Frankly, let us say we disagree on the subject. I do not condone the tactics, nor criticism of PETA or any other group which have as their single most important objective the exclusion of all wild animals from captivity and extinction of zoos in general. Their view that all wildlife should be in the natural world to be free and live the simple life is both elitist, tunnel-vision borne and carries no salt of truth in it.
For their general arguement's sake: in general most protected areas in the natural world function just as zoos, where just their area of occupancy is more impressive and where their continued survival is mostly not even assured. To then give us (animal libbers that is) the public a choice between education and conservation by recreation at public zoos or by visiting the wide open spaces of the natural world is equally deranged and elitist (only the happy few like myself can ever dream of doing that).
So, we are left with zoos as a public exhibition of wild fauna and flora and centres from which conservation action can be directed effectively through their knowledge and experience of maintaining wild animal and plant populations in captivity. Conditions at zoos in general have improved enormously since even the 1970's, but that can hardly be written on the credit of a few misbehaving animal right's followers (they do not have the experience, scientific knowledge or understanding of the real needs of bears, gorillas, giraffes, rhinos, elephants or any other type of zoo animal for that matter.
I could of course go on endlessly. F.i. the human dimensions of biodiversity loss and how human populations by black earth economics, poverty amelioration in the third world through improved health care and access to clean water as opposed to development through education is driving the extinction crisis and how this than affects the tasks zoos and protected areas worldwide have to save species from extinction and how animal libbers do not help that cause one single inch), but I will leave it at that.