Slipper orchids face danger of extinction in Viet Nam
01/11/2006 -- 17:27(GMT+7)
http://www.vnagency.com.vn/NewsA.asp?LANGUAGE_ID=3D2&CAT EGORY_ID=3D31&NEWS_=
ID=3D
182289 =09

Ha Noi, Jan. 11 (VNA) - Vietnamese slipper orchids are facing the danger
of extinction due to over-exploitation and have been listed as endangered=

species, said ecologist Phan Ke Loc from the Viet Nam Science and
Technology Institute.

Viet Nam has 20 species of slipper orchids, many of which are diminishing.

Recently, scientists have identified three globally threatened species of=

slipper orchids, scientifically named Paphiopedilum spp. in the Phong Nha-
Ke Bang National Park in central Quang Binh province.

The Paphiopedilum species, which has been listed in the World Conservation=

Union?s Red List of threatened species, are found in primitive forests at=

an altitude of 1,000 m above sea level.

The slipper orchids were first found in central coastal Khanh Hoa province=

in 1922 but they populations were quickly decimated by over-exploitation.=

They were discovered again in 1996 in Khanh Hoa province and northern
mountainous Cao Bang province. Since then, they have been exploited to
near extinction.

--
Reka

This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html

But heaven help someone who tries to harvest a few to save the species! Just
let the poachers take them; that's the natural order of things, after all.
(Insert sarcasm emoticon here.)

Diana

So they wouldn't be threatened in their native habitat if more collecting
were allowed? It's acceptable to strip all of the plants out of their
habitat as long as they are freely available to the horticultural trade? I
don't see any problem with giving countries the right to control their
natural resources (although the application of CITES to preserved flowers
and herbarium specimens is going a little far.) CITES regulates the
shipment of orchids, it's not a ban. If the originating country allows the
species to be sold then they can be shipped with the appropriate documents.
If the country doesn't allow them to be sold, there are about 20,000 other
species and 100,000+ hybrids you can grow instead.
-danny

> So they wouldn't be threatened in their native habitat if more collecting
> were allowed? It's acceptable to strip all of the plants out of their
> habitat as long as they are freely available to the horticultural trade?<

I guess I'd better elaborate. No, I do not find that acceptable. What irks
me is that enforcement of conservation often appears to be aimed more at
researchers and those who would reproduce the plants, whether for sale or to
replenish their numbers in their natural habitat than at poachers. I don't
mean to suggest that poachers are never caught (they are). Researchers are
far more likely to go through the proper channels than your average poacher,
right? And then they jump through all the hoops and sometimes are denied
anyway, while the poachers go merrily on their way. I'm trying to be fairly
specific here so I don't get flamed again; my asbestos suit is at the
cleaners.

> If the country doesn't allow them to be sold, there are about 20,000 other
> species and 100,000+ hybrids you can grow instead.<

No need to be snarky. I think better of you than that.

Diana

Are signatory countries able to grant export permits to selected other
countries or is it an ALL or none kind of deal.

So if Country "A" has a plant within it's border and declares it to be on
the Appendix I list can it grant export permits to Country 'B" but not to
country "C"

I *think* the answer is no. If you can find the plant for sale in Country
'B" but country 'A" does not allow export, then you can not get legal
permission to bring into Country 'C" from Country "B" or to buy it legally
inside country 'B" or Country C...no matter how it got there. Of course, I
could be wrong.

If country A does not allow it's export, it doesn't matter how the plant is
collected or propagated inside country A, you can't have it if you don't
live there.

If you want to buy a plant from outside your country, make sure you
understand permit requirements; don't count on the vendor to know. If you
find a plant inside your country that you question, check with your
government's CITES office to be sure. Your government's Cites office can
help with both issues.

On the other hand, if you want to express an opinion, you've come to the
right place.

IMHO, a thread with a name like this one was meant to burn. Enjoy it, but
be wary...and bring your thick skin.

Diana Kulaga wrote:
> > So they wouldn't be threatened in their native habitat if more collecting
> > were allowed? It's acceptable to strip all of the plants out of their
> > habitat as long as they are freely available to the horticultural trade?<
>
> I guess I'd better elaborate. No, I do not find that acceptable. What irks
> me is that enforcement of conservation often appears to be aimed more at
> researchers and those who would reproduce the plants, whether for sale or to
> replenish their numbers in their natural habitat than at poachers. I don't
> mean to suggest that poachers are never caught (they are).

But that does not argue for doing away with CITES as so many orchid
growers like to claim. It indicates that enforcement needs to be more
strict.

If the Phrag kovachii saga tells us anything, it is that free trade in
flasked seedlings is insufficient to prevent over-exploitation of wild
populations. Peruvians started flasking P. kovachii soon after it was
discovered, but the known localities were stripped long before those
flasked plants could possibly have matured.

Flasking has been possible since the 1920s, but cheap collected paphs
were on sale in the AOS bulletin as late as the early 1980s. It was
CITES, not flasking, that limited sales of collected Paphs.

> > If the country doesn't allow them to be sold, there are about 20,000 other
> > species and 100,000+ hybrids you can grow instead.<
>
> No need to be snarky. I think better of you than that.

I'll second Danny's sentiment. No one is gonna die if they can't have
a Paph hangianum or a Phrag kovachii, but we orchid growers spend more
time lamenting that CITES prevents us from growing the latest greatest
species, than we do lamenting the loss of the wild plants. Lets not
forget that the poachers are selling the plants to orchid growers.

Nick

Danny:

1. CITES has been around, and applicable to orchids, for a VERY long time
now.

2. CITES has NOT prevented the situation Reka posted about, nor many, many,
other similar situations. And it won't, as long as the only way to own such
species is illegal, because those who really want them and can pay are going
to get them anyway -- at inflated prices, due to the illegality, which only
increases the motivation of the locals to go harvest them for high (to them)
pay. Viet Nam is a 3d world country. I don't know the average hourly wage,
but I'll be very surprised if it's as much as US$1/hour. Anybody know?

The vast majority of the people involved in this illegal trade, especially
the native collectors and the ultimate purchasers, will never get caught,
and they know it. Leaving aside the question of guilt or innocence, the
prosecutions of Norris and Kovach are exceptions, not the rule. I haven't
seen anything on any of Norris' _customers_ being prosecuted, and I doubt
anyone could even find the "collectors" or their names, so as to prosecute
them, if anyone were interested in doing so. This has always been true, but
is even more so now and for the last few years when the various and assorted
"international police" agencies are being required to concentrate so heavily
on terrorism.

3. Had there been reasonable "exceptions," back in 1996 when this
particular species was "re-discovered," a commercial grower or two could
have taken A FEW plants for further propagation. Had such grower(s) been
allowed to do that back in 1996, then there most likely would have been
legal flasks on the market by 1998-1999, legal seedlings in another year or
two, and by now legal flowering-size plants. All artificially-propagated,
so that the vast majority of potential parents left back in the wild could
keep on growing and re-seeding.

There are probably still a few people who would want the illegal
wild-collected plants just for the "thrill" of it, even at a premium price,
but the major demand could have been supplied from the
artificially-propagated plants referenced above, the "illegal" premium would
be reduced as a result, thus reducing the pay of the native collectors, and
IMHO a lot more of them would still be growing in the wild.

You have mentioned before, the idea of having knowledgeable people going out
to collect some specimens in cases like this, and turning them over to some
gov't agency/bureaucracy. This will never accomplish the goal. The folks
with the expertise are not going to donate their time and energy just to
turn the plants over to a regime that will almost certainly kill them before
any viable seed is produced, and even if they did, the goal can't be
accomplished without that viable seed and the expertise/$$ to turn that seed
into actual plants. To work, such a program has to be given to someone with
both the expertise and a strong financial motivation to make it work. Civil
servants don't get fired for incompetence; they usually get promoted! But
entrepreneurs can't afford to fail very often ...

One final thought: I would very much prefer to see these species continue
to grow in the wild, at least until their "wild" is
burned/cleared/bulldozed. But if that truly CAN'T be achieved, then I would
rather seem them grow "in captivity" than become totally extinct. Kenni



"danny" <foo [at] notbar.net> wrote in message
news:CTzxf.29095$__4.12511 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> So they wouldn't be threatened in their native habitat if more collecting
> were allowed? It's acceptable to strip all of the plants out of their
> habitat as long as they are freely available to the horticultural trade?
> I don't see any problem with giving countries the right to control their
> natural resources (although the application of CITES to preserved flowers
> and herbarium specimens is going a little far.) CITES regulates the
> shipment of orchids, it's not a ban. If the originating country allows
> the species to be sold then they can be shipped with the appropriate
> documents. If the country doesn't allow them to be sold, there are about
> 20,000 other species and 100,000+ hybrids you can grow instead.
> -danny
>
>

As long as there is demand from rich collectors, there will be poaching.
Whether or not there is also legal collecting is irrelevant. It would take
more than a few years for artificial propagation to make any dent in the
pressure to collect wild plants, and then people would still do it as long
as it was profitable. The poachers probably only give the local collectors
a few pennies per plant. I don't blame the local people for collecting
plants to feed their families. The government could probably pay the locals
a lot more to collect them legally and then export them, but that's up to
the individual governments. Many of them want to develop local orchid
nurseries to be the official suppliers for these species, and I don't blame
them. What's wrong with keeping some of the profit locally? The system in
Peru is slowly starting to work, there are legal plants in the U.S. from one
of the Peruvian suppliers and another one should come on line sometime soon.
[By the way, I think you got me mixed up with someone else when you were
talking about having people collect them and turn them over to the
government. I don't think I've ever said that.]

I just get tired of all of the anti-CITES griping, especially when much of
what gets said is false. CITES does not completely stop the trade of
orchids. CITES Appendix 1 plants can be legally imported under the right
conditions. Local laws that stop orchids from being collected are
completely separate from CITES, which only regulates international trade.
CITES has never been the cause of an orchid extinction, and most likely
never will be. It's highly unlikely that either Pk or Paph. vietnamense has
been eradicated in the wild (although Paph. vietnamense has probably had
more damage done to the wild population than Pk, which will probably be
discovered at more sites.) Many (not all) of the anti-CITES people don't
really care about stopping extinction of a species, they just want one of
the restricted plants for their collection. At least with CITES in place
there is a mechanism available for prosecuting the people that are causing
all of the poaching, the collectors in the more developed regions of the
world that are willing to pay the high prices to get the plants smuggled.

It will be interesting to see if there are second generation line-bred Pk's
that get released as flasked seedlings when the legal ones get more common.
I'm sure there are already people breeding with their illegal collected
plants. Once the artificially propagated plants are demonstrably better
than the wild ones, then some of the collecting pressure may ease.

-danny

"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
news:faSdnUGkQp8ge1veRVn-jA [at] adelphia.com...
> Danny:
>
> 1. CITES has been around, and applicable to orchids, for a VERY long time
> now.
>
> 2. CITES has NOT prevented the situation Reka posted about, nor many,
> many, other similar situations. And it won't, as long as the only way to
> own such species is illegal, because those who really want them and can
> pay are going to get them anyway -- at inflated prices, due to the
> illegality, which only increases the motivation of the locals to go
> harvest them for high (to them) pay. Viet Nam is a 3d world country. I
> don't know the average hourly wage, but I'll be very surprised if it's as
> much as US$1/hour. Anybody know?
>
> The vast majority of the people involved in this illegal trade, especially
> the native collectors and the ultimate purchasers, will never get caught,
> and they know it. Leaving aside the question of guilt or innocence, the
> prosecutions of Norris and Kovach are exceptions, not the rule. I haven't
> seen anything on any of Norris' _customers_ being prosecuted, and I doubt
> anyone could even find the "collectors" or their names, so as to prosecute
> them, if anyone were interested in doing so. This has always been true,
> but is even more so now and for the last few years when the various and
> assorted "international police" agencies are being required to concentrate
> so heavily on terrorism.
>
> 3. Had there been reasonable "exceptions," back in 1996 when this
> particular species was "re-discovered," a commercial grower or two could
> have taken A FEW plants for further propagation. Had such grower(s) been
> allowed to do that back in 1996, then there most likely would have been
> legal flasks on the market by 1998-1999, legal seedlings in another year
> or two, and by now legal flowering-size plants. All
> artificially-propagated, so that the vast majority of potential parents
> left back in the wild could keep on growing and re-seeding.
>
> There are probably still a few people who would want the illegal
> wild-collected plants just for the "thrill" of it, even at a premium
> price, but the major demand could have been supplied from the
> artificially-propagated plants referenced above, the "illegal" premium
> would be reduced as a result, thus reducing the pay of the native
> collectors, and IMHO a lot more of them would still be growing in the
> wild.
>
> You have mentioned before, the idea of having knowledgeable people going
> out to collect some specimens in cases like this, and turning them over to
> some gov't agency/bureaucracy. This will never accomplish the goal. The
> folks with the expertise are not going to donate their time and energy
> just to turn the plants over to a regime that will almost certainly kill
> them before any viable seed is produced, and even if they did, the goal
> can't be accomplished without that viable seed and the expertise/$$ to
> turn that seed into actual plants. To work, such a program has to be
> given to someone with both the expertise and a strong financial motivation
> to make it work. Civil servants don't get fired for incompetence; they
> usually get promoted! But entrepreneurs can't afford to fail very often
> ...
>
> One final thought: I would very much prefer to see these species continue
> to grow in the wild, at least until their "wild" is
> burned/cleared/bulldozed. But if that truly CAN'T be achieved, then I
> would rather seem them grow "in captivity" than become totally extinct.
> Kenni

Just to irritate things more, wouldn't it be better to at least attempt
something like forbidding publication of new species discovery until
years after the fact? That would give time for propagation, albeit making
someone pretty rich selling the first flask babies. But it might protect
the wild species.
--
Reka

This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html

Good luck with that!

You thing the naming of Phrag. kovachii caused a ruckus in the immediate
timeframe, think of what would happen if you had to wait years. Memories
and even records can get mighty "cloudy" over time.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Reka" <rhukari [at] rolmail.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e31657aa5ed961a989746 [at] news.rolmail.net...
> Just to irritate things more, wouldn't it be better to at least attempt
> something like forbidding publication of new species discovery until
> years after the fact? That would give time for propagation, albeit making
> someone pretty rich selling the first flask babies. But it might protect
> the wild species.
> --
> Reka
>
> This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
> http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html

Taxonomy is of course a science. It scrapes the bottom of the science
barrel but it technically still classes as a science :-). In the world
of publish or perish, you've got buckley's chance of getting any
scientist to wait longer than necessary to publish new names. With
competition for grants and the possibility of someone else publishing
first, I don't know if you can blame them for shouting out loud when
they find or make up ;-) a new species.
Andrew

Ray wrote:
>
> "Reka" <rhukari [at] rolmail.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e31657aa5ed961a989746 [at] news.rolmail.net...
> > Just to irritate things more, wouldn't it be better to at least attempt
> > something like forbidding publication of new species discovery until
> > years after the fact? That would give time for propagation, albeit making
> > someone pretty rich selling the first flask babies. But it might protect
> > the wild species.
>
> Good luck with that!
>
> You thing the naming of Phrag. kovachii caused a ruckus in the immediate
> timeframe, think of what would happen if you had to wait years. Memories
> and even records can get mighty "cloudy" over time.

And it would only work in cases where a species was first discovered by
researchers. In a situation like P. kovachii, it would have no effect,
because people would want the plant regardless of whether it was named.
It would also put the burden of solving the problem on people who did
not cause it in the first place.

So, assuming that
a) in the case of the Vietnamese Paphs and South American Phrags, the
main threat is the horticultural trade (the things grow on
mountainsides and were surviving quite happily until the orchid trade
discovered them),

b) our primary goal is preserving the wild plants, and the ability to
cultivate them is secondary,

c) we want to prevent the problem of previously smuggled plants being
"laundered" when artificially propagated seedlings become available,

how about this solution:

Ban in perpetuity the sale of those species affected. Have the AOS,
RHS, and other regional societies ban from shows and judging the
species and any hybrids derived from those species. Make this ban
permanent. Blacklist any nurseries selling the plants. Fine and
confiscate the collections of anyone caught with those particular
species.

This would immediately reduce the monetary value of the plants. People
with smuggled plants could no longer hope to show or sell their plants
in the future when seedlings become more common, so there would be less
incentive to smuggle in the first place. Sure, some people would still
want to grow them secretly, but we all know that orchidists love to
show off their plants, and if there was no hope of ever ever doing
that, fewer people would be interested. The risk would be greater
than the payoff.

Since we orchid growers have created the problems for Vietnamese paphs
and P. kovachii, this solution would appropriately put the burden of
solving it on us as well.

Nick

Sorry, Danny, upon looking back I see you were not the one who made that
suggestion.

My problems with CITES, however, are not the motives you ascribe to "many"
of the opponents.

While you're correct that CITES technically doesn't stop all _legal_orchid
trade, it makes it far less profitable. I will also agree that a big
portion of this problem is sloppy, inconsistent, and often just plain WRONG
enforcement. Meanwhile, I don't think it's doing much, if anything at all,
to stop the _illegal_ trade, but is if anything making the latter _more_
profitable for those willing to take the [so far, relatively remote]
likelihood of being caught. Just my 2 cents, Kenni

..
"danny" <foo [at] notbar.net> wrote in message
news:JBCxf.36914$qw4.5788 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> As long as there is demand from rich collectors, there will be poaching.
> Whether or not there is also legal collecting is irrelevant. It would
> take more than a few years for artificial propagation to make any dent in
> the pressure to collect wild plants, and then people would still do it as
> long as it was profitable. The poachers probably only give the local
> collectors a few pennies per plant. I don't blame the local people for
> collecting plants to feed their families. The government could probably
> pay the locals a lot more to collect them legally and then export them,
> but that's up to the individual governments. Many of them want to develop
> local orchid nurseries to be the official suppliers for these species, and
> I don't blame them. What's wrong with keeping some of the profit locally?
> The system in Peru is slowly starting to work, there are legal plants in
> the U.S. from one of the Peruvian suppliers and another one should come on
> line sometime soon. [By the way, I think you got me mixed up with someone
> else when you were talking about having people collect them and turn them
> over to the government. I don't think I've ever said that.]
>
> I just get tired of all of the anti-CITES griping, especially when much of
> what gets said is false. CITES does not completely stop the trade of
> orchids. CITES Appendix 1 plants can be legally imported under the right
> conditions. Local laws that stop orchids from being collected are
> completely separate from CITES, which only regulates international trade.
> CITES has never been the cause of an orchid extinction, and most likely
> never will be. It's highly unlikely that either Pk or Paph. vietnamense
> has been eradicated in the wild (although Paph. vietnamense has probably
> had more damage done to the wild population than Pk, which will probably
> be discovered at more sites.) Many (not all) of the anti-CITES people
> don't really care about stopping extinction of a species, they just want
> one of the restricted plants for their collection. At least with CITES in
> place there is a mechanism available for prosecuting the people that are
> causing all of the poaching, the collectors in the more developed regions
> of the world that are willing to pay the high prices to get the plants
> smuggled.
>
> It will be interesting to see if there are second generation line-bred
> Pk's that get released as flasked seedlings when the legal ones get more
> common. I'm sure there are already people breeding with their illegal
> collected plants. Once the artificially propagated plants are
> demonstrably better than the wild ones, then some of the collecting
> pressure may ease.
>
> -danny
>
> "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> news:faSdnUGkQp8ge1veRVn-jA [at] adelphia.com...
>> Danny:
>>
>> 1. CITES has been around, and applicable to orchids, for a VERY long
>> time now.
>>
>> 2. CITES has NOT prevented the situation Reka posted about, nor many,
>> many, other similar situations. And it won't, as long as the only way to
>> own such species is illegal, because those who really want them and can
>> pay are going to get them anyway -- at inflated prices, due to the
>> illegality, which only increases the motivation of the locals to go
>> harvest them for high (to them) pay. Viet Nam is a 3d world country. I
>> don't know the average hourly wage, but I'll be very surprised if it's as
>> much as US$1/hour. Anybody know?
>>
>> The vast majority of the people involved in this illegal trade,
>> especially the native collectors and the ultimate purchasers, will never
>> get caught, and they know it. Leaving aside the question of guilt or
>> innocence, the prosecutions of Norris and Kovach are exceptions, not the
>> rule. I haven't seen anything on any of Norris' _customers_ being
>> prosecuted, and I doubt anyone could even find the "collectors" or their
>> names, so as to prosecute them, if anyone were interested in doing so.
>> This has always been true, but is even more so now and for the last few
>> years when the various and assorted "international police" agencies are
>> being required to concentrate so heavily on terrorism.
>>
>> 3. Had there been reasonable "exceptions," back in 1996 when this
>> particular species was "re-discovered," a commercial grower or two could
>> have taken A FEW plants for further propagation. Had such grower(s) been
>> allowed to do that back in 1996, then there most likely would have been
>> legal flasks on the market by 1998-1999, legal seedlings in another year
>> or two, and by now legal flowering-size plants. All
>> artificially-propagated, so that the vast majority of potential parents
>> left back in the wild could keep on growing and re-seeding.
>>
>> There are probably still a few people who would want the illegal
>> wild-collected plants just for the "thrill" of it, even at a premium
>> price, but the major demand could have been supplied from the
>> artificially-propagated plants referenced above, the "illegal" premium
>> would be reduced as a result, thus reducing the pay of the native
>> collectors, and IMHO a lot more of them would still be growing in the
>> wild.
>>
>> You have mentioned before, the idea of having knowledgeable people going
>> out to collect some specimens in cases like this, and turning them over
>> to some gov't agency/bureaucracy. This will never accomplish the goal.
>> The folks with the expertise are not going to donate their time and
>> energy just to turn the plants over to a regime that will almost
>> certainly kill them before any viable seed is produced, and even if they
>> did, the goal can't be accomplished without that viable seed and the
>> expertise/$$ to turn that seed into actual plants. To work, such a
>> program has to be given to someone with both the expertise and a strong
>> financial motivation to make it work. Civil servants don't get fired for
>> incompetence; they usually get promoted! But entrepreneurs can't afford
>> to fail very often ...
>>
>> One final thought: I would very much prefer to see these species
>> continue to grow in the wild, at least until their "wild" is
>> burned/cleared/bulldozed. But if that truly CAN'T be achieved, then I
>> would rather seem them grow "in captivity" than become totally extinct.
>> Kenni
>
>

Kenni Judd wrote:
> While you're correct that CITES technically doesn't stop all _legal_orchid
> trade, it makes it far less profitable. I will also agree that a big
> portion of this problem is sloppy, inconsistent, and often just plain WRONG
> enforcement. Meanwhile, I don't think it's doing much, if anything at all,
> to stop the _illegal_ trade, but is if anything making the latter _more_
> profitable for those willing to take the [so far, relatively remote]
> likelihood of being caught. Just my 2 cents, Kenni

To some extent, I agree with this, but I think that the answer is not
to make legal trade easier. That will have limited effect on smuggling.
Rather, to reduce smuggling, we may need to reduce the international
trade in orchids and increase enforcement of CITES.

If you look at old advertisements, I think you will find that slipper
prices increased and flasked seedlings became more common after Paphs
and Phrags were placed on Appendix 1 in 1989. Flasking is relatively
expensive and labor intensive, so collected plants can often be sold
more cheaply than flasklings. Strict regulation of imports was
required to make domestic slipper flasking economically viable, even
though the technology had been around for decades.

Many of the species currently being smuggled are already well
established in cultivation (P. delenatii, Chinese parvisepalums, etc),
but since the people smuggling and the people flasking are different,
the availablility of flasked plants doesn't necessarily inhibit
smuggling. Artificially propagated plants can actually aid poaching by
making it easier to launder the poached plants. For instance, zillions
of venus flytraps are produced by tissue culture, but poaching still
occurs. Joe Poacher can't do tissue culture, but he can still make a
few bucks poaching. Once the plants are in pots, who can tell the
difference between wild and cultured plants?

If we were to further reduce international trade in orchids, it would
have a limited effect on the average orchid grower. Some newly
discovered species and some foreign clones will be harder to obtain,
but most species are already available domestically. Those people who
make their money importing orchids will suffer, but domestic flasking
labs should benefit. For newly discovered species like P. kovachii, ANY
international trade can mask smuggling, so the obvious answer is to
keep the plants out of cultivation, even though it might be fun to grow
one. As long as the plants are not legally in cultivation, smuggled
plants will stick out like a sore thumb.

On the other hand, relaxing CITES regulations on international trade in
artificially propagated plants might paradoxically make poaching more
common. Prices of slipper orchids would be reduced, and relatively
expensive domestically flasked would have a hard time competing with
cheaper imports. The situation would revert to the pre-1989 market,
and collected plants (though making less money per plant), would be
easier to launder through legal import/export channels.

Nick

Nick,

Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:

Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal enforcement
officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
advocating? The number of innocent people KILLED during mistaken drug raids
is well documented - are you ready to die for your orchids?

Extreme examples, I know, but I put them out to make people stop and think.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

<myrmecodia [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137340719.551169.285330 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Kenni Judd wrote:
>> While you're correct that CITES technically doesn't stop all
>> _legal_orchid
>> trade, it makes it far less profitable. I will also agree that a big
>> portion of this problem is sloppy, inconsistent, and often just plain
>> WRONG
>> enforcement. Meanwhile, I don't think it's doing much, if anything at
>> all,
>> to stop the _illegal_ trade, but is if anything making the latter _more_
>> profitable for those willing to take the [so far, relatively remote]
>> likelihood of being caught. Just my 2 cents, Kenni
>
> To some extent, I agree with this, but I think that the answer is not
> to make legal trade easier. That will have limited effect on smuggling.
> Rather, to reduce smuggling, we may need to reduce the international
> trade in orchids and increase enforcement of CITES.
>
> If you look at old advertisements, I think you will find that slipper
> prices increased and flasked seedlings became more common after Paphs
> and Phrags were placed on Appendix 1 in 1989. Flasking is relatively
> expensive and labor intensive, so collected plants can often be sold
> more cheaply than flasklings. Strict regulation of imports was
> required to make domestic slipper flasking economically viable, even
> though the technology had been around for decades.
>
> Many of the species currently being smuggled are already well
> established in cultivation (P. delenatii, Chinese parvisepalums, etc),
> but since the people smuggling and the people flasking are different,
> the availablility of flasked plants doesn't necessarily inhibit
> smuggling. Artificially propagated plants can actually aid poaching by
> making it easier to launder the poached plants. For instance, zillions
> of venus flytraps are produced by tissue culture, but poaching still
> occurs. Joe Poacher can't do tissue culture, but he can still make a
> few bucks poaching. Once the plants are in pots, who can tell the
> difference between wild and cultured plants?
>
> If we were to further reduce international trade in orchids, it would
> have a limited effect on the average orchid grower. Some newly
> discovered species and some foreign clones will be harder to obtain,
> but most species are already available domestically. Those people who
> make their money importing orchids will suffer, but domestic flasking
> labs should benefit. For newly discovered species like P. kovachii, ANY
> international trade can mask smuggling, so the obvious answer is to
> keep the plants out of cultivation, even though it might be fun to grow
> one. As long as the plants are not legally in cultivation, smuggled
> plants will stick out like a sore thumb.
>
> On the other hand, relaxing CITES regulations on international trade in
> artificially propagated plants might paradoxically make poaching more
> common. Prices of slipper orchids would be reduced, and relatively
> expensive domestically flasked would have a hard time competing with
> cheaper imports. The situation would revert to the pre-1989 market,
> and collected plants (though making less money per plant), would be
> easier to launder through legal import/export channels.
>
> Nick
>

Eric Hunt wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:
>
> Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal enforcement
> officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
> someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
> advocating? The number of innocent people KILLED during mistaken drug raids
> is well documented - are you ready to die for your orchids?
>
> Extreme examples, I know, but I put them out to make people stop and think.

Hi Eric,

No, that wouldn't please me, but I don't think it is inevitable. There
are currently ornamental plants that Americans cannot obtain legally,
but I haven't heard of anyone killed during greenhouse raids to look
for Aztekium hintonii or Geohintonia mexicana. In the long term, I
suspect that enforcement would not have to be much more severe than it
is now, but we would need to change our priorities a bit. Now, when a
new species is discovered, our priority is to get it into cultivation
as soon as possible. That frenzy creates both motive and opportunity
to smuggle wild plants.

If we were resigned to the fact that P. kovachii would never be
available to grow legally, there would be less incentive to collect the
wild plants. By way of comparison, I'm sure there is illegal
collecting of Mexican cacti like Aztekium hintoni, but since Mexico
does not permit exporting the species, most ethical U.S. cactus growers
do not even try to obtain one. They are available in Europe,
presumably derived from smuggled plants and seed, but I've never seen
it for sale here in the US. On the other hand, I have seen many large
wild-collected plants of Ariocarpus fissuratus for sale (legally
collected in Texas), even though artificially propagated seedlings are
readily available.

I suspect that with rare, horticulturally desirable plants, we can
either have free and easy international trade, or we can have
relatively secure wild populations, but not both.

Nick

Eric Hunt wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:
>
> Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal enforcement
> officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
> someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
> advocating?

One further thought... One could, I think, beef up CITES enforcement
without ever going anywhere near private greenhouses. A lot of
smuggling is probably Norris-style false labeling. Suppose only plants
in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
plants.

But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..

Nick

Nick,

Did you read the stories about how George Norris' greenhouse was raided with
semiautomatic weapons? An elderly man (who, yes, was found guilty) was
treated like a drug dealer over smuggled plants! Google is your friend if
you haven't read about it.

And I *KNOW* the orchid community is back-biting enough to turn each other
in left and right, both honestly and maliciously. Sadly, I do think we are
headed more towards the system you describe. I've been asked by some local
growers to not take photos of ANY paphiopedilums in their collections. And I
*know* that they are very upstanding law-abiding growers, but the climate of
hysteria surrounding slipper orchids has made them feel unsafe.

The American way of "shoot first/confiscate first/destroy first, ask
questions later" in law enforcement means that if the authorities are the
least bit ambiguous on what might be legal or illegal, it ALL gets
destroyed. Out of bloom Phrag. kovachii looks pretty much like any other
Phrag, you know? Until the day of handheld DNA analyzers with an accurate
genomebank that fits into something portable, there are definite enforcement
issues.

Not to dismiss your core arguments - I think they make a lot of sense in a
society where law enforcement isn't as overzealous as ours is here.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

<myrmecodia [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137348550.068456.262400 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Hunt wrote:
>> Nick,
>>
>> Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:
>>
>> Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal
>> enforcement
>> officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
>> someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
>> advocating? The number of innocent people KILLED during mistaken drug
>> raids
>> is well documented - are you ready to die for your orchids?
>>
>> Extreme examples, I know, but I put them out to make people stop and
>> think.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> No, that wouldn't please me, but I don't think it is inevitable. There
> are currently ornamental plants that Americans cannot obtain legally,
> but I haven't heard of anyone killed during greenhouse raids to look
> for Aztekium hintonii or Geohintonia mexicana. In the long term, I
> suspect that enforcement would not have to be much more severe than it
> is now, but we would need to change our priorities a bit. Now, when a
> new species is discovered, our priority is to get it into cultivation
> as soon as possible. That frenzy creates both motive and opportunity
> to smuggle wild plants.
>
> If we were resigned to the fact that P. kovachii would never be
> available to grow legally, there would be less incentive to collect the
> wild plants. By way of comparison, I'm sure there is illegal
> collecting of Mexican cacti like Aztekium hintoni, but since Mexico
> does not permit exporting the species, most ethical U.S. cactus growers
> do not even try to obtain one. They are available in Europe,
> presumably derived from smuggled plants and seed, but I've never seen
> it for sale here in the US. On the other hand, I have seen many large
> wild-collected plants of Ariocarpus fissuratus for sale (legally
> collected in Texas), even though artificially propagated seedlings are
> readily available.
>
> I suspect that with rare, horticulturally desirable plants, we can
> either have free and easy international trade, or we can have
> relatively secure wild populations, but not both.
>
> Nick
>

Nick,

Your further though did address some of the issues I brought up in my reply
from 10:57 (we were working on replies simultaneously =). Again, good idea,
but the mechanisms to train people to recognize orchids in bloom will never
happen. Remember, port of entry inspectors inspect about a billion more
things than orchids, and hiring orchid specialists will never happen.

The US "fruit of the poison tree" interpretation of CITES is a big hindrance
to ex-situ conservation. Banning seedlings to prove an ethical point is
silly and we're the only country that does it, to my knowledge. It goes back
to CITES being developed for slow-to-reproduce animals and with plants being
tacked on as an afterthought.

Specific countries have laws that also make ex-situ conservation impossible.
These are probably not CITES related. I want to say it's illegal to rescue
orchids in deforestation zones in Mexico as an example. Peru also comes to
mind as having policies in this area that make it hard to save orchids from
slash and burn areas.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

<myrmecodia [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137350810.282191.192980 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Hunt wrote:
>> Nick,
>>
>> Interesting points - but the one thing that kept popping up in my head:
>>
>> Do *YOU* want the same "take-no-prisoners war-on-drugs" federal
>> enforcement
>> officers knocking down your doors and trashing your greenhouse because
>> someone "reported" you as having some of these banned plants you are
>> advocating?
>
> One further thought... One could, I think, beef up CITES enforcement
> without ever going anywhere near private greenhouses. A lot of
> smuggling is probably Norris-style false labeling. Suppose only plants
> in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
> ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
> to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
> way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
> plants.
>
> But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
> specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
> that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
> think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
> it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
> exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
> does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
> all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
> still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
> Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
> handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
> seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..
>
> Nick
>

Nick: Surely you jest??? How do you suggest the inspecting authorities
train their personnel to recognize these blooms, esp. after they've
inevitably been damaged by shipping, when currently only a small percentage
of either AOS judges or commercial growers might possibly be up to the task?
And, BTW, how would you like to pay for that?

Nor does CITES only affect the "slippers," in which I actually have _no
interest whatsoever_, for myself or my business (not that I don't care about
the wild populations). I WOULD like to _legally_ acquire, and either
sib-cross or clone, a couple of nice C. trianaie (sp? -- sorry, I'm tired, I
just got home from a show). Which was also App. I, last I looked, even
though people in the areas where it grows say there's an abundance.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, just realistic. Kenni

> Suppose only plants
> in bloom were allowed to be shipped internationally and inspections at
> ports of entry were beefed up? That would make it much more difficult
> to import plants and would suck for people who make their living that
> way, but it would also make it much more difficult to smuggle wild
> plants.
>
> But, my main purpose in commenting in this thread is not to suggest
> specific enforcement methods. Rather, I wanted to comment on the idea
> that CITES has been an unmitigated disaster for slipper orchids. I
> think that to the extent that CITES has restricted international trade,
> it has encouraged domestic flasking. Where smuggling wild plants still
> exists, it will not be hindered by weakening CITES. CITES regulation
> does not seriously hinder our ability to grow orchids. You could stop
> all international trade tomorrow, and places like Fox Valley could
> still produce most species in the genera Paphiopedilum and
> Phragmipedium. CITES only really affects our ability to obtain a small
> handfull of new species, and the amount of moaning by orchidists is
> seriously out of proportion to its affect on us..
>
> Nick
>

Kenni Judd wrote:
> Nick: Surely you jest??? How do you suggest the inspecting authorities
> train their personnel to recognize these blooms, esp. after they've
> inevitably been damaged by shipping, when currently only a small percentage
> of either AOS judges or commercial growers might possibly be up to the task?
> And, BTW, how would you like to pay for that?

No, I don't jest. A very small number of orchids are CITES Appendix 1.
Since all Phrags and Paphs are listed, identifying them would be very
easy. Apart from the slippers, there are what, seven other species on
Appendix 1? How hard would it be to make up a checklist?

All of the remaining species are already in cultivation in the U.S., so
as you indicate, CITES only makes it difficult to obtain particular
clones from abroad.

Inspections are already required for imported plants, and I would
expect that allowing only blooming plants would greatly reduce the
volume of plants coming through the inspection stations. If there is
increased costs, you could increase permit fees. I'm assuming that the
main purpose is to limit smuggling of wild plants, and facilitating
legal imports is secondary.

Flasks would be unaffected by this suggestion.

Not sure if it's federal or state law interfering around here, but the
clearing for new development in Martin and Palm Beach Counties is knocking
down a lot of trees that host Enc. tampensis and other Florida natives. And
no one seems to be capable of salvaging them. There's one outfit that got a
permit, so I hear, but then it couldn't get the funding/personnel to
actually follow through. So they're being turned into mulch. Kenni


> Specific countries have laws that also make ex-situ conservation
> impossible. These are probably not CITES related. I want to say it's
> illegal to rescue orchids in deforestation zones in Mexico as an example.
> Peru also comes to mind as having policies in this area that make it hard
> to save orchids from slash and burn areas.
>
> -Eric in SF
> www.orchidphotos.org

Al -- Actually, I think you're being VERY optimistic when you opine that
"your governments' CITES office can help ... "

Not every place even has one, and mine told me that I needed both CITES and
phyto papers to ship to Guam, a US possession -- and as proof thereof, faxed
me a paper which very clearly said the opposite. I decided to forego the
[rather sizeable] sale rather than deal with the bureaucracy. Kenni

"Al" <nospam [at] all.ever> wrote in message
news:WK-dnah5-LLIQFvenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d [at] adelphia.com...
> Are signatory countries able to grant export permits to selected other
> countries or is it an ALL or none kind of deal.
>
> So if Country "A" has a plant within it's border and declares it to be on
> the Appendix I list can it grant export permits to Country 'B" but not to
> country "C"
>
> I *think* the answer is no. If you can find the plant for sale in Country
> 'B" but country 'A" does not allow export, then you can not get legal
> permission to bring into Country 'C" from Country "B" or to buy it legally
> inside country 'B" or Country C...no matter how it got there. Of course,
> I could be wrong.
>
> If country A does not allow it's export, it doesn't matter how the plant
> is collected or propagated inside country A, you can't have it if you
> don't live there.
>
> If you want to buy a plant from outside your country, make sure you
> understand permit requirements; don't count on the vendor to know. If you
> find a plant inside your country that you question, check with your
> government's CITES office to be sure. Your government's Cites office can
> help with both issues.
>
> On the other hand, if you want to express an opinion, you've come to the
> right place.
>
> IMHO, a thread with a name like this one was meant to burn. Enjoy it, but
> be wary...and bring your thick skin.
>

>So they're being turned into mulch. Kenni<

That's right. Can't have ordinary folks go in there and save the plants a
few at a time, now, can we? And yes, I understand all about property
ownership and liability. Waivers could take care of that. Disgusting. A few
years back, a newbie proudly showed off a clump of tampenses he had taken
from a tree. He didn't know it was illegal. Of course we advised him to "put
that thing away somewhere, right now!". But bulldozing is fine.

Diana