Dan Ashe’s leadership of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has become a case study in institutional self-sabotage. Like Neville Chamberlain’s misguided belief that he could negotiate with those committed to destruction, Ashe continues to pursue “dialogue” with organizations whose explicit mission is eliminating the very institutions he represents. This appeasement strategy has yielded predictable results: repeated humiliation, strategic defeats, and growing damage to the zoo community’s public standing.
Legitimizing the Enemy
The most damaging aspect of Ashe’s approach isn’t his individual media failures, though those are numerous, but his systematic legitimization of the anti-zoo movement. By repeatedly platforming organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States at AZA events, Ashe has granted official recognition to groups that view his members as fundamentally illegitimate.
This isn’t a case of engaging with constructive critics or good-faith skeptics. PETA has stated clearly that it considers zoos to be “prisons” and campaigns actively for their closure. HSUS shares this ultimate goal, despite occasionally using more moderate language. These organizations don’t seek reform or improvement—they seek elimination. Ashe’s decision to give them speaking slots and exhibition space at AZA conferences represents a fundamental betrayal of his fiduciary duties.
The Swaziland Elephant Disaster
Ashe’s participation in the New York Times magazine piece on Swaziland elephant imports perfectly encapsulates his strategic incompetence. Faced with a straightforward conservation story—elephants saved from euthanization through placement in accredited facilities—Ashe somehow managed to hand his opponents a public relations victory.
The writer’s anti-zoo bias was readily apparent and easily discernible. His 2011 statement that zoos “should be obviated” was available through basic research. Any competent communications strategy would have either declined participation or prepared extensively for a hostile interview. Instead, Ashe walked unprepared into an apparent ambush, providing quotes that were used to portray zoo conditions as “torturous” and the entire elephant transfer program as problematic.
The aftermath was even more embarrassing. The writer subsequently gave interviews reiterating his anti-zoo positions while taking personal shots at Ashe, demonstrating that the AZA CEO had been played from the beginning. This wasn’t dialogue—it was manipulation, with Ashe as the willing victim.
The PETA Connection
The elephant import story reveals another layer of Ashe’s strategic blindness. PETA had previously litigated to block elephant transfers from Swaziland, with their attorneys arguing in court that elephants would be better off dead than in human care. This is the same organization that Ashe has welcomed into AZA conferences, legitimizing their presence among the very professionals they seek to eliminate.
PETA’s position on elephant transfers—that death is preferable to zoo life—exposes the radical nature of their agenda. These aren’t animal welfare advocates seeking better conditions; they’re abolitionists who prefer animal death to human care. Ashe’s continued engagement with such groups reveals either profound naivety or willful blindness to their true nature.
The Consequences of Appeasement
Ashe’s appeasement strategy has created tangible harm for AZA members. Every platform he provides to anti-zoo activists generates content used in campaigns against individual facilities. Every legitimization of radical positions makes it harder for zoo professionals to defend their work in local communities. Every strategic surrender weakens the entire industry’s position in public debates about animal welfare and conservation.
The damage extends beyond public relations to the animals themselves. Modern accredited zoos contribute significantly to conservation through breeding programs, research, and public education. Efforts to undermine public support for these institutions ultimately harm the species they work to protect. Ashe’s failures don’t just embarrass his profession—they threaten the conservation mission that justifies the entire endeavor.
A Crisis of Leadership
The comparison to Neville Chamberlain isn’t merely a rhetorical flourish—it’s an accurate assessment of Ashe’s fundamental misunderstanding of conflict dynamics. Like Chamberlain, Ashe seems to believe that good intentions and a willingness to compromise can overcome ideological opposition committed to total victory. History shows how such strategies typically end.
Professional associations exist to advance their members’ interests, not to provide platforms for their destruction. Zoo and aquarium professionals deserve leadership that recognizes threats and responds strategically, not a CEO who repeatedly empowers those seeking to eliminate their life’s work. Until Ashe abandons his appeasement strategy or AZA finds new leadership, the organization will continue to suffer self-inflicted wounds that weaken its ability to serve both its members and the animals in their care.