The Big Cat Public Safety Act Was Intended to End Public Contact With Big Cats. So What Happens When AZA-Accredited Zoos Appear to Cross the Same Line?

The Big Cat Public Safety Act (BCPSA) was enacted to address a problem that animal-welfare organizations, accredited zoos and conservation advocates had warned about for years: members of the public being allowed dangerously close to lions, tigers and other big cats.
ㅤ
The law is often associated with roadside zoos and commercial cub-petting operations. But its restrictions on public contact with big cats do not apply only to roadside zoos.
ㅤ
That makes recent incidents involving Zoo Knoxville and Audubon Zoo—both accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)—particularly important. These institutions are part of the professional zoo community that supported stronger restrictions on private big-cat ownership and public contact.
ㅤ
Yet photographs and other documentation involving lion-cub encounters at these facilities raise an uncomfortable question: What happens when institutions associated with stronger protections for big cats appear to cross the very boundaries those protections established?

ZOO KNOXVILLE: DIRECT CONTACT WITH A LION CUB

Two African lion cubs were born at Zoo Knoxville on February 17, 2026. After one of the cubs died, the surviving cub was hand-raised by zoo staff.
ㅤ
On April 7, photographs documented visitors participating in an encounter with the young lion in which members of the public were permitted direct physical contact with the cub. Additional documentation showed another group—including children and a Tennessee state senator—participating in close contact with the lion cub.
ㅤ
That distinction matters because the Big Cat Public Safety Act established restrictions intended to eliminate direct public contact with covered big cats, including cubs. An animal being young, hand-raised or accustomed to people does not by itself remove it from the law's protections.
ㅤ
The important question is therefore not whether the interaction appeared controlled or whether the cub was accustomed to human handling. It is whether the encounter complied with the federal requirements governing public contact with big cats.

AUDUBON ZOO: NO TOUCHING REQUIRED FOR THE QUESTION TO MATTER

The circumstances documented at Audubon Zoo require more careful language.
ㅤ
Photographs show members of the public participating in close-range photo opportunities with lion cubs under four months old. The available photographs do not necessarily establish that every visitor shown touched or held the cubs.
ㅤ
But touching is not the only relevant consideration under the Big Cat Public Safety Act. For public exhibition, federal requirements generally address both direct contact and physical separation between protected big cats and members of the public.
ㅤ
That means the relevant question is not simply: “Did someone pet the lion?” It is also: “Was the public separated from the lion in the manner required by law?”
ㅤ
If visitors were permitted within a prohibited distance without a qualifying barrier or applicable legal exception, the absence of touching would not by itself resolve the compliance question. Determining whether a particular encounter violated federal law ultimately depends on the specific circumstances and applicable requirements.

WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND TWO LION CUBS

The significance of these incidents extends beyond Zoo Knoxville and Audubon Zoo.
ㅤ
AZA and many of its member institutions supported passage of the Big Cat Public Safety Act because public interaction with big cats raises legitimate concerns involving animal welfare, public safety and the normalization of wild animals as entertainment or photo opportunities.
ㅤ
Those principles should not change depending upon the institution providing the encounter. A lion cub does not become less wild because the facility displaying it is accredited, and a hand-raised cub does not cease to be a protected big cat simply because it has become accustomed to people.
ㅤ
Likewise, describing an encounter as educational, promotional, private, limited or unpaid does not by itself answer the legal question. Compliance depends upon what the law permits—not upon the reputation or intentions of the institution involved.

ACCREDITATION AND FEDERAL LAW ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Accreditation establishes institutional standards and professional expectations. It does not substitute for compliance with federal law.
ㅤ
That distinction is particularly important when accredited institutions have helped advocate for restrictions intended to address practices elsewhere in the captive-wildlife industry.
ㅤ
If roadside zoos, private owners and commercial exhibitors are expected to follow restrictions intended to protect big cats and the public, the credibility of those protections depends upon their consistent application.
ㅤ
This is not an argument against accreditation. It is an argument for the credibility of it.
ㅤ
Institutions that present themselves as leaders in animal welfare, public safety and conservation should be prepared to demonstrate the standards they ask others to follow.

ACCOUNTABILITY HAS TO APPLY CONSISTENTLY

The Big Cat Public Safety Act represented an important change in how the United States addresses private ownership of and public interaction with big cats. But the effectiveness of any animal-protection law depends not only on what it says—it also depends on how consistently its requirements are understood, followed and enforced.
ㅤ
When photographs appear to show conduct that raises legitimate compliance questions, those questions deserve examination regardless of whether the facility involved is a roadside attraction or an AZA-accredited zoo.
ㅤ
Accountability loses meaning when it depends upon who is being held accountable.
ㅤ
Because perhaps one of the most important tests of an animal-protection law is not whether we support it when it applies to someone else.
ㅤ
It is whether we expect the same standard when it applies to institutions we trust.
 

RELATED READING:

Explore related reporting on zoo oversight, regulation and accountability.
Who Reviews What Happens at the Zoo?
 

KeepingWildlifeWild.org
Evidence • Education • Accountability
 

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.