[PowderMonkey]

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.

[Venturer]

Many people dont get direct contact with wild animals. They dont get the opportunity to visit foreign countries and see exotic animals. The Nations zoos are the only opportunity they will get to see these animals.

I see your point in wanting animals to be free , it’s a great point , I also see a need for people to actually see these animals, so that when they are asked for funds to save their habitat so they know what kind of animals are being saved. It’s educational for kids to see these wondrous beasts. They wont get that opportunity any longer at the National zoo. That too is shameful.