If it had simply no money for zoos or aquariums, I would simply say "ahh well They can't send money everywhere". An actual prohibition? That had to come from somewhere. I think I smell PETA.

Dawn -- Yes, I agree!  And not just children -- last fall, during a science writer's conference, I went on a tour of the Montery Bay Aquarium, and learned new things.   
Even setting aside the obvious economic benefits of keeping zoos and aquaria thriving, there's the administration's unambiguous support for science education.
So it's odd that this provision made it through to the final version of the bill.  
Charlie, is this a deliberately provoking statement!?  I think better of you than that!  
No doubt PETA would be ecstatic to have such levels of influence in the inner corridors of the White House and Congress, but that's really, really far-fetched.  My guess (100% unadulterated speculation) is that this was a pet concern of someone in the House-Senate conference that resolved the final version of the bill.

I seriously doubt PETA or any other animal rights group had anything to do with it, Charlie. The AR movement doesn't have that kind of power.

But zoos and aquariums actually do far less for conservation and biodiversity (or education, for that matter, studies have shown) than most people realize. If people are truly interested in helping save biodiversity, they'd be better off donating to organizations for whom habitat preservation and recovery, sanctuary, and serious plans for species reintroduction (plans that don't involve constant on-display exposure to humans)--rather than human profit and entertainment--are priorities. I recommend checking out expert biologist and animal behaviorist Marc Bekoff's commentaries on this topic.

And if the focus here is on helping "wild" animals who help keep the planet balanced, then an argument that increased funds would help the actual animals in zoos doesn't make good sense either--animals in zoos are captive, not free-living, and the vast majority have zero chance of ever living free in natural habitat again.

Holding on to an idealized version of how we *ought* to be preserving other critters is not rational at this moment in history.I'd rather see these species preserved, even in captivity, against the possibility of restoration of their habitats.  Because frankly, that battle is being lost: we're already in the midst of what some scientists are calling the "sixth great extinction."

SourceWatch's article, at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction, is a pretty good, plain-spoken summary of what that means.

For many animals, the sad truth is that zoos and aquaria are their only chance at survival in the 21st century. It would be hands-down better ecologically to maintain wilderness alongside "civilization," no argument.  But again, that battle's being lost right now, so it makes sense to proceed on multiple fronts: trying to reverse or stop the destruction of wild habitats, while also keeping species alive in relatively safer captive settings.

As for the uses of genetic diversity, much can be done in the lab, as cold as that sounds. But not if we don't have the "material" available, and for many people that's a compelling argument for putting money into biodiversity preservation.  

This may sound horrible to you, Stephanie.  What I'm trying to point out here is that sometimes making the most seemingly direct argument ("animals have a right to live") does not get one any closer to the end that's desired.

I should clarify that I'm well aware of the "sixth great extinction" issue--and it's terrifying to me.

One of the things I object to here is the implication that indeed zoos and aquariums are primarily concerned with and devoted to conservation and biodiversity, or that they're the best way of preserving biodiversity, when they're not. It strikes me as self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecy to talk about any role of zoos and aquariums while not talking simultaneously about the greater impact and necessity of habitat preservation and the like. I worry that in some cases, encouraging people to support real, substantial preservation efforts stops, and we just defer to zoos (and their very weak habitat preservation efforts) simply because humans may be more likely to support zoos for selfish entertainment reasons. If habitat does disappear, we're talking about keeping these species in captivity for eternity, which to me is a horrible future to imagine.

We're not going to agree, clearly, on all the issues surrounding keeping animals in (most often inadequate) captivity, and I don't see the point in an endless debate in which we're never going to agree, but I do think it's important not to let zoos present themselves as the bastions of conservation and animal protection.

Emily and Staphanie, Okay, maybe it was intentionally provoking, but an actual prohibition? I know PETA's position is anti zoo, so they are on My suspect list.

Miss spelling your name however Stephanie was not intentional!

[[UPDATE: I reposted this comment because I thought the system hiccuped and lost it.  So this may differ slightly from something you saw in email if you're following this thread...]]

Stephanie, I think you and I differ most in terms of pragmatism.  For instance, on this point that you made:

    "...encouraging people to support real, substantial preservation efforts stops, and we just defer to zoos (and their very weak habitat preservation efforts) simply because humans may be more likely to support zoos for selfish entertainment reasons."     

You seem to think that if the zoos didn't exist, all that moolah would de facto go to saving wild habitat, and that people would rally around preserving wilderness and wild species.  I think it's much more likely that most of it would be diverted to other institutions that marry a public education and enjoyment mission to larger goals of preservation and research (aka fine art museums or history museums), as well as providing employment and other economic benefits for human communities.  And that wild animals would just be even more abstract and irrelevant to most people's lives.         

For another, about deferring to zoos: sure, really important preservation work is being done in the wild.   That doesn't mean that important work isn't being done *in* zoos, however.  

And don't some, such as the National Zoo and The Wildlife Conservation Society (manager of the Bronx and other zoos in NYC), put money and effort into both fronts?      

 This reads suspiciously like the sort of cherry-picking I try to discourage in others, so let me emphasize my overall point: Why not fund both?   At this point in time, saying that the only correct way to go about preserving biodiversity is to preserve wild habitats, leaves no fallback against the inevitable failures of some of those efforts.      What I find disturbing about this strain of animal rights arguments is that they seem be less about particular animals, and more about  promoting a particular set of ethical beliefs regardless of the impacts to the species you're trying to protect.

"You seem to think that if the zoos didn't exist, all that moolah would de facto go to saving wild habitat" -- I didn't say anything of the sort. But I do disagree with telling people (or letting people believe) that all they have to do, or primarily what they have to do, is throw money at zoos and go look at all the pretty captive animals in order to save animals and biodiversity. What I want is to see more (and more frequent) education of people about the problems with seeing zoos and their unimpressive conservation programs as the solution and about what we do need to be doing to protect animals' future. There are now ways for people to experience the world of animals in even closer, more breathtaking--and less harmful--ways than via zoos (e.g., the Planet Earth series). We can help people still make that connection with animals--still experience that sense of wonder--and help them see that there are better ways than zoos to protect those animals.

"What I find disturbing about this strain of animal rights arguments is that they seem be less about particular animals, and more about  promoting a particular set of ethical beliefs regardless of the impacts to the species you're trying to protect." -- I'm trying not to take offense to that. The animal rights view is precisely about the impact on animals. The thought of a possible future in which the animals of countless species exist only in zoos is horrifying, and so many people's perception of zoos as the way to protect and save animals is equally horrifying: even the zoos that do have conservation programs have tiny budgets for those programs in comparison with their larger budgets, and reintroduction of animals from zoos back into the wild usually does not go well--because while the animals are in zoos, the focus is not on allowing them natural lives and natural habitats and preparing them for lives outside captivity, but on presenting them as entertainment to, and forcing constant exposure to, human visitors.

I'll be perfectly honest: if I had to choose between witnessing the extinction of a species and subjecting the individuals of that species to eternal captivity and--as is true in most cases of captivity--lifelong boredom, depression, and worse in unnatural, inadequate surroundings, because we couldn't be bothered to insist upon saving their habitat when we had the chance, I'd choose to witness the extinction. But obviously, that's a horrible, completely unwanted and unacceptable option too.

If zoos aren't putting not just equal but more effort into preserving the habitats of these animals they're supposedly trying to save, the whole effort (if the effort is indeed to save the species, for the sake of the species, and in their natural habitats) is doomed to fail because even if zoos were to get serious about reintroduction and start putting the animals' interests above the human entertainment interests, there will be no habitat for the animals to be reintroduced to. The system as it stands is set up to keep species going for humans in captivity.

Sigh. End rant.