Kim and all,
I didn't take offense about work ethic.  That didn't seem to be the line of
discussion.  I agree with earlier comments on the state of exhibits and/or
collections.  Collections are poorly funded and many are faced with
literally years of full-time work just to process the material they have on
hand, particularly when (and I refer to my earlier comments on leg:) the
attention to detail is so important.  Donors don't understand the length of
time necessary and this is frustrating to them and staff alike.
 
I don't like the track museum exhibits are taking either.  Although we are
trying to keep our new exhibits specimen rich, it is difficult with the new
breed of designers, educators, etc.
 
What concerned me was the comments about museums keeping things under lock
and key for other reasons than space, money, new exhibit trends, etc.  This
line of thinking (once again, remember the leg:) indicates a lack of
understanding on how a major museum operates and the pressures it and its
staff are forced to live under.  FLMNH has about 19 million specimens in 9
areas of study.  We can't display that much material or even a very small
fraction of it.  Not only is there an obvious space and money problem, but
millions of the specimens are not of exhibitionary quality or have an
extremely limited potential audience.  For instance, how many people want
to look at erycinid clams or pupilloid land snails.  If exhibits were
centered on these two groups, it would undoubtedly emphasize behavior or
the fauna of your back yard and display only a couple of specimens of each
taxon.  I assure everyone that if I found a new land snail that was two
feet across and glowed purple on the full moon, the administration would
exhibit it.  Exhibiting the cool stuff brings attention, the mundane does
not.  You may go to a collection and ask why isn't this cool stuff on
display, to museum staff the answer is clear.  Conch-L is filled with
people passionate about their shells, the average Joe on the street does
not share this passion.  The average person would not view your vision of a
collection either.  I have been asked MANY times, why does the state of
Florida keep this crap ?. . . put the money toward curing cancer.  To be
honest, I feel that way too sometimes and on numerous occasions hanging off
some cliff in Palau I contemplated quitting this idiocy.  "Do you want
fries with that, sir?" sounded like something I wanted to be saying instead
of risking life and limb for specimens only appreciated by a handful of
people even if projected into the next millenia.  Even among shellers, I am
sure you have tried to show someone the wonders of a certain creature only
to be shot down, because its too small, doesn't have spines, etc.  We have
to target the masses and foster relationships with the enlightened few to
survive.  This is museum reality.
 
We have a wonderful docent program at FLMNH, but volunteerism in the
collection area is dismal in Gainesville, at least in malacology.  Over the
last 15 years I have had NOT ONE person ask to volunteer in the malacology
collection.  There may be other dynamics here, but the fact remains, I was
never approached.  The Bailey-Matthews group has a great pool of volunteer
resources and Jose and the Board of Directors and the volunteers themselves
should be highly commended for these successful efforts.  Other museums
have been very successful in this area as well.  I hope that Florida can do
as well some day.
 
There are two main ways the private sector can help museum collections.
1)time and 2) money.  Natural History museums have no alumni.  No one
graduates from the FLMNH school.  They get their graduate degrees in
zoology or wildlife and most move on to rewarding, but poorly compensated
(financially) careers.  There are no business magnates, MDs (sorry, Harry),
lawyers, etc. who give there alma mater a 'pay-back' 40 years after
graduation.  We also don't have the wealth associated with art museums.
Sad, but true.  Museums need their constituents to promote them in every
breath to everyone.  We have a long row to hoe here, but we've done it for
a few hundred years and the strong museums with visionary administrations,
staff and community support will do it for another few hundred years.
 
Museums will change their direction from time to time.  Most of the time
forced by university officials because the museum is not keeping pace with
the generation of outside funding when compared to other fields of study.
Hard to keep up with Physics or Engineering sometimes!  Rollins College
(Beal-Maltbie) needed to enhance their ecology program, had no construction
funds and made a very difficult decision.  Dean Jones at Alabama made a
difficult decision also.  But he seemed to love the institution and the
decision pained him greatly.  He knew that AT THAT TIME this was the best
decision for the specimens.  He had NO indication whatsoever from the
administration that there would EVER be a malacologist on the campus.
There were numerous holotypes to be located and some were never found.  At
least 3 of the cabinets had obviously been turned over when installing the
new linoleum.  No one presently vocal at Alabama was there then and I am
blaming no one so please do not take offense.  The staff at the time
consisted of Dean Jones, his administrative assistant and John something
(can't remember his last name, but he great and actually teared up numerous
times over the week it took to pack the material). That was the entire
staff.  Oh and the janitor.  It was a horrible time in history for Alabama
and they lived through it.  The sad thing is that history repeats itself
and there will undoubtedly be a day when FLMNH is crated up and moved to
new quarters.  I hope in the happy shelling grounds by then.
 
I can't say my fingers have been flying.  I've been interrupted about 10
times since I started this thing.  You may not agree with all of the above
and I can live with that.  I hope I have offended no one.  If so, that was
the furthest thing from my mind.  Whew, I need a beer!
 
Hugs,    Kurt
 
 
At 08:50 PM 4/20/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Kurt Auffenberg wrote:
>>
>> Art and Kim,
>> Although tempting, I refuse to respond to this line of discussion.  But,
>> ooh, baby, my fingers could fly all over the keyboard!
>>
>> XXX,   Kurt
>> Kurt,
>
>I'm not sure if you agree or disagree. Since it's rather ambiguous,
>please do answer, but first consider this(in response to the Lipe's re:).
>Everyone here knows that museum personel work hard and are serious about
>their job, putting in many more hours than most. And, most people here
>have never had any problem gaining access to collections when they had
>legitimate reasons, myself included. We all know, money, time, staffing,
>space, and everything else is in short supply and and museum employees do
>a great job with what they have. But the original line of discussion
>focused on whether or not the general public realized the importance of
>the scientific collections housed in museums and what could be done about
>it...and how to gain their support.  It was to that issue I addressed my
>comments. As I said, no offence was intended.  It was only an opinion
>(which was solicited) based on observation.  In truth, I didn't take your
>response as a negative one until I read Bob's comments. For the sake of
>clarity, please...do respond.
>
>K. Hutsell
>