Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
Nick Maclaren wrote: No. The recent outbreak of Dutch elm disease was from timber with bark on, not plants. Nobody knows what the cause of the similar decline in paleo/meso/neo-lithic times was. I have heard, sometimes last year, that they have recently found, 60 years later, a disease coming from the wood which made the american's soldiers canteen box? This is apparently keeling many trees in Provence - and spreading. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"* "Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... (I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.) I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about sudden oak death,[...etc...] I meant that. as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants either." That's a very strange claim to make, IMO. a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around the world anyway ? Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ. .... So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter, despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease. .... The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around the world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of demand. Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe. So - b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor Brasier suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large numbers for disease reasons? To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime frontiers. .... i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er..... The real irony being of course that if only the Native Americans had applied similar restrictions to the European immigrants and their accompanying plagues.....to which the latter had developed resistance as a result of their proximity to domestic animals.. then the history might have been rather different. In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the rest of the world but not the other way around. .... In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for example, these measures can be positively draconian. .... AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity. In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine restrictions. The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't. The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant. Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was the only factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals around the world, when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on everything else he has to say. .... It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s livelihood depends, among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As professionals like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters should the need ever arise. Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think once again of MRSA and MMR. .... Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists. And equally scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas this winter instead. Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the oceans of the world. Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any radioactive material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's now convinced we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D cards. Joined-up government at last! .... ... Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a paper on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong; but that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary dismissal by minor verbal debating points. ... And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an antidote to triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to " a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of mentions of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually provide a link to the talk in question ? To wit - http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617 That isn't the original, but only the _Independent_ article. See below. Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in agreement with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the paper he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference there to our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for disease reasons" ? See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate. [...] .... Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a purely technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which awaits the planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible invasion of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. .... I'm surprised and a little disappointed by what I take to be your tone here. I asked a question, at the same time making it explicit that I didn't know the answer. I used the expressions "I wonder if" and "perhaps minor risk". I didn't refer to the _Independent_ article, because newspaper pieces, even from "broadsheets", aren't first-hand evidence. I didn't have a reference to the original paper, and I still haven't found one. Here, though, from long before the conference, is a brief summary of his own and Brasier's positions from the Master of Katz Cambridge in the RHS's _Plantsman_: http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publi...05/opinion.asp _The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical periodical. .... Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html quote Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream · Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade /quote michael adams -- Mike. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"* "Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... (I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.) I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about sudden oak death,[...etc...] I meant that. as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants either." That's a very strange claim to make, IMO. a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around the world anyway ? Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ. ... So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter, despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease. You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic reasons. When Brasier said "we", I assume he meant the United Kingdom in particular, as he was addressing a British audience. ... [...] b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor Brasier suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large numbers for disease reasons? To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime frontiers. i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er..... ....and, er...almost all the others. I imagine similar regimes are also in force in Switzerland and the landlocked Danube countries. [...] In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the rest of the world but not the other way around. Eh? In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for example, these measures can be positively draconian. ... AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity. In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine restrictions. Er, yes, that _is_ what I had in mind. The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't. Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing. The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant. It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that such controls are possible. Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was the only factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals around the world, when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on everything else he has to say. I fail to grasp your reasoning here. [...] Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think once again of MRSA and MMR. ... Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists. Unless they want to promote a public debate. And this one appears to have chosen his journalist with some care. And equally scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas this winter instead. Scare stories are not, as far as I know, a staple of _The Plantsman_; or, to be fair, of _the Independent_. We can talk about avian flu and the gas-men's strike in another thread, if you like. Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the oceans of the world. Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any radioactive material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's now convinced we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D cards. Joined-up government at last! Yes, nuclear weapons are stupid, and ID cards a waste of effort in the prevention of terrorism. I can't join that up with biosecurity, though. [...] See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate. [...] ... Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a purely technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which awaits the planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible invasion of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either. [...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini on.asp _The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical periodical. Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers. Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster than I can run. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html quote Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream · Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade /quote Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something else. -- Mike. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
random snippage throughout
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: "Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"* "Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... (I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.) I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about sudden oak death,[...etc...] I meant that. as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants either." That's a very strange claim to make, IMO. a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around the world anyway ? Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ. ... So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter, despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease. You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic reasons. .... Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons. It would obviously be more economic for them to import frozen carcasses which had been slaughtered at source by non-Halal methods. Which is why it's a particularly misleading example. Either way. As without the trade in frozen carcasses, the Australian and New Zealand meat trade probably wouldn't exist in the first place. .... The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't. Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing. .... So why was it necessary for Professot Brasier to mention the export of animals at all ? .... The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant. It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that such controls are possible. .... There is no analogy, because the reasons why people don't move large numbers of animals around the world has nothing to do with their deciding against doing so for reasons of disease control. And so the purported analogy is totaly misleading. Muslims in the Middle East are more than happy to import large numbers of live sheep, regardless of any health issues, because they have specific religious requirements. Until such time as people are prohibited from importing herds of cattle or whatever into the U.K - and accept such a prohibition without protest, we have no way of knowing whether such controls are possible or not. Insofar as Britains "draconian" rabies regulations are concerned /quote http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...0313/pets.html For those who campaigned to change what former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten called preposterous rules, Feb. 28 was a historic day. It was particularly satisfying for Lady Fretwell, the wife of Britain's former ambassador to Paris, who since 1996 has spearheaded the Passports for Pets campaign. Her cause was given a poignant boost in its first year, when two dogs died in quarantine and their high-profile owners made a fuss quote Maybe if Chris Patten or Lady Fretwell got into livestock dealing in a big way there's no telling what could happen. .... of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either. .... Since when has anyone ever died from an infestation of lilly beetles or cane toads ? The conditions you cited inflict real distress and actual suffering. .... [...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini on.asp _The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical periodical. Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers. Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster than I can run. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html quote Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream · Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade /quote Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something else. .... Killer fungi. Indeed. michael adams .... -- Mike. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
In article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote: Rupert wrote: [...] Ok Mike I have now read all (I think) of the articles you mentioned along with contributions from other speakers. I can't see how you can say:- "The RHS shares my concern" The RHS have merely given a forum for a debate on a topic of interest to everyone. I see no mention of the RHS supporting a particular view, which is the way it should be. Has anyone read "Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience", by David I Theodoropoulos? I haven't myself but it seems to have bearing on this debate. You can see details at http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm along with a few other, well, er, offbeat books. J.L.Hudsons also appear to be a source of Gibberellic acid in small quantities, though what happens when it comes through UK customs I have no idea. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
michael adams wrote:
random snippage throughout "Mike Lyle" [...] You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic reasons. Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons. Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing it for economic reasons. [...] weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade /quote Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something else. ... Killer fungi. Indeed. Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men, or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this thread. There is no point in filibustering. Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too; but I think it's reasonable to consider both. -- Mike. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
snip Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men, or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this thread. There is no point in filibustering. Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too; but I think it's reasonable to consider both. -- Mike. Be far better to ban the importation of undesirable homo sapiens |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: random snippage throughout "Mike Lyle" [...] You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic reasons. Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons. Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing it for economic reasons. .... It's possible restictions by importers that we're soleley concerned with here. The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose controls. The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist. .... Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men, or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this thread. There is no point in filibustering. Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too; but I think it's reasonable to consider both. -- Mike. The following link was kindly provided in another post by John McMillan http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm I quote selectively ( reference in the main is to the US)- quote A detailed analysis of the writings of these nativists reveals the psychopathologies that drive this reactionary movement. Numerous quotes are compared which demonstrate that the same fears that underlie xenophobia, r*cism, and f*scism fuel the anti-invader movement. [...] The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is exposed. The regulatory industry and corporate interests are colluding in an effort to leverage the fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system of complete bureaucratic control of nature, and corporate privatization of the earth's biological diversity. /quote michael adams |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: random snippage throughout "Mike Lyle" [...] You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic reasons. Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons. Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing it for economic reasons. ... It's possible restictions by importers that we're soleley concerned with here. Well, as a matter of fact, on this particular side-issue it isn't. That's why it's a side-issue. I'm quite willing to drop it. The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose controls. The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist. Oh, come on! You said it didn't take place, I showed that it did. I did not, and you know I did not, comment on the import control regimes of Middle-Eastern countries. Neither of these is relevant to the question of import controls in the United Kingdom. ... Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men, or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this thread. There is no point in filibustering. Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too; but I think it's reasonable to consider both. -- Mike. The following link was kindly provided in another post by John McMillan http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm I quote selectively ( reference in the main is to the US)- quote A detailed analysis of the writings of these nativists reveals the psychopathologies that drive this reactionary movement. Numerous quotes are compared which demonstrate that the same fears that underlie xenophobia, r*cism, and f*scism fuel the anti-invader movement. [...] The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is exposed. The regulatory industry and corporate interests are colluding in an effort to leverage the fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system of complete bureaucratic control of nature, and corporate privatization of the earth's biological diversity. /quote I'm ready to believe it when I read the quoted material. But, having worked in both environmental and anti-racist campaigns, I know that exaggerated and even false claims are common on both sides of these arguments. As are red herrings. It seems unlikely to me that Professors Brasier and Ingram, and perhaps even the editor of _The Plantsman_, have base motives; but if you suggest it, you should be prepared to prove it. Your evidence? -- Mike. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
Janet Baraclough wrote: My son is a rural vet (snip) I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire attention. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
In article .com, La
puce writes I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire attention. You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time I have ever done this on usenet. -- Judith Lea |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
"Judith Lea" wrote in message ... In article .com, La puce writes I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire attention. You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time I have ever done this on usenet. I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary. Alan -- Judith Lea |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
Judith Lea wrote: You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad as this HO COME ON!!! Janet calls me all kind of names, she is abusive, she has suddenly jumped on me regarding a discussion I was having and you don't say anything because you're a coward but you prefer to email me tons of emails from your dental surgery a few weeks ago because you didn't have the guts to show you talked to me on the forum, describing Janet, Sacha and even Mike. I'm glad you feel this way because frankly I can't be dealing with people like you. You are an hypocrite. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
Alan Holmes wrote: I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary. Shame. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Import of plant from USA
"Alan Holmes" wrote in message ... "Judith Lea" wrote in message ... In article .com, La puce writes I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire attention. You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time I have ever done this on usenet. I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary. Alan -- Judith Lea Make that three (ish) --although I might read I will never write. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
USDA/APHIS plant import question(s) for any import experts, specifically Puerto Rico | Gardening | |||
Import live plants from USA? | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] New Import Restrictions? | Bonsai | |||
import permit | Orchids | |||
Import permit documents | Orchids |