animals in captivity

From the department of shocking news, the New York Times reports that zoo animals' enclosures are too small and don't replicate the wild. I can't help but say... duh.

I mean, did anyone seriously believe that a zoo could ever provide, say, tigers, with an environment similar to that in the wild?

There's really not too much to be said here... for some animals, zoos are just never going to be able to reproduce the conditions outside of a zoo. Which is why this makes so little sense:

"There is a heroic effort afoot to create exhibitions so that zoological gardens can present animals with their complete behavioral repertoire," said Dr. Wharton, a biologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which runs both zoos.

These efforts include, for example, "a spinning ball scented with various odors and a 'tiger pull.'" I'm having a hard time imagining how a spinning ball mimics any sort of stimulation a tiger would have in the wild.

The real problem, as I see it, is that zoos have a myriad of functions that don't exactly mesh well together. Are they concerned with educating and entertaining their guests? Are they concerned with ensuring the health of their animals? Do they want to present the animals in as close to a natural habitat as possible? The answer to all these questions is "yes," of course. But you can't do them all, and certainly not in the limited space that most zoos have. Then there's the fact that many zoos (I'm generalizing from the Philadelphia Zoo, which may not be a typical case, but it's what I know) devote a considerable portion of their budget to conservation around the world.

I don't have any solutions to this. I'm not sure if anyone does, but if the NYT still finds it noteworthy that small cages are detrimental to some animals' health, it seems like we might be a long way off.