Your thoughts on CITES.

Always a good way to introduce oneself - start a CITES discussion! LOL!! :) Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to the forum Steve! I have mixed feelings about CITES, both good and bad.

Consider: CITES is only trade agreement, it says nothing about conservation. People in another country can burn, ban, and eat the plants, but I can't import one to flask and clone it to save them or propagate them before they destroy the habitats. It's like making a law to take away guns: only the law abiding people will be without them.

That's the thing about it that really gets to me, makes no sense.

If you take a look at the actual CITES treaty, it goes on extensively to cover the ways in which you may not trade an orchid, especially for any commercial purpose. This system assures eradication of the species (because of not addressing habitat destruction) unless people choose to break the law. I think the laws are too strong and the government too arrogant when a person has to break the law to do the right thing. It only gets worse. The public knows nothing about CITES (and so thinks its a great idea) and so the US Fish & Wildlife services supports it, and are the American CITES authority. What I want to know is why everyone is afraid of speaking out against CITES? Are we afraid of losing our CITES permits? Why is it that we, as citizens, do not threaten the US FWS to disregard CITES or actually vote against it as our wishes, or fight the British Imperialism still thriving in this earth strangling document? Why is it that officials in our government blatently sell us US citizens out? These things are very upsetting to consider.

I think in general the gov't is over-regulating a lot of things these days. I learned this morning that since about a month ago the FDA won't allow any foreign yogurt to be shipped into the US which means no more french or greek yogurt for me. GRRR! Also, I've been waiting for just about two weeks now for my 2 boxes of laundry to clear customs in New Jersey so I can get the overnight priority boxes I shipped (stopped because there's also a conch shell in there, which we couldn't bring back on the plane because it is considered a weapon!)

But I digress...my biggest problem with CITES is the inane fact that one can't save actual plants from a habitat site being destroyed. Also, the fact that in many instances it isn't known how endangered certain populations are in the first place. I don't know all the ins and outs of CITES (not read the document or anything) but from what I have read, I think it needs to be seriously re-vamped. It wasn't even written with plants in mind in the first place, was it?

No, i think plants were added. I spoke with a couple political science doctors today, and they gave me a good idea of how to start combatting CITES. They said if I am dedicated, it could take three years! So I am very hopeful and will need to enlist the help of scientists around the world.

CITES has not bothered me in my orchid collecting.....yet;but has been an aggravation at work. Part of my job is buying and selling vintage and collectable American guitars and other stringed instruments. The premier stuff is all made before 1965 usually from tropical hardwoods. The extra paperwork, not to mention the heartburn, I have to deal with whenever I send something overseas is not compensated for by the value of the treaty. I've had more the a few guitars held up for months by over-zealous customs agents even though I could prove it was made in 1935. If CITIES is ammended to become a conservation treaty I could support it. As another tool of an ever annoying bureauocracy, nah I'll pass. Steve good luck on your crusade. Kevin

It's hard to get the paperwork done and it is also difficult to diversify collections.

Sometimes party A can receive the plants with no problems but Party A can't ensure that the plants would reach Party B without much whoo ha.

Sometimes let's look at this: there are several species of dendrobium that are hard to find or even worse, they refused to be art. prop because they tend to produce overwhelm amounts of phenolic exudates in flasks. These are not on the listing. Instead, paphs, one of the most heavily propagated plants, is placed point blank as an entire genus onto the listing.

Here because of the point blank placement, it also creates a loop hole - one does not really need to declare what species of paph one is bringing out since they are all equally rare and endangered in the eyes of CITES (Appendix I)

Also think about those who are genuinely trying to help conserve the species ex situ being ostracised by the authorities while others who smuggle "art materials" and "gifts" are getting away scott-free. Defeats the whole purpose, this encourages smuggling. One would rather keep quiet about what one has than proudly declare that one has rare species propagated artificially. What the heck, artificially propagated or wild collected, they are all equal if they do not have government certifications... :roll:

Minor things are being attacked from all corners while major things such as social benefits and medical care are being drained of funding by these mundane pursuits...

And also locally, we need CITES for Appendix I flask in addition to phyto...
Who in the right state of mind would run up a hill to collect seedlings to plonk them onto agar? That water head is going to kill off the entire flask.
__________________________________________________ ___________

If you think the CITES is actually working to fulill its aims, you might be a redneck :roll:

This is starting to be more of a roll eyes topic rather than an open eyes topic....

Since I just found this one, I thought I'd put my two cents in.

I think that CITES was a pretty good idea when it came to protecting big, hard to cultivate species like elephants and rhino's from getting converted into ivory trinkets and labido enhancements. It's probably even good for protecting endangered tree species from the lumber industry. But when these models were used to develop the plan for species threatened buy habitat destruction that are easy and fast to propagate, then it falls to pieces.

Aside from the fact that including plants was an afterthought (after ten years' research on the animals involved, somebody said the night before the finalization of the treaty, over dinner, after some drinks, "Hey, we should include plants. What about orchids? All orchids are endangered, right?"), and is as counterproductive as it's possible to be even if you try your hardest, what bothers me the most is all the dead elephants they found recently, only 2,000 tigers left in India, etc. But they sure do have time and money for the Orchid Police. All of the effort, money, resources and time should be going to protecting the animals, and there still wouldn't be enough to go around.

All of you anti-CITES people hang tight. There is something being developed right now that you will be able to take part in.

(Preface: I'm not naive, I've been reading OGD lately...)

So, why exactly isn't the AOS at the forefront to change CITES (and RHS to boot!?) If it isn't fear of loss of non-profit status, which it clearly isn't, what's the real scoop? I mean, if they won't get behind this....well, shouldn't they be???

Who the heck will who has the clout? I guess that's what confuses me, I don't feel as though we as the growers have any say in this and if AOS and other related non-profits are supposedly our voice, how do we get anywhere if they aren't on board?

Seems a nasty circle!

LOL why isn't the RHS into changing CITES. LOLOLOLOL
Heather, there would not be a botanical garden in England if not for the illegal pilfering of plants. They ignore CITES and do what they want anyway. It really does not benefit them.

As far as the AOS, I have never supported that orginization, or should I say Society. All I hear from people is " I joined for the Magazine". If people only new a little more about the AOS then they would never support the plush lifestyles of the few. Non-profit is such a scam.

Go get em Steve! :clap:

As far as orchids being included in CITES. Why do Bills that have to do with land sales include items that prohibit gun control.
Not that I am for or against any of the above....well, I am against politicians.

LOL why isn't the RHS into changing CITES. LOLOLOLOL
Heather, there would not be a botanical garden in England if not for the illegal pilfering of plants. They ignore CITES and do what they want anyway. It really does not benefit them.

Well, yeah, you think I don't know that, Mike? Obviously! :roll:
My point was, if the orchid/botanical organizations (the ones you would think would have clout w/ the politicians) aren't interested, how is there much hope for change? I don't mean to seem defeatist, I guess I'm just wondering what Steve's process is, and how to help it...

I'm dealing w/ F&W on a couple other issues these days.... which is just icing on the CITES cake. More and more frustrated w/ these agencies.

Well, it's a me society. It's getting worse every generation. The AOS gets more than a few bucks. They choose to spend it unwisely. Board members are overpaid to think of just one. I would love to hear the benefits the AOS gives to non-Floridians to make up for it's membership costs.

Orchids are NOT represented when the Govt meet to discuss CITES. The RHS and AOS seldom show and if they do only provide information that is quite pointless to the conservation of orchids.

Do you want orchids to seriously be represented by CITES and Govt around the world? Sorry will never happen. There needs to be an orginization with serious clout and $ to change things for the better.

Funny how Vanilla and Phal hybrids are not controlled by CITES anymore.

I am curious to what Steve has to say as well. Maybe he is actually Bill Gates and will threaten to withold money and technology to these and our freakin Govt until things change!

I thought it timely to bump this up.
Now that we have more than 17 members/voters....:D

Vote folks!

Interesting disparity in the voting.

I for one haven't read Cites. From my enquiries about importing flasks I'd suggest it is but another tool allowing petty minded bureaucrats to hold up the pursuits of poorlyl connected individuals. That flasks should be included in the whole thing simply highlights how what I believe is contemptable ignorance has perverted the reason CITES was brought in in the first place.. As with any Genus, CITES is meant to (or should) govern "traffic" in natural species - yet hybrids which haven't seen the wild in over a century are still affected. ????

Saving flora and fauna by making it more difficult to propogate - the logic is breathtaking.

Cheers
Stephan

Well, it's a me society. It's getting worse every generation. The AOS gets more than a few bucks. They choose to spend it unwisely. Board members are overpaid to think of just one. I would love to hear the benefits the AOS gives to non-Floridians to make up for it's membership costs.

Orchids are NOT represented when the Govt meet to discuss CITES. The RHS and AOS seldom show and if they do only provide information that is quite pointless to the conservation of orchids.

Do you want orchids to seriously be represented by CITES and Govt around the world? Sorry will never happen. There needs to be an orginization with serious clout and $ to change things for the better.

Funny how Vanilla and Phal hybrids are not controlled by CITES anymore.

I am curious to what Steve has to say as well. Maybe he is actually Bill Gates and will threaten to withold money and technology to these and our freakin Govt until things change!


Excellent! Glad to hear there is discussion, and now I will answer.

There are a few approaches with dealing with CITES.
First we have to recognize what we are trying to accomplish. Are we trying to save the species from extinction, their habitats from destruction, or just change CITES period.

If you want to change CITES, this is difficult. The problem is, we don't have any representation. Why? Because nobody, specifically the AOS, is willing to throw any money at the situation. Not even enough to send someone there to be a voice of reason, which would be a good place to start. There is no point in complaining about the way things are if there is no attempt to change it. Well, you have to attempt it, so let's be heard. That is why I started Phytosophy.

If you are trying to save the habitats, you had better have a lot of money, multinational political power, and an army to guard your habitats. It just isn't going to happen. The plants are going to be destroyed. The question is, how fast? Humans aren't going to care about the environment or biodiversity until it is too late, and unfortunately it isn't a renewable resource. Bush won't even sign the Kyoto treaty, because he claims he isn't sure that pollution has anything to do with the environment being destroyed. He isn't even willing to consider lowering emissions 5%, which wouldn't do enough good anyway, even though the US is the worlds largest polluter. The forests are literally on the back-burner.

Saving the species, this is something we can do. To save the species, it has to have diverse genes available, which means we can't start this out from just a couple parents like vietnamense or gigantifolium are being done. Antec put horrible vietnamense on the market at monopolistic rates, and it didn't save a single plant from being collected. This is because not only were they bad quality, and there was an artificial scarcity, but no competition was allowed after a certain amount of time. There are still limited #s of flasks available. And people are just going to buy Antec's low-quality over-priced flasks to legalize their wild-collected vietnamense. If they had raised the quality and significantly increased the amount available for trade, and made sure the US would allow export and reexport, they could have done a world of good. But only the money matters, apparently. They could have had both, but who has time for such strategy? Not Antec. But I do. You will see that plainly in the future if you just pay attention to what I do with Nascent Orchids. Anyway, you can save the species, but they have to be tradeable, meaning legal. Is that enough? It could be:

Consider, what is the meaning of CITES, if every species is available for trade legally? All appendix I species having been artificially propagated, and moved to being treated like appendix II? Essentially, you have bypassed the trade restriction on CITES, and you are now dealing with the organization just as a... well... racketeer. You have to give them a cut every time you move orchids across countries with the CITES trade barrier. A small fee for access to any species you want? Big deal. Especially if the commercial growers pay the fee, and produce them in the US. Then you don't have to worry about CITES whatsoever. So in effect, this is how you legally beat species extinction. But remember, you can't just buy the best of the FCC awarded parents and think you are doing some service. That doesn't preserve the species, but a select line of breeding, which eventually means that the genes can become stagnant and inbred unless new genes are introduced into trade. How many times has Paph platyphyllum been selfed? Too many times, and we are likely to see lots of inbreeding depression in the future, not to mention a complete lack of diversity. We can have perfect plants, but it is important to have some ugly plants too, they may have some amazing genes. And by ugly, I mean less than perfect.

And how do we promote the existence of ugly plants? Well, the are certainly cheaper than perfect plants. And the cheaper they are, the more popular they are to indiscriminating consumers, which explains everyone's love for most of the ebay paphs and virtually everyone selling paphs in the US. So hobbyists have less than perfect plants. We must get them to breed them. How? We can give tutorials, and offer low cost flasking services for species! Who will do this? I plan to make it possible.

My opinion of CITES:

IT IS CONTRADICTED NONSENSE!

CITES has been so vague as to what plants status has to be, they check pickled flower, pollen, live and dead plants, herbarium sheets, etc..... how can they protect a 100 year old herbarium specimen. How about species Paphs. that became legal before the formation of CITES, and they check to see proof of the validity of when the plant was brought into the US...

CITES is my opinion on how the treaty, signed by many countries, keeps the government's monopoly on unimportant things, like plants! I could see CITES in trade of Cocaine trees, Cannabis, Leonotis, and a few other hallucinigenic plants, but WHY INTERFERE WITH ORCHIDS, THAT IS ALL THEY REALLY LOOK OUT FOR, NOT THE RARE BEGONIAS, NOT THE RARE AMORPHOPHALLUS TITANUM, BUT ORCHIDS! I cannot express opinions about certain people, as I may face libel, but I will say I am 100% ANTI-CITES.

CITES IS NOT FOR CONSERVATION, IN FACT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSERVATION. CITES HAS NO REAL POINT IN THE REAL WORLD, IT IS A HINDERANCE LIKE A MOTHER-IN-LAW, OR A THORN IN THE YOU KNOW WHERE! WHY DO THEY NEED TO INTERFERE IN TRADE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN FREE TRADE. IF OVER-COLLECTING IN THE WILD IN MASS NUMBERS IS THE IDEA FOR CITES, THAN THAT IS OVER, NO ONE OVER COLLECTS LIKE THAT, AS WE (INCLUDING MYSELF) CAN PROPAGATE PLANTS LIKE MAD!

I have noticed officials of CITES use their own treaty to gain plants for themselves. I will not mention a single name, but you all know the notorious Slipper Enthusiasts. I soon may meet the same problems Bosha Popow and Henry Azhedhel have faced, as my new species of Paphiopedilum is coming in, already imported years ago.....

CITES is so bad, that it strictly prohibits the discovery of new species, or describing the plants or growing the plants legally. CITES forms are to be filled out with a generic and a specific epithet, and no spp. can be input in, as that is too general, and not accepted. What is one to put for a new species of Encyclia? I have discussed this before, and I have been laughed at, with no reply..... anyone have ideas?

Yes, I get fired up when CITES is brought up, it is only trouble to be made. CITES prevents advancements in propagation.

I highly recommend Eric Hansen's, 'Orchid Fever'. He leaves some big details out of his book about CITES, possibly to avoid the legal actions threatened to Hansen by Cribb, but gives an idea as to how corrupt CITES is, with no real set rules..... stupidity is what I call it all..... I HATE CITES!

-PM

I've always been somewhat of a fence sitter when it comes to CITES because of the good things it's done for animal protection. It's only recently I've run into issues with it because of orchid restrictions and it totally ticks me off. I truly appreciate the comments here so I can learn more. I can honestly say I think health certification and verification of artificial propagation should be required for cross-border trafficking but certainly not the half-arsed rules CITES currently imposes.

ok, so dumb question here.. I guess someone's gotta start asking the questions...

Does CITES stop people from bringing in a flask of orchids? eg. I think Stephan in one of the threads mentioned that if a person carries the flask with him/her then no paperwork is needed... is this only in Australia?

If a certain amount of flasked plants are allowed to be imported in, then maybe CITES is helping, eg, anitum will first need to be cultivated to the point where it flowers and bears seeds in it's native origin before it can be exported. Of course, some ppl might just grab the seed pods from native plants, but I don't think that CITES actually has power to stop people from picking plants or bits of it from the wild... each country sets that legislation. Anyways, then this way, the locals are hopefully educated about growing orchids so that they can sell the flasks of seedlings...

sorry if the above doesn't make much sense...

Cheers
Tim

I agree that CITES works when applied to stuff like animals. It is not perfect, especially for orchid collectors, but I guess we all agree that is because orchids were not the orginally intended "things" to be protected. They just sort of got lumped in. True, we need someone to crusade for our beloved orchids.

SteveT, I wish we could get the world to agree on how to protect their natural resources but that is just impossible. We can point to third world countries and say, "how can they not understand this is important?" But then we would have to look in the mirror and see that our own country (the USA) refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate control which many other countries have.

Patrick, I understand your frustration with CITES given the nature of the work that you do. However, CITES was written in the early 70's and I doubt that propagation was a consideration.
The politicians have leaned towards a blanket policy rather than to pick and choose which species are truly endangered. Better safe than sorry, I guess.
Politicians should not be the ones to decided what is or is not endangered. I would agree with this approach because wild populations can fluctuate rapidly and we can't keep amending CITES every year. I do not believe CITES prevents propagation. I believe it hampers commercial propagation (behind every good grower is a big pile of dead plants). The ideal goal would be to allow governments to bring species into controlled cultivation initially to produce enough viable specimens to share with the commercial public. Again, this may not be fast enough for us, but in science, control is essential.

While our voices may resound loud in here and in other orchid forums, it doesn't really amount to much in terms of swaying politicians because our numbers are not yet large enough to represent a significant part of a voting constituency. I believe the problem is also that organizations that are seen to represent orchids (AOS) or conservation in general (Sierra Club type groups) do not object strongly to CITES.

We also have to consider why legislators aren't exactly scramblimg to reform CITES. Imagine this conversation in a Capitol Building office:
Aide: Senator, we have 3 issues that need your attention: (1) Medicaid/Medicare reform for the poor/elderly, (2) National security stuff for Department of Homeland Defense, and (3) CITES reform.
Senator: What was that last one again?
Aide: A few orchid collectors are upset that they can't get hold of new orchids fast enough.

I apologize if I offend anyone. Just my humble opinion.

ok, so dumb question here.. I guess someone's gotta start asking the questions...

Does CITES stop people from bringing in a flask of orchids? eg. I think Stephan in one of the threads mentioned that if a person carries the flask with him/her then no paperwork is needed... is this only in Australia?

If a certain amount of flasked plants are allowed to be imported in, then maybe CITES is helping, eg, anitum will first need to be cultivated to the point where it flowers and bears seeds in it's native origin before it can be exported. Of course, some ppl might just grab the seed pods from native plants, but I don't think that CITES actually has power to stop people from picking plants or bits of it from the wild... each country sets that legislation. Anyways, then this way, the locals are hopefully educated about growing orchids so that they can sell the flasks of seedlings...

sorry if the above doesn't make much sense...

Cheers
Tim


It depends on what country it is. Typically you won't get stopped, but if it is a species from a country which has never issued legal paperwork for the plants, such as anitum, the plants are not legal.

The problem with plants needing to be propagated in their country of origin is that the countries are often undeveloped nations. In the philippines, on island mindanao where anitum and randsii and adductum occur, you still find roving groups of pirates, terrorist guerillas, corrupt government, little infrastructure, little high-technology like orchid propagation labs, etc. This is like saying to save the african races, they need to have their laboratories do AIDS research. Well, what laboratories are those? The philippines doesn't have much of an artificial propagation facility, and nobody wants to spend the money to build one for a few reasons. 1) it is a dangerous place, 2) companies from all over the world will just buy one legal flask from them, and then use that to justify all their illegal plant collections. This legalizes the plants, but does not solve the problem of over-collection. 3) Why propagate and spend lots of money when you can just go in the jungle and pick them out as adults?

Now, if you allow it to be exported to a country, and sent it to someone with environmental ethics and the plan to make tons and tons of flasks, you could have something to talk about!

My opinion of CITES:

IT IS CONTRADICTED NONSENSE!

CITES IS NOT FOR CONSERVATION, IN FACT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSERVATION. CITES HAS NO REAL POINT IN THE REAL WORLD, IT IS A HINDERANCE LIKE A MOTHER-IN-LAW, OR A THORN IN THE YOU KNOW WHERE! WHY DO THEY NEED TO INTERFERE IN TRADE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN FREE TRADE. IF OVER-COLLECTING IN THE WILD IN MASS NUMBERS IS THE IDEA FOR CITES, THAN THAT IS OVER, NO ONE OVER COLLECTS LIKE THAT, AS WE (INCLUDING MYSELF) CAN PROPAGATE PLANTS LIKE MAD!

etc


This technique will get us nowhere. You can't hate it to expect it to go away. You have to embrace it, and try to make it tear itself apart. There are legal ways to get the right things done, just be patient, and send your life savings to Phytosophy.org. :therethere:

SteveT, I wish we could get the world to agree on how to protect their natural resources but that is just impossible. We can point to third world countries and say, "how can they not understand this is important?" But then we would have to look in the mirror and see that our own country (the USA) refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate control which many other countries have.


I think CITES is a great idea, just not the way it is applied to plants. But I'll be damned if I think that in the US we are righteous. We are far from it, and I condemn our stupidity and greed for overlooking the damage we are passing on to the next generations of people on this planet. What will they say about us when they see how we have given a hefty shift towards destroying our own living environments? By the time it becomes an immediate life-threatening problem, there will be nothing that can be done. We are too arrogant and ignorant.

I think CITES is a great idea, just not the way it is applied to plants. But I'll be damned if I think that in the US we are righteous. We are far from it, and I condemn our stupidity and greed for overlooking the damage we are passing on to the next generations of people on this planet. What will they say about us when they see how we have given a hefty shift towards destroying our own living environments? By the time it becomes an immediate life-threatening problem, there will be nothing that can be done. We are too arrogant and ignorant.

Human influence has undoutably had an "effect" on Earth's environment. There's no argument there. Prior to Humans there have been some massive ELE's which (so far as we know) had nothing to do with us. There will surely be more in the future. Life goes on. I don't know too much about you Yanks being righteous but I DO believe we humans are arrogant.

We've invaded every ecosystem on this planet and made it ours. We've adapted, we've overcome and we've usurped - Hooyah!!!

We have a lifespan not much more than 100 years and an attention span (as a species) not much greater than that. The conservation efforts of today are stymied by monied interests whose short term goals are in conflict with the long term needs of the human race. The Earth couldn't/wouldn't give a damn if we, or any other lifeform, suddenly disappeared.

Anything more than this would need to go to another forum :) and I am not sending SteveT my life savings :poke:

BTW, where the heck is DFW?

Cheers from Australia where the coffee is just now perking

Stephan

Stephan - first of all - Right on!
Second, it cracks me up you brewing breakfast coffee at our dinner time. :lol:

Third - DFW is Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas.

I also agree with Stephan 100%. It is almost dinner time here while you sip your morning coffee.:lol:

Do the Ozzies do tea and crumpets at 2ish too?

Do the Ozzies do tea and crumpets at 2ish too?

lol, actually we do lamingtons and tea.. and being the forwardly moving highly sophisticated classy mob that we are, we like our tea all sorts depending on the day.. in fact I am having "Tea For Sunday" which is a mix of Assam Tea with Vanilla pieces. Of course, no smart alec remarks about it still being Saturday.. it's early and brain is still on semi-functioning.... :cheeky:

Now, if you allow it to be exported to a country, and sent it to someone with environmental ethics and the plan to make tons and tons of flasks

So I guess all orchids should be sent to Oztralia, seeing as our track record in environmental concerns isn't too shabby, ie our efforts in saving them whales, (and ok ok we didn't sign the Kyoto thing either but that was only because we need to sell our coal :twisted: )

And if y'all want a part of it, then you can just bring your lab toys and all your Benjie Franklins and set up here. ps we have been having very cold winters of 6degrees celsius so u may also want to bring your oil heaters...

Cheers
Tim

Do the Ozzies do tea and crumpets at 2ish too?

To answer you question, at least on my behalf, Ernie; Seeing as it's Saturday and about quarter past two it's what I call Beer O'clock :D . A local Orchid society had its Winter show today and I weakened purchasing three more Paphs' I simply can't help myself - I've got the room and didn't realise that Rule one had ruled my life all this time.

One of the plants was species - gratrix whatever :) [gotta add them to my DB yet - they're out back while I contemplate my first sip]

Tea and crumpets I have with Aunty Jane on a civilised Sunday arvo (NOT!)

Cheers
Stephan

I weakened purchasing three more Paphs' ... One of the plants was species - gratrix whatever :)

Cool, now what are the other two? :poke:

I weakened purchasing three more Paphs' ... One of the plants was species - gratrix whatever :)

Cool, now what are the other two? :poke:

O.K. - Been and done the noting thing - photos will follow -

P. gratrixianum - advanced plant - single growth
P. Red Sky by P. sukhakulii 'Jay' - in bloom and very pretty - classic sukhakulii influence
P. Sparkling Wine X Kimberley Szabo - complex Red and in bloom - first bloom and not yet fully open.

Cheers
Stephan

:lol:
You guys are funny!

Now, if you allow it to be exported to a country, and sent it to someone with environmental ethics and the plan to make tons and tons of flasks

So I guess all orchids should be sent to Oztralia, seeing as our track record in environmental concerns isn't too shabby, ie our efforts in saving them whales, (and ok ok we didn't sign the Kyoto thing either but that was only because we need to sell our coal :twisted: )

And if y'all want a part of it, then you can just bring your lab toys and all your Benjie Franklins and set up here. ps we have been having very cold winters of 6degrees celsius so u may also want to bring your oil heaters...

Cheers
Tim


You could do that or just send them to Nascent Orchid in the US or Europe.

I just finished reading as much of the pertinent CITES data available on their website and geez what a bureaucratic nightmare. I learned a few things though which was my goal to get a better understanding of the intent in relation to orchids.

Two things immediately struck me while looking at the appendices. The first being this excerpt: (For all of the following Appendix-I species, seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the Convention) There are some caveats in documents about wild collected seeds and spores but that statement implies that properly marked and documented flasks etc are exempt from anything but cursory oversight and verification of the lack of contamination. The second part was that ALL species orchids are governed by Appendix-II which seemed a bit odd to me.

Basically what I gleaned was that all species orchids in possession are subject to verification of how obtained at any time. By the strict interpretation, even species that were acquired in flask fall into this category after they're deflasked. I guess I better keep immaculate documentation on all of my babies.

I found some information relative to trade in the species but very little hard information about specific sanctions if any on artificially propagated species. Almost all data related to ease of proper identification for inspecting authorities on both export and import sides to assure they aren't collected in the wild. Given their criteria for determining wild collected vs artificially propagated, I'm somewhat amazed ANY species or uncommon hybrid plants get through the importation process especially NBS or younger.

I can certainly see some countries imposing limits of export or import to keep values high, even with ungoverned flasks but that's an artificial imposition and unnecessary. That's the kind of silliness that leads to black marketing and greater wild collection.

One of the glaring omissions was anything relative to exceptions to the rules in the name of preservation of species. I mean if a country doesn't take the steps to preserve the habitats or provide special means for endangered species to be preserved, it just won't happen. I would like to see an amendment to the Appendices that specifically allowed an export country to specify in the CITES documentation that a wild collected species was obtained with permission by an expert for saving it and import agencies be required to accept it.

Any thoughts? Did I misread anything or draw any wrong conclusions?

Ernie, I think you about summed it up. The language of CITES is intentionally vague to allow each country to implement conservation in the way that it feels is best. (whatever that might be)
I believe that one of the recurring complaints is that CITES tends to handle things in a preservationist (old school 60's-70's "leave it where it is" mentality) way. I think the concept of sustainable use (modern idea of taking enough to satisfy the public while leaving enough to reproduce naturally) didn't really take hold until the 80's when CITES had already been set in stone.
Hopefully, the wheel will turn (albeit slowly) and come around to the more modern approach.

I have some easy to read articles from environmental law journals that discuss CITES, it's implications and some of the ongoing debates about reform. If anyone wants to read any, just PM me with an email address and your preferred format (MS Word or Wordperfect).

Why send your life savings to SteveT when you can send them to me :D

Ernie

You kinda hit the nail on the head with regards to implementation. CITES was origionally developed for the protection of rhinos, tigers and elephants.

Commercial propogation of these critters is nonexixtant, and artificial breeding facilities are so limited in number they are easy to locate and inspect. So its pretty reasonable to assume that if you walk into your local neighborhood talisman shop and see a pile of ivory in the corner it was most likely poached from wild animals.

But as CITES grew to include more species it never really adapted to the different biological realities of the smaller more productive species, that go to hobbiest status with a zillion mom and pop "breeding facilities".

So now enforcement is fairly arbitrary, and generally targets those who get above the radar screen by either volume, $, or fame.

Commercial propogation of these critters is nonexixtant, and artificial breeding facilities are so limited in number they are easy to locate and inspect.

Things will change very soon.