Re: CITES

CMDodd@aol.com
Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:35:14 -0400

I do not believe CITES is unnecessary. As to what is 'limited' collection,
that would have to be determined by the country of origin, and o.k.'ed by the
CITES officials. Limited could be as little as 4 3-node cuttings per species/
per person/ per year (two males, two females). I have seen very conservation
minded persons, with legal collecting permits take no more than this. Their
goal was to establish a sexed pair of plants to produce seeds for tissue
culture. It may interest the gentleman from Belgium to know that a friend and
I have produced species seed of at least 12 species in cultivation and the
seeds are now growing in vitro, and plants and cuttings have been sent to
U.S. and foreign (with CITES permits) Botanic Gardens. Where once we had a
few cuttings, now there are hundreds of seedling clones in vitro. Of course
exploitation can and does still occur, however it is a fact that hundreds of
thousands of acres have been burned, logged and bulldozed with no regard for
the conservation of anything. Orchids and other tropical epiphytes fall by
the thousands as their trees are cut, and understory plants are exposed to
alien conditions, heaven forbid they are 'collected'.

Then there are the problems with the permits and the permiting process
itself. To illustrate I'll mention some of the problems that I know of first
hand.

1. After providing documentation of my growing areas and plants in
cultivation, I received CITES permit. After its expiration it took
eight months to get a renewal of the permit, not to import plants, but
to export those already in cultivation. 2. A friend went to S.E. Asia,
got local CITES permits, collected minimal amou nts of sexed cuttings
only and returned to the U.S. Upon arrival his plants were confiscated
because the 'wrong' signature appeared on the his permits. It was later
found it was the correct signature, but that the government in question
failed to inform the U.S. of the change. Result: all cuttings died at
a 'rescue' station. 3. Another individual with CITES permits had his
plants confiscated upon arrival from Germany. Note: he had permits even
though they were NOT required because his material was in-vitro which is
specifically exempt by CITES (appendix 2 material), and he had a copy of
the CITES law with him to show the inspectors. Only by getting an
attorney were the plants later returned. 4. I have had plants sent to
me with CITES paperwork only to have certain rare species disappear from
the package somewhere on route.

If you take Sarracenia as an example, since they are found in N. Ameriaca
exclusively, a CITES permit should be required for them to leave the U.S. or
Canada. But I see little point in requiring CITES between Germany and France
for this genus. or between England and the U.S. for Nepenthes, if the plants
can be shown to have been legally obtained and artificially propagated. Where
borders are more open near habitats, regulations would be in order.

I do not begin to sugest there is a final solution. Every philodendron now in
your window-sills can be traced back to a cutting taken from the jungle, and
I do not understand the need for collectors to have wild plants when
cultivated forms are available. (I have 3 flowering size Phal. gigantea from
tissue culture from Marie Selby Botanic Gardens and I like them just fine,
thank you very much.) However, if conservation is the goal behind regulations
they seem in need of amending.

Cliff