I agree with everything you said, especially this:

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.

My own opinion is that this needs to be addressed at the next trustees
meeting because 1) its going to drive the judges crazy very soon, as the
Antec plants start to flower and 2) the next edition of the Handbook is due
to be published very soon, so any policy should be in it. (IMHO)

Of course I have no power, am just an underling and probably have a less
than stellar rep with the AOS after I gave my opinion on the dangers
inherent in going digital with photography (in re the temptation to
photoshop)(I was told I was being hysterical... No biggie, I've been called
worse. Doesn't affect me at all, no, really! Not at all, [sniff] *G*)

So, thanks Al. I'm happy you brought this whole topic up. Maybe the other
lurkers will bring it to the attention of the chain of command in their
regions and maybe a policy can be elucidated

K Barrett


"al" wrote in message news:ibYLg.7093$xh4.3743@trnddc04...
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.