. A separate May 8 post thanks Zootastic personnel for bringing animals to a staff visit and shows people holding a sloth and a primate. The screenshots display month and day without a visible year; those dates should not be treated as independently verified 2026 publication dates.
ㅤ
What does the contact teach?
ㅤ
The parks promote memorable experiences and learning. The relevant question is whether touching, holding or posing with a wild animal is necessary to deliver that education—and what the animal gains from the arrangement. Biology, habitat protection and conservation threats can be explained through observation, interpretation and skilled teaching. The presence of educational commentary does not, by itself, justify public handling.
ㅤ
Describing a sloth as a cuddle companion also invites scrutiny. Such language presents a wild animal through the expectations people associate with an affectionate pet. After a child was bitten while reportedly attempting a kiss or hug at the sister facility, the way close contact is encouraged deserves particular attention.
ㅤ
The photographs document physical contact, not the animals’ internal experiences. They do not establish specific injuries, training methods or additional regulatory violations. Likewise, the Aloha citation does not establish a violation at Zootastic.
The documented concern is that close-contact encounters continue to be sold across connected facilities, while the protective failure at Aloha raises a broader question about the model itself.
ㅤ
What needs to change:
ㅤ
An injury during a paid wildlife encounter should prompt a review across the operation: which encounters involve public holding, how foreseeable visitor behavior is managed, whether animals can withdraw from contact, and what evidence supports the claimed educational and welfare benefits. Any claim that these practices serve conservation should identify a measurable conservation outcome.
ㅤ
Ending interactions with the sloth was a concrete response. Accountability also requires examining the other animals and encounters that remain. Visitors can support wildlife education that emphasizes observation, species-appropriate care and habitat protection, without purchasing the opportunity to hold a wild animal. The lasting lesson should be respect for wildlife—not the expectation of access to its body.
Related Reading:
Program animal welfare:
A scoping review of animal interaction programs
and their welfare impact on zoo-housed animals.
When Ambassador Animals Generate Revenue
Evidence • Education • Accountability
Sources:
● WRAL, published May 12 and updated May 13, 2026:
● The News & Observer, May 15, 2026
● Aloha Safari Park encounter page
● Zootastic Park encounter page
● Up & Coming Weekly, May 20, 2025
How You Can Help:
Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.
Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.
