> There is a lot of CITES bashing going on in this group. In fact,
> this may be one of the most common topics on this list. CITES intention
> is to protect plants and animals from unscrupulous collectors. It may not
> be perfect, but there is no doubt that some species have been driven to
> the brink of extinction in the wild by overcollection. Several species of
> Asian Paphiopedilums provide an example of this. And before someone asks;
> I have not been there to verify this for myself. I am willing to accept
> the accounts of others who have.
I think the main reason for the CITES bashing is that there
always seems to be an air of confusion around this topic regarding what's
covered (ie: plant parts), what permits are needed, etc. Unless you're a
poacher, most people shouldn't have a problem with the fact that CITES is
there to protect wild populations.
> To say that hobbyists are providing a last refuge for certain
> endangered plants is a wonderful sentiment, and to a certain extent is
> true. Zoos are another example. But, I feel that cultivation of these
> plants is a poor, although at times necessary, substitute for protecting
> them in the wild. For one thing, plants in cultivation are vulnerable to
> loss due to failure in cultivation (like the greenhouse freezes, or
> whatever other calamity strikes). Obviously this is mitigated by having
> the plants grown by many individuals. A second point is that the genetic
> diversity of plants in cultivation is certainly less than that of plants
> in the wild. Probably most of the species we grow originate from only a
> few original plants. Those plants that remain in cultivation may have
> come from only a single plant, because we tend to maintain and propogate
> those plants that grow the best for us.
Yes! The reduced genetic diversity should be a big concern to
all of us. One pest comes along and wipes out your entire stock because
they are all genetically identical. This is a big problem with grain
crops where a fungus or mould can destroy an entire crop. In a natural
setting, a few may be affected, but there are likely those genetic
variants with the resistance to fight off the infection. Additionally,
we tend to baby our plants helping ones that normally wouldn't survive in
the wild, reach maturity and reproduce. Not to say that this is a bad
thing, just not natural.
> I don't think that maintaining plants in culture is a bad thing.
> On the contrary I do believe that we are contributing to their
> conservation. However, I do believe it is a minor contribution relative
> to protecting the plants in their natural habitat. Certainly habitat is
> the most significant factor in the extinction of plants and animals.
> However, it is also clear that over-collection has contributed to
> dramatic decrease in the numbers of certain species, and perhaps
> ultimately to their extinction in the wild. Those of you who are so
> vehemently opposed to CITES, perhaps you should propose an alternative. I
> feel that simply removing all legislation limiting international trade in
> endangered species would be truly foolhardy.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly. It's great to raise these plants
in our greenhouses and homes, but there's a lot to be said for
maintaining wild grown populations. Protecting habitats, not individual
species, is, in my opinion, the way to go.
> Just my thoughts on this topic.
> Wayne Forrester
>
Again, I think most people are not opposed to what CITES stands
for, just the fact that it can be a pain to obtain all the proper permits
and, can be frustrating. I agree with your thoughts Wayne ;-).
Chris Teichreb