Personally, I feel zoos should be considered a last resort.....if we have to rely on captive breeding to stop extinction, then we have failed (miserably) to protect biodiversity. Zoos can only accommodate a tiny proportion of global biota (and are only ever likely to focus on the more charismatic species), and cannot be expected to propagate species indefinitely, so NO they cannot "save" biota. By all means, use zoos primarily to educate the public (though this is not yet something they do at all effectively), to develop management techniques that can help species in the wild and to fundraise for in situ projects. As for conditions, any facility that houses a creature in a way that is detrimental to its well-being should be immediately closed down and its owners prosecuted......there is absolutely no excuse for treating animals badly!!
Yes, I agree with you when zoos are considered as EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION to make people SENSIBLE and RESPONSIVE to the need of conservation. The NEAR-NATURAL conditions of captive enclosures are welcome change in the zoo environment. And, conserving biota in zoos is a last resort.... I agree with you perfectly
I would say that conditions at zoos do matter, both for the welfare of the animals and the success of captive breeding. Zoos and gardens are critical for saving critically endangered biota, but they are a last resort. Zoo and garden propogation will only be successful if it is temporary, because plants and animals (and the other cooler stuff) are divorced from natural selective pressures in captivity and subject to other selective pressures. Eventually, you get evolutionary drift. You can also lose or replace wild behaviors, which in some animals are only partially instinctive and partially taught. So there are costs to zoo and garden propagation. But it is a critically important tool for some species.