Dear Kurt,
 
THANK YOU for the response! It seems rather clear that all of us here
share the same concerns and it's important, in a forum such as this, that
differences of opinion can be voiced without being expected to apologize
everytime there is a disagreement. The comment about 'simple-mindedness',
by the way, was aimed at myself. My intent was to point out that, with
all the multi-million dollar traveling displays being pushed on us as a
way to stir interest, maybe there's a simpler way to achieve the same
goals...something that has been overlooked or dismissed because it
appeared too simple. (I'm sure most people have heard the story of the
eighteen wheeler stuck under a bridge and the ten year old boy who
suggested they simply let a little air out of the tires to get it
unstuck.) I don't have the answers (obviously) or I would hold a
directorship somewhere.
 
I agree that the idea of displaying all or even half of the material in
museum collections is ludicrous. There are parts of collections I will
never care to see. But even this is getting off track.  When Wes asked
the question of what could be done about the problem of deminishing
support for museums and the curation of collections, the first thing that
came to mind was, "How can we expect the general public to give time and
money to something they can't see?" Any of us who realize the importance
of these collections wouldn't think twice about giving a hundred or even
a thousand dollars out-of-pocket to see the work continue.  That's why we
form clubs and give grants and donate time.  But if you walk up to a man
on the street who has no clue what museums are about and ask for a dollar
donation, well...you'd be lucky to end up with five dollars at the end of
the day. Of course, that's where all the glamourous, high-powered
traveling displays are supposed to come in...to draw people in to see the
animated dinosaurs...and hopefully expose them to other things the museum
has to offer.  But that's where the concept breaks down. Sometimes, the
promoters unwittingly misdirect the attention away from the real purpose
of the museum system.  I know that I'm shooting myself in the foot here.
 I know that some will argue that the displays are a culmination of all
the work and research that's been done and even debate what the real
purpose of a museum is. But it's the importance of work itself and its
assured continuation which somehow seems to get lost in the translation.
 
The problem of waining support for museums (in my opinion and others) is
only a symptom of something far more distressing and in urgent need of
focus...the general trend away from the natural sciences.  Whether it's a
problem with our educational system, a product of an over zealous
campaign of environmental protectionism, or a social climate that
stresses high technology and social services as the only acceptable
careers, interest in the natural sciences is losing ground as evidenced
in Wes' comments about the loss of state funding and elimination of
museum positions.  If all those who hold the purse strings to state funds
felt that the survival of museums was a top priority, there would be no
problem. But, they don't...and the dominos continue to fall.  Maybe with
enough discussion (opposing opinions or not) we can come up with some
solutions to a complex problem.
 
Debate is a healthy process.  It educates all those who participate. And,
(Kurt, this is NOT directed at you) shame on anyone who wants us all to
avoid the tough questions by blindly patting each other on the head and
retracting anything that might ruffle a few feathers. All that achieves
is a temporary fuzzy feeling and a flat head.  Granted, sometimes the
spirit of a response may seem a bit abrasive but it's usually due in
large part to the fact we can't hear voice inflection and see facial
expression in email. I have the utmost respect for the curators, staff,
and volunteers caring for our collections. Enough said.
 
Respectfully sumitted,
 
K. Hutsell
 
P.S. Kurt, I'll buy the first round.