|
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
To all you AOS judges and show chairpeople:
You see a Paph Ho Chi Minh in your show or one is sit in front of you at a regional monthly judging: Do you require anything to prove the plant/hybrid is legally imported or comes from legally imported stock? Is a receipt from a vendor sufficient? I have checked with a friend of mine who works at CITES and he informs me that when I sell something like a Paph vietnamensis that I only need to provide a receipt to the customer that shows they bought it from me. He added that I should keep my paperwork in case they ever have questions about where I got it. Do you all require something more if such a plant turns up in a show or judging? Forever curious, Al |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:49:44 -0400, "Al" wrote:
To all you AOS judges and show chairpeople: You see a Paph Ho Chi Minh in your show or one is sit in front of you at a regional monthly judging: Do you require anything to prove the plant/hybrid is legally imported or comes from legally imported stock? Is a receipt from a vendor sufficient? I have checked with a friend of mine who works at CITES and he informs me that when I sell something like a Paph vietnamensis that I only need to provide a receipt to the customer that shows they bought it from me. He added that I should keep my paperwork in case they ever have questions about where I got it. Do you all require something more if such a plant turns up in a show or judging? Forever curious, Al I heard AnTec was providing a copy of the Cites clearance papers with the plants that were sold. Personally - I would want a copy for at least the first couple of years. (say 5 yrs). Then I think there will be enough plants around - including the illegal ones that there will be a much lower risk. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Sue, are you speaking as an AOS judge or a society showchair? I am assuming
the guidelines for judging or showing such plants come from a common source and all of you follow them. You require CITES clearance paper going back 5 years if a Ho Chi Minh shows up for judging or in a show. Is this true at all AOS sponsored events in the US? I have a potential cusotmer who has asked me to provide proof of legality for this hybrid so he can show them...and I assume he means at shows and to AOS judges. I have sent this question to the one of the local judges I know to see what he can tell me about what is required at my local judging station if such a plant is set in front of them but I was wondering if anybody on this forum who is a judge or showchair can tell me the specific policy that guides them... FWIW, Antec did not provide any such Cites clearance to me for Paph Ho Chi Minh flasks purchased through them. I have a credit card receipt dated 09-29-2003 from Antec AND an undated invoice that lists a Ho Chi Minh flask stapled to it. But nothing ties these two pieces of paper together except a total price which is on both the invoice and the receipt. Antec sent me another flask of Ho Chi Min in February of 2005 as part of a "Flask Grower Package" which included many other hybrids as well. It was part of group purchase in which I let them pick out which flasks to send. But the receipt does not list the specific flasks they chose. "Susan Erickson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:49:44 -0400, "Al" wrote: I heard AnTec was providing a copy of the Cites clearance papers with the plants that were sold. Personally - I would want a copy for at least the first couple of years. (say 5 yrs). Then I think there will be enough plants around - including the illegal ones that there will be a much lower risk. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
I heard AnTec was providing a copy of the Cites clearance papers with the plants that were sold. Personally - I would want a copy for at least the first couple of years. (say 5 yrs). Then I think there will be enough plants around - including the illegal ones that there will be a much lower risk. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids Sue, I too have purchased flasks of vietnamense and HoChiMinh from Antec. They provide a sales receipt listing date and species purchased but no other documentation. They told me at the time that that was all that was necessary since they were the only ones who could legally propagate these. And all I had to do when I sell any is to provide a receipt with my name and address, the buyer's name and adress along with my original purchase info from Antec so there is a created papertrail on one page. It's no real problem to keep track of and print a form from the computer. I encourage buyers to scan a working copy into their computer and file the original away with important papers - you know, the ones everyone keeps but will probably never need. Gary |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
I received an answer from my orchid judge acquaintance. He said:
"You must have documentation from the place that you purchased the plant showing that the parent Paph. vietnamense was legally obtained. From what I understand, only the first generation has to have proof of legality. After that, it's up to CITIES to police the matter. So what is "documentation"? From what I understand, a simple letter from the seller will work." A dated receipt with my business name/address, showing the customers name and the plant's name, is pretty much all I can provide to my customers who buy any of the Ho Chi Minh hybrids. I can state on the receipt that I got them from Antec. Is this enough to pass muster at any show or judging station in the US? "Al" wrote in message ... AOS judges. I have sent this question to the one of the local judges I know to see what he can tell me about what is required at my local judging station if such a plant is set in front of them |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:15:58 -0400, "Al" wrote:
and all of you follow them. You require CITES clearance paper going back 5 years if a Ho Chi Minh shows up for judging or in a show. Is this true at all AOS sponsored events in the US? NO - Personal desire.... Not as any official capacity. from 2006-2011 I will purchase only when I can get a copy of Cites for the plant, to carry if I want to shw. There is the kicker -- Flasks are not in the same catagory. And the number of plants out there at that age is part of the reason I think all of these plants will change "cites" in the next 5 years. I don't know how we can challenge or not challenge any of the plants backgrounds now that ther are legal sources. With out the copy of proof of legal source, it becomes a "well you know so and so has them..." He said - she said. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
I wanted to add a bit more (okay a lot more) info to this thread. It
started because a potential customer wrote to ask me if I could prove my plants were legal incase he ever wanted to show them. Which made me question if the AOS has a policy of asking for proof. I already know from CITES that, if I am not the importer of the plant, all I CAN offer when I sell a plant is a receipt; which can not address the issue of proof for many reasons. Amway: 1.) As far as I am able to determine at this point in time, the AOS does not officially police the transfer of plants from vendor to vendor or from vendor to customer/exhibitor.The AOS does not have any policy in place that requires exhibitors to show proof of legality when they show a plant. This means there is no across the board guideline for show chairs or judges to follow. Some show chairs and judging locations may have guidelines of their own. So if you sit a plant in front of them and they question you, ask to see those guidelines. All you should need, (unless you are the original importer) is a receipt; which, BTW, is NOT proof a plant is legally obtained because CITES will already know you have it if you are the original importer named on it and if you are not it means nothing if you present it with your plant. Sometimes the CITES import document is offered when newly legal plants are sold within this country, but it is not proof the plants you are buying are legally imported and is kind of scary if you get it and the vendor you got it from is NOT named on it at all; meaning they are not the original importer. (I have one of these for a flask of Paph gigantefolium. It means nothing. I do have the receipt from the vendor. However, neither document is proof my flask comes from plants that were legally imported.) 2.) CITES does not police the transfer of plants from vendor to vendor once a plant crosses the border into the USA. A copy of the original CITES document from the county of origin to the importer is not proof you are buying plants legally obtained, even if the vendor you are buying them from is the original importer. 3.) The is no law or official guideline from CITES to handle the transfer of plants already in the country. If you are in the USA and are buying a plant from a vendor in the USA and you have a question about its legal status, contact CITES. If you buy it, obtain a receipt that has the vendor's name and address on it as well as the name of the plant and the date of sale. Keep it for your records. This, however, is NOT proof the plant was legally imported. 4.) If you ever have a question about a plant's legal status in this county, contact CITES. CITES is the only organization that can tell you if it has ever granted permits for a particular species to enter this country. Once it is here, it is not possible to track what happens to it. Unless you are involved in the import/export of plants OR selling/ reselling them; you probably do not have to worry about having plants confiscated. If you show a plant and a show chair or judge questions the legality of it, they should accept your word that you bought it from a vendor in this country (especially if you have a receipt) and IF they still have questions they should contact CITES because ONLY CITES can tell them if a species has ever been granted a CITES import document. Once it is here they do NOT track it or it's offspring, so depending on the time lapsed from the first CITES document, once might GUESS at a plants legality, but only the CITES enforcement arm and a conviction of smuggling can prove a plant in your possession is illegally obtained, so if they turn your plant away at a judging or show exhibit, it is my opinion that you should raise hell and use the word "lawyer" ; especially if you have done your homework by contacting CITES and learned how long ago the species in question was imported for the first time with legal status. 5.) and if you have read this far, good for you. According to Roddy Gobels from CITES, Paph vietnamensis has NEVER been granted a permit to LEAVE Vietnam and enter the USA, so there can be no CITES document anywhere in the paper trail for this species or it's hybrids in the USA. However, plants that were imported ILLEGALLY were intercepted by CITES and sent to one of the United States plant holding facilities run by the US Botanical Gardens (USBG), By CITES treaty law confiscated plants have to be offered back to the country of origin (Vietnam in this case) BUT Vietnam declined and the plants stayed here in the possession of the US government. The USBG can not sell them or give them away, but they entered into an agreement with ANTEC labs to produce seedlings and sell them in the USA in exchange for some of the seedlings Antec produced. This means that all "legal" plants of paph veitnamensis and it's hybrids trace back to a receipt from Antec. There is no CITES import document to ask for or receive and the USBG doesn't/didn't offer any official paper I am aware of to ANTEC with their permission. Before I bought my plants from Antec I asked Roddy Gobels from CITES (he is a member of my local orchid society) about these plants and he told me CITES was aware of the arrangement with Antec and the USBG. I have never been clear about how this arrangement made these plants legal because the USBG is not allowed to give away or sell plants, but CITES did not concern themselves with these plants except to confirm that Vietnam declined to have them returned when they were offered and that they were aware of the arrangement between the USBG and Antec. This conversation took place early in 2003. At this point, September 2006, several vietnamenis have been shown in the USA. One has been awarded. (actually two have been awarded, the CBR and the AM, but one was invalidated due to the timing of one award with the other) At several local show/sales, this plant has been available for sale in bud by the tray full, so this plant is here in the USA in great numbers. No comment can be made about it's legality or the legality of it's hybrids except by CITES. If you try to import or export it, you will still run into trouble if you don't manage to get the correct paperwork from CITES AND you CAN'T get CITES permission UNLESS Vietnam allows the plant to leave it's borders with a USA destination on the paperwork. As of September 1 2006, this has not happened yet. So Paph vietnamensis is a weird one with regard to CITES....you can't legally import it or it's hybrids into the USA or export it or its hybrids out of USA, but they are here and being sold openly. V_coerulea" wrote in message .. . I heard AnTec was providing a copy of the Cites clearance papers with the plants that were sold. Personally - I would want a copy for at least the first couple of years. (say 5 yrs). Then I think there will be enough plants around - including the illegal ones that there will be a much lower risk. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids Sue, I too have purchased flasks of vietnamense and HoChiMinh from Antec. They provide a sales receipt listing date and species purchased but no other documentation. They told me at the time that that was all that was necessary since they were the only ones who could legally propagate these. And all I had to do when I sell any is to provide a receipt with my name and address, the buyer's name and adress along with my original purchase info from Antec so there is a created papertrail on one page. It's no real problem to keep track of and print a form from the computer. I encourage buyers to scan a working copy into their computer and file the original away with important papers - you know, the ones everyone keeps but will probably never need. Gary |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Well, that's as clear as mud, but at least it covers the ground (sorry!).
Actually, that is very interesting information. Thanks for going to the trouble to find and share it, Al. Diana |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Of all the mistakes I made in that post, the most glaring is probably that I
didn't make it clear: it was paph Ho Chi Minh that was being sold by tray fulls at local shows, not the species vietnamensis. Apparently Antec made and sold and gave a way an awful lot of them... ....and A Paph. vietnamense was shown by Piping Creek at an AOS judging 3 months before the one at the Paph. Forum in Feb 2006 was shown by USBG. This invalidated the CHM for the one awarded at the Paph Forum. I was mistaken that an AM has been awarded to Paph vietnamense. I was mistaken about a lot of things....However, I was not mistaken that there is no proof a vendor inside the USA can offer at the time of sale that his/her plants were legally obtained or descended from legally obtained stock...no matter how many pieces of paper he/she can offer to staple to your receipt. The original CITES import document stapled to a receipt can only mean that at some point in the past the species (not necessarily the plant you are buying) was imported legally (and not necessarily by the person with the stapler. If CITES enforcement arm is going to come knocking on your door asking for proof and they make a legal charge that the plants you own are not legal, you are probably a plant importer and/or vendor and you have done something to draw their attention. It is very unlikely that they will show up as a result of a purchase from a vendor already inside this country and nobody else should be questioning the legality of plants you own or buy inside this country and that includes the AOS as far as I can determine. At any rate, save your receipts... :-) I don't why, it just seems wise. And stop asking ME for proof if you want to buy one of my Ho Chi Minh or vietnamesis. I'd be a fool to offer them for sale in public if I didn't believe they were legal. And all I can offer you is a receipt. I can staple something to it from Antec if it makes you happy but this is NOT "proof". To be honest, all I can do is make the written claim the plants came from antec on the receipt and sign it. You can believe it or not. It is not "proof" but it is the best any legitimate vendor can offer with regard to these two plants. Stop me before I type again... Somebody help! "Al" wrote in message ... At several local show/sales, this plant has been available for sale in bud by the tray full, so this plant is here in the USA in great numbers. |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Very interesting post Al!
Joanna "Al" wrote in message ... I wanted to add a bit more (okay a lot more) info to this thread. It started because a potential customer wrote to ask me if I could prove my plants were legal incase he ever wanted to show them. Which made me question if the AOS has a policy of asking for proof. I already know from CITES that, if I am not the importer of the plant, all I CAN offer when I sell a plant is a receipt; which can not address the issue of proof for many reasons. Amway: 1.) As far as I am able to determine at this point in time, the AOS does not officially police the transfer of plants from vendor to vendor or from vendor to customer/exhibitor.The AOS does not have any policy in place that requires exhibitors to show proof of legality when they show a plant. This means there is no across the board guideline for show chairs or judges to follow. Some show chairs and judging locations may have guidelines of their own. So if you sit a plant in front of them and they question you, ask to see those guidelines. All you should need, (unless you are the original importer) is a receipt; which, BTW, is NOT proof a plant is legally obtained because CITES will already know you have it if you are the original importer named on it and if you are not it means nothing if you present it with your plant. Sometimes the CITES import document is offered when newly legal plants are sold within this country, but it is not proof the plants you are buying are legally imported and is kind of scary if you get it and the vendor you got it from is NOT named on it at all; meaning they are not the original importer. (I have one of these for a flask of Paph gigantefolium. It means nothing. I do have the receipt from the vendor. However, neither document is proof my flask comes from plants that were legally imported.) 2.) CITES does not police the transfer of plants from vendor to vendor once a plant crosses the border into the USA. A copy of the original CITES document from the county of origin to the importer is not proof you are buying plants legally obtained, even if the vendor you are buying them from is the original importer. 3.) The is no law or official guideline from CITES to handle the transfer of plants already in the country. If you are in the USA and are buying a plant from a vendor in the USA and you have a question about its legal status, contact CITES. If you buy it, obtain a receipt that has the vendor's name and address on it as well as the name of the plant and the date of sale. Keep it for your records. This, however, is NOT proof the plant was legally imported. 4.) If you ever have a question about a plant's legal status in this county, contact CITES. CITES is the only organization that can tell you if it has ever granted permits for a particular species to enter this country. Once it is here, it is not possible to track what happens to it. Unless you are involved in the import/export of plants OR selling/ reselling them; you probably do not have to worry about having plants confiscated. If you show a plant and a show chair or judge questions the legality of it, they should accept your word that you bought it from a vendor in this country (especially if you have a receipt) and IF they still have questions they should contact CITES because ONLY CITES can tell them if a species has ever been granted a CITES import document. Once it is here they do NOT track it or it's offspring, so depending on the time lapsed from the first CITES document, once might GUESS at a plants legality, but only the CITES enforcement arm and a conviction of smuggling can prove a plant in your possession is illegally obtained, so if they turn your plant away at a judging or show exhibit, it is my opinion that you should raise hell and use the word "lawyer" ; especially if you have done your homework by contacting CITES and learned how long ago the species in question was imported for the first time with legal status. 5.) and if you have read this far, good for you. According to Roddy Gobels from CITES, Paph vietnamensis has NEVER been granted a permit to LEAVE Vietnam and enter the USA, so there can be no CITES document anywhere in the paper trail for this species or it's hybrids in the USA. However, plants that were imported ILLEGALLY were intercepted by CITES and sent to one of the United States plant holding facilities run by the US Botanical Gardens (USBG), By CITES treaty law confiscated plants have to be offered back to the country of origin (Vietnam in this case) BUT Vietnam declined and the plants stayed here in the possession of the US government. The USBG can not sell them or give them away, but they entered into an agreement with ANTEC labs to produce seedlings and sell them in the USA in exchange for some of the seedlings Antec produced. This means that all "legal" plants of paph veitnamensis and it's hybrids trace back to a receipt from Antec. There is no CITES import document to ask for or receive and the USBG doesn't/didn't offer any official paper I am aware of to ANTEC with their permission. Before I bought my plants from Antec I asked Roddy Gobels from CITES (he is a member of my local orchid society) about these plants and he told me CITES was aware of the arrangement with Antec and the USBG. I have never been clear about how this arrangement made these plants legal because the USBG is not allowed to give away or sell plants, but CITES did not concern themselves with these plants except to confirm that Vietnam declined to have them returned when they were offered and that they were aware of the arrangement between the USBG and Antec. This conversation took place early in 2003. At this point, September 2006, several vietnamenis have been shown in the USA. One has been awarded. (actually two have been awarded, the CBR and the AM, but one was invalidated due to the timing of one award with the other) At several local show/sales, this plant has been available for sale in bud by the tray full, so this plant is here in the USA in great numbers. No comment can be made about it's legality or the legality of it's hybrids except by CITES. If you try to import or export it, you will still run into trouble if you don't manage to get the correct paperwork from CITES AND you CAN'T get CITES permission UNLESS Vietnam allows the plant to leave it's borders with a USA destination on the paperwork. As of September 1 2006, this has not happened yet. So Paph vietnamensis is a weird one with regard to CITES....you can't legally import it or it's hybrids into the USA or export it or its hybrids out of USA, but they are here and being sold openly. V_coerulea" wrote in message .. . I heard AnTec was providing a copy of the Cites clearance papers with the plants that were sold. Personally - I would want a copy for at least the first couple of years. (say 5 yrs). Then I think there will be enough plants around - including the illegal ones that there will be a much lower risk. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/orchids Sue, I too have purchased flasks of vietnamense and HoChiMinh from Antec. They provide a sales receipt listing date and species purchased but no other documentation. They told me at the time that that was all that was necessary since they were the only ones who could legally propagate these. And all I had to do when I sell any is to provide a receipt with my name and address, the buyer's name and adress along with my original purchase info from Antec so there is a created papertrail on one page. It's no real problem to keep track of and print a form from the computer. I encourage buyers to scan a working copy into their computer and file the original away with important papers - you know, the ones everyone keeps but will probably never need. Gary |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Oh my Al? Could I borrow your antennae plz?
No seriously, you should be writing books. Just one question, as none of this info affects me, but shouldn't the guidelines of each society be the same? -- Cheers Wendy No Spam Email Address Invalid Al wrote: Of all the mistakes I made in that post, the most glaring is probably that I didn't make it clear: it was paph Ho Chi Minh that was being sold by tray fulls at local shows, not the species vietnamensis. Apparently Antec made and sold and gave a way an awful lot of them... ...and A Paph. vietnamense was shown by Piping Creek at an AOS judging 3 months before the one at the Paph. Forum in Feb 2006 was shown by USBG. This invalidated the CHM for the one awarded at the Paph Forum. I was mistaken that an AM has been awarded to Paph vietnamense. I was mistaken about a lot of things....However, I was not mistaken that there is no proof a vendor inside the USA can offer at the time of sale that his/her plants were legally obtained or descended from legally obtained stock...no matter how many pieces of paper he/she can offer to staple to your receipt. The original CITES import document stapled to a receipt can only mean that at some point in the past the species (not necessarily the plant you are buying) was imported legally (and not necessarily by the person with the stapler. If CITES enforcement arm is going to come knocking on your door asking for proof and they make a legal charge that the plants you own are not legal, you are probably a plant importer and/or vendor and you have done something to draw their attention. It is very unlikely that they will show up as a result of a purchase from a vendor already inside this country and nobody else should be questioning the legality of plants you own or buy inside this country and that includes the AOS as far as I can determine. At any rate, save your receipts... :-) I don't why, it just seems wise. And stop asking ME for proof if you want to buy one of my Ho Chi Minh or vietnamesis. I'd be a fool to offer them for sale in public if I didn't believe they were legal. And all I can offer you is a receipt. I can staple something to it from Antec if it makes you happy but this is NOT "proof". To be honest, all I can do is make the written claim the plants came from antec on the receipt and sign it. You can believe it or not. It is not "proof" but it is the best any legitimate vendor can offer with regard to these two plants. Stop me before I type again... Somebody help! "Al" wrote in message ... At several local show/sales, this plant has been available for sale in bud by the tray full, so this plant is here in the USA in great numbers. |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Does the AOS have any official guidelines for show chairs and Judges to use
when a plant like Paph vietnamense (I know I keep spelling it wrong) or Ho Chi Minh show up at shows or judging events? It seems like a good idea. I send out a few emails to judges and people I know to be show chairs and got lots of opinions but no direct answer as to written policy. One of them said they would ask and post the reply on their judging website. But so far, nothing. I am wondering if the customer who questioned me about my ability to proof my plant were legal incase he ever wanted to show them was just asking out of ignorance or had heard someplace that proof must be provided when exhibiting certain plants. I do believe the AOS will stay out of because it becomes kind a litigious question and there really is no proof any exhibitor can offer that a plan they show is legal. Just because I am waving a CITIES import document with my name as the importer and the species I am exhibiting listed on it too is NOT proof the plant I am exhibiting was the plant mentioned in the document. The AOS judges might decide it is and then later I get arrested, tried and convicted on a smuggling charge that includes plants of this very species brought in from a different route on or near the date of the CITES import document. I think something like this has already happened although I am not sure of the specifics. I have the name of a very famous Paph vendor/importer who had a plant awarded and was later in trouble with the law for it. I do not know the specifics so I leave out the name. The question now becomes for this particular awarded plant, "What should AOS do with an award if a plant is proven to be 'illegal'. They collect and record data on the plant and exhibitor, and this is not breaking any law at all, so why ask for proof of legality or even debate the question? The exhibitor is the one taking the chance. This is behind the potential customer's question: "Can I proof the plant I am selling him is legally obtained so he can be secure in showing it. My answer is "I can provide a written statement with the receipt that I got it from Antec and sign my name on it." It is not proof, but it is all I can offer. The proof occurs in court with a conviction or (whatever the opposite of a conviction is).... A person who bought plants from me would probably not ever be convicted of anything illegal and I am sure I would not, but the proof happens in court. "Can the prosecutor prove I have ever been involved in bringing plants into this county without the proper permits." I think not. I suppose my plants could be confiscated if they were deemed to be evidence in a legal proceeding against me or somebody else.... I don't know and I don't know if that has ever happened. I only know of confiscated plants directly from the importer.... And I only know that from the internet. Conversely, many judging locations operate in front of an audience. They sit there and debate the merits of a plant as they decide to score it. That's how my local judging station works. Observers, clerks, other exhibitors, other judges are all witnesses as to what is being said. So I show up with Paph vietnamensis and so does another exhibitor and we all sit there and watch them apply whatever rules they have in determining if the plant can be judged based on it being 'legally obtained". They turn me away because my receipt is not proof but they decide to judge the other plant. They have just called me a smuggler or liar in front of everyone and I know a lawyer. I wonder if the judges are speaking for themselves and are putting their own mortgages on the line with the opinion that my plant is not legally obtained or (even better) that they are speaking as officials of the AOS, a much richer organization. I do not know from whence their authority to pronounce my plant 'legal" comes. I do know that this has come up already also, one judge wrote me back recently and said of a recently exhibited plant and exhibitor not in the room...."It was said yesterday at judging "We don't want to challenge that". Reason - We didn't want to question the exhibitor of doing something illegal because of who he was. Personally, I think that if AOS questions one person, then EVERYONE needs to be questioned." I don't know who said it. I know who wrote to me and they shall remain nameless. :-) I think the bottom lines here a Keep your receipts and make sure they point with names and addresses to the vendor. Receipts missing plant names, vendor names and dates are as bad as nothing at all. Buy from vendors you trust already inside the country. Don't worry about proof unless you are the importer, you are most likely save. CITES goes after import/export violators. And, the AOS should probably make it clear to their judges to stay out of any questions of 'legality" and that their only responsibility is to cooperate with CITIES in any investigation---which is not the same thing as acting on behalf of CITES. But I don't know what the AOS's policy is and I think each location is left to their own rationale. I think that is a bad idea. A truly bottom line: It just bugs me that I have had so many people walk away from purchasing these two plants because what I can offer as proof does not sound like proof to them. I actually remember cracking up on the phone with a potential customer a year or so ago and saying, "If proof is a receipt from Antec, then buy the plant from ANTEC." Bad move, I know because I can give them a copy of a purchase receipt from Antec, proofless though it is, but I can do it if it makes them happy. I probably also banged my head on the wall after I hung up and blacked out because I still have lumps but remember nothing concrete after making that statement. And a final statement from me: I said "STOP me before I type again." Ahhhhhh! I think you may require physical restraints. And mo Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-) "wendy7" wrote in message news:iYgLg.14899$WK4.9951@fed1read06... Oh my Al? Could I borrow your antennae plz? No seriously, you should be writing books. Just one question, as none of this info affects me, but shouldn't the guidelines of each society be the same? -- Cheers Wendy No Spam Email Address Invalid Al wrote: Of all the mistakes I made in that post, the most glaring is probably that I didn't make it clear: it was paph Ho Chi Minh that was being sold by tray fulls at local shows, not the species vietnamensis. Apparently Antec made and sold and gave a way an awful lot of them... ...and A Paph. vietnamense was shown by Piping Creek at an AOS judging 3 months before the one at the Paph. Forum in Feb 2006 was shown by USBG. This invalidated the CHM for the one awarded at the Paph Forum. I was mistaken that an AM has been awarded to Paph vietnamense. I was mistaken about a lot of things....However, I was not mistaken that there is no proof a vendor inside the USA can offer at the time of sale that his/her plants were legally obtained or descended from legally obtained stock...no matter how many pieces of paper he/she can offer to staple to your receipt. The original CITES import document stapled to a receipt can only mean that at some point in the past the species (not necessarily the plant you are buying) was imported legally (and not necessarily by the person with the stapler. If CITES enforcement arm is going to come knocking on your door asking for proof and they make a legal charge that the plants you own are not legal, you are probably a plant importer and/or vendor and you have done something to draw their attention. It is very unlikely that they will show up as a result of a purchase from a vendor already inside this country and nobody else should be questioning the legality of plants you own or buy inside this country and that includes the AOS as far as I can determine. At any rate, save your receipts... :-) I don't why, it just seems wise. And stop asking ME for proof if you want to buy one of my Ho Chi Minh or vietnamesis. I'd be a fool to offer them for sale in public if I didn't believe they were legal. And all I can offer you is a receipt. I can staple something to it from Antec if it makes you happy but this is NOT "proof". To be honest, all I can do is make the written claim the plants came from antec on the receipt and sign it. You can believe it or not. It is not "proof" but it is the best any legitimate vendor can offer with regard to these two plants. Stop me before I type again... Somebody help! "Al" wrote in message ... At several local show/sales, this plant has been available for sale in bud by the tray full, so this plant is here in the USA in great numbers. |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Hey Al,
Your writings are about the way that I understand things. Ho Chi Minh is now in the potted plant market. It is sold in bud by the tray with no special treatment and not really that big a premium over a delenatti (5 - 10 bucks). There are now various strains of Ho Chi Minh being sold. But that should not surprise anyone given the number of imported flasks that were openly sold at shows. I think some of the Ho Chi Minhs coming out of the west coast are the best, better color and a little different shape. I do not think Bob has anything in his greenhouses that could make these, but I am not sure if it is because of a different vietnamensis used for a parent or just a better delenatti. But, the newer darker delenattis we are seeing are just as illegal as any vietnamensis that can not be traced back to Antec. People who ask for copies of CITES paperwork do not understand the problems. The plants from Antec have never crossed international borders and thus have no CITES paperwork. The plants that arrived to the US in flask from Twain all came with valid CITES paperwork. The ones with the valid Twain issued CITES paperwork are the illegal ones. I do not know anyone trying to export Ho Chi Minhs, stories of trying to get CITES paperwork for those might be interesting. As long as the plant is staying in the US and is not something that Antec has never made, I think we are at the point that vietnamensis and its hybrids will be treated no differently than any other schedule 1 orchid. In a couple of years I think we will be able to drop the Antec made hybrid qualifier. The AOS will never become the police for Fish & Wildlife unless, of course, the AOS worked out a deal that excluded judges from the CITES rules. Pat |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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. |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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) |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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. |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
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 |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Nancy, not a file or a saw! Al only uses wenches!
Diana |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Stop the presses.
I brought this up at our center's meeting yesterday, and the judges were split. Half thought a receipt stating 'from Antec' was good enough. Half thought genuine paperwork from Antec was needed in order to show for AOS. Our cebter chair is forwarding the issue to Aileen Gerritsen, who has probably been bombarded with emails on the issue already. This is being forwarded to Aileen Gerritsen. K Barrett "Al" wrote in message ... To all you AOS judges and show chairpeople: You see a Paph Ho Chi Minh in your show or one is sit in front of you at a regional monthly judging: Do you require anything to prove the plant/hybrid is legally imported or comes from legally imported stock? Is a receipt from a vendor sufficient? I have checked with a friend of mine who works at CITES and he informs me that when I sell something like a Paph vietnamensis that I only need to provide a receipt to the customer that shows they bought it from me. He added that I should keep my paperwork in case they ever have questions about where I got it. Do you all require something more if such a plant turns up in a show or judging? Forever curious, Al |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
*G*!
K "danny" wrote in message .. . You may want to correct her name to Garrison in the email :-) -danny, who sees her every month at the Atlanta judging "K Barrett" wrote in message . .. Stop the presses. I brought this up at our center's meeting yesterday, and the judges were split. Half thought a receipt stating 'from Antec' was good enough. Half thought genuine paperwork from Antec was needed in order to show for AOS. Our cebter chair is forwarding the issue to Aileen Gerritsen, who has probably been bombarded with emails on the issue already. This is being forwarded to Aileen Gerritsen. K Barrett |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
You may want to correct her name to Garrison in the email :-)
-danny, who sees her every month at the Atlanta judging "K Barrett" wrote in message . .. Stop the presses. I brought this up at our center's meeting yesterday, and the judges were split. Half thought a receipt stating 'from Antec' was good enough. Half thought genuine paperwork from Antec was needed in order to show for AOS. Our cebter chair is forwarding the issue to Aileen Gerritsen, who has probably been bombarded with emails on the issue already. This is being forwarded to Aileen Gerritsen. K Barrett |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
Interesting. I was afraid of this. The policy should be clear to all, and
applied consistently, whatever it is, no matter who puts a plant in front of you, whether it Norito Hassegawa or some unknown who just walks in with a plant and says, "I bought this at Home Depot, I think it's pretty.". That is *if* you HAVE TO have a policy of policing the plant population in this country. On a personal note, since it seems the AOS seems to be heading in that direction, I would just like to express my opinion that the AOS judges should have a list, provided by a liaison with a CITES representative, of species from CITES that can not legally here because no CITES number has ever been granted and a list of plants that have a CITES number with a date that entry permit was granted. These list should have expiration dates and be updated and passed to local societies and judges regularly. The police should be simple: Perhaps a blanket refusal to judge anything on the first list and a policy to judge plants on the second list with the provision that the exhibitor be willing to state where they acquired the plant and that they believe the plant being offered for judging "conforms to known parameters for legal acquisition". This way the judges and the AOS do not have to worry about tracking paperwork and asking for and debating all the types of receipts and paperwork and paper trails you might see. You guys collect and record data on plants/exhibitors and you do that plant quality judging thing. This data becomes part of a public record and the exhibitor is the one who takes the chance of getting into trouble with CITES. If you grant an award to a plant on the second list and later CITES enforcement officials succeed in a prosecution, you have to decide if such an award would stand. It's a simple policy , since CITES itself does not track plants already in the county and did not track where Antec's plants went or who then resold or gave them away. The AOS would probably be breaking it's own "conform to known parameters for legal acquisition" guideline by turning away a plant because a receipt was not "proof". I also think you guys do open yourself up to legal questions of harming an exhibitor's or vendor's name by debating what may or may not be legally acquired in front of onlookers. Again, just my opinion. K Barrett" wrote in message . .. Stop the presses. I brought this up at our center's meeting yesterday, and the judges were split. Half thought a receipt stating 'from Antec' was good enough. Half thought genuine paperwork from Antec was needed in order to show for AOS. Our cebter chair is forwarding the issue to Aileen Gerritsen, who has probably been bombarded with emails on the issue already. This is being forwarded to Aileen Gerritsen. K Barrett "Al" wrote in message ... To all you AOS judges and show chairpeople: You see a Paph Ho Chi Minh in your show or one is sit in front of you at a regional monthly judging: Do you require anything to prove the plant/hybrid is legally imported or comes from legally imported stock? Is a receipt from a vendor sufficient? I have checked with a friend of mine who works at CITES and he informs me that when I sell something like a Paph vietnamensis that I only need to provide a receipt to the customer that shows they bought it from me. He added that I should keep my paperwork in case they ever have questions about where I got it. Do you all require something more if such a plant turns up in a show or judging? Forever curious, Al |
CITES plants and hybrids: AOS judging & showing
I agree with everything you said, especially this:
I also think you guys do open yourself up to legal questions of harming an exhibitor's or vendor's name by debating what may or may not be legally acquired in front of onlookers. Again, just my opinion. My own opinion is that this needs to be addressed at the next trustees meeting because 1) its going to drive the judges crazy very soon, as the Antec plants start to flower and 2) the next edition of the Handbook is due to be published very soon, so any policy should be in it. (IMHO) Of course I have no power, am just an underling and probably have a less than stellar rep with the AOS after I gave my opinion on the dangers inherent in going digital with photography (in re the temptation to photoshop)(I was told I was being hysterical... No biggie, I've been called worse. Doesn't affect me at all, no, really! Not at all, [sniff] *G*) So, thanks Al. I'm happy you brought this whole topic up. Maybe the other lurkers will bring it to the attention of the chain of command in their regions and maybe a policy can be elucidated K Barrett "al" wrote in message news:ibYLg.7093$xh4.3743@trnddc04... Interesting. I was afraid of this. The policy should be clear to all, and applied consistently, whatever it is, no matter who puts a plant in front of you, whether it Norito Hassegawa or some unknown who just walks in with a plant and says, "I bought this at Home Depot, I think it's pretty.". That is *if* you HAVE TO have a policy of policing the plant population in this country. On a personal note, since it seems the AOS seems to be heading in that direction, I would just like to express my opinion that the AOS judges should have a list, provided by a liaison with a CITES representative, of species from CITES that can not legally here because no CITES number has ever been granted and a list of plants that have a CITES number with a date that entry permit was granted. These list should have expiration dates and be updated and passed to local societies and judges regularly. The police should be simple: Perhaps a blanket refusal to judge anything on the first list and a policy to judge plants on the second list with the provision that the exhibitor be willing to state where they acquired the plant and that they believe the plant being offered for judging "conforms to known parameters for legal acquisition". This way the judges and the AOS do not have to worry about tracking paperwork and asking for and debating all the types of receipts and paperwork and paper trails you might see. You guys collect and record data on plants/exhibitors and you do that plant quality judging thing. This data becomes part of a public record and the exhibitor is the one who takes the chance of getting into trouble with CITES. If you grant an award to a plant on the second list and later CITES enforcement officials succeed in a prosecution, you have to decide if such an award would stand. It's a simple policy , since CITES itself does not track plants already in the county and did not track where Antec's plants went or who then resold or gave them away. The AOS would probably be breaking it's own "conform to known parameters for legal acquisition" guideline by turning away a plant because a receipt was not "proof". I also think you guys do open yourself up to legal questions of harming an exhibitor's or vendor's name by debating what may or may not be legally acquired in front of onlookers. Again, just my opinion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter