I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a list
of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years and
couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy or
guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something that
might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described since the
1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot be judged
unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the legality of the
plant in question. (you mean they have something besides pictures in
them?) I will start searching my old AQs shortly but they only go back
to about the year 2000 and they are spread all over the creation... If
anybody can find it and point me at it, I will stop banging my head on
walls at least for a little while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read this
newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's a lot of
connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a few
interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in with
a wench.

Diana

Hummm...., okay. My Orchids magazines go back much furthur than my AQ.

BTW, Roddy's last is name Gabel, not Gobels, my mistake. I have refered to
him in this thread by the wrong last name. His title at CITES is "Chief,
Division of Scientific Authority" (head of the office that deals with
scientific issues as they pertain to CITES). I have quoted/paraphrased him
a few times in this thread from either memory or from emails....for good or
ill. :-) He is a member of the National Capitol Orchid Society, so I know
him. He is the person I email when I have a questions about a plant or
flask I want to buy from vendors inside the USA, some of them importers...
His basic response is, keep your paperwork. :-) I have seen at least one
little blurb in orchids written by him; the one I am thinking of is the
announcement a year or so ago that CITES permits had recently been granted
by Peru for Phrag kovachii to enter this country. I don't know if writing
articles and making announcements in Orchids Magizine like this is part of
his job description or what.... I do seem to remember a list of illegals
posted someplace...but this list will change over time as permits are issued
and so would this somewhat mythical published guidline IF it lists the
plants not to be judged without proof. I want to see what it lists as
proof.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a list
of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years and
couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written and
(according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there was to
be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to respect
and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate them.
Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from time
to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the time the
list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES regulations,
the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised from seed and to
any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's understanding of the
legal requirements and prohibitions at this time. Additional information
will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it becmes available. Any
questions should be referred to the Judging Committee." This was written by
James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has legal
Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose since the
update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they can't be judged
either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh Handbook
11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask if the
forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave it for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a list
of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years and
couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy or
guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something that
might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described since
the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot be judged
unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the legality of the
plant in question. (you mean they have something besides pictures in
them?) I will start searching my old AQs shortly but they only go back
to about the year 2000 and they are spread all over the creation... If
anybody can find it and point me at it, I will stop banging my head on
walls at least for a little while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read this
newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's a lot of
connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a few
interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:03:03 -0700, "K Barrett"
wrote:

Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written and
(according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there was to
be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to respect
and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate them.
Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."
-----------------------------
I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh Handbook
11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask if the
forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave it for now.

K Barrett

The Foreword is almost the same word for word. Then a statement of
purpose of AOS judging... Nothing new or more definitive. They
updated in Sept. 2002 but the changes did not start until page 12.
So no changes there.

I understand there is a new book in the works... but not when it will
be out.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids

And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Yes, as a matter of fact we do.

http://www.usbg.gov/plant-collection...ietnamense.cfm

http://www.cites.org/common/com/PC/1...rtificate %22

http://pollenatrix.blogspot.com/2003...im-really.html

http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/conservatio...e%20legally%22

I actually think the certificate people have mentioned to you started
out as a marketing ploy by other sellers, a way to reassure potential
customers. Possibly wasn't deliberate but then again, if they (other
sellers) can make the buyer paranoid or doubtful as to the integrity of
other sellers or source of the product, then by reason they should be
able to sell more. I saw a blurb about the certificate, it may have
been about Phrag kovachii, later confused with Paph vietnamense, but
the effect was the same. If it will endanger my collection or send me
to prison, do I want to buy a plant without the certificate?

What the heck, for $12 anyone can buy a package of parchment paper and
using power point, print a certificate. It may increase the value and
be reflected in the price. I received or printed them for all
occasions. I had templates for all occasions, Certificates of
Completion for training, Certificates of Appreciation, etc.

Would you want to provide a certificate? Probably not, but then you
probably could if you wanted. If you do, keep it pompous and obscure
like Navy certificates. I've seen those for "plank owners", crossing
the equator, and polar bears for north of the arctic circle. "Hear
yea, Hear yea. Let all citizens, government officials, and A.O.S
judges, know by sight and sound that (insert person's name here) has
legally purchased a (plant name here) of X# divisions on (this date).
Said plant was propagated in vitro by (insert lab name here) under the
auspices of the United States Botanical Gardens with approval by
C.I.T.E.S. from impounded or imported plants, satisfying the
international agreements in effect. The plant described above was
purchased on the open market from (insert name here) . ....

You could probably make a fortune printing new certificates as the
plants grew, updating the number of divisions for your customers.
Anyway they look really good with red and gold scroll. ;-)

Of course, it would lead to the question on how you could trace a
single certificate to an individual plant anyway. It's not as if you
could take a print or tattoo a leaf. I'm just looking forward to the
day when I can afford to buy one and risk its early demise.

Nancy

Well, you could always sequence the species, identify plant specific
genitic markers, or splice a ® or © lab or brand marker, make a test
kit and then turn in some competetors, spread some rumors, then go on a
marketing blitz (with the reward money from the competetors) on how
your plants are the only "TRUE VERIFIED" legal plants. Or better yet
put out the story then charge an extra $149.99 for a cut down pregnancy
test with two red lines (sharpy $0.99) and a fancy document.

In other words, It could be done, but who really wants to pay the
millions that it cost to sequence all the plants and decide what is
"fruit of a poison tree"
However proof of guilt is on the goverment.

Jack

The best way to save the wild ones is to grow them at home (legally of
course)

Jack wrote:
Well, you could always sequence the species, identify plant specific
genitic markers, or splice a ® or © lab or brand marker, make a test
kit and then turn in some competetors, spread some rumors, then go on a
marketing blitz (with the reward money from the competetors) on how
your plants are the only "TRUE VERIFIED" legal plants. Or better yet
put out the story then charge an extra $149.99 for a cut down pregnancy
test with two red lines (sharpy $0.99) and a fancy document.

In other words, It could be done, but who really wants to pay the
millions that it cost to sequence all the plants and decide what is
"fruit of a poison tree"
However proof of guilt is on the goverment.

Jack

The best way to save the wild ones is to grow them at home (legally of
course)

I submitted my last post tongue in cheek. Need to be careful and not
make a joke that someone may take seriously and implement.

You are right though, it would probably be easy enough to insert a
NOT-virus or flag into the plant that would remain throughout its life,
and possibly be transmitted to the progeny. I would hate to compare it
to syphilis, but once positive always positive. Or maybe something
that could be tested as quickly as a home virus test strip (about $20
per test) or as you said a home pregnancy kit.

The first link was *really* interesting. :-) It really underscores why
nobody ever seems to know what's going on with a particular plant and it
legal status.

The fourth link was interesting too. I don't know if there are differences
between US CITES regulations and UK CITES regulations, probably little to
none in terms of general information, but for people from the UK, that's an
important link to bookmark.

I had somebody suggest that certificate thing to me as way to provide
"proof" who needed it. He did say, it would be meaningless, but if it makes
people feel good and sell plants. Actually a certificate stating that my
plants come from Antec and their association with the USBG is the same thing
as putting that statement in writing on the receipt and signing it. If it
is a true statement, it's a true statement, if it is not then it is fraud
and it has to be proven such by a conviction. You don't get extra jail time
for committing fraud in gold leaf script on velum parchment, do you?


"Nancy G." wrote in message
oups.com...

And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Yes, as a matter of fact we do.

http://www.usbg.gov/plant-collection...ietnamense.cfm

http://www.cites.org/common/com/PC/1...rtificate %22

http://pollenatrix.blogspot.com/2003...im-really.html

http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/conservatio...e%20legally%22

I actually think the certificate people have mentioned to you started
out as a marketing ploy by other sellers, a way to reassure potential
customers. Possibly wasn't deliberate but then again, if they (other
sellers) can make the buyer paranoid or doubtful as to the integrity of
other sellers or source of the product, then by reason they should be
able to sell more. I saw a blurb about the certificate, it may have
been about Phrag kovachii, later confused with Paph vietnamense, but
the effect was the same. If it will endanger my collection or send me
to prison, do I want to buy a plant without the certificate?

What the heck, for $12 anyone can buy a package of parchment paper and
using power point, print a certificate. It may increase the value and
be reflected in the price. I received or printed them for all
occasions. I had templates for all occasions, Certificates of
Completion for training, Certificates of Appreciation, etc.

Would you want to provide a certificate? Probably not, but then you
probably could if you wanted. If you do, keep it pompous and obscure
like Navy certificates. I've seen those for "plank owners", crossing
the equator, and polar bears for north of the arctic circle. "Hear
yea, Hear yea. Let all citizens, government officials, and A.O.S
judges, know by sight and sound that (insert person's name here) has
legally purchased a (plant name here) of X# divisions on (this date).
Said plant was propagated in vitro by (insert lab name here) under the
auspices of the United States Botanical Gardens with approval by
C.I.T.E.S. from impounded or imported plants, satisfying the
international agreements in effect. The plant described above was
purchased on the open market from (insert name here) . ....

You could probably make a fortune printing new certificates as the
plants grew, updating the number of divisions for your customers.
Anyway they look really good with red and gold scroll. ;-)

Of course, it would lead to the question on how you could trace a
single certificate to an individual plant anyway. It's not as if you
could take a print or tattoo a leaf. I'm just looking forward to the
day when I can afford to buy one and risk its early demise.

Nancy

I could not find any of my 2001 AQ. Thank you.

This statement from the AQ,:
"plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award"

makes me consider how important it is to my customers that I mark each of my
sales receipts for Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minh with a signed statement
attesting to the fact that the plants named on it came from Antec . I think
that the AOS should consider such a assertion as "proof" the plants do meet
this criteria. I feel that to decline to judge them on the basis that a
plant did "not conform to known parameters for legal acquisition" would be
tantamount to an accusation by the AOS that at the very least fraud is
involved...so what ever they accept as proof should be applied to all
exhibitors of listed plants and with care.

I feel a receipt lacking that written assertion is also good enough for the
above to plants but I am finally getting tired of typing and don't feel like
trying to explain why.... It has something to do with the fact that nobody
officially tracks the transfer of ownership and reproduction of plant
material except maybe at border crossings. If the AOS is going to ask for
proofs, I think that some plants (Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minhs) should
only require the exhibitor to state on the exhibit form where they got it,
so that it gets into the data record.

It is interesting to note that AOS judges can not judge Phrag kovachii in
this country yet, but they can travel to Peru and judge them at AOS
sponsored events there.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and (according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there
was to be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to respect
and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate them.
Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from
time to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the
time the list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES
regulations, the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised
from seed and to any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's
understanding of the legal requirements and prohibitions at this time.
Additional information will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it
becmes available. Any questions should be referred to the Judging
Committee." This was written by James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has
legal Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose since
the update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they can't be
judged either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook 11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask
if the forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave it
for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a
list of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years and
couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy or
guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something that
might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described since
the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot be
judged unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the legality
of the plant in question. (you mean they have something besides
pictures in them?) I will start searching my old AQs shortly but they
only go back to about the year 2000 and they are spread all over the
creation... If anybody can find it and point me at it, I will stop
banging my head on walls at least for a little while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read this
newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's a lot of
connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a few
interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana

I'd just mark "from Antec' on the receipt. Get a stamp. Or maybe mark it
on the label, since that's what will stay with the plant...???

No one is tracking these plant's provenance because exhibitors aren't
showing them in any numbers. YET. But when they do I'm sure there'll be
questions. Forewarned is forearmed, yes?

K Barrett


"Al" wrote in message
...
I could not find any of my 2001 AQ. Thank you.

This statement from the AQ,:
"plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award"

makes me consider how important it is to my customers that I mark each of
my sales receipts for Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minh with a signed
statement attesting to the fact that the plants named on it came from
Antec . I think that the AOS should consider such a assertion as "proof"
the plants do meet this criteria. I feel that to decline to judge them on
the basis that a plant did "not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition" would be tantamount to an accusation by the AOS that at the
very least fraud is involved...so what ever they accept as proof should be
applied to all exhibitors of listed plants and with care.

I feel a receipt lacking that written assertion is also good enough for
the above to plants but I am finally getting tired of typing and don't
feel like trying to explain why.... It has something to do with the fact
that nobody officially tracks the transfer of ownership and reproduction
of plant material except maybe at border crossings. If the AOS is going
to ask for proofs, I think that some plants (Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi
Minhs) should only require the exhibitor to state on the exhibit form
where they got it, so that it gets into the data record.

It is interesting to note that AOS judges can not judge Phrag kovachii in
this country yet, but they can travel to Peru and judge them at AOS
sponsored events there.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and (according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there
was to be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to
respect and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate
them. Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from
time to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the
time the list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES
regulations, the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised
from seed and to any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's
understanding of the legal requirements and prohibitions at this time.
Additional information will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it
becmes available. Any questions should be referred to the Judging
Committee." This was written by James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has
legal Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose since
the update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they can't be
judged either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook 11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask
if the forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave
it for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a
list of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years
and couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy
or guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something
that might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described
since the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot
be judged unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the
legality of the plant in question. (you mean they have something
besides pictures in them?) I will start searching my old AQs shortly
but they only go back to about the year 2000 and they are spread all
over the creation... If anybody can find it and point me at it, I will
stop banging my head on walls at least for a little while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read
this newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's a
lot of connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a few
interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana

Thanks SuE!

K

"Susan Erickson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:03:03 -0700, "K Barrett"
wrote:

Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and
(according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there was to
be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to respect
and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate them.
Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."
-----------------------------
I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook
11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask if the
forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave it for
now.

K Barrett

The Foreword is almost the same word for word. Then a statement of
purpose of AOS judging... Nothing new or more definitive. They
updated in Sept. 2002 but the changes did not start until page 12.
So no changes there.

I understand there is a new book in the works... but not when it will
be out.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids

I actually do have the words
"legally obtained from Antec" printed onto the tag with the plant name. My
business name and contact info are printed on the opposite side.

I have quite a few Ho Chi Minhs left since I got two flasks, about half a
tray, about 16 plants I guess; some four inch pots that may bloom this
year...they have to be close anyway. I have a few vietnamensis left and
those are not on the website because I am no really sure I want to sell them
before I can see one bloom. People who come here never ask about legality.
This question only comes up when it comes via the internet or email as a
result of seeing them online. I tell people who come here and who turn out
to be Slipper junkies that I have them, however most often their response
is, "Oh, I got a flask of those from Antec."

I agree they are going to start showing up real soon and lots of them will
be plants given away or traded from hobbyists who bought flasks from Antec.
You judging people will have a real job on your hands if you are seeking to
judge only those plants that "conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition."

For the record, such as it is, I have never received these two plants from
any place other than Antec. Now ask me if I can prove that. :-)


"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
I'd just mark "from Antec' on the receipt. Get a stamp. Or maybe mark it
on the label, since that's what will stay with the plant...???

No one is tracking these plant's provenance because exhibitors aren't
showing them in any numbers. YET. But when they do I'm sure there'll be
questions. Forewarned is forearmed, yes?

K Barrett


"Al" wrote in message
...
I could not find any of my 2001 AQ. Thank you.

This statement from the AQ,:
"plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award"

makes me consider how important it is to my customers that I mark each of
my sales receipts for Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minh with a signed
statement attesting to the fact that the plants named on it came from
Antec . I think that the AOS should consider such a assertion as "proof"
the plants do meet this criteria. I feel that to decline to judge them
on the basis that a plant did "not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition" would be tantamount to an accusation by the AOS that at the
very least fraud is involved...so what ever they accept as proof should
be applied to all exhibitors of listed plants and with care.

I feel a receipt lacking that written assertion is also good enough for
the above to plants but I am finally getting tired of typing and don't
feel like trying to explain why.... It has something to do with the fact
that nobody officially tracks the transfer of ownership and reproduction
of plant material except maybe at border crossings. If the AOS is going
to ask for proofs, I think that some plants (Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi
Minhs) should only require the exhibitor to state on the exhibit form
where they got it, so that it gets into the data record.

It is interesting to note that AOS judges can not judge Phrag kovachii in
this country yet, but they can travel to Peru and judge them at AOS
sponsored events there.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and (according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there
was to be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to
respect and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate
them. Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from
time to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the
time the list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES
regulations, the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised
from seed and to any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's
understanding of the legal requirements and prohibitions at this time.
Additional information will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it
becmes available. Any questions should be referred to the Judging
Committee." This was written by James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has
legal Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose since
the update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they can't be
judged either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook 11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always ask
if the forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll leave
it for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a
list of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years
and couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy
or guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something
that might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described
since the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot
be judged unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the
legality of the plant in question. (you mean they have something
besides pictures in them?) I will start searching my old AQs shortly
but they only go back to about the year 2000 and they are spread all
over the creation... If anybody can find it and point me at it, I
will stop banging my head on walls at least for a little while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read
this newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's a
lot of connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a
few interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana

The real fun will come if/when we are expected to be suspicious of Paphs
that are 'too good to be true'. I think Koopowitz presented a paper to the
JC on that topic at a recent Member's Meeting (Santa Rosa??). The
implication being that a hybrid just might be made with illegal stock. Like
instead of delenatii it actually was made with an illegal vietnamense. Now
how are we gonna "prove" that? Especially in these days of line breeding
(I'm thinking of Terry Root's 12-13 HUGE Paph rothschildianums... the judges
were floored that anything that big could have been grown.) [sigh] Kinda
sucks the fun out of judging.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
I actually do have the words
"legally obtained from Antec" printed onto the tag with the plant name.
My business name and contact info are printed on the opposite side.

I have quite a few Ho Chi Minhs left since I got two flasks, about half a
tray, about 16 plants I guess; some four inch pots that may bloom this
year...they have to be close anyway. I have a few vietnamensis left and
those are not on the website because I am no really sure I want to sell
them before I can see one bloom. People who come here never ask about
legality. This question only comes up when it comes via the internet or
email as a result of seeing them online. I tell people who come here and
who turn out to be Slipper junkies that I have them, however most often
their response is, "Oh, I got a flask of those from Antec."

I agree they are going to start showing up real soon and lots of them will
be plants given away or traded from hobbyists who bought flasks from
Antec. You judging people will have a real job on your hands if you are
seeking to judge only those plants that "conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition."

For the record, such as it is, I have never received these two plants from
any place other than Antec. Now ask me if I can prove that. :-)


"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
I'd just mark "from Antec' on the receipt. Get a stamp. Or maybe mark
it on the label, since that's what will stay with the plant...???

No one is tracking these plant's provenance because exhibitors aren't
showing them in any numbers. YET. But when they do I'm sure there'll be
questions. Forewarned is forearmed, yes?

K Barrett


"Al" wrote in message
...
I could not find any of my 2001 AQ. Thank you.

This statement from the AQ,:
"plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award"

makes me consider how important it is to my customers that I mark each
of my sales receipts for Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minh with a signed
statement attesting to the fact that the plants named on it came from
Antec . I think that the AOS should consider such a assertion as
"proof" the plants do meet this criteria. I feel that to decline to
judge them on the basis that a plant did "not conform to known
parameters for legal acquisition" would be tantamount to an accusation
by the AOS that at the very least fraud is involved...so what ever they
accept as proof should be applied to all exhibitors of listed plants and
with care.

I feel a receipt lacking that written assertion is also good enough for
the above to plants but I am finally getting tired of typing and don't
feel like trying to explain why.... It has something to do with the
fact that nobody officially tracks the transfer of ownership and
reproduction of plant material except maybe at border crossings. If the
AOS is going to ask for proofs, I think that some plants (Paph
vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minhs) should only require the exhibitor to state
on the exhibit form where they got it, so that it gets into the data
record.

It is interesting to note that AOS judges can not judge Phrag kovachii
in this country yet, but they can travel to Peru and judge them at AOS
sponsored events there.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and (according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there
was to be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to
respect and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate
them. Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from
time to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the
time the list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES
regulations, the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised
from seed and to any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's
understanding of the legal requirements and prohibitions at this time.
Additional information will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it
becmes available. Any questions should be referred to the Judging
Committee." This was written by James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has
legal Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose
since the update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they
can't be judged either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook 11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always
ask if the forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll
leave it for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a
list of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years
and couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy
or guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something
that might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described
since the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot
be judged unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the
legality of the plant in question. (you mean they have something
besides pictures in them?) I will start searching my old AQs
shortly but they only go back to about the year 2000 and they are
spread all over the creation... If anybody can find it and point me
at it, I will stop banging my head on walls at least for a little
while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read
this newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's
a lot of connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a
few interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana

I had somebody suggest that certificate thing to me as way to provide
"proof" who needed it. He did say, it would be meaningless, but if it makes
people feel good and sell plants. Actually a certificate stating that my
plants come from Antec and their association with the USBG is the same thing
as putting that statement in writing on the receipt and signing it. If it
is a true statement, it's a true statement, if it is not then it is fraud
and it has to be proven such by a conviction. You don't get extra jail time
for committing fraud in gold leaf script on velum parchment, do you?

If it isn't fraud, then no problem. Alabama is a "Bill of Sale" state
for cars older than 1973. It may be legal, but I feel so much better
when I can actually hold the title in my hand. It makes it interesting
when the classic car is registered in other states.

People are also impressed by matching envelopes tied with the red
ribbon. If you get jail time let me know. I'll bake you a cake with a
file in it. Of course, you may need to borrow a saw to get it out of
the cake. I never said I could cook.

Nancy

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:04:47 -0700, "K Barrett"
wrote:

The real fun will come if/when we are expected to be suspicious of Paphs
that are 'too good to be true'. I think Koopowitz presented a paper to the
JC on that topic at a recent Member's Meeting (Santa Rosa??). The
implication being that a hybrid just might be made with illegal stock. Like
instead of delenatii it actually was made with an illegal vietnamense. Now
how are we gonna "prove" that? Especially in these days of line breeding
(I'm thinking of Terry Root's 12-13 HUGE Paph rothschildianums... the judges
were floored that anything that big could have been grown.) [sigh] Kinda
sucks the fun out of judging.

K Barrett

6 months to a year ago there were several 'suspeciously large'
flowered plants - For the life of me a can not remember what the
hybrid was, but I remember the whisper - do you think... Could it be
.... How could you get that size from delenatii? You know the only
difference is the size... Etc.

It always ended with - AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO TELL?
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids