Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:28:30 -0500 From: "Carlo A. Balistrieri" <cabalist@globaldialog.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2738$foo@default> Subject: Re: new species or hybrid
>The second situation is the almost exclusively negative effect (for
>the scientist who requires the specimens) of the (wrong and
>contraproductive) application of CITES regulations to herbarium
>specimens, which is only possible because some weird legal eagles
>have defined the transport of herbarium specimens on loan from one
>address to the other as "trade" although no change of proprietary
>status is involved whatsoever.
Sorry, have to respond to this too. Any movement of plant material is
considered trade. There are special rules, however, for situations where the
trade is not commercial, i.e. scientific exchange.
The reason that everything is regulated is not because us "weird legal
eagles" insist on mucking up the works. Rather it is because shrewd plant
growers/dealers, not content to do things by the rules, have used scientific
exchange, noncommercial trade, etc. to their advantage by claiming such a
situation when in truth they are moving plant material in and out for
commercial purposes.
Please don't consider this a defense of CITES. Having labored in the
vineyard for some time (mostly in an attempt to loosen the plant regulations
and make them practical and enforceable for all concerned), I am well aware
of the shortcomings of the treaty. By the same token, many people do not
have a good understanding of what the treaty does and how it came to be.
It may surprise some to learn that most of the commercial growers I've been
in contact with support the general concept of CITES and its objectives. The
problem is how the regulations are interpreted and enforced.
Carlo
Carlo A. Balistrieri, J.D. mailto:CABalist@globaldialog.com
P.O. Box 327
Ashippun, WI 53003-0327
U.S.A.
Voice: 414.569.1902 Telefax: same number, please call ahead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:35 PST