> >
> > Part of that specific proposal was a mechanism whereby the public
> > information would be "blurred" using coarse coordinates, so that no
> > particular stand could be raided based on the map.
>
> Rick, yes I'm glad the decision was reached to add that "blurring feature".
Certainly this would help to begin with, but in case I have not made
this clear before, I think it would be pretty pathetic to hope that that
situation could continue ad infitium.
While the affect/need of this data is being assessed, this protection feature
would no doubt help, but the main aim _MUST_ be, to make the whole entire
process worthwhile, to provide good location data, "unblurred", to the CP
community, although maybe not the public.
> > Even with plant locations accurate to the level of counties, the
> > resulting distributions would be quite useful to researchers
> > striving to see the "big picture", and looking desperately for hard
> > data to present to both the public and to lawmakers.
>
>
> I'm not aware of who these researchers are? What kind of project are
> they working on? Are they with academia or government? What is the
> "big picture" they are trying to grasp? This seems very relevant to
> the ICPS discussion!
I would imagine any researcher working in the CP field would be very
interested in these results, with the possibility to having long term
records showing how sites have changed or disappeared. Whether these
researchers are working for Universities, Botanic Gardens, or government
it may well be of interest for many different reasons.
>
> > What we need to do is find a workable compromise that will allow the
> > world to see what the global situation is, how it is changing, and allow
> > informed decisions to be made - without creating a situation that could
> > be unreasonably exploited.
>
> I can see that would be very helpful--if the map was plotting locations for
> endagered habitat or habitat types (ie. bog locations, wetland sites,
> undeveloped costal dunes, serpentine soils). But why map CP? They are
> not even a natural group (they are not monophyletic, they are not
> representitive of any particular habitat type, all species are not
> threatened).
My understanding is that _most_ species /are/ threatened. Maybe not with
extinction but certainly with being put onto the endangered lists.
> > Here again, we come back to the issue of trust. No positive progress
> > can ever be made without a reasonable balance of trust.
>
> I am not entirely convinced by this call for trust, since it seems
> to be a one-way request (ie. hobbyists asking to be entrusted with
> locality data). What do the hobbyists offer to conservationists?
> (Please don't say the hobbyists can show them how to grow the plants!
> Nor that hobby collections are a conservation reservoir.) I suppose
> that plant hobyists could be weaned into becoming conservationists, or
> at least conservation-minded. In fact, I bet that many conservationists
> DO start that way! But I don't see how spreading a lot of habitat data
> among the public can accelerate the process. This is probably worth
> more discussion in another thread...
No, this process is definitely two-way. The conservationists must trust
the hobbyists, but equally the hobbyists must trust the
conservationists. There has been much discussion about whether the
people in charge of the data should trust the hobbyists with precise
data (which I believe they should) and whether the hobbyists should
trust the people dealing with the data with even more sensitive data
etc.(which I also believe they should).
Everything that goes on in this world is either based on trust - or non-trust.
The trust based ideas almost always work best. Otherwise we would turn into a
highly autocratic society.
In a previous mail, Michael writes:
> > From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > However, I question [maybe wrongly] whether the comittee (great as
> > they are) would be willing to take on the task of being responsible
> > for mapping CP's, tracking locations, amalgamating info on what is
> > happening at each site, connecting people who are trying to protect
> > sites and people who /want/ to protect sites, both locally and
> > internationally, and holding forums on protection and destruction of
> > wild CP areas. I am aware the ICPS does some o this at present, but
> > what I believe we need to do is have a /specialist/ soc that is
> > devoted to this cause. The ICPS is absolutely excellent for
> > exchangi
>
>
> Most universities with a botany department already have botanists and
> herbaria engaged in documenting locality data and floristic
> associations. These institutions often have good data on local plant
> distribution, less data on non-local distributions. Universities work
> with local chapters of the Nature conservancy and state/federal
> organizations engaged in conservation projects.
>
> There is no need for the ICPS to duplicate what is already being done
> in herbaria and botany departments. Instead it might be the a good
> role for the ICPS to make available to CP enthusiasts a description of
> the existing conservation tools and agencies, and how interested CP
> enthusiasts can get involved with existing local conservation groups.
Unfortunately botany/herbaria departments do not have info on *all*
sites. If the ICPS/? became a 'one-stop-shop' for locality data only
the members of that organization (and of course 'official' researchers)
would have access to the precise information. That way access could be
controlled, and lets face it, anyone that goes to the effort of joining
a society etc and paying subscription fees can more easily get the
information from a local herbarium etc anyway.
> It might also be nice if the ICPS could gather together reports of ongoing
> conservation work on habitats which contain CP.
That's what I suggest the whole 'package' includes - CP mapping for
members - reports on habitat detsruction - reports on conservation work
in habitats - etc etc
> Last year there was a discussion of a "world CP distribution map", to be
> distributed over the internet. The intent seemed to be to allow anyone to
> click on a CP species and learn exactly where plants can be found in the
> wild. I'm opposed to such a distribution map.
So am I.
Any such map should be available to the people who care about these
plants (that's us lot) but not to people who might well abuse this
information, i.e. by making it available to the general public via the
internet etc. If necessary, make it available in 'blurred' form over
the internet.
>Conservation agencies already
> know what plants grow where, in thier area of jurisdiction. If they don't
> know about certain plants on their land, then it's probably a case where
> nobody knows; a checklist hasn't been made yet. The world CP map would
> not aid these conservation agencies and local conservation efforts. It
> WOULD aid people who fly in from afar to collect plants.
But it would help people in the area who were members of such an
organization, and wanted to become involved with protecting a site that
was under threat from developers etc. and it _would_ help in so far as
if a site was about to be built on then a 'dig' could be publicised in a
newsletter. At least then the plants wouldn't just die.
And I think too much is being made of collecting plants from the wild.
It shouldn't go on, but it does. Equally to vandalism. That shouldn't
go on, but again it does. Making sure no-one knows where sites are is
not going to help anyone or any plant. Education - and trust - is the
way forward. I am fairly sure that for every CP that gets collected
from the wild or kicked down by vandals, another ten get killed by being
built on. I think instead of starting misguided procedures that might
possibly help to protect the one plant in the short term it would be
better to start campaigning against the death of the ten plants that are
consistently getting killed and conserve the other one plant in the long
term when education about effects of vandalism and collecting start to
bear fruit. And for every ten plants that are destroyed by getting
built upon, probably many hundreds more get destroyed by mismanagement
(e.g. draining of habitat etc) and it would be much easier to conserve
these plants via educating landowners than it would be to protect the
one or two plants that get destoyed by vandals or collectors.
> The map would also
> aid in "plant sightseeing". This is a delicate situation. Ideally, seeing
> plants in habitat will increase appreciation of plants in the wild.
> Unfortunately, too much traffic results in trampling of the habitat and
> inadvertant destruction of plants. Notoriety of the site may then lead to
> collectors.
Yes, but again I believe that many more plants will be destroyed by retaining
sites' anonymity than by revealing them and educationg people against
mass-sightseeing.
> So I'm in favor of distributing information on sites which
> have been maintained for visitation--parks, preserves, and botanical
> gardens which have displays of CP habitat.
I think that this has already been done to a large extent, but it people
want to see plants in 'natural' habitat this must be the best way
forward for them.
> Here CP fans and the general
> public could see CP from a trail or boardwalk. Admission fees would
> help maintain the site and the plants. I'm not discouraging people from
> looking for CP in their local area--here local knowledge can aid local
> efforts--and local votes! But if CP habitat information is distributed only
> among the locals, I don't have a problem with that, and I think it'll help
> the plants in the long run.
But /is/ it distributed amongst the locals? By locals I mean people with an
interest in that area that would want to campaign against destruction of the
site by proposed plans for bulding houses etc, or draining of the habitat, or
would want to go on a dig if at worst the site was condemned.
Here Dave's point comes into force:
> > From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> >
> >
> > BTW, why are so few people responding to this conserving CP thread?
> > My last
mail
> > along these lines (CP mapping??) whipped up a frenzy of controversy.
> > Just
what I
> > like :-) Anyone else have an opinion on this? Pleeeeease ;-) ??
>
>
> Hi Toby,
>
> It's like this: in order to keep land from being developed
> you have to place controls on our population's growth. Meaning that
> no couple can have more than two kids and that we stop increasing our
> life spans. Our current political leaders hold that our country (or
> any country) needs to keep the population growing in order to keep the
> economy growing (I don't know how true this is, but it appears true
> for the time being, I suppose). So what is there to say? Kill
> someone?
Well, I have to say that's tempting but I don't really think that's a
viable way forward. But then, as CP enthusiasts, I'm not sure its up to
us. All we should be doing is conserving (not protecting : if there's
one thing CP's need it is conservation, not protection) 'our' plants,
i.e. trying to stop the few remaining sites being destroyed by
developement or habitat mismanagement. We can only do this be
educating\ people, not acting as autocrats.
To carry out this idea of conserving CP's, I think we need to take on a
new view about CP's. To do /that/ we need a new organisation for people
wanting to protect CP's and people with an interest /in/ wild CP's.
Maybe not a new organisation, but maybe just a sub-group within a
present organisation (eg. the ICPS). This would mean a pool of
knowledge about wild CP's and sites. Maybe even a plant exchange for
wild cp clones (with, of course, some protection device stopping people
from going out into the field, collecting plants and swapping them
within the society) and just possibly a seedling bank for wild clones.
But to do any of this, the organisers must have CPers support., and I am
very afraid they won't get it, and if they don't the whole CP mapping
idea etc which could just help to secure the future of these amazing
plants could be lost, maybe forever, along with the plants.
Kind Regards,
Toby