Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:24:34 +0100 From: Paul Temple <paultemple@ecologycal.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1310$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
>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.
What an interesting remark! OK, for Saguaro my assumption is that the
poaching continues purely as a result of the cost of mature plants. You
can buy any size Saguaro (I assume, I know they are relatively easily
bought but not sure if giant plants are available) but clearly any large
or giant plant will be expensive. A wild plant is free to the collector
(it's just priceless to everyone else!). Why people dig up one or two
VFT's is beyond me. Bulk poaching is again purely a no-cost versus hgh
cost commercial decision.
>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).
I don't disagree, as long as we accept that some cultivation IS
maintaining the
integrity of germplasm useful for reintroduction to the wild
>overlooks so many
> > important variables (like the existence of pollinators or even
remaining
> > habitat) that it's just a silly prospect.
I agree that re-establishment of species in the wild is difficult. But
the facts are that such things actually do happend. Yes, there is at
least one species (Hawaian, but i forget the name) that has no remaining
pollinators so man must artificially maintain the re-introduced wild
population. But along with Cosmos, there are other species actually
being re-introduced before all the remaining populations die out, thus
before pollinators also become extinct. An example would be the
excellent work of the Jardin Botanico de Cuba in conserving Microcycas.
The lesson here is that "far-fetched" does not equate to "impossible".
It's difficult, but not just possible, it's actually happened and is
happening as we write (or read).
>Spoken like a true member of the academia! For a "scientist" your post
contained not ONE shred of "scientific evidence" to back up your claims!
I don't necessarily believe every statement should be backed up by
printed evidence. The rapid extinctions that have occurred since
manking developed are well documented and all the evidence is already in
the public domain. I can't believe anyone still believes that mankind
is not rsponsible for accelerating extinction rates, despite all the
published evidence. The rest of dan's statement seemed to be expressed
as his wishes and his personal beliefs, and I can't see what was wrong
with his so expressing them!
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Sorry, not a criticism but I'm just baffled. As the tone of the ha ha
ha reply was somwhat victorious, I assume the ha ha ha was expressing
delight. But I can't see how outarguing against an academic (if Dan was
outargued) could cause any delight at all especially when all Dan was
expressing (as far as i can see) was his wish to see yet more effort as
an attempt at conservation. Maybe I've misunderstood? Perhaps someone
can enlighten me?
>I am convinced education would have done much more
for these plants in situ than formal prohibition.
Education has little effect on large scale poaching for commercial
purposes. Nor does it seem to stop the botanic gardens (I'm not
criticising not all of them) some of which still send their people to
remove large volumes of plants from countries they do not reside in
(isn't it strange that such expeditions always go to places where laws
are difficult to police!). I can't prove it (before anyone asks!) but i
have a feeling that commercial theft accounts for more damage than any
other single cause. This certainly seems to be what the experts say.
Regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:08 PST