marilyninOttawa
Charli678
kawacym (Jim)
bmtorchids (Barbara)
gaillevy
NativeOrchid (Carol)
KB Barrett
Brassocat (Ken)
runnerRick
brasch1
ChuckMyr
sparky-steve
orchidnut (Sam)
Andy NVA
watercolorist (Carol)
cliffp
Richard inWest Palm Beach
Tex1 Dan
UncleEarl
Native Heart (Jane)
prankster d (Susan)
peterlin
harold
orchidnet (Jonathan)
Ruth Rudkin
Ann12
Tarwood (Karen)
bokayorchids
akatz
and "froggy" hopped in once.
charli678 :
New kid in town, here; first visit. Came for some of the CITES talk.
marilyninOttawa :
Hello everyone. My name is Marilyn Light. I will be moderating today's session - A proposal to downlist certain orchids from CITES.
marylois :
Welcome, Charlie - we're first, so tell us a bit about yourself - and send me your email address so you can get synopsis and notice of next chats.
marilyninOttawa :
OUR GOAL: To discuss the proposal, its strengths and possible weaknesses.
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
Lois, won't be able to stay long tonight, got company for dinner. Will try to check in periodically to see how things are going with the discussion. Definitely going to be a crowd tonight. New RECORD attendance.
marilyninOttawa :
FOR CITES REFERENCE, please consult: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/
marilyninOttawa :
Click on International Conventions, then on CITES Web Site and read (at your convenience) Articles II.2.a and b. These deal with what Appendix II shall include.
marilyninOttawa :
FOR DISCUSSION TODAY:
1) Why down list species? What is the conservation benefit?
charli678 :
marylois, I'm already on your mailing list(s), but anyway: Charlie, from St Pete, Fla, home of the Florida West Coast OS, raise mostly vandaceous, some oncidiums. Retired.
NativeOrchid :
Hi Marilyn, long time no talk to! Hope all is well with you. (Carol -NANTOC)
bmtorchids (Barbara, California):
Welcome Charlie, after tonight you'll be a regular.
marilyninOttawa :
2) If inclusion of all orchid species in Appendices is seen as an impediment to conservation, what is/are the possible alternatives?
marylois :
Forum has begun.
NativeOrchid :
Marilyn, I have not stayed up on some of the proposed alternatives. What are some of the suggestions that have been made to date?
cliffp :
Hello, I'm Cliff Pelchat from Melbourne, Fl and have signed on for the first time to join in your conference on Orchid Conservation.
Richard in West Palm Beach :
Are you saying that this proposal will remove 'non-endangered' orchids from the list and that they will be able to be bought and sold without restrictions?
marilyninOttawa :
Lois. Do you have the materials available for reference? Location please. Thank you.
Native Heart :
WOW! Everyone is here!!! How exciting!!! and chatting away already. HOWDY!!!
cliffp :
Hello, can someone tell me the rules for participating in this chat?
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
Hello, everyone
marilyninOttawa :
John Beckner of the Orchid Conservation Committee Inc. has prepared a series of
Questions and Answers to this question, Jim.
marylois :
No - did not post, but I can do so and then give a URL - will take 15 minutes to
'take' at Geocities...doing it now. (The material you sent out.)
marilyninOttawa :
As I understand it, one of the fundamental questions is: Who decides what is and is not endangered.
enspence :
Hello, marilyninOttawa. This is Elmer, Donna, John and Joan of TOCC just letting you know we are here.
marylois :
Marilyn -be my guest - establish rules for the CITES forum series. Forum now in session-they begin at 8 CST.
sparky-steve :
Marilyn--the only thing I have seen since CITES is that the prices have skyrocketed!!!!!
marilyninOttawa :
A special Hello! to all those new to the OrchidSafari. The basic rules of Internet etiquette apply. Please make whatever helpful comments you feel are appropriate.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Hi Everyone, glad to see so many here and into the program already!
sparky-steve :
The other end is I dont see if there has been any impact on plants in the wild.
Brassocat :
Hi all this is Ken on line
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Aloha, all - I would like to see the question 'who determines what is no longer endangered' answered? Is there a proposal?
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, I guess the issue that I'm trying to deal with is the definition of 'downlisting'. Do you mean to remove? If so, then why not use the word remove? If something else, then why not whatever else it is?
Richard in West Palm Beach :
Unfortunately, CITES enforcement is often done to the extreme. I have heard of clear-cut areas where it was not permitted to collect the orchids and other epiphytes from the fallen trees.
marilyninOttawa :
Prices may rise but for the vast majority of orchids in trade (hybrids), the price rise is unlikely to be because of CITES.
sparky-stee :
A minor request for all new folk is to please put your location in your 'tag line'
marilyninOttawa :
What do you mean, Sparky-steve?
brasch1 :
Marilyn, Are you suggesting that John Beckner will decide?
marilyninOttawa :
Hi UncleEarl. Lois will have it posted shortly if you did not already receive the materials sent out earlier.
cliffp (Cliff):
I don't believe that CITES is really a conservation tool . . even though that may have been - or is its purpose.
marilyninOttawa :
The word 'remove' could apply as listing/downlisting and is merely CITES jargon (as far as I understand it).
sparky-steve :
What I mean is that ever since CITES went into effect I have noticed prices rising. Now that may be from two reasons---inflation and the lack of that species.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Thanks - I think I already got the materials, but need to go check. BRB
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Thanks Marilyn for that clarification. Every industry has its jargon and I'm worried that the jargon will inhibit our complete understanding of what is being attempted.
marilyninOttawa :
Richard. Not being able to collect orchids, etc may or may not be a CITES issue. CITES deals with trade between countries. Local laws apply within a particular country.
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
I know that I wouldn't want just one person to decide if a certain orchid is endangered or not.
marilyninOttawa :
No. I am not saying that any particular person can or will decide the relative status of a particular species. Perhaps John Becker could answer this himself?
Richard in West Palm Beach :
I understand that local laws vary from country to country, however, if listed plants are collected from clear-cut forest in country A -- they would still be prohibited from entering into country B under CITES provisions -- assuming that they are enforced.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
To be frank, I have not noticed the price rise that Sparky is talking about, though I have not kept up with species prices. If they have risen, it may be more a case of the dealers taking advantage of a situation.
marilyninOttawa :
What alternative would you suggest, Orchidnut?
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Earl, I believe that is definitely the case. Recently, I was up in Sacramento at Coes Orchid Acres and wanted to buy one of his plants. He prefaced the request for price with the statement that species were not to be collected anymore and therefore prices would be a bit high. I think that he was just using that as an excuse to gouge me.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Richard is correct, and this needs to be addressed in some way by CITES. Otherwise, plants which could be rescued and put into commerce are instead dying, defeating the whole purpose of CITES, to preserve them.
NativeOrchid :
(Carol - NANTOC) I see price increases as a function of what the traffic will bear, not because of CITES. Selfings/sibbings of species are expensive too!
Native Heart :
sorry about the none message, but the real problem is that rational people may have the right ideas about preserving the wilds and the wild things, but government which is inherently irrational has the inforcement powers. That is the quandry that we find ourselves addressing.
marilyninOttawa :
Richard. Glad you are able to get through. I think you have addressed one of the central issues to the proposed removal of certain taxa not common or likely to be common in trade
sparky-steve :
people that travel and do tours need to make their money!
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
What criteria is used to determine if a species is endangered? A certain number recorded?
marilyninOttawa :
Now that many species are being raised from seed, and quite successfully so, CITES restrictions should no longer affect prices. I agree.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
But, Marilyn, who is to say what the demand for those plants will be in the future.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Earl, Isn't that the main issue? I mean to collect plants from one country and sell them in another to the point of extinction of the wild species is a travesty but to despoil the environment and thereby drive a specie into extinction while the treaty prevents saving is a complete crime.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Agreed, Rick.
marilyninOttawa :
UncleEarl. Are you saying that one conservation benefit of the removal of certain species from CITES Appendices would be their rescue?
sparky-steve :
Marilyn, I feel CITES is the way to start the idea, but there still are too many people out there that [incomplete]
MailyninOttawa :
Good point, NativeOrchid.
Richard in West Palm Beach :
As far as price increases go -- You have to remember that even in 'under-developed' countries it costs more to raise a plant from seed than it does to go out and collect mature plants. I am also somewhat concerned that by using only 'seed-grown' species or 'cloned' species, we will be limiting the
gene pool over the long run.
Brassocat :
Orchidnut , usually a study is done to determine what the true status is of the species under question. then if endangered it is ADDED to a list. In the case of CITES this was not done.
marilyninOttawa :
Anyone care to respond to orchidnut as to criteria to be applied?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
No, I'm saying that the issue of rescuing plants which would otherwise die (such as in a clearcut situation) should be allowed to be rescued. Whether they should then be sold is another question entirely. But some contries are so afraid of what could happen to them under CITES that they allow plants to die which could otherwise live.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
There are a lot of ideas flying around out there, but what are the facts? If orchids are down listed from CITES will they be saved? I think not.
Native Heart :
Habitat destruction is what is killing endangered species. Overpopulation and habitat destruction.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Agreed!
marilyninOttawa :
I agree, UncleEarl. We have no way of knowing what the next flavor of the month' will be. But then, we have no way of knowing if the plants and their habitat will be there either!
sparky-steve :
Native Heart I agree!
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
In reality, the issue is destruction of habitat, not collection per se, IMO.
marilyninOttawa :
Another good comment, runnerRick.
sparky-steve :
s to be more than just CITES! [incomplete]
Native Heart :
thank you, Steve
Brassocat :
Cliffp I don't think CITES has saved one orchid species. In fact the review of CITES just completed said exactly that! And this was done by member states and their reps.
orchidnt (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
I think cliffp has a point. If downlisted, wouldn't that encourage people to start collecting more?
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Earl, the paranoia is much worse than that. Two weeks ago I was in Fla and when I flew out of Tampa back here, I had two flasks of catts in my luggage. The security people weren't sure that they were going to let them go with me. Talk about ignorance and misunderstanding- and that was the US of A!
sparky-steve :
Maybe death if they clean cut totally.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
Native Heart. You are correct. All we need to do is look around us. Here in Florida I have seen and could document the daily destruction of orchid habitat and live plants. They are listed in CITES and taking them off won't save them.
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
Earl.. I agree. Destruction of habitat is foremost.
brasch1 :
Trying to project the future of CITES is impossible. As stated over-population and habitat destruction will rule the day. It is inevitable. Rather than lament the chaos we should attempt to manage the resources that we already have. CITES never considered meristemming, flasking or plant regulators. The use of the word 'conservation' is not really relevant any more. It should be replaced by 'management.'
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
Cliff, orchids, manatees, panthers, bears, only the people, rats and roaches keep multiplying
sparky-steve :
s to be more than just CITES! [incomplete]
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Orchidnut, anyone, what can be done though about destruction of habitat?
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
Rick, birth control.
bmtorchids (Barbara, California):
We can always play like the stock market, throw a dart.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
Brassocat - I don't doubt that, but what [little] I've read seems to indicate that the purpose of CITES is to prevent commerce and trade from becoming the culprit in species extinction. Does it do that?
Brassocat :
As to destruction of habitat. Try to tell the farmer that he must stop feeding his family and see what happens. The Brazilians lost several people before they found out the answer to that.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Rick - the answer to that is difficult, but it involves humanity growing up and becoming a lot less self-centered. Beyond that is a discussion that doesn't belong here!
marilyninOttawa :
CITES was established primarily for large mammals which could not be multiplied quickly let alone mericloned. Orchids and other plants were added on after the fact.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale): Brassocat, what was their answer? by the way last time I looked, there are 23 of us here tonight
NativeOrchid :
(Carol - NANTOC) Clearly CITES is not a conservation tool. Only individual countries can take steps to protect their habitats. CITES can only regulate international flow of endangered plants. One the one hand, CITES seems useless, but I don't think we would like the results of wholesale downlisting.
Brassocat :
Cliffp. NO! and that was exactly what the CITES people said about their Convention.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Jane, I wish it were so simple in some of those third world countries!
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
CITES has had some limited success in mammals, though in general it has been a failure, IMO, largely because of human greed.
sparky-steve :
I know in our Society someone on the board has brought up an idea to establish orchids throughout the city---now her idea was to use orphan plants but I think native species may be a good way to start
Charli678 :
Let's face it, friends, overpopulation is the problem causing destruction of habitat. Until we can control the birth rate worldwide, I don't see an answer.
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
I'm not sure about that one, Rick. The population keeps growing, & the people have to go somewhere. It's sad that it has to be rainforests and such.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
you know, common sense is also in short supply.
ChuckMyr :
runnerRick, I can understand the frustration, but we surely can't expect the enforcement people to be familiar with 30,000 orchid species along with all the other scads of collected plants and animals in the world. I think a real danger is making too many exceptions could result in no way enforce the resulting complex regulations.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
Solyent green anyone?
Brassocat :
Native Heart Their conclusion was that CITES could not work for Orchids as currently configured.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, If someone just added the orchids to the treaty, can someone just remove them - with reasons added, of course.
marylois :
Charlie - I agree. Birth control is the ONLY answer...besides the four horsemen!
Brassocat :
Runner Rick: That is what this is all about. We are proposing to down list those species that are not endangered by trade.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
wouldn't it be lovely if collectors could comb an area for plants and animals BEFORE it is clear cut and burned?
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
OK, so if orchids are taken off of CITES will they be saved?
marilyninOttawa :
Changes can happen albeit slowly. Case in point. The removal of Cattleya skinneri from Appendix I.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
I don't think it is birth rate so much as longer life and higher standard of living.
Brassocat :
Cliffp It makes no difference if they are on CITES or not. CITES is not saving one orchid, but has been responsible for many of their deaths.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
Uncle Earl, longer life and higher standard of living for us and a few other, our birth rate is rather low, but the birth rate in the third world is out of control
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Chuck, You have hit upon a good point. The law - in its true intent- is unenforceable. Just like what happened to me in Tampa, security wanted to take my flasks because they didn't know what they were. The enforcement people can't be expected to know about all the 30000 species! The law is a bad law and
ought to be rethought.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Right on, Brasso!
marilyninOttawa :
To get back on track: The question is not about saving habitat or dealing with overpopulation, it is dealing with a proposal to remove certain species from CITES Appendix II. These species are not presently in trade to any marked degree.
marylois :
The pre-discussion material is at button Or click on my name at any time.
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
NH is right.. I've been to the Phillipines and the families average 5-8 people. Then they have to scrape to eat!
Brassocat :
runner Rick. One part of this proposal is to down list those not endangered. and the other is to prepare documents for plant inspection people to use to identify those left on CITES.
Richard in West Palm Beach :
I brought flasks back from Thailand last year and the Ag inspector in Los Angeles started to open them to 'inspect' the plants more closely! I stopped him and asked him to check with his supervisor who, of course, passed them on through.
enspence :
Agree with Brassocat. CITES prevents research and rescue. Causes enforcers to kill plants instead of saving them.
marilyninOttawa :
Thank you Lois for creating the button For those unfamiliar with the process, this will give you access to materials distributed before today.
ChuckMyr :
Here here UncleEarl! We must understand that it isn't JUST overpopulation, what does the damage is the overconsumption of resources. We here in the developed world are largely to blame. Where do all those trees go when they are cut? Where do the minerals go once the earth has been ripped open??
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, You are right, we have gone far afield. Lets get down to the removal of the species from Appendix II.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
any time that we have speakers or friends return from SA or elsewhere we are treated to pics of trees cut down and awaiting destruction, loaded with plants that no one can touch because of CITES.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
Brassocat - I've heard that that has happened, but on what scale? I'm just wondering where we should really be concentrating our 'conservation' efforts. If what you say is true then we need to work toward changing CITES so that it doesn't do that. It seems that habitat and clearcutting destroyed the orchids, CITES just prevented a rescue.
brasch1 :
OK Marilyn, let [incomplete]
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Come on Chuck, Yes, the issue is resources but what is the difference? Ever watch a culture in a Petri dish?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Thanks, Marilyn, we needed that. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, CITES has had no effect on orchids. The abuse and extinction caused by that abuse occurred some time ago. However, leaving all species orchids on the list may very well help in the long run. I say leave them on it.
brasch1 :
Let's be specific. How about eliminating, down-listing or removing Appendix II? Completely.
Richard in West Palm Beach :
Sorry, people, but the key to the whole thing (IMHO) is education of the people involved to recognize what may be an endangered plant and what may be a 'saved' plant -- more paperwork, perhaps?
Brassocat :
Cliffp, It is not CITES that is doing it. It is the local plant inspectors using the CITES authority that does those things. What we are trying to do is take the authority away from them for those species not endangered.
marilyninOttawa :
As a personal comment, I understand conservation to be the making wise use of a resource. Once a species is lost we can no longer appreciate it, learn from it or whatever. It is gone forever. Will removal of certain species from CITES Appendix II help in this regard?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Chuck - That's what I was trying to say, but got to P...... to do it in an acceptable way. Thanks.
brasch1 :
two: Remove paphs from Appendix II? Then there would be an enforceable realistic concern for real endangered species.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Cliff, I think that the larger issue - larger than the chat tonight- is to create some vehicle to save those orchids that get cut down with the trees in the rainforest. Has anyone seen this month's cover of Orchid Digest? It's enough to make you cry.
ChuckMyr :
runnerRick, I'm only saying that significant habitat destruction results from our consumption of third world resources.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
UncleEarl - I don't know whether to agree or not. I am not a commercial grower I only have my own backyard to look at, All of the orchids in Florida are listed on CITES. Taking them off won't save any of them that I can see. What will save them are conservation areas and management of them.
Brassocat :
brasch1. Look at the list of proposed down listing, you will not find a Paph on it .
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
If cites has proven to be a detriment to the preservation of a species, then, yes remove it. Did someone no say a while back that the evidence is that some orchids have been hurt by Cites?
marilyninOttawa :
Jim, see the answer to Question 5 Why not downlist all orchids? (prepared by Beckner)
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Marilyn - I don't think so, but I am willing to be shown wrong.
enspence :
marylyninOttawa--Removal of many species from Appendix ll will permit saving them in cultivation worldwide. This can be a backup to habitat preservation and destruction matters.
sparky-steve (of Boca Raton, Florida):
There should be more to protect orchids---Cites was a beginning!
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Cliff - You're right, plus education.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
I agree with Cliff. But the developers say let's build and the gov says yes yes yes jobs, houses, taxes, power. Orchids don't vote.
Brassocat :
Native Heart. Yes plants are burned in Brazil because there is no money to take care of them. How many can you take and grow?
enspence :
ChuckMyr- We agree but we want ot try to do something positive, not just bemoan the present situation.
brasch1 :
Sorry Brassocat, I meant Appendix I
marylois :
NOTICE: To those 'lurking' or without the ability to post, please send your email address to marylois@prysm.net to receive synopsis of this evening's proceedings and notices of future sessions.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, What was Beckner's reason to delist all orchids?
orchidnut (Sam in Lincoln, NE):
Thanks for letting me set in for awhile. I've learned quite alot tonight. Bye-bye.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Enspence - [incomplete]
Brassocat :
brasch1 what I was trying to say was we are not proposing to down list anything that is endangered as many Paphs are.
Brassocat :
runnerRick the proposal is not to downlist all orchids. Please read the background info.
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick Check out the button. Basically, the answer is 'Let's be realistic. So drastic a move doesn't stand a chance'.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Brassocat, How does Cites save the Paphs?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Enspence - Removal of species will *not* help. What is needed is to raise them from seed . Re: plants lost to stupidity (clearcutting),in those countries which allow this, and also address the issue in CITES somehow.
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
Hi
brasch1 :
Yes, I know Brassocat, but I was trying to say that the way to save paphs MAY be to downlist them. Get them into a lab and manage what we have. (See Stephen Jay Gould's Full House.) We are no longer at the top of the pyramid.
Brassocat :
runnerRick as I have said several time tonight. CITES does not and has not saved one orchid species nor has it even helped. This is the assessment of four different CITES countries. Report was recently published.
enspence :
runnerrick, beckner did not propose to delist ALL orchids. Only those not endangered by the effects of trade.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, I know that the issue doesn't stand a chance however the conversation begged the issue. There are the realistic issues and there are the theoretically correct conclusions. I don't believe that we can move in the right direction until we know where it is that we should go. Then, we can figure out how to manipulate the mess that we are in to get there.
marilyninOttawa:
To summarize to this point:
We realize that CITES is an impediment to potential 'rescue' of plants threatened because of forestry/development.
enspence :
It is not realistic to expect CITES to downlist all orchids at this point. Let's do what we have a chance of succeeding with and thereby gain some benefit as early as possible.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Brassocat, Thank you, we are on the same side of the issue.
Brassocat :
runnerRick. If we wait until we figure this all out there will be nothing left.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
If removing some species from CITES saves them then I will vote for that.
sparky-steve :
Adding orchids to CITES was a good way to begin conversation---again I say BEGIN---but there should be just an 'orchid Conversation' proposal
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Exactly what benefit will be realized by downlisting *any* species? If it has an importance in trade, it will be bred and 'improved'. Allowing for the collection of wild seed pods would seem a more realistic way to get them, IMO.
cliffp (Cliff - Melbourne, Florida):
I have to go now. I enjoyed the conversation and look forward to future chats on conservation.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Brassocat, I don't believe that for one second. I think that we can realize where we want to go pretty quickly and while getting there may take some more time, that isdo-able too, and pretty quickly. What is needed is a lot of communications!
Brassocat :
cliffp. I cannot be sure that removing them from CITES will save them. But I am sure that CITES is doing no good, so downlisting can not harm and may very well allow the saving of a species or many species.
enspence :
Downlist will permit us to obtain plants from which we can raise seeds.
marilninOttawa :
If there is no way of one or more people determining the conservation status of a plant not common to trade, then how should we deal with this to the satisfaction of the bureaucrats?
watercolorist :
Hi this is Carol. Things seemed to have stopped working on this end. I'll try to get Ken to look at this machine and try to join you later.
orchidnet :
Below is OrchidNet's position on Selby's downlisting proposal:
harold6820 (Farmers Branch, TX):
Hello all.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
I agree with Brassocat
ChuckMyr :
UncleEarl, I think you are on to something. Clearly taking seedpods or maybe only pollen from wild populations could be a better alternative in many situations.
marilyninOttawa :
Thank you for your conversation cliffp.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Marilyn, That is the real issue, isn't it. How will we satisfy the bureaucrats. This is the part that requires a lot of communications and something akin to the business case.
marylois :
I believe 'rescue' should be the primary move...and promoting cultivation of species.
enspence :
to uncle earl-You cannot collect wild seed pods unless you are there when they are available in season.
Brassocat :
runnerRick. I believe you are correct. But what you said is what the anti-down listers say LETS STUDY IT. Of course you never get anything done because they want to study it for years. Rome burns!
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
And I disagree with brasso re: removing them, as this will only lead to abuse, IMO, and could possibly lead to destruction of species.
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Ok Earl, what is a better alternative?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
True, enspence, but that it relatively minor. The time is known, you only have to be there then.
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
but Uncle, they are already being abused
marilyninOttawa :
Exactly, runnerRick.
brasch1 :
Bye for now, have to go. Our flasking group meets tomorrow and some paperwork has to be done. Thanks for listening. Jim
Brassocat :
runnerRick. We have this plannned out. We have several countries that will put our proposal before the Plants Committee of CITES and if they approve then they will suggest if be added to the agenda for the next meeting of the parties.
sparky-steve :
I can see a problem with seed pod removal---plants that have taken years to strengthen from weather, insects or whatever , will now be removed and are not ready for a change to another ecosystem! Another thing is that growers only want colors or size---so the strong plants lose all their hardy genes!!!!!
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Rick - You don't want to know my alternative!
marilyninOttawa :
Thank you for your valuable comments Jim.
marylois :
(quote)To start? Always begins with self! Following rules should be known by all - part of article in upcoming SWROGA News: If you are interested in growing this orchid--PLEASE BUY ONLY NURSERY PROPAGATED PLANTS--NEVER TAKE PLANTS FROM THEIR NATURAL HABITAT, unless they are in imminent danger of being destroyed. If you want to try propagating this plant from seed yourself -- USE ONLY SEED PODS OR POLLEN, never take seedlings or established plants from their natural habitat.
If you do take seed or pollen-- take only a small amount -- NEVER MORE THAN 10% of the seed or pollen from a particular plant or population. Remember our first goal as lovers of native orchids should be to maintain the plants in their NATURAL HOMES. If you know how to pollinate flowers it may be a good idea to
pollinate a few flowers on the plant or in the population to insure seed production. If there is a population, then take pollen from the flower of one plant and use it to pollinate the flower of another plant, thus insuring
cross-pollination. Never pollinate more than 10% of the flowers -- remember nature will probably do a much better job of insuring cross-pollination between different plants which will result in populations with a larger
degree of genetic difference and hence a better chance of surviving. Our goals as Orchid Conservationists should be to protect the plants, their pollinators and their habitats. If we do those things then these plants will be there for our grandchildren to enjoy. There is an old American Indian proverb 'we don't inherit the land from our ancestors, rather we borrow it from our grandchildren/descendants.' This would be an excellent approach in thinking for all of us concerned with conservation. (end quote)
*Dr. L.K. Magrath, Member AOS & SWROGA Conservation Committees & Curator of the USAO Herbarium
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Brassocat, Excellent. This is the only way that things get done, in concert!
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
I think the phrase 'not endangered by the effect of trade' is an interesting one. People WILL gather orchids in their easily acquired adult form from their forests and sell them on the open market. Don't we think that what befalls those orchids when they make it out of that locale would be exactly what happened to Phrag. besseae? Initially the plants were prohibitively expensive, but once bred in captivity they are now affordable. Phrag. besseae is saved. The orchids I saw list in the pre discussion handout were all totally unknown to me. Of little economic importance. As such I thin they should be protected, for no one will care if they are gone. (such as the Manatee, an ugly beastie, who cares if its gone?) However, if as has been
stated, CITES hasn't saved one species then perhaps the 'emperor' should get a whole new set of clothes? Or teeth?
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
What I meant, Native, was that removal would lead to overcollection abuse. This on top of the other abuses of the ecosystem already occurring.
enspence :
To sparkysteve-Many people want to grow even the smallest botanicals. Plants will grow and produce seed in a green house better than in the wild in most cases.
Brassocat :
UncleEarl. If we do nothing habitat destruction will eliminate all need to do anything. Today some of the most knowledgeable orchid people believe there is nothing to be done anyway and will now do nothing. And they may be right. But I have not yet given up. I think we can do something. After all who are the
conservationists? WE ARE! the hobby and commercial orchid growers are the people saving orchids. Not taxonomist not conservation groups, just us growers.
ChuckMyr :
sparky-steve, this would be a very real problem even if whole plants are 'rescued'. I would argue that it would take very few generations of domestication before the saved species would no longer have the genetic makeup necessary to survive in the wild. A rescue plan also needs a reestablishment plan if a
species is to be truly saved.
marilyninOttawa :
Any suggestions as to where to go next with the proposal?
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Earl, try me. I can to talk to the likes of Ray Rands all day. Is your proposal any different from something that he could offer?
Native Heart (Jane in Fort Lauderdale):
Lois, love your comments and your quote, we should always think about the generations to come.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Excuse me, Sparky, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Wild plants often have *very* exacting cultural requirements, while those raised from seed are actually being selected for ease of growth under artificial conditions.
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
If we are to encourage any movement toward HABITAT PROTECTION from orchid countries , It will help to have the formal recognition of CITES listing for many species. This is a symbolic gesture , but I can't really think of any other way to formalize recognition of our EARNEST desire to protect orchids in other countries.
marylois :
A recent posting by Carlo - Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:38:22 -0600 From: 'Carlo A. Balistrieri' [cabalist@facstaff.wisc.edu] Subject: [12816] Shipping between US and Canada There is a new certification program being put into place in the United States (by APHIS) and Canada (AAFC) that will allow certified growers in each country to ship certain 'low-risk' plants to the other country without the need for phytosanitary certificate to accompany each shipment. Certified operations will be issued a number (to appear on labels) which will take the place of the phyto. I don't have complete information yet and am not sure whether the program is limited to greenhouse grown plants (defined as indoor foliage, flowering plants and bedding plants) but it's a step in the right direction. Contact your local APHIS or AAFC office for additional details.
marilyninOttawa :
Given the Biodiversity Convention and particular laws controlling the exploitation of genetic materials of range states, simple removal from CITES may not achieve much. Comments anyone?
gaillevy (Boca Raton, FL.):
Good Night all, it was very enlightening.
enspence :
to barrett- The manatee is one of the most popular animals in Florida. Many people contribute extra money for their license plates to help fund its protection. Also many people care very much about the orchids on the proposed downlist and are eager to conserve them in the wild and in cultivation as a backup for habitat destruction.
sparky-steve :
But Earl, that doesnt mean 'easy to grow'
marilyninOttawa :
The 'Bench Certification' Program is indeed in place, between Canada and the US.
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Rick - another time, another place perhaps, but not here. Don't know Ray Rands, so can't comment on that.
sparky-steve :
will survive under wild conditions!
orchidnet :
enspence :
marilyninOttawa :
marilyninOttawa :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
[EXACTLY MY POINT FIRST WIN HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE the rest follows easily. First, WE show we are sincere and caring. The AOS pamphlet on conservation is almost laughable. Everyone is afraid to come out and make a statement. I, for one, think OrchidNet is the way to go! AOS COULD provide leadership, but does not - how can a show chair legally monitor his show? GUIDELINES are needed. AOS (or someone!) must be there to stand behind the society...mlg]
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Brassocat :
[I have SEEN this happen on orchids brought in to a show -- the vendor madly removing and attaching new, correct nametags! What message does this send?...mlg]
enspence :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
ChuckMyr :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
Ruth Rudkin :
marilyninOttawa :
[Certified export exchanges permitted to do business as a service for profit, and liable to HEAVY penalties if caught circumventing regulations. On the other end, some landmark cases on RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS...mlg]
sparky-steve :
Brassoca :
marilyninOttawa :
ChuckMyr :
Brassocat :
enspence :
marilyninOttawa :
sparky-steve :
marilyninOttawa :
orchidnet :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
orchidnet :
Brassocat :
marilyninOttawa :
enspence :
ChuckMyr :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Has all the fervor died? Are we down to the rational thinking and proposals?
marylois :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
sparky-steve :
orchidnet :
enspence :
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Brassocat :
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
marylois :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
sparky-steve :
marilyninOttawa :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
bmtorchids (Barbara, California): .
ChuckMyr :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon)
enspence :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
orchidnet :
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
marilyninOttawa :
Brassocat :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
[I could cry daily - just traveling highways which are tree corridors - you can SEE the "forest" is 100-200' deep!...mlg]
Brassocat :
orchidnet :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
marylois :
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
enspence :
Brassocat :
marilyninOttawa :
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Brassocat :
ChuckMyr :
marylois :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
prankster d (From the land of Spotted owl and Chinook salmon):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Brassocat :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Brassocat :
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
prankster d (If ya want to save salmon , stop eating beef ):
Brassocat :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
prankster d (If ya want to save salmon , stop eating beef ):
Brassocat :
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
orchidnet :
marilyninOttawa :
[name missing] :
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
[?] :
Watch it Rick!! You said the 'H' word! *G*
Ann12 :
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
Brassocat :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
prankster d (If ya want to save salmon , stop eating beef ):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
sparky-steve :
Ruth Rudkin :
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
sparky-steve :
orchidnet :
Brassocat :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
Ann12 :
marilyninOttawa :
marilyninOttawa :
marylois :
marilyninOttawa :
sparky-steve :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
marilyninOttawa :
marylois :
marilyninOttawa :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
UncleEarl (Earl from Vacaville, CA):
Brassocat :
sparkysteve :
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
Ann12 :
marilyninOttawa :
marilyninOttawa :
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
marilyninOttawa :
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
marylois :
sparky-steve :
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
sparky-steve :
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
prankster d (If ya want to save salmon , stop eating beef ):
marilyninOttawa :
Thank you for the applause and good night all!
kawacym (Jim in San Jose, Ca.):
sparky-steve :
marilyninOttawa :
KB Barrett (Sunny California):
runnerRick (Rick in Concord, CA. Diablo View OS, AOS):
-30-
Below is OrchidNet's position on Selby's downlisting poposal:
OrchidNet is an orchid conservation organization that encourages and enables ex situ conservation through an accessible global database of orchid resources and free species flasking. You can learn more at our homepage about OrchidNet. We are all volunteer and could use your help. OrchidNet believes that CITES has some value; but the value lies in its potential. It brings interested representatives from 149 countries together on a regular basis to discuss and attempt to implement
conservation strategies. It allows a focus for worldwide NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to get together and lobby political agents in one place. It sets up an infrastructure for record keeping. It sets up a structure to prevent wholesale overcollection. It has, even if because of its cumbersome nature,
encouraged artificial propagation of commercially desirable species of plants. As such, it is a valuable foundation to build from. CITES should move towards a position where hobbyists see value in conservation and the tools that encourage it. It should be amended to allow reputable research institutions unrestricted access to specimens for research (only, not for profit). It should be amended to allow unrestricted trade in seed, pollinia, flasks, and flowers. It should be amended to allow reputable salvage with an expedited
domestic certification system. It could be amended to allow non-commercial export/import of something along the lines of X morphologically different (i.e., distinguishably different while not in flower) plants per person per trip. This could allow some salvage while discouraging wholesale commercial overcollection.
We should consider the ramifications of even this in light of increasing eco-tourism and increasing popularity of orchid species coupled with ever decreasing habitats. There should be a more reasonable time period (shorter) in issuing permits and longer duration for permits to last. There should be a model
standardized protocol for permitting in each party country. Downlisting of certain taxons, even if non-commercial, destroys the ability to limit overcollection since common plants are going to be indistinguishable from rarer forms (e.g., can you distinguish an out of bloom P. besseae from P. piercei? Can a poorly educated border agent?). People could smuggle in the rare plants proclaiming them common. Also, the whims of orchid fashion vary and what is common and non-commercial now will likely be what is in demand and very rare tomorrow. OrchidNet is opposed to downlisting of any subfamily, tribe, or genera
for the reasons mentioned above and provides the above suggestions as alternatives. OrchidNet endorses downlisting of particular species on a case by case basis since we see a need for CITES to be a dynamic and workable treaty.
to uncle earl-overcollection is determined by the market rather than by CITES.
Welcome Ruth! Glad to see you made it!
Nite Gail.
I agree Marilyn.
enspense - that's true for these recent times! Where were they in the 70's and 80's when people were running the manatee over with their outboard motors!? But this conversation isn't for this discussion.
No, Sparky, it doesn't, but wild collected orchids are not any easier. And seed-raised *are* easier to grow than collected, IMO.
Orchidnet. That is exactly what is going on. They just put anothe name on them and away they go. If they adopt our proposal to down list and the proposed handbook with the clear identification of the remaining endangered species than the border inspectors could recognize them no matter what name they had on
them.
to Chuckmyr- We know of no evidence supporting the idea that plants in cultivation will become different from those in the wild except through intensive line breeding or hybridization.
Orchidnet - Netscape reports 'No DNS entry for this server' for your button. [Correct address is: http://orchid.org/ and it is accessible.]
How can a handbook, no matter how good, work for non blooming plants??
Kathy, I cannot believe that you attacked the Manatee!
Enspence - But CITES does prevent overcollection if they *can't get* to market.
Read it again Rick, I didn't attack a Manatee. *G*
Marilyn, nobody is on line. It is 12.30 pm EST Australia. Please tell me when to chat. Ruth Rudkin.
Further to the handbook idea. A great idea but if people do not read the regulations and read the book then we are no further ahead. Case in point. Not recognizing a flask as permitted entry.
All I'm saying Earl is that certain plants from certain areas have spent thousands of years to build up those genes! any changes could be destructive.
ChuckMyr. Because it would have pictures, line drawings and descriptive info. Such as how to tell the differences between labiate cats and bifoliate. Since both of these would remain on the list they could tell is was on the list and act accordingly.
Ruth, can you not see everyone's comments? Please make your comments now. I presume that you have received the pre-chat materials.
enspence, clearly that evidence could come only from very extensive genetic studies carried out over a long period of time. But I don't think it unreasonable to expect that domestic populations under VERY different selective pressures would drift genetically from their wild counterparts.
ChuckMyr. This was the solution for bromeliads. From everything we have seen it is work well.
to marilyninOttawa--The Biodiversity Convention will become a problem when enacted perhaps more difficult to deal than CITES. However we can only deal with those issues presently in effect.
Debating the genetic drift in a species whose habitat no longer exists may be a moot point.
There are still plants 'stolen' from the wild whether there is CITES or not.
Hence the urgency to decide what form of proposal to make. right? enspence?
BrassoCatt Yes, illegal activities DO occur. Smuggling does occur. But should we remove stop signs to make fewer criminals? OrchidNet heartily endorses giving all inspectors the tools to do their jobs. We also, as I stated, encourage a dynamic downlisting and uplisting of particular species that are shown to be not threatened. This proposal gives too much of a blanket downlisting of entire subfamilies PRIOR to an ability of inspectors to identify plants correctly. First things first..
Emspence - in the long run, I would agree with Chuck (look at the white Phals, which are essentially line-bred P. amabilis). But in the short run, or with 'random' outcrossing in a cultivated population, there would be abundant diversity in the sibs, IMO.
Who is that masked Orchidnet person?
OrchidNet's server and www bulletin board is up as of 5 minutes ago. it is at orchid.org, not www.orchid.org thanks for checking you are correct in that our free software for download is not working
OrchidNet. OK you write a handbook for 30,000 species. Even if the inspector could use such a book it would have to be so detailed he or she could not understand it.
orchidnet. We can debate inclusion or exclusion of taxa next Wednesday if you like.
to orchidnet- We have had over 20 years of CITES and the situation has become worse not better. Should we continue with an unsuccessful approach? Unsuccessful by their own report. Species-by-species can't work on 25,000 species at 2 1/2 year intervals.
Marilyn I couldn't agree more. It seems to me much more effort needs to be spent saving habitat. I would be willing to bet that safeguarding 1 square mile of cloud forest would result in saving far more species than would be possible in all the greenhouses of the world!!
'Plant Extinction: A Global Crisis' (Koopowitz/Kaye):
(quote) - IUCN (Intl Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) in Switzerland defined Red Data categories specifying exact stage of extinction process [ahem..ed] Not all countries use the same terms or same definitions of terms Most use: VULNERABLE - ones whose population numbers are deceasing but are likely to becom severely threatened in time. ENDANGERED - populations so reduced they are in eminent danger of extinction. RARE - population less than 20,000. THREATENED IS A
BROADER TERM USED TO FIT ANY OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES. Let's get on with definitions. I see the attempted downlisting as a vehicle for getting all singing from the same hymnal.
Realistically, does anyone expect any inspector, even if trained, to be able to recognize a particular orchid! I know taxonomists who can't even do that!
Whooping cranes and Preswalskis horses , both rare in the wild showed genetic changes in captivity. Captive groups showed a 10% size difference (not attributable to nutrition) in just a few generations. These weren't intentionally selected for. It seems that for some reason, larger animals took captivity better
than smaller ones.Selection was very different in captivity than in the wilds for these. It's wishful thinking to think that captivity wouldn't change the selective pressures on orchids as well.
I agree with saving the habitat!
Brassocat hmm a computerized handbook on identification of all orchids...That IS one of the things we are working on as one of our goals. That is why we have our software out there. I see your point but that is why we are opposed to such broad downlisting
to ChuckMyr--A handbook could work very well if only a few drawings are required. If the downlisting proposal is successful, only about three dozen drawings will be required for the orchids remaining on CITES.
Thank you Lois, for the info. The problem may be data for species that have not yet been studied. I expect that many fall into that category.
Marilyn, unfortunately, Earl is right. This brings me back to my statement that the law is unenforceable. Why not look to develop enforceable alternatives as an end objective and map a process of getting from where we are now to where we want to be then and go for it. Let that be the discussion!
Prankster - you are comparing apples to oranges, IMO.
ChuckMyr. Saving habitat is a nice thought but impractical. How much do you really expect to save? Small pockets will be saved but what does that do save 100 species? Just can't be done on any large scale. When it comes to setting aside habitat for orchids or anything else over feeding you people, guess what
people wins. If you think otherwise then you are not being realistic.
Earl , Genes is genes. Same rules apply
Yes, Rick - it's become most evident there has to be a middle ground of sane thinking somewhere between the most fervent 'tree hugger' and a Rush repeating 'US has more trees than when Columbus landed' in Hitler-like fashion day after day (guess he has a count on all those seedling plantings in devastated
wooded areas).
Bravo, Rick! That sounds a good deal better than the downlisting proposal to me.
No, Rick, I still have a little fervor! I think the problem is that we have met the enemy and he is US. If I was a poor Brazilian trying to feed his children you'd better believe I'd be out in that jungle searching for orchids I could sell to stupid tourists for cold hard cash. So I agree with Lois' post. Don't buy plants that don't have a known, acceptable source.
The only way to solve this whole thing is to create a new world and use all we have learned so far!!!!!
Great idea, runner Rick. For the first objective: Outline the process by which enforceable alternatives to CITES may be developed.
No, prankster, animals and there *very* small number of offspring cannot be compared to plants and there very large number (remember Darwin and the 2.5 *million* seeds in a single pod!
Sparky, a Green House in Mars?
Brassocat, I'm not so sure. There are lots of examples where education and supportfrom organizations like the Nature conservancy have shown that conservation and preservation are often better economic alternatives for local people.
Prankster, from what I've seen of third world countries, which is where most of the nifty orchid species live, no gov't is going to get them to 'save the environment' cause they 'just don't get it' we would be better off if all the orchid species were in greenhouses and under propagation. That is the simple truth of the matter. Property will develop and that is that. There ain't no savin' nothin'. And, we don't have the power to stop Brazil from cuttin' its forest. We need to think of what we can do to save the plants that we love and propagate them.
You are right, KB, the problem *is* us and humanity's insatiable greed.
But Earl , whether you've got 15 or 5000000 in captivity , your selective forces (which drive genetic change) are DIFFERENT!
To marilyninOttawa -- yes these matters are urgent. CITES has set time limits on when revisions may be made, presently only every 2 1/2 years. The present cycle calls for whatever proposal we develop to presented to the plants committee this November in order to reach the next COP of CITES in 1999.
Wrong, Rick! It is corporations like MacDonalds, raising beef on cleared forest lands to feed American ( and others they have suborned) their cardboard food.
Rick, I really like your idea of a long range plan that moves towards a workable CITES with intervening steps that are acceptable to all sides AND preserve orchids. As to other peoples comments on habitat. OrchidNet endorses all efforts at habitat preservation; just thought I would throw that in...it is the best
shot even if it is the least likely to succeed practically (Jonathan Driller for OrchidNet)
I mean different in captivity than in the wilds
As a comment to be enlarged upon in future discussions. I have evidence, at least with terrestrials, that selection takes place right in the flask! At first this parallels selection in habitat but with each different medium recipe, you select for a plant with a different nutritional demand, at least at the germination stage. And that is where selection happens folks, at the point of germination.
KB Berrett. I think you missed the make there. He is not collecting orchids to sell to tourists. He is cutting from 3-5 hectares per year of jungle to grow crops to feed his family. That is where the problem is. Sure there are some people collecting orchids and selling them, but this is not the problem today. And yes there are some species that are so endangered that collecting one plant harms the species, but there are not really many of these. Let's put or efforts into protecting those and stop trying to protect everything even when it is not endangered. [Back to need for definition of "endangered."]
Prankster, if the seedlings are re-introduced in the wild, then the diversity will be preserved. This conversation needs to be a real one, with talk! Not typing.
Prankster, so what ( and I hate to be so contentious) but if you want to see a perfect example of despoiled and lost ecostructure, look around in your own countryside. The loggers say that it will come back but you live in a desolate state! I can't tell you the impact that the miles of clear cut had on me on the morning that I saw it while running the Hood to Coast race. I almost stopped and cried. How can you argue genes when the question is simple survival?
ChuckMyr. I agree that there are limited successes on a small scale. But we are talking about 30,000 species spread all over the world. Can't happen. We just have too many people and everyone of them wants to eat!
Before I forget I would like to thank everyone for their interest in conservation, the good folks at Selby for bringing this issue to a public forum, and Marilyn and Lois for making it happen. We will post a continuing dialogue on our website's BBS too.
Agreed, Marilyn. I hadn't thought of that, but you are right. Nonetheless, the population is so huge that little would be lost *if* a large population is grown out. Could also ensure more diversity by raising in various media.
NOTHING is totally enforceable - the first step is the hearts and minds of faithful - getting the word out - getting those of us of the 'orchid world' not enforcing, but showing the way. How about jungle-grown plants being sold at shows - how could a show chairman turn away a vendor saying 'those plants are
contraband' (watch the law suits!) What is practical is a whole new way of thinking, and the way to do that IMHO is giving people something THEY PERSONALLY CAN DO. You can't change others, except by example.
Thank you orchidnet, for your helpful comments and for your posting. Hope to see you next Wednesday, same time, same place. Nite!
Earl, it matters not who the culprits are. This world is about business and everything else is secondary. They will continue. The best suggestion that I can see is to turn your cause into a business and then it may stand a chance. Otherwise, it will be corralled and overrun.
to Chuck--We agree with the idea of preserving habitat as a positive conservation effort. However, don't underplay the importance of all the greenhouses in the world. They contain thousands of species of orchids and we should recognize there is nothing incompatible between each as a conservation strategy.
Marylois.
I do not believe that the question that we are addressing has anything to do with genetic diversity per se. The proposal is to remove certain taxa about which we know little or nothing in the 'hope' that such removal will expedite their 'rescue'. Genetic diversity will be a moot point. The plants or their capsules
would have otherwise been destroyed.
Rick , I agree with you entirely. Habitat protection IS the only road to preserving species. We delude ourselves if we think captive breeding will save any.
I agree, Lois. We old hippies used to say 'think globally and act locally' which has come into disfavor in recent times.
Marilyn, I apologize for not recognizing your excellent suggestion and responding. I get overpowered by my feeling for my own country and the ignorance that has helped to despoil our own land. Let's talk about constructive moves for Cites.
Perhaps, Rick, that is the core of the problem. Nature knows nothing about business, only survival. Continued thinking along those lines will, IMO, lead to very serious consequences for the human race in particular, and the world in general.
I agree we must do the things we can and realize what we can't do. The grandiose ideas are not practical. Each of us must do our part. How many Seed pods do each of us set per year of endangered species. if your count is not significant then we are talking and not acting.
enspence, I'm just saying that 'rescue' should only be the very last resort. There is simply no way to save many species by taking them out of the wild. besides, who will keep the unshowy orchids or the beetles and ants for that matter, don't they deserve preservation too???
Right on! But let's realize most of us need to be given ideas of what we can do!
Earl, that probably is the core of the problem - or it could be a solution, if used wisely. I don't think that business is good or bad. It just is. It is up to us to work with it as a medium.
Invest in groups like Nature Conservancy!
marilyninOttawa :
Ways and Means. Let us list positive steps towards conserving orchids. If you agree with the downlisting/removal proposal in whole or in part, please state it now.
I gotta go, but one last comment. IMO, Cites should not be changed. Downlisting will accomplish little to nothing re: stopping the core of the problem. Keeping it at least stops some of the abuse.
UncleEarl. [incomplete]
Chuck, let's keep this to orchids and forget the beetles and ants. We already have more ants around here than we can control.
Thank you UncleEarl, for your helpful comments!
Marilyn, let's downlist!
UncleEarl I think you heart is in the right place. but I think you have attributed some value to CITES that does not exist and even the CITES countries have admitted.
So, what would be involved with writing into the upcoming CITES a provision allowing rescuing orchids in, say, clearcut of forest situations?
Keep the species listed . There may be more reluctance to trash habitat with a listed plant on it. It works that way here with the endangered species list. Perhaps (wishful thinking?) it may work elsewhere too
marilyninOttawa. I think we should go ahead with the proposed down listing.
Brasso - One has to question the motives of the countries which said that. Which countries were they? (Guess I'll put off dinner for a little longer!)
Rick! Ants are a VERY important cog in our forests here in Oregon
KB Barrett. That is one of the future topics. We proposed that CITES be ammended to recognize rescue as a viable conservation alternative.
Good point Earl.
Prankster, Yes I realize that the ants are important. I just don't like the one that is walking across my keyboard right now but,... ants are important ant we are here to talk about managing orchids. No more than that intended. (Beetles are important too).
Please forgive the ad here but this talk of what we can each do makes it necessary.
OrchidNet is set up to let people actively preserve orchids. We let you find what you are looking for, how to grow it, where to get pollinia for outcrossing, and provide free flasking of species. YOU CAN make a difference. Many of the rarest species are already in peoples collectins - they are just not being propagated. If this was done nobody would have to get many things from the wild (barring a desire to boost genetic diversity occasionally). If you want to walk the walk please look into ways that you can! OrchidNet is one way but there are others too - Hoosier Orchids has a flasking program, Peninsula Hybrids and
Carson Whitlow as well as many other labs will flask stuff for you if you just ask...(Jonathan Driller for
OrchidNet in Richmond California)
I am curious as to which countries have agreed to support downlisting/removal, at least in principle?
UncleEarl. They were from Africa and had been requested to comment on the self review done by the CITES professionals of themselves and CITES. I don't have my copy right here but I would be happy to send you a copy if you want. give me a in the clear address and it yours.
Jonathon, As a positive conservation education move, would you agree to prepare a short article for less common species successfully flasked including a pic and details as to which medium was used?
Orchidnet, do you have a list of those endangered species? (Pardon me as I speak from ignorance of your details (not the principles) and would like to know more since I would be willing to hybridize species.
Hi, folks, I've been lurking. I've been pollinating species for about two years now and giving the seeds to anyone who wants them.
To get back on track, we have some agreement to go ahead with the proposal (species for inclusion to be discussed later). We also have some reservations as to what if any Pandora's box could be opened for all taxa and not simply the ones removed. I leave it to the TOCC committee to respond further. Have you achieved your objectives thi evening? Would you like to continue this discussion next Wednesday?
Kathy, thanks and you are right. I would be willing to maintain the same specie X sib but, even that is about like hybridizing.
Hi gang. Been lurking and catching up. Some very interesting comments thus far.
runnerRick, specie?
Hi Jim; Ann, what species do you breed?
Marilyn, this is a fabulous,(though difficult ) topic. More next week I hope
yeah Brassocat, I cant spell.
Marilyn, why does the 'parties' only meet every 2 1/2 years, get more accomplished sooner by meeting every year.
Marilyn---what an excellent night!!!!
Ruth Rudkin. If you get this pleae let me know MarilyninOttawa.
Nite, all. Yes, Marilyn, I, for one, would like to continue, tho I disagree with your proposal so far.
Ruth---I read you loud and clear!!!!
Oops, MS Explorer just crashed on me and I missed a few minutes. Marilyn, OrchidNet could certainly write up something. For those interested in OrchidNet please (alternate) so as not to tie up this chat. We would love to hear from you.
MarilyninOttawa. Very good job. We had a lot of good discussion and different points of view. Thank you very much
Marilyn, I too would like to continue with this as I believe that we need to get down to at least a definition of the problem. Here, tonight, I saw a lot of argument over what the problem might be. Once we have some decision as to the statement of the problem (save the orchids or save the environment or ...) then we can brainstorm a solution.
Every time I try to send I get dumped. RunnerRick, I'm in Dallas, and I grow paphs, bulbophyllums, dendrochilums, some pleurothallids, laelias, some dendrobiums, etc.
Jim, The meeting frequency has been established for a full Party meeting. Smaller group meetings do occur more frequently.
Ruth. Reading you loud and clear!
Yep - and ready for August 20th - 8 p.m. CDT
UncleEarl. Goodnight. Thank you for your comments. See you next week.
Marilyn---it's very simple---fence in the orchids in the tropics and have armed guards surround the area!!!!!!!
Thanks Ann12, If you have some pods, flasks or other, give me a list and I could be interested in buying some - and you should be compensated for your efforts!
Marilyn, why not just put to the parties that each country come up with a list of orchids/plants indigenous to their country and limit the number which can be protected. Any above that limit would have to be justified with scientific and horticultural and economic evidence.
Thank you Brassocat. I will probably be signing off soon . Getting near midnite our time.
Sparks - hasn't helped the white rhino much. PUBLIC OPINION - PUBLIC ACTION. Get those who buy the contraband too!
Looking forward to your helpful comments next week runnerRick. Orchid conservation is the goal. How to achieve this is the question.
Earl, goodnight. I'll send some email.
Penalties for the buyer (cause) would at least slow the effect!
Good night all.
And give money to the guards for every ear!!!
Marilyn, but 2 1/2 years is a loooong time in between. Once a year would seem to be more productive. Too much time between meetings allows for too much laxity. In industry, we all work to tight schedules and it gets done very quickly.
RunnerRick, send e-mail address to annh@airmail.net
Interesting suggestion Jim.
No doubt Jim, but our objective is not to set CITES meeting schedules. That is a separate issue entirely.
Now that I think about it, it does sound interesting. :-)
I know that you are headin' off the air Marilyn however, its tough to solve the problem when we can't even agree on the problem. Saving the orchids is the goal and I believe very strongly in the aims of the orchidnet because I believe that they are right. The orchids don't vote and don't have jobs so they will
come last - and only at the resort of those like us. We are the worlds caretakers and it will be up to the likes of us to bring some conscience to the rest. I know that those up in Oregon who clear cut the state didn't even know what they destroyed. The people of the rainforest will know in about 3 generations what
they lost but, not until. This is a tough job and we have to do it - no one else will!
Lois, I feel that it is time to call it a day (or a night)! Looking forward to moderating next Wednesday's session.
Be that as it may be, too many orchids are being destroyed or removed without any apparent progress. Progressive steps need to be taken and taken now, not 2 1/2 years from now.
Your recording secretary must say good night...bye, folks. Thanks to you, Marilyn, and all of TOCC for bringing this important message to us. I'm sure we all look forward to next Wed nite.
A standing round of applause for Marilyn!
Nite all, Ann12, I'll send you email. Looking forward to next week!
and Lois for puttin' it all together!
G'nite Marilyn and Lois. Very good nite. Very lively discussion. Can't wait for next Weds.
Thanks Marilyn!!!
runnerRick. I understand you completely. I believe that a concern is for plants languishing along new roads and on cut trees. I don't know if downlisting /removal of certain taxa from CITES will help these plants. We are attempting to talk the matter out in the hope of clarifying the issue. I am merely moderating
the session.
Thank you Marilyn and Lois for putting this together.
ENCORE!!!!!!!!
Night Lois ! We had over 30 chatters tonight. A record? [A record!...mlg]
Marilyn, you'll always pack the house!
Marilyn and Lois, Thanks for you great efforts. This was excellent!
