New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Orchid Conservation' started by s1214215, Apr 17, 2011.
I sent you a few more emails ....
Do you know that you are listed as one of the consulting taxonomists on the 1% virtual collection website?
No, I didn't even know that site existed ... so, what am I supposed to do there ??
Consultation for Living Orchid Collection
I don't expect Dr. Guido J Braem to remember as the email exchange is from August 16, 2006, when he agreed to be a consultant for the Living Orchid Collection. I sent him the original e-mail exchange via this forums private message. The living Orchid Collection is pretty much just demonstration of concept at this point. Not a large enough virtual orchid collection for it to make a dent in ex situ conservation. People like to talk about conservation, the do is another story.
CITES is what it is
True you can not make something into something it is not. Like I said CITES is what its is. Its not going to change. It is not going to stop habitat from being destroyed.
Well ... no one ever consulted me in those five years
Yes, but that raises the question why it is kept other than to spend a lot of tax money to annoy people.
These postings by Dr Braem and Xavier have been very educational to say the least about government and UN institutions, their personnel , its activities and the criminal acts (taking bribes or even soliciting a cut of the fine imposed by a court????????) by these personnel. I would never ever thought about that. They can be called "greedy greeny fat cats", not just "extreme greenies". This thread is now out of my depth , but I still love to read postings from both Guido and Xavier, and I do hope both will continue to send postings.
Easy being a consultant for conservation.
Unfortunately, it is easy being a consultant for conservation.
Why CITES is what it is.
1. People and countries have a vested interest in keeping CITES the way it is. Money.
2. People are confused about it being a conservation treaty, so it gives countries a "green" image of doing something about conservation.
3. While there are mistakes, misuses, bribes, corruption and problems with how the treaty is written especially for plants, CITES does catch actual smugglers and may do some good. Though I think it is like the war on drugs and we are loosing the war and not really tackling the issue in a effective way.
4. It is a bureaucracy of many countries with lots of politics
There are probably other reasons people can list.
Howzat your contributions are great. Is there anything that can turn your passion to action?
There are people trying to change CITES- tilt at windmills. If you or anyone wants I can try and connect you to that effort or you can start your own.
Editorial: CITES, A Far Cry from Conservation
You can read Ted Green's Editorial: CITES, A Far Cry from Conservation
on his website: http://rare-hoyas.com/ted%27s_soap_box.htm
It is about half way down on this webpage. Ted has been fighting to change CITES for awhile. His e-mail is at the top of his CITES editorial article. Contact him maybe if enough people want to do something CITES could be changed.
Talking is fine. Action speaks volumes.
Suggest to have CITES positions to be purely honorary .... you will see how fast no one will care anymore ... it is all about money and power of position.
Not that I don't like to, but I know my limitation.
In fact you, Guido and Xavier should continue with your postings on this thread, one that was initiated by Brett and proved to be one of the most enjoyable to read and to participate. It was good of you to show the link to Ted Green's article, which shows that there are other people who share the same opinion on CITES. This gave me a boost in my confidence level that one day CITES will be disbanded and replaced by a fairer and easier and more practical organisation run by fair minded people. Fancy, I just read Guido's post suggesting the positions with CITES to be made honorary. Bull's eye!!
I think there is much to be said on this matter.
My personal feeling is it is time for some kind of framework to be created just for plants, and one that encourages free-er artificial propagation and trade.
The big problem is always will be to get local governments to take it on.
There is only one solution. (1) Pass a law that absolutely forbids the destruction of tropical forests. (2) Allow BOTANISTS to go in and take seed and possibly a few growths for meristemming (3) Have the seedling and merstems made available at cost by the labs .... That is the only way to conserve our orchids ... but (1) will never happen ... thus ....
And don't forget, places like KEW get what they want, so why would they want CITES gone ... Cribb's plants were always "LEGAL" because the CITES office was the one beside his office.
Brett, I agree it is going to take people putting pressure on local governments that are a party to CITES. It will take many people organized in each country. It is going to take a few people to do the organizing.
I can't I am up to my eyeballs trying to save orchids in situ.
I believe Jerry Fischer at Orchids Limited at one time was trying organize orchid venders and had a petition to try and ask for changes to CITES. Since it was a longtime ago and I haven't heard anything that became of it, I do not know where it stands.
People could contact him or Ted Green mentioned earlier.
It is definitely going to take people to lead and organize.
You're right but is there no way to convince Kew and others to proceed that way? This reminds me of the days when collectors picked everything up in a place, wrecked the habitat and refused to say where their plants had came from. Are we still at that stage?
as I mentioned at the Paph symposium in Apopka a couple of years ago, the US commercial entities are the ones who would benefit from an amended CITES because then foreign vendors would not be able to openly develope plants that are of questionable legality here! Therefore they should get involved.
Man will not live long enough to have that stupid law revoked
Separate names with a comma.