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]