I can relate to both sides of this issue. Today though I am thinking this:
It is very rewarding to observe cp in habitat. But does doing so help or
harm the plants? At best, viewers will not collect plants. But just to
visit the site results in plants being trampled, and the sphagnum mat being
impacted. This impact is minor if visits are few. How can visitation benefit
the plants?
One way visitation could help the plants is if the site has been structured
for visitation, ie. with a boardwalk, interpretive signs to educate the
public,and rangers to enforce the no-collecting rule. These conditions exist
in some botanical gardens and parks. Here admission fees can support park
maintenance and facilitate the viewing and appreciation of the plants.
Many parks and gardens may not feature CP, but here you can work with
public institutions and encourage/assist them to do so. We can
disseminate information about which parks/gardens are good places to
see CP.
> I think we miss the point when we argue that these sites
> need to remain secret. The vast majority of people will behave
> responsibly with this information, and gain a great deal from
> appreciating these plants in the wild. So why should we let a ratbag
> minority force this to become knowledge for a select few? Surely that
> would be a great tragedy also.
Locality information is already available now. It simply requires a bit
more research and perhaps some contacts with botanists and other plant-people.
They may use thier discretion when giving out information, but also can
provide much more pertinent info (ie., what's flowering at certain times,
what else grows there. etc...). This information is not as close as a
"click" away, but it's there to reward those who's interest is strong
enough to drive them to do the research.
> Human nature doesn't seem to change a lot, it makes little sense to say
> that we are preserving something for "future generations". Instead we
> are just protecting it from humanity, both present and presumably
> future. Ultimately that is the question, do you believe people should be
> able to enjoy these plants in the wild or not? I can't see how you can
> attach qualifications to such a question.
I think people should not be prevented from enjoying the plants
in the wild. But I like the "old way" of letting thier persistence of
interest be the screening factor. If the wild populations are a "click"
away, aren't they rendered less "wild"? This predicament won't go away,
so long as the human population continues to grow and penetrate wild
habitat.
Michael Chamberland