Perhaps it is, but a zoo without animals is not a zoo.
Your memories of the National zoo differ from mine. I was a kid who went a couple of times a year. They had animals of every kind ,some of which amazed me as a kid. Herds of Zebra, Wildebeests,they had Prairie dogs, Panthers and white Tigers.
Perhaps you are right , Kids can see these animals on a video tape now, they dont need to see the real thing. I guess the animals they do have left over there will just be allowed to go as they die off. Probably all for the best.I do know I wont be going there again , but if you like to hike and climb a large hill and be ripped off by high price concessions, give it a shot. There are a couple of elephants left, and an old mangy male lion. LOL
There are a few more animals left there, but not enough to make it worthwhile paying the 20 buck parking fee and traipsing that hill with two Grandkids in tow.
You are correct. A zoo without animals is no zoo. My visits to the National Zoo obviously predated yours. I spent many years in direct contact with animals in the wild. A good many of them in Central America and on the African continent. And so, though it's been over 50 years, I still choke up at the memory of first entering the National Zoo's “Elephant House” and setting eyes on a heartbreaking sight: “Jimbo” the resident African elephant. He was confined in that concrete block house. He was chained and staked by one leg to a corner of the room. The old tusker had long since been driven mad by his confinement, and spent his days ceaselessly rocking, and shifting his weight from one side to another. Despite improvements, like yourself I refuse to go back for the reasons you cited. It's a overly-priced rip off, and you can't even drive across the old ford of the artifical stream they once had there (an early and very lame attempt at a “Safari” theme park). It's not what I would consider a "National" zoo at all.