Interesting. I was afraid of this. The policy should be clear to all, and
applied consistently, whatever it is, no matter who puts a plant in front
of you, whether it Norito Hassegawa or some unknown who just walks in with a
plant and says, "I bought this at Home Depot, I think it's pretty.". That
is *if* you HAVE TO have a policy of policing the plant population in this
country.

On a personal note, since it seems the AOS seems to be heading in that
direction, I would just like to express my opinion that the AOS judges
should have a list, provided by a liaison with a CITES representative, of
species from CITES that can not legally here because no CITES number has
ever been granted and a list of plants that have a CITES number with a date
that entry permit was granted. These list should have expiration dates and
be updated and passed to local societies and judges regularly. The police
should be simple: Perhaps a blanket refusal to judge anything on the first
list and a policy to judge plants on the second list with the provision that
the exhibitor be willing to state where they acquired the plant and that
they believe the plant being offered for judging "conforms to known
parameters for legal acquisition".

This way the judges and the AOS do not have to worry about tracking
paperwork and asking for and debating all the types of receipts and
paperwork and paper trails you might see. You guys collect and record data
on plants/exhibitors and you do that plant quality judging thing. This data
becomes part of a public record and the exhibitor is the one who takes the
chance of getting into trouble with CITES. If you grant an award to a plant
on the second list and later CITES enforcement officials succeed in a
prosecution, you have to decide if such an award would stand.

It's a simple policy , since CITES itself does not track plants already in
the county and did not track where Antec's plants went or who then resold or
gave them away. The AOS would probably be breaking it's own "conform to
known parameters for legal acquisition" guideline by turning away a plant
because a receipt was not "proof".

I also think you guys do open yourself up to legal questions of harming an
exhibitor's or vendor's name by debating what may or may not be legally
acquired in front of onlookers. Again, just my opinion.

K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Stop the presses.

I brought this up at our center's meeting yesterday, and the judges were
split. Half thought a receipt stating 'from Antec' was good enough. Half
thought genuine paperwork from Antec was needed in order to show for AOS.
Our cebter chair is forwarding the issue to Aileen Gerritsen, who has
probably been bombarded with emails on the issue already.
This is being forwarded to Aileen Gerritsen.

K Barrett
"Al" wrote in message
...
To all you AOS judges and show chairpeople:

You see a Paph Ho Chi Minh in your show or one is sit in front of you at
a regional monthly judging:

Do you require anything to prove the plant/hybrid is legally imported or
comes from legally imported stock? Is a receipt from a vendor
sufficient?

I have checked with a friend of mine who works at CITES and he informs me
that when I sell something like a Paph vietnamensis that I only need to
provide a receipt to the customer that shows they bought it from me. He
added that I should keep my paperwork in case they ever have questions
about where I got it. Do you all require something more if such a plant
turns up in a show or judging?

Forever curious,
Al