> I hope we can get an active discussion going on how to protect the
> natural habitats of CP. How many people are on this list anyway?
> Perhaps if we find out of a site in danger, we could post the fax
> number, phone number, email address, mailing address, etc. of the
> company or individual who is endangering the environment. Perhaps a few
> hundred faxes would help someone see the light. (I've used the
> technique a few times in other circumstances with *tremendous* success.)
Jeff, I will suggest that you get the first Nobel Prize in Optimism!
> > The trade of
> > wild collected specimens of this (and other) species is illegal,
> > but building houses on their habitat is legal!!! Where is the
> > logic.??
>
> Both should be illegal. I feel wild collection should be permitted in
> limited cases if done by a trained botanist. (I think this is already
> the case with appropriate permits...perhaps someone could elaborate...)
Theoretically, CITES allows for that. However, in reality, the local
authorities do not or do not know what to do. I brought 3 flasks
with Paphiopedilum seedlings into the US in January (with the
necessary papers = Phytosanitary certificate). I declared them, and
as soon as I mentioned 'Plants', eyebrows went up. The next question
was 'What plants'. My answer was simple: 'Orchids': and I was
immediately treated as a lepra case. The people at agriculture first
asked me for the CITES. They did not know that laboratory propagated
seedlings are exempt of CITES. When I showed them the flasks, they
admitted they had never seen such things. Now they asked me how I
could prove thate these came from the lab. Now, here you are, after a
12 hour flight, with 3 STERILE flasks,which OBVIOUSLY CONTAIN
LABORATORY PROPAGATED SEEDLINGS; and you have to start
giving a lecture in Botany and another one in tissue culture, because the
people you are dealing with obviously dont know what they are
supposed to do.
> > We will have difficulties stopping such destruction. Having been an
> > ecologist and taxonomist for many years and having visited all kinds
> > of plant sites for over 20 years now, I am certain that Homo sapiens
> > (I prefer to refer to that species in my university lectures as 'Homo
> > stupidum') will never stop destroying its habitat and thus the
> > habitat of plants and animals. But at least, the plants of sites that
> > are to be destroyed should be salvaged. But that is forbidden by some
> > stupid regulations such as CITES.
>
> I think that a law permitting the salvaging of such plants could very
> likely encourage some ruthless collectors to move in to collect in areas
> where they really should not.
Yes, but that is always the case. Atom splitting can be used for
providing energy and for making bombs. There will always be people
that misuse laws, regulations, etc. You just cant put all men in jail
because there MAY be a criminal among them.
> I'd prefer better education for our
> population to appreciate and understand the natural world around them.
> Then people would feel a moral obligation to protect the species in
> their backyards. And then there would be no need to salvage anything,
> because people would protect these areas. It may look like a pretty
> bleak picture out there, but I feel only optimism and hard work will
> help the situation. And I believe it will.
Again, re Nobel Prize
>
> form a group of people to camp out in the endangered
> area.
That is illegal!! Trespassing etc. etc.
> I feel these are a better way to stop the destruction. See if
> alternatives can be found to satisfy both the developers and those
> seeking to preserve an area.
If you are a manager that is supposed to built a holiday resort on an
Orchid or CP site, you will not care about the orchid or the CP
because you want to keep your job to feed your family etc. It is just
as simple as that. You cannot teach those poor people in the Amazon
that they should not burn the forest, unless you give them
alternatives. And where are these alternatives. And why should they
not burn down a little bit of forest to get a poor living if
Volkswagen do Brasil gets permission to burn down an area of millions
of square acres to raise beef in an area ware beef raising is
impossible.
> > That has been tried before and may work in some areas. It does most
> > definately not work in areas where prices are being offered for land
> > that no 'normal' person can pay (Japan, Certain Other parts of
> > Asia, Europe). And with the population growing as it is that will be
> > so in the entire world within the next 50 years. If prices for a
> > simple agricultural field go up to US $ 2000 per square meter, who
> > the H.. is going to raise those funds other than construction
> > companies that have a lobby and does can override certain
> > 'conservation' laws. And the US is a very good example of that.
>
> I agree that it is not a nice picture, BUT there are *A LOT* of people
> with *A LOT* of money out there.
Sure, but they did not get their money by protecting plants, and they
usually want to make More money, and they will not do it by
protecting plants either. So maybe we can convince one or two of
them.
Chris.
you misunderstand me. I am convinced that CITES was started in good
intent and with the intention to save plants and animals. I am not
questioning that. What I am saying is, that it does not work. So let
me use a comparison again: what good is a car which does not run??
You either have it repaired (and that is not always possible) or you
get rid of it and get a new one.
> In fact, if it wants to help the plant,
> it should encourage the distribution of it, by making it easier to get
> the necessary certificates, and lowering their price so that the
> average enthusiast can afford to trade plants with fellow growers the
> other side of the pond, and indeed anywhere else in the world.
How right you are!
> 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.
Well take it from one who has been at many of the Paph. habitats.
These habitats are endangered, but not by overcollecting. And at some
habitats, that have been declared extinct by some of the CITES
people, thousands and thousands of plants remain. I have already
elaborated on the size of the market for these species in earlier
messages.
> 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.
You are right, but it is still better that let them to be burned in
their 'natural habitat'
Happy CPing
Guido