John Strand wrote:
 
>She also points out that the irreplaceable resource of collections
>supporting educational goals is what always distinguished museums, and
>gives them their unique place in society" them
>their unique place in society.
 
>Not to say that "Pirates of the Caribbean" isn't a fun time, and doesn't
>have its place. It's not likely to be confused with the experience of
>standing before, say, a Tiepolo. The distinction between the for-profit
>Sea World's exhibit on manatees and an exhibit at your local natural
>history museum, however, is not so clear. And therein lies part of the
>problem.
 
        A major question when dealing with amusement or theme parks and
museums is the question of "perpetuity." In theory, sometime after a theme
park becomes unprofitable the collections will be sold off as a capital
asset, just like the 200 pairs of mouse ears in the back room. As someone
attempting to get a museum off the ground in competition with the
entertainment and sports industries I can tell you that this distinction is
hard to convey to politicans and many members of the public.
 
        The manatee analogy is a VERY good one. Here in Tampa, the Lowry
Park Zoo has a new manatee enclosure that is well designed and attractive.
However, not long after it was completed SeaWorld installed the
multi-kazillion dollar "Manatees - the Last Generation?" exhibit. The
educational content on both is good, but as you can imagine, the SeaWorld
installation is far superior as a function of available dollars spent.
 
        Now the question. The zoo is under funded and, although in no
danger of closing, it might be jeopardized IF the economy saw a serious
down turn (it is one of 3 in the U.S. that receives no annual government
operating support). Which is better, (1) an underfunded institution that
could go under but is educational nonprofit, or (2) a commercial operation
that, if it became unprofitable, would obviously be under pressure to show
more interest in its stockholders than its animals?
 
        Many people here have told me that they go to this zoo instead of
SeaWorld or Busch Gardens because of the difference in cost ($6.50 versus
$35+). I have begun wondering whether some dichotomies may come to pass -
attractions for affluent tourists with $$$ and cheap attractions for
locals? Museums for the rich and lesser museums for the lessss affluent
separated by ticket price? I hate to sound like a socialist, but
privatization aside, there are things that a society must do and assume
responsibility for in the name of future generations - its natural,
artistic and historical/cultural heritage.
 
Byron A. Johnson
The Tampa Bay History Center
Tampa, FL
 
[log in to unmask]