Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:16:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Barry <sjbarry@ucdavis.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2618$foo@default> Subject: Re: Legaity of Collection - Legal quirk?!!!
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Paul Temple wrote:
> So, now that you remember, this lengthy and complex convention was
> written by very educated people.
>
> But (BUT!!!), according to the biodiversity conventions to which America
> is a signatory and which America is therefore required to uphold, if the
> landowner is not an American, that is to say, if the landowner legally
> owns the land but is not entitled to American nationality, then the land
> owner can not take any part of the plants without formal permission from
> the appropriate authorities (those accountable for American flora).
> This might seem strange
Not at all--it's how we and other countries can prevent our forests from
being purchased by foreign corporations and clearcut wholesale. It
protects resources that are not coverable under CITES because there is no
international movement. After all, many of those corporate behemoths have
maintained for years that even though they have American land holdings
they are not subject to our laws because they're not citizens and never
set foot on our soil. Smaller plants are the same--it's how we and other
countries can keep extralimital interests from plundering entire species
just by virtue of land ownership--after all, all they would have to do is
close escrow, rape and plunder, then sell the land again. I don't think
that your interesting reference to "gardeners with green cards" has
anything to do with it.
> but then a lot of very intelligent people wrote the biodiversity
> conventions
You bet!
Sean Barry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:01 PST