I just picked up the Book Orchid Fever from my library and will be
taking a look at it today. The paper is unlike something I have ever
done in University before. We are supposed to take information from the
least informal spaces and sources as possible. I've been searching
threw the Orchid Guide Digest and found some interesting things about
Pepe and Norris. I think i'm going to write the paper outlining
evidence from both sides...i will report what the dop says, but also
what the orchid community says...i'll post the paper up when im done so
you can take a look..it you're interested! thanks again
jamie

On 16 Nov 2005 09:16:16 -0800 in . com jamiemtl wrote:
I just picked up the Book Orchid Fever from my library and will be
taking a look at it today. The paper is unlike something I have ever
done in University before. We are supposed to take information from the
least informal spaces and sources as possible. I've been searching
threw the Orchid Guide Digest and found some interesting things about
Pepe and Norris. I think i'm going to write the paper outlining
evidence from both sides...i will report what the dop says, but also
what the orchid community says...i'll post the paper up when im done so
you can take a look..it you're interested! thanks again

You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

In article ,
says...

You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.
I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?
--
Reka

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

Reka wrote:
In article ,
says...


You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.

I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?

No plant or animal parts are exempt from CITES if the plant or animal is
regulated by CITES. And no, that doesn't necessarily have to make
sense. Makes a lot of sense for tiger testicles, but not so much sense
for phrag seeds.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

In article , says...
Reka wrote:
In article ,
says...


You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.

I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?

No plant or animal parts are exempt from CITES if the plant or animal is
regulated by CITES. And no, that doesn't necessarily have to make
sense. Makes a lot of sense for tiger testicles, but not so much sense
for phrag seeds.


Oh, so it's been modified SINCE Kovach?
--
--
Reka

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

In article ,
says...
In article , says...
Reka wrote:
In article ,
says...


You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.

I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?

No plant or animal parts are exempt from CITES if the plant or animal is
regulated by CITES. And no, that doesn't necessarily have to make
sense. Makes a lot of sense for tiger testicles, but not so much sense
for phrag seeds.


Oh, so it's been modified SINCE Kovach?
--

Wait, I guess that is just NOT-Appendix I orchids.
--
--
Reka

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

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

Reka wrote:
In article ,
says...


You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.

I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?

NO, CITES specifically includes "any part thereof", and in fact this is
the single most damning part of the whole thing. The failure to exclude
plants from this clause written for animals (which usually have to be
killed to obtain 'any part thereof') creates a pact which achieves the
reverse of it's supposed purpose, conservation (yes, it's a trade
treaty, but the purpose was in fact conservation). With plants, if you
exempt the parts, that is, seeds, seed capsules, and pollen, you are
able to artificially propagate them and thereby reduce the pressure on
collection of species in habitat. By failing to exclude them from this
clause, a situation has been created wherein the habitats are stripped
by collecting (yes, be it illegal or not) and many plants are so
'protected' they are 'imprisoned' in habitat as roads, farms, and
airstrips are built over them.

As to the the Kovachii episode, throw out everything you were thinking
about law, smuggling, and CITES. It was a case of personalities and
pride. No institution such as Selby had ever been expected to be
responsible for the actions of collectors. Their job is to classify,
which is a scientific endeavor of benefit to all humanity. It creates a
dampening effect on science in any area when they are also expoected to
be policemen. The peruvian authorities and those in the US were alerted
and prodded into action by someone else working on describing the plant
who was outdone by the earlier publishing of the name kovachii. Their
plan had been to be name it 'peruvianum', which is where the peruvian
authorities got their dander up, Until then they were perfectly happy to
let the plants just be farmed over (which is what ended up happening
anyway).

Michael Kovach did in fact have a legal arrangement to import plants as
that was his business. His contention that as the plant had not been
identified it could not technically be subject to CITES as an appendix 1
plant is not entirely without merit (if you'll speak to lawyers or
people who write such treaties they will tell you it's all about
technicalities). And in fact he was charged with the importation of only
one plant, for identification purposes at Selby. No one had ever been
subject to any kind of penalty before for moving one specimen for
identification.

Orchid Fever has it right. It's all about the people involved.

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..

jamiemtl wrote:
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..


Well, you got the one 'ring' that was caught. Any others are still
underground.... such is the nature of crime, no?

K

----- Original Message -----
From: "K Barrett"
Newsgroups: rec.gardens.orchids
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:33 AM
Subject: illegal orchids or orchid smuggling.....



Well, you got the one 'ring' that was caught. Any others are still
underground.... such is the nature of crime, no?

K

-- the reporter gone? --

So I'm at a big orchid show and my storage area is next to a Taiwanese
grower's area. All of their plants have been imported for the show, coffin
box after coffin box stacked toward the ceiling. In English, in big black
marker the side of each box lists it contents, 100 of this 25 of that. When
I see the boxes containing flasks names as vietnamense and hangianum make up
the this and that. Through Taiwan CITES, through US customs, through US ag
inspection, half way around the world with nothing to hide. The plants at
the show did not surprise me, nothing new there. But written on the side of
the boxes -- underground? Like most shows, by the Sunday afternoon all of
the flasks have been sold -- such is the nature of this crime.

So last weekend I'm at a smaller AOS judged show. As is my normal routine,
after my exhibit is up I check the other exhibits before the ribbon shake
and break occurs. In another commercial growers exhibit is a spectacular
Paph labeled as Joyce Hasegawa. I am no Paph expert, but delenatii has
never made anything this nice. Clearly the plant is vietnamense X
hangianum. I confirm this with a Paph expert who says 'no doubt.' That
night or maybe the next day, the AOS judging fairies come and by the time I
return to the show it is ribbons ribbons everywhere. Joyce proudly sports a
best in class blue. I am not even sure where the crime is.

Now some good new, Phrag. kovachii. The first (at least that I know of)
batch of legal kovachii arrived in the US last summer. I know of another
legal batch, from another breeder, that has completed the Peru CITES
paperwork and will be in the US before Christmas. I do not think there will
be any problem with the legal status of plants from either of these batches
since the Peruvian government gave the plants to these growers in Peru. The
orchid world has followed the progress of these plants and the pods, it is
all documented. In addition, it is my understanding that the surviving
plants handed out by Peruvian government have been DNA fingerprinted. I was
surprised to see Peru allowed the flasks to leave the country, but it seems
they did. All and all, when we get past Mike and Selby's problems, CITES
seems to work well with kovachii. As legal plants become available the
demand for collected plants should all but go away. I expect kovachii
distribution to be very similar to what we saw with besseae. We are going
to start seeing kovachii seedlings for sale (if they are not already) in the
three figure range. Over the next couple of years the supply will continue
to increase and the price will drop. I hope to have one within 5 years and
I plan to pay less than $50 for it.


Pat

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:16:53 +0100 in Reka wrote:
In article ,
says...

You might also want to talk with folks that have done seed smuggling
for seed banks.
I thought seeds were exempt from CITES, or are you just talking about
general smuggling of plant material into the States?

General smuggling of plant materials.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil