Dan Ashe’s tenure as CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has been marked by a series of embarrassing media blunders that have left industry observers questioning whether he understands the very organizations he represents. From platforming radical animal rights activists to walking straight into journalistic ambushes, Ashe’s public relations decisions consistently harm the institutions that pay him to protect their interests.
The New York Times Fiasco
No incident better illustrates Ashe’s poor judgment than his participation in a New York Times magazine piece examining the import of elephants from Swaziland. The situation should have been straightforward from a public relations perspective: Swaziland faced an elephant overpopulation issue with two options—euthanize the animals or export them to accredited American zoos, where they would receive professional care. Most reasonable observers would see which option better serves animal welfare.
Instead of declining to participate or preparing a strategic response, Ashe walked directly into what any competent communications professional would have recognized as a trap. A basic Google search would have revealed that the Times writer had explicitly stated in a 2011 interview: “There’s no doubt in my mind that they [zoos] should be obviated.” The journalist’s anti-zoo agenda was publicly documented, yet Ashe chose to engage anyway.
The predictable result was a piece that described zoo conditions as potentially “torturous” and painted the elephant transfer in the worst possible light. To compound the humiliation, the writer later gave interviews reiterating his belief that zoos should be eliminated while taking additional shots at Ashe personally. The AZA CEO had handed his organization’s opponent both the platform and the ammunition to attack everything he claims to represent.
A Pattern of Poor Judgment
The New York Times debacle wasn’t an isolated incident but part of a troubling pattern. Ashe has repeatedly given platforms to organizations that explicitly seek to destroy zoos and aquariums. His decision to allow PETA—an organization that views zoos as “prisons” and openly campaigns for their elimination—to maintain a booth at AZA’s annual meeting defies rational explanation.
The comparison to allowing the KKK a booth at an NAACP meeting isn’t hyperbole—it’s an accurate assessment of giving your declared enemies official recognition at your professional gathering. PETA has previously litigated to prevent elephant transfers from Swaziland, with their lawyer arguing in court that elephants would be better off dead than in human care. This is the organization Ashe thought deserved legitimacy within AZA circles.
Enabling the Opposition
Ashe’s media missteps extend beyond poor tactical decisions to fundamental strategic failures. His willingness to engage with hostile journalists and platform radical activists has provided ammunition that continues to be used against AZA members. The anti-zoo movement doesn’t need to work as hard to undermine public confidence in zoos when the head of their professional association does much of the work for them.
The consequences extend far beyond public relations embarrassment. Every media disaster weakens the position of individual zoos when they face local challenges, provides talking points for activists seeking to restrict zoo operations, and undermines public support for the conservation work that legitimate zoological institutions perform.
Leadership Without Strategy
What makes Ashe’s failures particularly troubling is that they appear to have their roots in naivety rather than malice. His repeated statements about “dialogue” and “engagement” suggest that he genuinely believes productive conversations are possible with groups whose stated goal is to eliminate zoos. This misunderstanding of fundamental conflict dynamics would be concerning in any leadership position. Still, it’s particularly damaging when those mistakes harm both the professionals dedicated to animal care and the animals themselves.
Professional associations exist to protect and advance their members’ interests, not to provide platforms for their destruction. Ashe’s continued willingness to hand victories to zoo opponents raises fundamental questions about whether he understands his basic responsibilities as AZA’s chief executive.
The zoo and aquarium community deserves leadership that recognizes threats and responds strategically, not a CEO who repeatedly walks into obvious traps while claiming to serve the interests of the institutions paying his salary.