Disagree on B. A is the only thing that matters. Take care of them and do things right. As far as optics, they can educate. If someone choses to not ask, I do not put that on the responsibility of the park.
And I would add, putting out items for them to stand in and creating a mud pit for them to put hooves into is doing something to take care of them. Part of your part B is "have these fuzzy cows in a small enclosure" - when my research shows that's what's best, so you want the optics of bigger field, which is actually bad for their health in this situation?
I used to get backlash often for the way I care for my dog as a matter of fact. She doesn't go outside much in the summer, and wears a coat in the winter. But she's a beagle mix. She doesn't handle heat really well because she has oily wiry hair that traps heat vary easily, but in the winter her bare spots on her stomach cause too much heat to escape. Additionally she is partially blind in one eye because she can't produce tears in it, so gunk gets in it very easily, and you would assume I'm a bad owner because she always has red puffy eyes from us cleaning it. The optics of caring for her look like I don't "let her be a dog" but I can assure you she's extremely well cared for and other than her eye, her vet states that for her age (10 years old) she's in a great place health wise.
In the end, I understand optics matter, especially in the matter of SEAS history. But there's quite a few animals out there where the optics of what you do for them looks bad, but is actually what you would be seeing them do in nature. Take your penguin example earlier - there's varieties like the Galapagos Penguin and Southern Rock Hopper Penguin who actually thrive in temperatures of 90+ degrees and putting them in freezing temperatures would be bad, but based on doing "optics" you would put them in a situation that's too cold. I rather them take care of the animals properly than worry about optics of what someone thinks should be happening.
