Why did the Waikiki Aquarium lose its accreditation?

The Waikiki Aquarium is seeking a curator to care for the animals and manage the exhibits staff. This should be a golden opportunity for a talented, skilled individual who wants to share and enlighten the public about the diversity of life in the sea. But for the last people in this position, it was a nightmare. None of them lasted more than two years since the current director, Andrew Rossiter, was hired in 2004.

We are also concerned that the Aquarium lost several rare Australian leafy seadragons, each valued at more than $7,000 apiece. And recently, the Aquarium lost two of its three giant clams, one of which was 33 years old. The Waikiki Aquarium was the first to display this species, and it took years to perfect the life support system, but it had been stable with no losses for many years. 

The oldest giant clam that died was part of the first commercial spawning of this species that took place in Palau in March 1982. It was the sole survivor of that historic event; it was even featured in a TED talk (video podcast that shares ideas). Losses like these are significant and tragic, but also predictable given the turnover of curatorial staff.

What is going on at the Waikiki Aquarium — a facility that is partly supported by taxpayer dollars and administered by the University of Hawaii?

We have urged Director Rossiter and the University of Hawaii to seek re-accreditation through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Rossiter unilaterally allowed the Aquarium’s accreditation to lapse in March 2005. It is our contention that Hawaii taxpayers should have assurance, through a comprehensive independent accreditation review, that the Waikiki Aquarium is being managed to professional standards in husbandry, education, conservation, research, finances, staffing, safety and more. We do not have that assurance now, and we have justifiable concerns for the safety of the animals and staff.  

We were astonished when the University of Hawaii responded: “The certification process is labor intensive” and comes with costs that are not commensurate with the benefits. To the contrary, AZA accreditation offers professional improvement opportunities for staff, a greater opportunity to exchange animals, more grant opportunities, and credibility and assurance that professional standards are being met. The argument that AZA membership requires free admission for reciprocating institutions is false. 

The curators who most recently served at the Waikiki Aquarium were all highly qualified and eager to serve at an institution that had an international reputation for innovation and excellence. Each of them was terminated abruptly and at great personal expense. 

We hope the Waikiki Aquarium will be successful in finding another individual with the skills necessary to care for the valuable aquatic animals that reside at the Aquarium. Perhaps he or she might also convince the director and the university that everyone is best served by once again joining the distinguished roster of aquariums accredited by the AZA.