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

I bought a flask of the Paph vietnamense sold by Antec. They provided me
with a receipt just like they do with any other Paph. There was no other
paper work that came with the flask. The only assurance I have that the
plants were propagated and sold with the blessing of the US and Vietnamese
governments was Antec's posted word on their website. Of course, I believed
them. I think the story of how they came to propagate and sell them
legally in the US is still documented on their website.

Despite my belief in Antec's veracity, I checked with a friend of mine who
works for CITES in the capacity of "Chief, Division of Scientific
Authority", (lets call him CITES DUDE and imagine him to be very much like
Captain America after consuming a can of Popeye's magical spinach) and he
confirmed they were aware of what antec was doing and it was legal. I
contacted him to ask about *re-selling* them and what I needed to provide to
people who bought them from me.

When I re-sell these paphs to people in my country (the US) I only need to
provide a receipt just like I do with all my plants. There is no special
documentation required. I am usually asked, by the customer, to send a copy
along of Antec's receipt as proof that I got them from Antec but this
requirement of a forward propagating paper trail is internet lore. If you
stop to think about it, a copy of my receipt from Antec does not *prove*
that the plants I am selling came from Antec. The copy machine does not
know how many plants came out of the flask. It does not know if I am the
owner of the original receipt I am copying.

I was told by CITES DUDE the following (and this is hard to quote without
getting confusing, so I am going to paraphrase except for the words in
actual quotes): if the customer wishes and I was agreeable I could provide
them a statement that "these are legal plants derived from the Plant Rescue
Center Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" or something like
that.

Strangely, even this does not seem to be required. I was told *If the
customer wishes and I am agreeable*.... It seems CITES is sensitive to the
fact that I might not want to tell my customers where I get my plants for
purely economic reasons. Why buy them from me at the prices I am charging
if you can go to my source? Everybody is a middleman... However, I did not
mind sharing with my customers that the plants I was selling came from an
Antec flask. I actually printed it on the plant tag, for whatever that was
worth.... Occasionally I did get a little tense when they wanted me to go
make a copy of my receipt. If only because it is non-proof and protects
neither them or me from anything the government might do if it suspected
somebody is breaking the law.

So for the average customer, a receipt is all that is necessary and
required. However I was told by CITES DUDE that a statement of origin was
(and this is CITES DUDE verbatim now) "most critical to anyone who thinks
they might want to export the plants they got from you, or propagate them
and export their progeny. They'll need to get CITES export documents from
us, and we'll ask about the origin of the plants. Beyond that, it is likely
to become an issue only if someone has raised suspicions that they are
dealing in (buying or selling) illegal plants."

For what it's worth I believe there is no real way to track individual
plants bought and sold and grown within our borders. If you are dealing
with importers and exports of orchids you should check them for shady
qualities, if only for your own peace of mind. Don't buy something you
believe you shouldn't have no matter how badly you want it. If you are
breaking the import/export laws, you will eventually raise suspicions. The
CITES DUDE I am referring to is an orchid collector himself. He is an
active member of our local society and knows all the vendors in the area.

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .
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

Al

I have no argument with anything you said.

CITES is an issue primarily for importers and exporters. But I recall cases
where vendors couldn't get their plants across the border when they visited
an orchid society here as a guest speaker. That was a major disappointment
because they had some very interesting plants. And I can see it as a
potential problem for collectors in one country wanting to take plants to
shows in another country. I'd expect that if I, as a Canadian collector and
not a vendor, wanted to attend an orchid show in New York, CITES could be an
issue for me if the plants I wanted to show, or have judged, we subect to
CITES restrictions.

At the last orchid society meeting I attended, several breeders, in
discussing the impact of CITES on their business, noted both that the
Canadian officials seemed to want documentary proof that vendors needed to
be able to prove that the parent plants of a given cross are legal (if
they're species protected by CITES), and that they were not provided with
documentation proving the legality of the seedlings they'd bought from which
they wanted to select breeding stock. They were worried that they'd not be
able to prove that the breeding stock they'd bought from a vendor that
imported the plants into Canada originally was legal.

For me it isn't an issue since I have no plans on taking any of my plants
across any border any time soon.

When I referred to documentation, I was thinking only of collectors who may
need to take some of their plants across a border for whatever reason, and
commercial operations that may be involved directly or indirectly in
international trade.

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

Plants crossing a border is where problems begin. I understand and
sympathize with those who must cross borders. I choose not to because I
don't have the energy to deal with most forms of bureaucracy.

I own several plants I see listed on CITES Appendix I and they were all
bought from vendors inside this country. Finding Renanthera imshootiana on
the CITES APPENDIX I list surprised me an did finding Peristeria elata.

I bought my Peristeria elata from the US Botanical Gardens when they had a
vendor stand at the NCOS annual show/sale one year. Apparently there was
some reason that they should not have been selling plants (divided from back
bulb divisions) and I don't remember what these reasons were specifically,
but they have never sold plants at the show again. Too bad too.

You have to know that at this show I got a receipt with a price and tax
total that did not include what was bought AND it is from the NCOS, not the
vendor who sold the plant. The receipt is just a cash register receipt and
does not even have the NCOS's name on it. I have it in a file with every
receipt of plants I bought that year.

Peristeria elata (alata, whatever) is a weed. It is probably on the CITES
APPENDIX I list because it is the national flower of Panama and very showy
so they don't want collectors pulling it up and carrying it home. I would
bet it is not on this list because it is "endangered" in the sense that
there is only a handful left in it's native habitat, but I don't know.

The is probably clear to everybody, but I wanna say it anyway: *The country
whose borders encircle the plant in question make the decision to label it
endangered, not CITES.* For instance, no company, non-profit or otherwise,
no agency or individual can do anything with Phrag kovachii, it's seeds or
tissue, until the government of Peru says they can. CITES officials can
only enforce Peru's wishes.

Most of the problems at borders come from customs agents and individuals who
are not clear about what permissions are needed for the plant material in
question. For this reason alone, I would not want to play import/export
with my orchids.

Anyway, the capsule I made (a selfing of the Peristeria elata) exploded in
my greenhouse and baby plants were coming up in everything for several
years. It *is* a weed. I have sold quite a few via the internet and from
my greenhouse all to people within the US border but I could never provide
proof of origin that went back furthur than a sketchy claim that I bought
the mother plant from the US government via my local orchid society. This
has always worried me.

I can not even imagine what problems if any I would have if I tried to
export these plants. Actually I can imagine the problems and no amount of
money is worth it, so I just don't do import or export. There are enough
orchids in my county already to make me happy. I hope the same is true in
all your countries where ever you are.

Mostly I have never imported plants with my permit because the first step is
usually to wire money to a foreign bank account belonging to somebody I have
never met. This is scary enough to stop me from using the general permit
and to rely on plants obtainable from within my own borders only. I would
really like to possess a Phrag kovachii and one day I will. I expect I will
buy it from somebody inside this country, probably in flask from the likes
of Chuck Acker or Antec, when the price is being driven by normal market
factors and not by "first to own" economics.

If I ever traveled to a foreign country I would go with an orchid tour group
where part of the package included somebody to deal with permits and border
crossing. I suspect I would still be very nervous about spending money on
things that might not make it past Customs.

Cleary the triptophan has not taken effect yet, I'm still typing madly....


"Ted Byers" wrote in message
...
Al

I have no argument with anything you said.

CITES is an issue primarily for importers and exporters. But I recall
cases where vendors couldn't get their plants across the border when they
visited an orchid society here as a guest speaker. That was a major
disappointment because they had some very interesting plants. And I can
see it as a potential problem for collectors in one country wanting to
take plants to shows in another country. I'd expect that if I, as a
Canadian collector and not a vendor, wanted to attend an orchid show in
New York, CITES could be an issue for me if the plants I wanted to show,
or have judged, we subect to CITES restrictions.

At the last orchid society meeting I attended, several breeders, in
discussing the impact of CITES on their business, noted both that the
Canadian officials seemed to want documentary proof that vendors needed to
be able to prove that the parent plants of a given cross are legal (if
they're species protected by CITES), and that they were not provided with
documentation proving the legality of the seedlings they'd bought from
which they wanted to select breeding stock. They were worried that they'd
not be able to prove that the breeding stock they'd bought from a vendor
that imported the plants into Canada originally was legal.

For me it isn't an issue since I have no plans on taking any of my plants
across any border any time soon.

When I referred to documentation, I was thinking only of collectors who
may need to take some of their plants across a border for whatever reason,
and commercial operations that may be involved directly or indirectly in
international trade.

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