jamiemtl wrote:
wow, this is amazing. i love it! i'm reading Orchid Fever right
now..and who knows, maybe by tomorrow I'll go out and by myself a few
orchids!!!



You know, if we were all just a little more ethical some of us could
have warned Jamie that this was going to happen.

In article ,
says...
jamiemtl wrote:
wow, this is amazing. i love it! i'm reading Orchid Fever right
now..and who knows, maybe by tomorrow I'll go out and by myself a few
orchids!!!



You know, if we were all just a little more ethical some of us could
have warned Jamie that this was going to happen.

Nah, that takes all the fun out of it.

--
Reka

This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html

IF cites is such a problem why not estabish a program to gather and
save these orchids?

been reading all of these posts, thanks again everyone. papers due this
friday so ill let you know how it goes

"Jack" wrote in message
oups.com...
IF cites is such a problem why not estabish a program to gather and
save these orchids?

Jack, I wish it were that simple. The red tape is incredible.

Diana

been reading all of these posts, thanks again everyone. papers due this
friday so ill let you know how it goes

You know we'll be waiting to hear! Good luck.

Diana

Far be it from me to correct Rob, but I think he may be mistaken.

From the CITES web page:

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

the section on "Orchidaceae" is listed as:

ORCHIDACEAE spp. 8#8 (Except the species included in Appendix I)

Also noted is that "For all of the following Appendix-I species,
seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media,
transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the
Convention."

That "8#8" pertains to "interpretation," specifically:

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/interpret.shtml

"#8 designates all parts and derivatives, except:

a) seeds and pollen (including pollinia);
b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or
liquid media, transported in sterile containers;
c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; and
d) fruits and parts and derivates thereof of artificially
propagated plants of the genus Vanilla;"

So- plants in vitro are specifically exempted (Appendix I and II),
while seeds, pollen, pollinia, cut flowers from propagated plants, and all
parts of propagated Vanilla species are exempted, provided they're in
Appendix II. Seeds of Appendix I are not exempted.

So, if my understanding is correct (and as I've moved a
considerable number of Appendix I plants in sterile culture, labeled as
such, with no CITES paperwork specific to them being Appendix I plants,
I think it is correct), if they're in sterile culture, they are
specifically exempted under the Convention.

However, this is not absolute. The Office of Management Authority
recognizes that some plants of Paphiopedilum vietnamense that have entered
the country came from parent plants that did not have legitimate export
permits. As a result, they are "fruit of the poison tree," and are
illegal. (This does not include those from Antec, as they were not
imported in flask, and are well-documented to have come from plants that
were seized upon import, and the host country denied their return such
that they were then placed in a rescue facility, and used for
propagation.) I have this information first-hand from those at the OMA
that make these sorts of decisions. If my understanding is correct, the
United States is either the only country, or one of two countries, that
accepts this interpretation of CITES. The other opinion is that if they're
in flask, they're exempt regardless of their history; this opinion is
shared by the balance of CITES signatory nations, best as I know.

There are also those that contend the plants of Phrag. kovachii
that have been bought and sold may not be legitimate under the US
interpretation, as there is no proof that they were propagated in Peru,
which issued the export permits for flasked plants. If this is the case,
under US interpretation, these plants and their progeny could be declared
illegal, and acted upon here in the US.

I'm no lawyer, and if you think I am, you need better help than
Usenet can provide.

The address in the header isn't valid. Send no email there.

-AJHicks
Chandler, AZ

jamiemtl wrote:
been reading all of these posts, thanks again everyone. papers due this
friday so ill let you know how it goes

If you don't post it I'd at least like a copy to mormodes at hotmail
dot com.

K Barrett

If you don't post it I'd at least like a copy to mormodes at hotmail dot
com.

K Barrett

Ditto. diandfrank at bell south dot net

Diana

Tennis,

Yes I'm familiar with the face to name Kovach's discovery. Actually
after some careful research it appears the guy who "ratted" out Kovach
also was responsible for the demise of George Norris as
well...interesting enough. The only information I've been able to find
about someone actually trying to make big bucks from illegal smuggling
was Harto Kolopaking. This was a dissapointment as I wanted to base my
paper on underground crime rings of orchid smugglers. Instead what I've
ended up doing is talking about the differences between what the media
says and what the orchid commuity says..

if you actually ever find "underground crime rings of orchid smugglers" let
us know. We won't tell.

"jamiemtl" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tennis,

Yes I'm familiar with the face to name Kovach's discovery. Actually
after some careful research it appears the guy who "ratted" out Kovach
also was responsible for the demise of George Norris as
well...interesting enough. The only information I've been able to find
about someone actually trying to make big bucks from illegal smuggling
was Harto Kolopaking. This was a dissapointment as I wanted to base my
paper on underground crime rings of orchid smugglers. Instead what I've
ended up doing is talking about the differences between what the media
says and what the orchid commuity says..

I've also read opinions on the OGD that if a species does not have a proper
latin binomial, it is not eligible for CITES export papers. This person then
went on to say every orchid discovered after some year in the 80s or 90s and
imported into the USA for description is technically fruit of the poison
tree and illegal.

As you can imagine, that means all newly described species must be described
from within the borders of the country they are discovered in before they
can be exported to the rest of the world.

This mess has also caused some large botanical institutions in the USA to
completely stop all plant research outside of the USA. They saw what
happened to Selby and are afraid it could happen to them.

Well, Friday has come and gone - I hope you were able to write an
interesting paper!

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
OK as to Kovach and the phrag. As far as I know he didn't have any
paperwork at all. No import/export forms filled out correctly or
incorrectly, nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. As far as I know he was on
vacation, saw this plant in a roadside cart, grabbed it quick! and ran for
home.

Personally I think he was just so excited he just kept his mouth shut
about his discovery and got it home as fast as possible, gave it to Selby
for ID, said "name it for me" and split for home to dump is bags and get
cleaned up. Never thinking about CITES, only thinking he had something no
one had ever seen before! How exciting!

Then like you say the doodoo hit the fan and the rest is history.

I'm betting you are right about Peru waking up after the fact and getting
ticked off about the plant escaping their country. If that hadn't happened
I'll bet everyone concerned never would have had to explain a thing.

Now, what you say about buying a plant labelled one way and having it
actually be something entirely other happens quite alot. Why isn't *that*
high crimes and misdemeanors? Just because its not a phrag?

K

Al wrote:
I understood that. I was not confused. I still have always wondered how
Kovach went wrong. Was he intentionally smuggling or was he in a gray
area where procedures were unclear. An unidentified new Phrag species.
What did he declare it was on his permits that allowed it to pass all the
way to Shelby and published as newly discovered before the doo-doo hits
the big blowing air machine? I am certain he knew he had a new species.
I don't know how the permits work on this level. Why didn't he present
his new find to Peruvian botanists? I always figured he took it to
Shelby because Shelby was the botany department he knew of that could do
the work.

Your example is one way plants are smuggled, for sure. No names are
needed. I sometimes buy recently imported plants from American companies
all the time and get unbloomed orchids that bloom out to be other than
what they were sold to me as. I have something that came in labeled as
Asctm curvifolium and blooms out to be the weirdest little thing. In two
flowering now I have been unable to identify it. I don't have a good
picture of it yet. The flowers are pin-head sized brown and yellow. It
is clearly an orchid of some kind, and probably not new to science, just
new to me. I have received some rather rare Phal minus this way too. I
bought Phal gibbosa from a man who thought he was selling me Phal gibbosa
and when it bloomed and I asked him what it was, he wanted it back. No,
I think I'll keep for all those times I bought something rare (not
necessarily from this man) and got Phal equestris instead.


"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..

I knew I'd confuse the issue by mentioning kovachii or any names at all.
I'm sorry I ever answered the original question. My answer was in regard
to HOW orchids could be smuggled using a CODE. Not about kovachii or
anything/anyone else. Substitute X and Y for plant names if you prefer.

K

Al wrote:

With kovachii, I am still a bit confused as to the order it all
happened. I don't think he was intentionally smuggling in the manner
your hypothetical example suggests it is done.

I have always assumed he had the correct specialized permits to
import/export already classified Phrags and that he broke the law kind
of by accident because it was an undescribed piece of plant material and
shouldn't have left Peru, no matter what kind of permit he had. I have
always kind of believed that the issue started when Peru discovered one
of their native plants had made it into the US to be described by a US
authority and that until then, nobody realized the treaty had this kind
of gray area in it that would allow undescribed material to be exported
so easily. It has always seemed to me that he was in a kind of gray
area and not at all doing what you describe below as smuggling. But my
assumptions are probably too simplified.

He and Selby broke the law, (as decided by the outcome of the court
case) but what should they have done differently? What would have been
the correct course of action for an American plant collector in Peru to
take after discovering a new species of Phrag? What should Selby have
done when this unimaginably serendipitous piece of plant material
dropped in their lap?

K Barrett" wrote in message
news:uvadnWF0AbVZXefenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast. com...


jamiemtl wrote:


ok - so im now fascinated with Silva's and Norris' case. Apparently
they would get fake permits for legal orchids, then ship illegal ones
with these legit permits? It said on the US department of
agriculture's
website that they even devised a code to determine what these orchids
were? Does anyone have any further information?


That's why I said this could become a life's work. Its a great story.

To answer your question about how this is done.

If you were to go to any orchid show you'd see orchids for sale, and
mostly they are out of bloom. Yous see just a mass of green plant
stuffs.

One out of bloom orchid plant - for the most part - looks like any
other orchid plant of the same variety. The way we tell them apart is
by the tag the vendor puts on the plant. For ease in labelling,
vendors will label their plants by number and have a master list as to
what all the numbers mean. Then when they get to where ever they are
going they'll put a better tag on the plant. So you'll see plants
tagged '1167 Soph cernua' and some just '1167' and you as teh purchaser
have to know/ask what '1167' is. Pretty much this is standard
operating procedure, but to a customs agent or a reporter looking for a
story it could look like a "code".

Nevertheless, the key to the crime is that one orchid looks pretty much
like another of the same variety when its out of bloom.

So, your cohort (in the country of origin) writes up a bunch of
paperwork saying you two are importing an easy to get plant like
Phragmipedium schlimii (an example only). He gets CITES & USFWS
(endangered species) permits to import Phrag schlimii. The paperwork
says item #123 is Phrag schlimii. But really item #123 is rare, sexy
Phrag kovachii (an example only), a plant people would kill for. The
customs agents look over his shipment, sees that a bunch of Phrags are
coming in, but they really have no idea WHAT they are because one out
of bloom phrag looks pretty much like another. You pick up the plants
at the customs house. Your cohort has emailed you the real list,
stating #123 is kovachii. Bada bing! You're in the money. You
contact your friends who you know will want the plants no matter what
the cost, and you laugh all the way to the bank. Unless you are George
Norris, who - according the the feds - never deleted his email or
cleaned his hard drive and they found the trail. Then you wind up in
prison. Note: George wasn't busted for Phrag. kovachii, Selby Gardens
and Michael Kovach were, I just used those species as an example.

I could go on, but its your homework, LOL!!

If you can figure out the OGD's search feature you should be able to
find Norris's own post about how the feds treated him when they served
their search warrant. I thought it was chilling.

You may also be able to find an account of how Eurpoean vendors filled
the back of a pick up truck with illegally collected Phrag kovachiis to
sell in Europe. I guess their customs agents are even worse than ours
at plant identification _ I'm kidding the story is more convoluted than
that, but there's only so much I can write at one time.

K Barrett

In article , says...
I've also read opinions on the OGD that if a species does not have a proper
latin binomial, it is not eligible for CITES export papers.

Now that's interesting. At least over here, orchid sellers get tons of
shipments from abroad with plants like "Eria sp.". But then again, we
all have gotten a species which was not what it was labeled. They
probably name those arbitrarily to be eligible for papers.
--
Reka

This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html

I support the concept behind CITES. I think it's necessary to place
international control over the trade in endangered species as you can't
rely on goverments to have an ethical approach to conservation.
However, you've just pointed out why I think CITES is destined to fight
a losing battle. If there was a concerted effort by the controlling
parties to artificially propagate CITES listed plants in an effort to
flood the market with affordable, legally obtainable plants the
collecting pressure on endangered plopulations would fall dramatically.
Unfortunately, without such a mechanism the "must have" and "rape and
pillage" attitudes that abound in the orchid growing community will
continue to the detriment of the conservation status of the plants.
Andrew

Andrew,

I expect that most here are as interested in conservation as anyone else
active in conservation.

Your solution, while commendable, is inadequate for the obective of ensuring
continued survival of orchids in the wild. You need a more comprehensive
system. First, as you say, there is a need, in each country, for commercial
growers who have proper documentation proving that even when they sell
species, the plants sold are the product of a breeding program, and that who
ensure that they have al the requisite CITES documentation in place. They'd
also have to ensure that they supply the proper documentation to their
customers so that they and/or their customers can use the plants in their
own breeding programs and maintain the option of exporting their plants too.
Second, there is an urgent need to conserve habitat, and to design sampling
regimes that protect the species. For example, for species that can be
produced by cloning, sample only the meristem tissue for use in producing
clones that in turn can be used for breeding. And for genera such as the
catts, sample only a number of back bulbs from specimens that are large
enough to spare them, and then use the back bulbs to propagate the plants by
whatever means. With some plants, the only option would be to self specimen
plants, or cross neighboring planst of the same species/variety, and then
come back later to harvest the seeds (and this only with plants that have
many more than one flower so that natural propagation can occur too). With
the availability of portable GPS technology and hand-held computers, it
should be trivially easy to map orchid habitat so that those protecting the
habitat can easily find specimens they have found previously. Third, it
must be turned into an industry that people living in or near the habitat
that is to be protected can earn a living supporting the orchid industry
while concommitantly protecting the habitat. I'd expect that if the local
residents have a vested interest in protecting both the orchids and their
habitat, they'd help in such conservation efforts. Conservation
organisations have only two general options in this regard; they can help
improve the situation of the people living in or near the areas to be
protected, and work with them, or they can try to maintain a running battle
with them to the end of either fighting a losing battle or exterminating the
local residents (something I regard as reprehensible). No matter how much I
value orchids or the habitat in which they live, I value people more. My
impression of many environmental activists here is that they have little
regard for the people living in areas they want to protect, often describing
them in terms one would use to describe mortal enemies.

Your option of producing so many orchids that there is little incentive to
deal in illegal orchids is a good one. However, unless embedded in a broader
system that includes enabling the trade in orchids (and indeed other exotic
organisms) in a manner that is consistent with, and supports the objectives
of CITES, as well as having as the top priority the objective of meeting the
needs of, and improving the living standards of, the people living next door
to the orchids we want to protect, it can not ultimately acheive the
objective of protecting wild orchids,

And you may want to lighten up a bit. For the vast majority of people,
their only option for supporting orchid conservation in particular, and
conservation in general, is to support, by buying plants from, vendors who
are involved in conservation and by joining those societies they can find
that are involved in conservation, not to mention lobbying politicians to
support conservation initiatives. Most orchid "consumers" will lack both
the means and the expertise required to get conservation done right.

Cheers,

Ted

--
R.E. (Ted) Byers, Ph.D., Ed.D.
R & D Decision Support Solutions
http://www.randddecisionsupportsolutions.com/
Healthy Living Through Informed Decision Making