Re: [OGD] Carson's Rant and Tom's Agreement (Peter O'Byrne)
Peter, I'm sorry. I can't answer for the third world countries and how they can or cannot do things. Apparently, though, CITES is so f_ed up they didn't consider that either. Most of what is expected is what can be expected to be available in developed countries. Thank you for pointing that deficiency out! As for your irrelevant question, I stand by it. I complained about a specific case, you asked a question which I took to be general and I answered that it was irrelevant. As for the case I complained about, what they want to do with their plants is irrelevant - their decision - not one for you or me to decide for them. Environmentally sound or not is irrelevent, period. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] Carson's Rant - Response to O'Byrne Vol. 8, No. 181
In response to your questions: 1) How do you propose that the CITES guys differentiate between plants that have really been salvaged and plants that have suffered gratuitous salvage ? CITES has a fairly straight-forward definition of salvage. If this is followed, there is no problem, except as you indicated regarding gratuitous salvage which does not meet the criteria. In most cases, letters of permission from land owners, or appropriate state officials would provide the necessary supporting documents. 2) Why does salvage have to be followed by export for profit, when replanting them somewhere nearby is usually a more environmentally-sound option ? This question is irrelevent. Noone is implying that salvage has to be followed with anything. Sales and/or export for profit or otherwise are just a couple of options. Replanting some or all of them in a suitable area is another. I always find it interesting that the few bad guys are used to illustrate what the officials are concerned about. So, we are all treated as potential criminals. Well, there are a few government officials which are corrupt - perhaps we should treat all of them as corrupt individuals and challenge what they do and why. I don't think they would like that nor enjoy proving what they are doing is legal and within their job description. Maybe in the case of the Canadian official, they should be required to provide the rule/regulation that specifies that sale of the salvaged plants disqualifies them from receiving an export permit. I know I would demand it. Unfortunately, CITES continues to interfere and add considerable expense to legal business. The basic premise for CITES as it applies to plants is false. The placing of all orchids on Appendix II was arbitrary and capricious. Yet nothing is being done about it. As long as nothing of consequence is being done about it, except to provide for the large commercial exporters of Europe and Asia, it needs to be brought up. So, Peter, when CITES can be shown for what it is, I will continue to bring it up. And this is one of the proper forums on which to do so . Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] Canadian CITES Adminstration
Recently, a requested CITES permit for salvaged plants was refused by the Canadian CITES office because we cannot allow you to profit from a plant that was once wild. Apparently, the Canadian CITES Administration is as arragent and stupid as those administering the US CITES. CITES was formed to facilitate legal export of covered plants, plants legally collected, including those which have been salvaged. However, it is apparent the Canadians want to throw in a moralistic determination as well. They apparently have no idea how hard it is to dig any quantity of plants in the wild in a manner that gives them a chance to live on. Should not those doing the work get a decent wage for their work by selling the plants? After all, the CITES officials are getting very good wages for sitting on their duffs, pushing paper and acting like Gods. Now, you are allowed to rescue as many of the plants you want for your personal use, but following that the rest would be destroyed - but that is okay. Apparently it is also difficult to get permission form the local governments to rescue plants from ditches which are being bulldozed out as well. So, again, we have the Government saying they are for conservation and protecting plants in the wild while being one of the biggest destroyers of them. Let us waist our natural resources - nothing new. It is also reported that there are many plants being poached from preserves, private lands, etc., in Canada and sold to and at local nurseries. They are also being exported without CITES dosumentation. This policy of refusing to allow legal salvaging and export just breeds disregard for the law and law-breaking. This is also the result CITES has accomplished throughout the world. So, what it boils down to is that people that are trying to follow the rules and do things right get shafted. Don't government officials ever learn? I had hoped that at least our neighbor to the North had gained from others experience. Apparently not. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, Iowa ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] V 7, #367, Conservation Efforts
Nicholas Plummer makes a valid point of the potential of relocating plants which are being destroyed by the bulldozer. Unfortunately, who is to do it? And can that many plants be reintroduced or moved to safe ground? When it can be done, it is done - as Tom has relayed to me on a couple of occasions, and he is happy to give quidance to those doing it. Also, it is very interesting how many state conservation officials do not want plants introduced to other areas, especially if over fifty miles from the original stock, for fear of mixing up the genetics of the local populations. Secondly, Nicholas also says that these plants are as dead to the wild gene pool as one that was bulldozed. Yes and no - they certainly are no longer able to breed with other plants in that area which may not have been in jeopardy - but is the gene pool lost? We have many suitable areas for plant populations to develop IF there was a seed source available. But, since no seed source is available, nothing appears. With plants that have been grown in gardens and other areas and produce seed, the potential for natural reintroduction is possible. The idea that salvaging these plants would encourage poaching of them to me is just the opposite of what happens. If there is a supply, the need or desire to poach them is greatly reduced. Likewise, providing the market with plants from a doomed source, is by far better than providing them from another source where the can be collected legally, thus depleting two areas. As Tom Hillson noted, the greatest enemy to our wild populations is often our own government. The situation with the Cyp. montanum - where the Bureau of Land Mangement denied that there were as many of the Cyps present as was proven by Jan Renfroe is typical, and then blocking the court action as well. FWS was required to accept Land Managements conclusion and made Jan look like the guilty party. However, it is important to know that the supplier of these plants is honest. That you must determine. Yet, how many of our orchid friends jump on the chance to get plants they know were imported illegally? An ad selling native plants will appear in the unClassified Ad section of the Orchid Mall shortly. I do not challenge this type of ad any more than I challenge those of others selling species orchids of any type, now will I. I have been criticized for placing ads of this kind (and will probably be for this one), but no one is required to buy them. If they feel that it is an illegal operation, then notify the authorities. If I am advised by the proper authorities that it is an illegal operation, I will immediately pull the ad. But, as far as I am concerned, they have as much right to advertise their wares as anyone else. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, Iowa ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] V 7, #364 Tom Nelson
I have known Tom Nelson for quite a number of years. He spent many hours with me, learning how to properly handle, dig, and clean his salvaged Cypripediums especially. I have found him to be very concerned about the plants, and taking all the legal measures necessary to collect them. He, in turn has been more than willing to pass on information to conservation clubs and other local rescue efforts so that their efforts would be successful. As for those who criticize him, they would prefer the plants be destroyed than have them salvaged. The reasons given are foolish and show their ignorance. Likewise, the various States often make it difficult to salvage plants because of misguided conservation minded people and because the State itself doesn't want people poking around and finding these things where they want to put in new roads, expand them, or do other activities which would destroy the native plant life. In Florida they mow ditches filled with hundreds of Calopogon but if you would dig one of them you would face a heavy fine and possible jail time. The Cyprripedium kentuckiense pictured in the AOS Bulletin several years ago of a Louisiana stand of them were on land being strip mined. When I inquired about them, I was told that they were most likely gone now - not collected but destroyed in the minng operation. They weren't able to be salvaged because the mining operation owners would not give permission to remove them for fear someone might get hurt and the potential of legal action arrising from the activity. The cartoon I asked someone to draw for me on progress vs. raping the wilderness is still just as applicable today as when they were done serveral years ago. They too often reflect the publics attitude. (See: http://www.orchidmall.com/cartoons/;) Carson E. Whitlow Adel, Iowa ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] OGD becoming useless
With all the name calling, character assasinations, and other bull s--t appearing on this list, it is fast becoming useless. Any more, I look at the contents and usually end up deleting the entire thing. Because of it, I may have missed something which may have really been useful. If the intent is to destroy what could be a very useful tool, you are succeeding. We ought to have a list called the orchid bull s--t list just for you. Then we would know exacltly what to expect when we join it. I jopined this list to learn and have useful discussions. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA Where we have a lot of manure and know what it is good for. ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
[OGD] Orchids Digest, Vol. 6, Issue 430, #5; Issue 431, #4
Peter, That is the point - there is NO SURE WAY of telling artificially propagated from wild collected, in flower or out, hybrid or species, let alone the legality of the parents or the initial collection! CITES has set up definitions which on paper sound fine, but are not realistic. CITES as we have said all along is a trade agreement and the only thing it does is generate more government jobs and paperwork only good for statistical purposes. For example, if you propagate a wild collected plant for, say, 18 months and the old material which was originally collected is removed, the plant is artificially propagated, by CITES definition. It cannot be distinguished from a seed grown plant. It cannot be distinguished as a species or hybrid when not in bloom. Even in bloom, there could be question if a species or not, depending on the closeness to the species the hybrid might be or the (questionable) knowledge of the inspector who may be familiar with the species. Now, was it or its predecessors collected legally? Were the parents of a hybrid legally acquired or imported? That will define the second portion of the artificially propagated definition. That part is nothing but bureaucratic paperwork. The question then is when they are inspected, when and by whom are they inspected. Ideally, they are inspected and given a CITES permit in the originating country. That permit should not be questioned on arrival in another country. However, the inspectors at the importing country not only challenge the documentation (and thus the authority of the originating country) but will confiscate plants based on criteria they set up. So, CITES documentation does not have any value if it isn't going to be recognized by other countries. In the United States, where we supposedly have one of the best systems, one could get CITES documents fraudulently without any trouble. It would be easy to fraudulently document artificial propagation, and replace wild collected for artificially propagated material, species for hybrids, etc. (Registered Nurseries still would not change the potential for fraud.) When the plants are sent, NO ONE in authority even sees the plants. They are inspected locally by State agriculture inspectors who wouldn't know one genera from another, and shouldn't be expected to. The papers are forwarded to the appropriate Federal authorities who reissue the phytosanitary certificate, sign the CITES documents and send them back to you for you to include with the shipment you prepare and send. What a farce! Even if you sent everything to the authorities, they wouldn't know what it was or whether it was legal or not in most cases anyway. How clearly can one show how totally useless CITES really is? Who does it help (first world countries with the ability to provide large numbers of plants) and who does it restrict (third world countries who are the originators of most of the plants in the first place)? FOLLOW THE MONEY! That is why we have CITES in the first place! What the EU delegates actually said was that it was difficult to differentiate artificially propagated flowers from wild orchids. Just what does this mean? Isn't this apples and oranges? I think they need to make their statements clear and meaningful. Viateur, Apparently, some people understand that CITES is both about conservation and trade... - Sorry, but have you not heard of Politics? Most politicians will spin to their benefit and quite often really don't know what they are talking about in the first place. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
[OGD] Baiting, personal attacks, etc.
I think we all realize that Dr. Braem has a low tolerance for criticism. I also think that there are those that are more than happy to bait him into situations where he responds on a personal level. The last comment I sent to this list dealt with much the same topic. I likewise have a short fuse on several topics but have been controlling them considerably for the best of the group. Sometimes the best answer is no answer. We know what Dr. Braem's credentials are. We know he also knows the he is right and to his credit he often is. But, much of what I have seen is just baiting to get a reaction. No, I don't want Dr. Braem off this list, I want those that have nothing to do but make problems and bait others and get personal for their own selfish reasons off this list. Allowing those individuals to run off knowledgeable individuals with their baiting and personal attacks is a disservice to all of us. Keep it civil and remember that other people may have a valid difference of opinion. And, the best response to personal attacks is to not answer them. The individuals making them will clearly show their colors and we will know them for what they are. The one thing they cannot tolerate is to not having anyone pay attention to them. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
[OGD] Orchids Digest, Vol 6, Issue 306, Message 4
Peter's comments regarding what is missing is really missing the point. If it is legal to make the collections and offer them for sale, nothing else need to be said. Those questioning the legality of the collections are free to do so and if they are being illegally collected, appropriate authorities should be contacted. I won't get into the moral issues. I also don't think the comment So come on, all you right-wing bullshitters. Why have you gone so quiet? is warrented. It is inappropriate and I feel reflects more on the individual making the statement than on those to whom it is directed. Carson E. Whitlow Adel, IA Where Cyp. acaule does not exist and only does so within strict cultural applications in artificial conditions. ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
[OGD] Oops! My error!
I apologize for getting Norris Powell and George Norris mixed up in my posting. Indeed, Kay is correct! (OGD V6, # 283, Mess. 2). My apologies to both and all! Carson E. Whitlow ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
[OGD] CITES stuff
Frederick, The first three words of CITES spells it out, and the first two don't count - Convention (on) International Trade. Regarding native sites selling natural hybrids - that does not mean that the products they are selling came from the wild. A natural hybrid is one that occurs in the wild and this may be how those produced may be referred to. Artificial remakes of natural hybrids and grown artificially are hybrids. Natural hybrids are also, but I don't think that in writing the regulations the feds would overlook the fact natural hybrids collected from the wild are not included in the hybrid category. I do not see how exempting artificially produced hybrids (or species for that matter) erodes the fundamental pricipal since it is trade related not conservation. They were included in the exemption anyway, but the paperwork still had to be done and proof that the plants were indeed artificially propagated. As I said previously, there will be some requirement that proof must be provided that they are hybrids so we are right back where we started anyway. The way Europe is set up, it will make it even easier for them but our FWS doesn't trust anyone to tell them the truth - great organization there - prove your not trying to pull a fast one. They make their own work and then complain because they are overworked and need more people and money. Sound familiar? The comment on rules with no indication of how to interpret or implement them is only too clear in looking at how each country has done differently and how the US for example will not accept documentation which should be acceptable and away we go. Those who have not experienced trying to follow the rules to make it simple and no problem only to run up against he feds deciding differently, can not appreciate the frustration of not having a decent recourse. Carson E. Whitlow ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
