For some animals, it is the only reason the species are still here/not endangered/threatened or at that risk anymore.
People also need to be careful about the words like "happy" and "dignity" when in the animal world. Those are very human specific traits with the way we use the words.
Animals have needs and content. If an animal does not have its needs met, it will not breed, eat or otherwise.
The fact that animals traditionally live as long or longer in captivity as well the fact we have learned to care for their needs on the planet better through these facilities means better things for their natural occurring environments. Even to the point of bettering themselves and their own practices. If AZA locations really did not care, they themselves should not be better, yet they too have grown to do things better the same way any professional husbandry does with science and development.
Of course, one can disagree with hundreds to thousands of marine biologists and experts on these teams, but you go into a weird extremist territory of feelings when you do.
Individual wild animals are not responsible for the preservation of their species: they as individuals are not rightfully obligated to live in captivity, and be made to reproduce, because humans have gone so far as to put their species in peril.
Wild and/or sentient animals are not rightfully subject to animal husbandry.
Of course, one can disagree about this with Western academia's most authoritative ethicists and philosophers, with what is now widely accepted mainstream thought among them, but one is opting for ignorant, retrograde ways of thinking when one does.
The AZA approved of the treatment of elephants by Ringling Brothers (Feld Entertainment) and the use of white tigers for entertainment by what was then MGM Mirage: it's hardly an arbiter of contemporary ethics.
Rather, the AZA is an industry lobby like the ABA and AMA, comprised of self-interested professionals and businesses, including "nonprofits" with handsomely compensated executives, aimed at "self-regulation" to forestall any possible implementation of substantive regulatory oversight by state authorities.
That said, I'm so pleased that the old, retrograde way of thinking if fading away in advanced countries. One or two more generations, and it'll be in the dustbin of history in the developed world.
(Sadly, ignorance and the retrograde way of thinking about wildlife is still mainstream in places like mainland China, which is why so many AZA-accredited "experts" have headed there to teach locals how to, e.g., make orcas "dance" to pop music. A step above bear-baiting, I suppose.)
Zoos say they’re leaders in protecting wildlife. But is it true?
www.vox.com
