"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message
...
Why do you refer to your reference as the "unhappily named American Rose
Society page"?

The ARS may be a stodgy group of old folks, however it
does more to promote Roses than any organization in the
US.

Tim Tompkins
Life Member of ARS

Hello Tim,

A look at this group of enablers will tell you that we promote
all sorts of roses, not only the bench favorites. Could that be the
reason why Cass is calling it "the unhappily named"? When
I did belong to the society -a million years ago- indeed the
only thing anyone was interested in speaking about in those
days was about exhibitions and how to pin/cover the blossoms
before "the" day. And there was little old me, wanting to
learn more about the old garden roses that held my heart and
curiosity when I knew little about them. I don't know if this
is still the issue, but it was enough for me to go back to read
Gertrude Jekyll, Nancy Stern, S. Reynolds Hole and the rest
of the old fogies like me, to learn about what I always considered
to be an important part of growing roses. All inclusive.
I went to 4 meetings, that was enough to last me for a lifetime.

I see the endorsement of the ARS in some roses that shouldn't
be fed to pigs, leave aside sold to consumers who know as
close to nothing about growing as the people who are selling
them. At one of the local Home Despot (our pet name for them)
BH and I nearly died when we saw a window box made of
cedar, all of perhaps 30-inch in length by at best 10-inch height
displaying 3 roses in it. I wish I would have had my camera
with me. The bags underneath proudly displayed the endorsement
of the ARS.

Endorsing or promoting something for either money or recognition
carries a hefty price in credibility. And that appears the price the
ARS is paying for endorsements such as this.
This is not an organization that truly educates, as any society that
promotes itself as such should do. When there is a narrow view
of what one should do, it becomes anything but all inclusive.
In that case it becomes a social club. I, for one, like Groucho Marx
wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member.

If I were a member the first thing I would do is to demand that
the endorsement be taken out of the bags, instead of promoting
roses I would promote education about how to grow them, and
then I will spend my time not pursuing a ribbon that belongs to
Mother Nature but volunteering to take care of the Municipal
gardens that struggle to maintain what they have ( The Portland
Test Garden in Washington Park has only one paid employee).

So as you see, in my case I agree with Cass; it is unhappily named
ARS. It would be better to rename it the Rose Exhibitor's Society
of America. I have no problem with that, and I think that it would
be closer to the truth as perceived by those of us that have no
inclination to enter into a competition to get a ribbon earned solely
by the cultivation practices we exercise. The rose was originally
created by Mother Nature, the marriage was conducted by the
Hybridizer and all I would have to do is to feed the rose, and
try to have a healthy, beautiful plant. That should be the goal
of every rosarian, sans ribbons attached.

Allegra