Here a few more scribblings about some of the postings:
Let me start with an anecdote: A few years ago, I got lost driving
the backroads in Austria. So I pulled up at a police station to ask
for directions. The first thing that I saw when I walked in was a
vase with a huge bunch of orchids picked from the wild. I did not say
anything, but I remember that I had difficulties to stop laughing
when I got back into my car.
>'The idea that plants in cultivation will deter further collecting is
> attractive, but I am led to wonder' [Michael]
Well, I think the point really is that if we can keep the plants
alive and propagate them then there really is no point anymore to
collect the plants in the wild. And I believe I have already stated
in an earlier posting that nursery grown plants often prove to be
more sturdier than wild collected ones.
>'can collectors destroy a population' [Sean]
Oh yes, but that does not only relate to hobbyists or commercial
collectors. Maybe something to smile about: A population of
Cypripedium calceolus (very rare in Europe, extremely rare in the
British Isles) in England had a total of 18 plants. 17 were
transformed into herbarium specimens by 'professionals' from an
institution very closely related to CITES.
>'Evidence: The Ivory-billed ....' [Sean]
I think it has been well established that you cannot compare the
situation of animals to that of plants. Really that is comparing
apples with onions.
>'Collecting is at its potentially most damaging when money changes
hands, and that is what CITES is designed to control' [Sean]
That is a very good point. CITES was designed to controll the TRADE,
it was not designed to control collecting for any other purpose, and
in fact, the CITES text explicidly states that plants for scientific
purposes are exempt. However, the authorities have (illegally??)
widened their interpretation.
>'As long as people are free to walk alone in the woods, there will
be plant collecting ...' [Michael]
You bet. And lets hope that there will always be woods left and that
the world stays free, so we can walk were we want. I don't think anyone of us
would like the idea of asking for permission to walk in the woods.
>'Its easier to get a permit to collect deer than to collect deer
fodder ...' [Michael]
Some advice: Michael don't try that over here.
>'Don't even think about collecting a scrap of anything from a
foreign country ....' [Michael]
As far as most countries in Europe are concerned, you can collect
anything what is not protected by the law. Of course you have to know
what is protected or not. And it is your responsability to find out
about what is protected or not. Of course lots of people dont.
> 'Conservation potential does not justify illegal collecting' [Sean]
Now that is an interesting statement. I agree that nothing justifies
illegal doings. But if it is illegal to collect, and if collecting
helps preservation, than the law against collecting is
anti-conservation. And as we all want to conserve, should'nt we all
want that law gone?? Think about it.
> ' .... and hobby cultivation of plants does not constitute
conservation' [Michael]
>' .... Shame on the growers' [Michael]
OhOh! I hope there is no need for you to buy a share in that asbestos store.
>' Don't collect it, buy it. But don't buy it if you have reason to
believe it was collected by the seller or supplier.' [Michael]
'Believing' is not knowing. How are you going to tell when you buy a
plant. Do you really believe that the seller will tell you if he
collected the plant illegally or if he got it from an illegal
collection? (He might not even be aware of that himself).
>' The first priority should be the preservation of habitat and the
next best thing is to save the plants themselves. ...' [Tom & Krissy]
I could not agree more.
Happy growing
Guido