Eric Hunt wrote:
Nick,

Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:

Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal enforcement
officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
advocating? The number of innocent people KILLED during mistaken drug raids
is well documented - are you ready to die for your orchids?

Extreme examples, I know, but I put them out to make people stop and think.

Hi Eric,

No, that wouldn't please me, but I don't think it is inevitable. There
are currently ornamental plants that Americans cannot obtain legally,
but I haven't heard of anyone killed during greenhouse raids to look
for Aztekium hintonii or Geohintonia mexicana. In the long term, I
suspect that enforcement would not have to be much more severe than it
is now, but we would need to change our priorities a bit. Now, when a
new species is discovered, our priority is to get it into cultivation
as soon as possible. That frenzy creates both motive and opportunity
to smuggle wild plants.

If we were resigned to the fact that P. kovachii would never be
available to grow legally, there would be less incentive to collect the
wild plants. By way of comparison, I'm sure there is illegal
collecting of Mexican cacti like Aztekium hintoni, but since Mexico
does not permit exporting the species, most ethical U.S. cactus growers
do not even try to obtain one. They are available in Europe,
presumably derived from smuggled plants and seed, but I've never seen
it for sale here in the US. On the other hand, I have seen many large
wild-collected plants of Ariocarpus fissuratus for sale (legally
collected in Texas), even though artificially propagated seedlings are
readily available.

I suspect that with rare, horticulturally desirable plants, we can
either have free and easy international trade, or we can have
relatively secure wild populations, but not both.

Nick

Eric Hunt wrote:
Nick,

Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:

Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal enforcement
officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
advocating?

One further thought... One could, I think, beef up CITES enforcement
without ever going anywhere near private greenhouses. A lot of
smuggling is probably Norris-style false labeling. Suppose only plants
in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
plants.

But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..

Nick

Nick,

Did you read the stories about how George Norris' greenhouse was raided with
semiautomatic weapons? An elderly man (who, yes, was found guilty) was
treated like a drug dealer over smuggled plants! Google is your friend if
you haven't read about it.

And I *KNOW* the orchid community is back-biting enough to turn each other
in left and right, both honestly and maliciously. Sadly, I do think we are
headed more towards the system you describe. I've been asked by some local
growers to not take photos of ANY paphiopedilums in their collections. And I
*know* that they are very upstanding law-abiding growers, but the climate of
hysteria surrounding slipper orchids has made them feel unsafe.

The American way of "shoot first/confiscate first/destroy first, ask
questions later" in law enforcement means that if the authorities are the
least bit ambiguous on what might be legal or illegal, it ALL gets
destroyed. Out of bloom Phrag. kovachii looks pretty much like any other
Phrag, you know? Until the day of handheld DNA analyzers with an accurate
genomebank that fits into something portable, there are definite enforcement
issues.

Not to dismiss your core arguments - I think they make a lot of sense in a
society where law enforcement isn't as overzealous as ours is here.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Hunt wrote:
Nick,

Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:

Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal
enforcement
officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
advocating? The number of innocent people KILLED during mistaken drug
raids
is well documented - are you ready to die for your orchids?

Extreme examples, I know, but I put them out to make people stop and
think.

Hi Eric,

No, that wouldn't please me, but I don't think it is inevitable. There
are currently ornamental plants that Americans cannot obtain legally,
but I haven't heard of anyone killed during greenhouse raids to look
for Aztekium hintonii or Geohintonia mexicana. In the long term, I
suspect that enforcement would not have to be much more severe than it
is now, but we would need to change our priorities a bit. Now, when a
new species is discovered, our priority is to get it into cultivation
as soon as possible. That frenzy creates both motive and opportunity
to smuggle wild plants.

If we were resigned to the fact that P. kovachii would never be
available to grow legally, there would be less incentive to collect the
wild plants. By way of comparison, I'm sure there is illegal
collecting of Mexican cacti like Aztekium hintoni, but since Mexico
does not permit exporting the species, most ethical U.S. cactus growers
do not even try to obtain one. They are available in Europe,
presumably derived from smuggled plants and seed, but I've never seen
it for sale here in the US. On the other hand, I have seen many large
wild-collected plants of Ariocarpus fissuratus for sale (legally
collected in Texas), even though artificially propagated seedlings are
readily available.

I suspect that with rare, horticulturally desirable plants, we can
either have free and easy international trade, or we can have
relatively secure wild populations, but not both.

Nick

Nick,

Your further though did address some of the issues I brought up in my reply
from 10:57 (we were working on replies simultaneously =). Again, good idea,
but the mechanisms to train people to recognize orchids in bloom will never
happen. Remember, port of entry inspectors inspect about a billion more
things than orchids, and hiring orchid specialists will never happen.

The US "fruit of the poison tree" interpretation of CITES is a big hindrance
to ex-situ conservation. Banning seedlings to prove an ethical point is
silly and we're the only country that does it, to my knowledge. It goes back
to CITES being developed for slow-to-reproduce animals and with plants being
tacked on as an afterthought.

Specific countries have laws that also make ex-situ conservation impossible.
These are probably not CITES related. I want to say it's illegal to rescue
orchids in deforestation zones in Mexico as an example. Peru also comes to
mind as having policies in this area that make it hard to save orchids from
slash and burn areas.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Hunt wrote:
Nick,

Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:

Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal
enforcement
officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
advocating?

One further thought... One could, I think, beef up CITES enforcement
without ever going anywhere near private greenhouses. A lot of
smuggling is probably Norris-style false labeling. Suppose only plants
in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
plants.

But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..

Nick

Nick: Surely you jest??? How do you suggest the inspecting authorities
train their personnel to recognize these blooms, esp. after they've
inevitably been damaged by shipping, when currently only a small percentage
of either AOS judges or commercial growers might possibly be up to the task?
And, BTW, how would you like to pay for that?

Nor does CITES only affect the "slippers," in which I actually have _no
interest whatsoever_, for myself or my business (not that I don't care about
the wild populations). I WOULD like to _legally_ acquire, and either
sib-cross or clone, a couple of nice C. trianaie (sp? -- sorry, I'm tired, I
just got home from a show). Which was also App. I, last I looked, even
though people in the areas where it grows say there's an abundance.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, just realistic. Kenni

Suppose only plants
in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
plants.

But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..

Nick

Kenni Judd wrote:
Nick: Surely you jest??? How do you suggest the inspecting authorities
train their personnel to recognize these blooms, esp. after they've
inevitably been damaged by shipping, when currently only a small percentage
of either AOS judges or commercial growers might possibly be up to the task?
And, BTW, how would you like to pay for that?

No, I don't jest. A very small number of orchids are CITES Appendix 1.
Since all Phrags and Paphs are listed, identifying them would be very
easy. Apart from the slippers, there are what, seven other species on
Appendix 1? How hard would it be to make up a checklist?

All of the remaining species are already in cultivation in the U.S., so
as you indicate, CITES only makes it difficult to obtain particular
clones from abroad.

Inspections are already required for imported plants, and I would
expect that allowing only blooming plants would greatly reduce the
volume of plants coming through the inspection stations. If there is
increased costs, you could increase permit fees. I'm assuming that the
main purpose is to limit smuggling of wild plants, and facilitating
legal imports is secondary.

Flasks would be unaffected by this suggestion.

Not sure if it's federal or state law interfering around here, but the
clearing for new development in Martin and Palm Beach Counties is knocking
down a lot of trees that host Enc. tampensis and other Florida natives. And
no one seems to be capable of salvaging them. There's one outfit that got a
permit, so I hear, but then it couldn't get the funding/personnel to
actually follow through. So they're being turned into mulch. Kenni


Specific countries have laws that also make ex-situ conservation
impossible. These are probably not CITES related. I want to say it's
illegal to rescue orchids in deforestation zones in Mexico as an example.
Peru also comes to mind as having policies in this area that make it hard
to save orchids from slash and burn areas.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

Al -- Actually, I think you're being VERY optimistic when you opine that
"your governments' CITES office can help ... "

Not every place even has one, and mine told me that I needed both CITES and
phyto papers to ship to Guam, a US possession -- and as proof thereof, faxed
me a paper which very clearly said the opposite. I decided to forego the
[rather sizeable] sale rather than deal with the bureaucracy. Kenni

"Al" wrote in message
...
Are signatory countries able to grant export permits to selected other
countries or is it an ALL or none kind of deal.

So if Country "A" has a plant within it's border and declares it to be on
the Appendix I list can it grant export permits to Country 'B" but not to
country "C"

I *think* the answer is no. If you can find the plant for sale in Country
'B" but country 'A" does not allow export, then you can not get legal
permission to bring into Country 'C" from Country "B" or to buy it legally
inside country 'B" or Country C...no matter how it got there. Of course,
I could be wrong.

If country A does not allow it's export, it doesn't matter how the plant
is collected or propagated inside country A, you can't have it if you
don't live there.

If you want to buy a plant from outside your country, make sure you
understand permit requirements; don't count on the vendor to know. If you
find a plant inside your country that you question, check with your
government's CITES office to be sure. Your government's Cites office can
help with both issues.

On the other hand, if you want to express an opinion, you've come to the
right place.

IMHO, a thread with a name like this one was meant to burn. Enjoy it, but
be wary...and bring your thick skin.

So they're being turned into mulch. Kenni

That's right. Can't have ordinary folks go in there and save the plants a
few at a time, now, can we? And yes, I understand all about property
ownership and liability. Waivers could take care of that. Disgusting. A few
years back, a newbie proudly showed off a clump of tampenses he had taken
from a tree. He didn't know it was illegal. Of course we advised him to "put
that thing away somewhere, right now!". But bulldozing is fine.

Diana