"Zoo" means "a park or facility where live wild animals are kept in enclosures so the public can view, study, and learn about them". The problem lies in the "enclosure" part, which, excluding exceptions, is a form of animal abuse or cruelty. To "imprison" a living being requires reasonable justification. Zoos, in most cases, do so for entertainment only, and this is immoral.

I believe you're blurring the concepts of "zoos" with wildlife conservation or natural parks or animal research. Granting that "The California Condor" case was improved due to zoos, it's an exception. I could also bring up the case of the rhinos almost being extinct, reduced to fewer than 100 animals in the early 20th century regardless of there being rhinos in many zoos all over the world. But when South Africa introduced a regulated white-rhino trophy hunting program, it effectively brought their population to above 18000, and they're no longer at risk of extinction. I understand how important the funding of zoos is. In the hypothetical world where zoos stop existing, it's wrong to assume it would disappear entirely. The audience would be redirected to natural parks, safaris, local conservation centers, etc., even if much reduced.  Zoos offer convenience and arguably more entertainment, whereas having to go to where the animals are doesn't necessarily. However, most zoo species aren't endangered or researched and most often display the same animals all over the world. I'm not convinced that the funding from people now having to go on safari, where the animals are, represents a lower, same, or higher effective funding than zoos. Meaning, national park fees and safaris would definitely receive more people, regardless of how few compared to zoos all over major cities. It seems to me difficult to measure how much less overall funding from zoos there would be but how much more specific animal funding that comes from people going to where the animals are.  Also, let's assume the funding from zoos completely disappears. I'm not sure if it's clear that funding from zoos is a justifiable reason for animal cruelty. Raising funds from imprisoning and essentially torturing some animals for life in order to save other animals? It's not a matter of regulation; the fact that zoos require an "enclosure" is automatically immoral, excluding exceptions.

It's agreed that zoos can preserve wildlife, accommodate species that no longer have a habitat and other examples, including the "The California Condor" case. I've mentioned "excluding exceptions" more than once. I've also agreed and granted that zoos provide crucial funds. The only straw man comes from you claiming I said "the only reason is entertainment". It's clear that I never claimed "only" absolutes and also granted and agreed to other reasons. This was disingenuous. Then you made references to valid and desirable research and programs, but you always assumed only zoos can produce them. It's not the case, since many African nations, for example, have "veterinary care, breeding and reintroduction programs, habitat research, etc.", funded from safaris and other sources, like the one I mentioned previously. All throughout, you've assumed or implied zoos' funds and revenue are primarily directed to the "animals benefit" which is in some cases but not in others. There's a blind spot in your position, which is that there's only so much that can be done with animals in captivity in terms of research and animal well-being. Eventually, animals without their natural habitat and ecosystem become something else. You've also said, "...condemning every zoo because some are abusive is like banning hospitals because of quacks.", which isn't an idiom or saying. I'm not sure what it means, but from what I gathered, it doesn't apply since hospitals don't "enclose" people without reason. Furthermore, my main points were not addressed. First, is it moral or not to confine animals to, roughly speaking, 0.05% of their natural habitat area? Not talking about endangered species or reintroduction programs or other examples, just in general. Second, if zoos stopped existing and people had to go where the animals are, like safaris, natural parks, local wildlife preservation facilities, etc., how would it not be better for the animals? Third, content like David Attenborough's shows, National Geographic, and many other documentaries and series has raised the awareness and knowledge of nature for, probably, billions of people who, in turn, have greatly supported and funded research and programs. In comparison with zoos, this content offers more reach, more insight, more knowledge, and it provides this with minimal fauna and flora interference. The only drawback being the lack of real-life interaction. In conclusion, zoos aren't strickly necessary like natural parks are, for example, and It's reasonable to invision a world where the benefits of zoos are instead provided by safaris, natural parks, local conservation facilities, etc., without the inherent problems. The shift would inevitably and significantly improve the quality, range and amount of these instituitions, agencies, facilities, etc. I'd also argue that, even if the the funds generated, in total, were lower than what zoos produce, there would still be an increase in direct funding. Meaning, isntead of the money coming from people to zoos to research and programs, it would lose an intermediary that can and does, in many cases, retain funds for profit motivations.