Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:16:27 -0700 From: chamb@u.arizona.edu To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1281$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
At 04:23 AM 4/26/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>
>So cultivation can probably not contribute much to security of plants
>at their natural habitats (except for the reduction of pressure from
>overcollection, if plants are artificially propagated to saturate the
>market; a concept that did/does work very well for _Nepenthes rajah_
>and other species that are +/- complicated to access and collect in
>the wild).
Yes. I consider conservation to be those efforts which do contribute to
the security of plants at their natural habitats (also animals, fungi,
ecosystems, and other "natural resources"). Techniques which utilize
cultivation, captive breeding, and other ex situ methods directed and
structured toward the primary goal of promoting this security I would also
call conservation. (By security I mean protecting against catastrophic
change for a span of time equivalent to (human) "generations"--more than a
few years, but not necessarily "forever").
Market saturation causing reduction in poaching I would not call
conservation. Rather, I would say it is a beneficial side effect of an
effort primarily intended to generate sales profit (and/or a more
beneficent goal of sharing the popularity of these plants). We both seem
to agree that this germplasm in cultivation does not contribute much to
security of plants
at their natural habitats. As an aside, I am not wholly convinced that
poaching is being reduced by market saturation. As we've seen, poaching of
VFT, Sarracenia, Saguaro cacti, and other plants widely available in the
trade does continue.
>But cultivation can do much in terms of securing germplasm for
>and within horticulture. With the loss of natural habitats this
>becomes an increasingly important, so-to-say secondary environment. I
>would even state that for most of us "civilized" people, this
>environment - a part of our daily life - is more important than the
>natural one. I guess most of us spend more time with their cultivated
>plants than with (really) wild ones. This does of course not mean
>that we should forget natural environments and just "leave them
>alone".
Again I agree. I refer to this "secondary environment" as horticulture,
agriculture, landscaping, etc.. And I call "cultivation" the maintenance
of germplasm as part of these human endeavors.
I do think that we as a species depend on the integrity of natural
environment for our long term survival (especially if all 6 billion+ of us
are to survive). The "secondary environment" lacks the checks and balances
and stability of an ecosystem; requires considerable management and
maintenance by human caretakers, and so I think can be no substitute. If
the secondary environment appears a larger part of our daily life, that is
because the contributions of the ecosystem are largely taken for granted in
everyday life (where does our oxygen come from?)
>> I maintain that my
>> amateur collection has no conservation function whatsoever, although I may
>> be accomplishing something towards keeping these plants in cultivation
>> (especially when I give away cuttings).
>
>This is due to the different concepts of conservation we two use. We
>may agree on another term, but I think what you are doing with your
>_Nepenthes_ collection (as long as the plants will stay alive) is in
>fact conservation related, and it is worthwhile even from a
>conservationist perspective.
I can see we are indeed using considerably different definitions of the
term conservation here. But we do seem to agree on nearly all points of
the concepts relating to the security/maintenance of biotic germplasm ex
situ and in situ. I am baffled by why you choose such a broad definition
of conservation that would include essentially all practices I refer to as
cultivation. Perhaps it is a language difference.
Methods and efforts directed towards maintaining the integrity of germplasm
and ecosystems in the wild are, I believe, pretty universally considered as
conservation. How these methods are structured, and what people and
organizations are doing with these programs is not well understood. Yet
this sort of conservation is widely acknowledged as being good (I would say
it is "universally" considered good were it not for brownlash and
anti-environmentalists), as we know that a functioning ecosystem is pretty
important to the survival of cool plants and animals, and incidentally,
ourselves.
Conservation is a label that many people and groups attempt to adopt for
political reasons, to capture "spin". Mining operations and paper mills
may take out ads in popular magazines extolling the "conservation" they are
doing (usually mitigation projects they were forced to do by government
regulations [not that mitigation is bad. But mining does not equal
conservation like these ads will spin]). And among plant cultivators there
is a widespread belief that any/all cultivation IS maintaining the
integrity of germplasm useful for reintroduction to the wild (which we both
seem to agree is far-fetched at best). There is reluctance to be convinced
otherwise; to give up the political spin, or the false hope.
This bothers me. The concept of conservation is not well understood to
begin, and is further obfuscated by politics and misinformation. This is
why I seek a clearer definition of the principles behind the words. I do
not see advantage in synonomizing conservation and cultivation when we seem
to agree on considerable and important differences that can be recognized.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST