Danny:

1. CITES has been around, and applicable to orchids, for a VERY long time
now.

2. CITES has NOT prevented the situation Reka posted about, nor many, many,
other similar situations. And it won't, as long as the only way to own such
species is illegal, because those who really want them and can pay are going
to get them anyway -- at inflated prices, due to the illegality, which only
increases the motivation of the locals to go harvest them for high (to them)
pay. Viet Nam is a 3d world country. I don't know the average hourly wage,
but I'll be very surprised if it's as much as US$1/hour. Anybody know?

The vast majority of the people involved in this illegal trade, especially
the native collectors and the ultimate purchasers, will never get caught,
and they know it. Leaving aside the question of guilt or innocence, the
prosecutions of Norris and Kovach are exceptions, not the rule. I haven't
seen anything on any of Norris' _customers_ being prosecuted, and I doubt
anyone could even find the "collectors" or their names, so as to prosecute
them, if anyone were interested in doing so. This has always been true, but
is even more so now and for the last few years when the various and assorted
"international police" agencies are being required to concentrate so heavily
on terrorism.

3. Had there been reasonable "exceptions," back in 1996 when this
particular species was "re-discovered," a commercial grower or two could
have taken A FEW plants for further propagation. Had such grower(s) been
allowed to do that back in 1996, then there most likely would have been
legal flasks on the market by 1998-1999, legal seedlings in another year or
two, and by now legal flowering-size plants. All artificially-propagated,
so that the vast majority of potential parents left back in the wild could
keep on growing and re-seeding.

There are probably still a few people who would want the illegal
wild-collected plants just for the "thrill" of it, even at a premium price,
but the major demand could have been supplied from the
artificially-propagated plants referenced above, the "illegal" premium would
be reduced as a result, thus reducing the pay of the native collectors, and
IMHO a lot more of them would still be growing in the wild.

You have mentioned before, the idea of having knowledgeable people going out
to collect some specimens in cases like this, and turning them over to some
gov't agency/bureaucracy. This will never accomplish the goal. The folks
with the expertise are not going to donate their time and energy just to
turn the plants over to a regime that will almost certainly kill them before
any viable seed is produced, and even if they did, the goal can't be
accomplished without that viable seed and the expertise/$$ to turn that seed
into actual plants. To work, such a program has to be given to someone with
both the expertise and a strong financial motivation to make it work. Civil
servants don't get fired for incompetence; they usually get promoted! But
entrepreneurs can't afford to fail very often ...

One final thought: I would very much prefer to see these species continue
to grow in the wild, at least until their "wild" is
burned/cleared/bulldozed. But if that truly CAN'T be achieved, then I would
rather seem them grow "in captivity" than become totally extinct. Kenni



"danny" wrote in message
. ..
So they wouldn't be threatened in their native habitat if more collecting
were allowed? It's acceptable to strip all of the plants out of their
habitat as long as they are freely available to the horticultural trade?
I don't see any problem with giving countries the right to control their
natural resources (although the application of CITES to preserved flowers
and herbarium specimens is going a little far.) CITES regulates the
shipment of orchids, it's not a ban. If the originating country allows
the species to be sold then they can be shipped with the appropriate
documents. If the country doesn't allow them to be sold, there are about
20,000 other species and 100,000+ hybrids you can grow instead.
-danny