Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 29 May 1996 20:47:00 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
see below
Gregory Scheib ~ ~
The George Washington University (<O> <O>)
[log in to unmask] ( ^ )
/ | \
(_____)
___
On Wed, 29 May 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 1996, Stephen Nowlin wrote:
>
> > >Prior to her promotion to curator, the acting curator had engaged in
> > >accepting a donation from a local resident of some bunny rabbits. The deal
> > >fell in my sister's lap. The donor had not been apprised of the petting
> zoo's
> > >standard donation form which says (and I paraphrase from memory): We have
> the
> > >right to sell your donation and/or FEED it to another animal in our
> > >collection. My question is, how can those of us in non-zoos adopt this
> > >strategy effectively to avoid having to take things into our collection tha
t
> > >we cannot properly take care of :-)
> > >
> > >- Adrienne
> >
> > Great story. Talk about deaccessioning to maintain the collection!
>
> Point of order here. If you feed a zoo's rabbit to the zoo's fox, can
> that be called deaccessioning? Isn't that just internal downsizing?
>
> Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC | USA
>
Not from the foxes perspective.
|
|
|