Big Think: The Morality of Zoos

So today on Big Think, I found a post discussing an interesting animal rights question: http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/is-animal-captivity-wrong
The primary argument against zoos is that they restrict the natural freedoms that animals have in the wild, namely freedom to as much land as they can find as opposed to a small enclosure or cage. People who find zoos cruel often ask, "Would you like to be in that animal's position?" Well, to that I would reply that it would have to depend on the zoo. Because most zoos provide animals with a suitable habitat, sufficient food and water, a place to sleep, and an overall safe environment. As the article points out, zoo animals don't have to deal with the threats posed by predators, or other animals who may wish to take over their territory. Granted, some zoos don't provide suitable conditions, and some go over the line (that means you, Denmark). But many zoos - including those of the New York area - provide a perfect place for the species to live. And frankly, it doesn't make sense to try and impose human qualities on an animal. You might feel bad for the herd of zebras restricted to the half-acre of land that composes their habitat. But those zebras will never have to walk miles a day to find a water source, nor will they want for food during droughts, nor will they have to deal with the threats posed by hyenas, big cats and wild dogs. They're much less likely to die of disease than their wild cousins are, and they will live longer, more comfortable lives. If you gave those zebras human intelligence and showed them how their African kindred lived, most of them would probably opt for the safety and steady supply of food and water, rather than the dangerous, ever-changing savannas. It's like how most Americans feel about the TSA: you might not like it, per se, but you'd much rather go through security than risk a terrorist attack on your flight.