But why is it relevant whether one is a "zoo" and the other a "sanctuary"? You literally just said earlier about the Welsh Mountain Zoo that "you certainly wouldn't build exhibits to that standard now, and therefore if you were unable to maintain exhibits to reach modern day standards, than the animals should be moved to collections that can, and the exhibits should hold more suitable animals" - why is it okay to make excuses for a "sanctuary" to build the cages of the sort that WAMS possesses and house animals in them but those same cages in a "zoo" would not be excusable? Regardless of whether the visitor gets warm-fuzzies, the animal is still stuck in the same tiny space. I find it a very strange double-standard.
(Also, again curious over this because you said it in one of the other threads too, what is the "WAMS have indoor and outdoor access for their animal enclosures" all about? That is standard for almost any animal enclosure.)