Legal...or not.
- Thread starter swamprad
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
E
Ernie
Guest
Mark,
That's a loaded question! I think you should send all the plants your not sure about to us and we'll inspect them for you. We'll then send all those that are ok to have back to you promptly.
The general answer is that any slipper species obtained "improperly" after the institution of CITES is illegal to own- as are hybrids made with said species. The big deal is, what is "proper acquisition" and how does one prove one way or the other or that a plant is "pre-CITES"??? The US decides to interpret these concepts rather strictly, BUT realizing the limitations of applying such rules (yeah, your common every day callosum hybrid might just be "illegal" if the parents were so, but who cares about Maudiae-types???), tends to focus on the more recently introduced species, namely Paphs vietnamense, hangianum, helenae, and tranlienianum and of course Phrag kovachii. There are legal populations of vietnamense (thanks AnTec!!!) and presumably helenae in the US, but none of hangianum or tranlienianum that I am aware. Anyone else know of any? There are also a couple other newbies that seem to fall off the radar too, for example Paph anitum (adductum var. anitum helps this guy out a little). For kovachii, well that story is beat to death. All, please chime in if I'm askew!
-Ernie
That's a loaded question! I think you should send all the plants your not sure about to us and we'll inspect them for you. We'll then send all those that are ok to have back to you promptly.
The general answer is that any slipper species obtained "improperly" after the institution of CITES is illegal to own- as are hybrids made with said species. The big deal is, what is "proper acquisition" and how does one prove one way or the other or that a plant is "pre-CITES"??? The US decides to interpret these concepts rather strictly, BUT realizing the limitations of applying such rules (yeah, your common every day callosum hybrid might just be "illegal" if the parents were so, but who cares about Maudiae-types???), tends to focus on the more recently introduced species, namely Paphs vietnamense, hangianum, helenae, and tranlienianum and of course Phrag kovachii. There are legal populations of vietnamense (thanks AnTec!!!) and presumably helenae in the US, but none of hangianum or tranlienianum that I am aware. Anyone else know of any? There are also a couple other newbies that seem to fall off the radar too, for example Paph anitum (adductum var. anitum helps this guy out a little). For kovachii, well that story is beat to death. All, please chime in if I'm askew!
-Ernie
practicallyostensible
Julia
This might be of some use:
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2936&highlight=illegal+paphs
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2936&highlight=illegal+paphs
E
Ernie
Guest
Flasks in the US must be derived from documentable, legally-obtained parents. In other words, if you have a complex hybrid with 15 different species in its lineage, technically, all 15 parents must be traceable. Again, this is an extreme case, but is completely within the US's interpretation of CITES! USFW seems most interested in the very new stuff. I, personally, don't think that rules that aren't or can't be applied fairly and evenly across the board are very good rules at all- that's just me and my vote doesn't count for much.
-Ernie
-Ernie
NYEric
Well-Known Member
What does "coming from" mean? If I buy a hangianum from a vendor 'inside' the USA is it then legal!Any Paph or Phrag species with out CITES coming from any country out side of USA is considered illegal.
Ramon
G
goldenrose
Guest
I would think not, if the vendor doesn't have the necessary 'paperwork', then it's still not legal. :sob:
B
Bob Wellenstein
Guest
That couldn't be further from the truth, and while F&WL has said they are not out to go after hobbiests, expressing that sort of attitude could get you targeted. There is a bit of a disconnect between the Management Authority and the the folks in enforcement also.
The problem with the Vietnamese Paphs in particular, and why they are targeted, is as one F&WL Agent said to me they are "a slam dunk" to prosecute. Unless they can be traced back to a legal propagation effort, and the only ones I am aware of are through the Rescue Stations, the individual plants are not legal. The idea that the US is stricter in enforcement is true, but that they are stricter in interpretation is not. The interpretation that they use is directly confirmed by the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland. The problems that make most of the flasked material, both species and hybrids, is not US "Fruit of the Poison Tree" interpretation, although that could apply, but the definition of artificial propagation in the CITES Treaty itself. You will notice if you read that the flask exemption states that artificially propagated material in flask is exempt. Sounds redundant, to use both "artficially propagated" and flask, doesn't it? That's because If you read the CITES Treaty art prop is clearly defined, there are several components, and one of them is that the parent stock was legally obtained. As a result just being in flask or from flask doesn't satisfy the CITES definition of art prop. I am not endorsing these concepts, simply trying to explain what is going on, and hoping that at least a few folks stop non fact based statements. I had a good primer on this as we wanted to be way beyond sure before we flasked the first that were made available to us, Paph. vietnamense and Paph. helenae. Others, including Paph. hangianum have bloomed in US Plant Rescue Stations and should be available eventually. In hindsight, though, I have to say I would never have made the effort it took to work with those plants had I realized the nonsense that developed from it.
E
Ernie
Guest
Bob,
Thanks tremendously for your input! We are all greatful for your efforts!!! So, if I follow you 100% my understanding, as outlined above, is true (with the exception to follow)? Where I went wrong in my initial posts: The US interprets CITES properly and enforces more strongly, and other countires are more lax. Right?
-Ernie
Thanks tremendously for your input! We are all greatful for your efforts!!! So, if I follow you 100% my understanding, as outlined above, is true (with the exception to follow)? Where I went wrong in my initial posts: The US interprets CITES properly and enforces more strongly, and other countires are more lax. Right?
-Ernie
WolfDog1 (C. Williams)
Well-Known Member
Could one expect to see hangianum and other more recently discovered species legally for sale at 19WOC?
Craig
Craig
I
isaias m rolando
Guest
Phrag kovachii will be legally for sale trought the two or three legal tenants of peruvian CITES export permits: CJM Orchids and reps in the US, Peruflora and reps in the US and Vivero Nuevo Destino and reps in the US.
This is what Inrena (Cites Peru Off), has informed to the Club Peruano de Orquideas. CPO will be having an exhibit at the WOC.
Probably mostly PK hybrids will be presented. Perhaps PK...in bloom.
This is what Inrena (Cites Peru Off), has informed to the Club Peruano de Orquideas. CPO will be having an exhibit at the WOC.
Probably mostly PK hybrids will be presented. Perhaps PK...in bloom.
I
isaias m rolando
Guest
Sorry, this was for Miami WOC next January
NYEric
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's the 19th WOC. I'm now planning to attend I just don't understand the benefit of the one day [$50] registration over the [$20] door ticket price. I'm also considering joining the AOS N.E. region judging program so I can clerk at the WOC on Tuesday 1/22/08. Then I'd have to pay for the full [$350] registration but it would be great experience and good on my resume if I decide to get into judging.
Similar threads
