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 and Tom's Agreement
Carson, you said: "CITES has a fairly straight-forward definition of "salvage." In most cases, letters of permission from land owners, or appropriate state officials would provide the necessary supporting documents." Sorry, but that is such a developed-world solution. It doesn't solve anything in the third world (ie most of the orchid-rich world) because the land-owner is often absent, or illiterate, or the land-ownership is unclear or disputed, or the land is collectively-owned, eg by the local villagers. Anyway, what is to stop the salvager from writing the letter himself, or dictating the words to a professional letter-writer in the nearest town ? Upshot: there is no-one to write the letter, and/or any letter you produced would probably be worthless. In most orchid-rich places I can think of, there are no "appropriate state officials" to provide the necessary supporting documents. Unless you were to provide an individual incentive, it is most unlikely that any state official would risk his job by exceeding his authority. Upshot: your desire to get the papers just increases the local corruption levels. Carson, you responded to my question "Why does salvage have to be followed by export for profit, when replanting them somewhere nearby is usually a more environmentally-sound option ?" with: "This question is irrelevent. No-one is implying that salvage has to be followed with anything." Actually Carson, you did. You started this by complaining that the Canadian CITES officials refused to let some guy export salvaged plants for his personal profit. Why don't you address my question, and explain why the option you desire(export for profit) should be permitted when replanting them somewhere nearby is usually a more environmentally-sound option ?" Thomas Hillson chipped in with the disingenuous: "Then with the proper permits people can salvage the plants and the plants be replanted into similar areas and allowed to continue to provide beauty for all, and some people with proper permits can salvage the plants and they can be taken to nurseries and grown on and the progeny put into the commercial market..This could be added to the CITES Treaty " Tom, in most countries in the orchid-rich world you do not need a permit to salvage plants and replant them locally, unless you were thinking of doing this in a National Park, Forest Reserve, or other gazetted locality. You do not need a permit to grow plants in nurseries. You do not even need a permit for the progeny to be put into the commercial market and exported, as long as they are in a sterile flask at the time. Everything in your paragraph (above) can already be done without a permit, so I guess you meant something else are you sure you didn't omit to point out that your nurseries are located in a foreign country ? That was just a little bit sneaky of you. Tom, you said "I feel that CITES is nothing more than an impediment in the way of Legal International Trade." Spot-on, boyo. That is EXACTLY what it was intended to be, and that is EXACTLY what it is a definition of your "Legal" and therefore a restriction on uncontrolled International Trade. You are complaining that the leopard has got spots. Finally, Tom, I'll comment on your sentence: "Most Countries would not like other Countries telling them they can not mine where they want to or they can not allow clear cutting of trees in certain areas .. That is what needs to be added to the CITES Treaty to make it work." I don't think that will make anything work. Most countries were opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but the US went ahead and did it anyway. Your country has signed the Geneva Convention, but you've still got Guantanamo, secret prisons and torture-chambers. There is an international treaty banning the use of land-mines, but the US still plants huge numbers of them around the world each year. Since when did any country do what other countries tell it to do, if it doesn't agree ? Cheers, Peter O'Byrne ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
Re: [OGD] Carson's Rant - Agreement
I agree with Carson's Discussion on CITES. I feel that CITES is nothing more than an impediment in the way of Legal International Trade. Is there need for rules regulating the International Trade in Orchids, yes? I feel we need an International Treaty that not only controls the movement of plants, but how Countries treat their endangered species. Most Countries would not like other Countries telling them they can not mine where they want to or they can not allow clear cutting of trees in certain areas, or build roads where ever they want to with out allowing people to go in and salvage endangered species. That is what needs to be added to the CITES Treaty to make it work. Then with the proper permits people can salvage the plants and the plants be replanted into similar areas and allowed to continue to provide beauty for all, and some people with proper permits can salvage the plants and they can be taken to nurseries and grown on and the progeny put into the commercial market. All of this could be added to the current treaty with a standard set of rules and permits that allow people to do deal with plants for preserving them in natural setting or selling them in International Trade without being burdened by foolish and cumbersome rules. Salvage should be Salvage, no matter what the destiny of the plants. If it is not then why bother to preserve them if the Country of origin can just bulldoze the plants with out allowing for any preservation of the plants. At the same time their need to be serious criminal penalties for people who are collecting plants illegally, or selling them illegally. At the same time we need to make sure that those people who are selling plants legally are not burdened with too many regulations to allow them run their business. Like most legal systems we need a set of rules that are simple, easy to follow and not burdened by too much red tape. As an amateur who used to import plants and flask from International Growers, I am very frustrated that I have to go through way more paper work than I feel is necessary to import plants. I would probably only import two to twelve flasks a year, and it is not worth my time to do the work to get the plants. I can call one of the US growers and get most of what I want from them with out the paper work. This is great it is making more money for local growers, but it is Restricting Trade! CITES has probably done a great job of restricting trade on Animals and Animal parts and there by preserved Animals in their native habitats. I do not see the same benefits for plants. I just see a Restriction on Trade. -- --Tom / | Tom HillsonAgriculture Computer Services Manager |(515) 294-1543 College of Agriculture | Iowa State University - |"The only thing I have too much of is too little time" ___ 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] Carson's rant
Carson E. Whitlow had a good rant, starting "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. .." Carson, we've covered this ground before. You know as well as I do that there are two totally different types of salvage. In one of them, you go onto the logging site (roadworks, whatever) just before or just after the chainsaws (bulldozers, dumpsters, whatever) and rescue as many orchids as you can from imminent destruction. The second sort of "salvage" is typified by that guy from Kentuck who was selling locally-collected Cypripediums on e-bay. He was driving his quad around the backwoods, and since the plants were in danger of getting run over by his vehicle, he dug them up in case they got damaged. This guy reminded me of the time that a group of profiteers flew to Sarawak with the intention of "rescuing" Paphiopedilums from a mountainside which just happened to be several kilometers away from the airport development project which they claimed was endangering them. Carson, I've got two questions for you: 1) How do you propose that the CITES guys differentiate between plants that have really been salvaged and plants that have suffered "gratuitous salvage" ? 2) Why does salvage have to be followed by export for profit, when replanting them somewhere nearby is usually a more environmentally-sound option ? Peter O'Byrne in Singapore ___ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
