Paph. Spiderman 'Shippo' HCC/OSSEA

[Pete]

only if that was the case, but it wasnt?? whats that supposed to mean. i stick by everything I wrote and believe that that is the case.

 

[AquaGem]

only if that was the case, but it wasnt?? whats that supposed to mean. i stick by everything I wrote and believe that that is the case.

I mean, if that was the case that it got an HCC, but I really don't think that the award was given based on what u said by the judges... if only u could hear the conversation during the judging but unfortunately, over here, judging is a closed session thing and no one is allowed to sit in to listen to what was said.

 

[emydura]

I mean, if that was the case that it got an HCC, but I really don't think that the award was given based on what u said by the judges... if only u could hear the conversation during the judging but unfortunately, over here, judging is a closed session thing and no one is allowed to sit in to listen to what was said.

How do you know if you never heard what the judges said?

David

 

[Pete]

thats what i was just thinking david.
anyhow. it doesnt matter. youve got a nice plant and it will only get better on future bloomings!
fyi-i love paphs just as much (probly more) than the next guy, but they are an over awarded group in my opinion. there are some many paphs out there i really feel like judges should be very stringent on judging them to ensure that standards are consistantly being met and even pushed, to drive breeders and growers.

 

[AquaGem]

How do you know if you never heard what the judges said?

David

From past experiences I have had bad experiences with the reason for plants that they did not award or reasons for not wanting to judge a plant. One example was when I brought in a Paph. coccineum for judging lat year, the plant was rejected for judging because the judge, who happens to be a taxanomist and a published author told me he has no idea or info about Paph. coccineum so they have no idea how to judge it. I would understand if it was a recenlt discovered Paph but coccineum has been described over 10 years ago.... go figure.....

 

[AquaGem]

thats what i was just thinking david.
anyhow. it doesnt matter. youve got a nice plant and it will only get better on future bloomings!
fyi-i love paphs just as much (probly more) than the next guy, but they are an over awarded group in my opinion. there are some many paphs out there i really feel like judges should be very stringent on judging them to ensure that standards are consistantly being met and even pushed, to drive breeders and growers.

Pete, I agree with you about being selective with what should be or should not be awarded. In order to do so, the judges have to know what they are looking at but here in Singapore, most of them have not seen quality Paphs or Phrags species or hybrids. With the advancement of technology, most of the info are just a few clicks away and yet, these instant learning tools were not being taken advantage of....

 

[Pete]

Singapore has been a signatory party of CITES since 1986. Paphiopedilum coccineum was only formally described in 2000. It would have been technically illegal for you to even have that plant (listed under Appendix I), in Singapore, let alone for any society to award it, without the proper accompanying documentation proving its legality. I am however, not familiar at all with how tightly the regulations are enforced there.
.....perhaps the judge was doing everyone a favor?

 

[AquaGem]

Singapore has been a signatory party of CITES since 1986. Paphiopedilum coccineum was only formally described in 2000. It would have been technically illegal for you to even have that plant (listed under Appendix I), in Singapore, let alone for any society to award it, without the proper accompanying documentation proving its legality. I am however, not familiar at all with how tightly the regulations are enforced there.
.....perhaps the judge was doing everyone a favor?

ALL PAPHS SPECIES are listed as CITES APPENDIX I, ARTIFICIALLY CULTIVATED PAPH SPECIES IN FLASK ARE NOT. The I got them in with CITES paperwork. These were seedlings that came in as Paph. barbigerum var. coccineum. If you check with RHS, Hybrids have already been made and registered. The point here is not about the legality of the plant but about the competency of the judges and the judging system here. If you feel that this is not a good enough of an example i have stated, then maybe this other example would be a lot more obvious. I send in a Masd. Hybrid to be judge and it was also rejected for the same reason.... Don't know enough to judge and also not our society's priority to learn about Masd because we don't see it that often.

 

[Pete]

ALL PAPHS SPECIES are listed as CITES APPENDIX I, ARTIFICIALLY CULTIVATED PAPH SPECIES IN FLASK ARE NOT.

the mother plant of these flasked seedlings must be CITES certified. if not, the flask exempt rule does not apply. if it did we would have hangianum, tranlienianum, etc here in abundance in the US as we could just buy any of the thousands of flasks available in Taiwan. Furthermore, this species is native to Vietnam which allows ZERO export of plants; further complicating the matter.

 

[AquaGem]

the mother plant of these flasked seedlings must be CITES certified. if not, the flask exempt rule does not apply. if it did we would have hangianum, tranlienianum, etc here in abundance in the US as we could just buy any of the thousands of flasks available in Taiwan. Furthermore, this species is native to Vietnam which allows ZERO export of plants; further complicating the matter.

I know that too.. haha... but that rule only applies to the USA but not anywhere else... phew... They ae now selling hangianum in Japan too.... and I mean legally.... :clap::clap:

 

[Pete]

they cannot sell hangianum legally. it has never been legally exported from Vietnam. They can allow it to be sold and not care about it or look the other way, but its not, legal.

unless of course they confiscated plants from somebody and gave them to a rescue center who then propagated them and released them with the proper documentation, assuming they have a process in place similar to that of the US.

 

[John M]

they cannot sell hangianum legally. it has never been legally exported from Vietnam. They can allow it to be sold and not care about it or look the other way, but its not, legal.

Pete; I'm afraid you're confusing CITES rules with domestic law in the USA. CITES is not a USA law, it is an international agreement among signatory countries. No one country has more authority to dictate the rules than any other. The issue of "legallity" that you are refering to is purely a domestic USA thing. Those laws are in addition to the CITES rules and they apply only in the USA because they are only USA laws. Whether or not someone in Singapore can import, grow and/or sell hangianum, has nothing to do with USA laws.

CITES rules exempt all Appendix I species in sterile flask, regardless about where the seeds came from or the status of the parent plants. The reason is because promoting the artificial propagation and disemination of rare plants is the best way to achieve conservation of wild plants and assist in the preservation of the species as a whole.....a goal of CITES. But, the USA thinks otherwise, contrary to most of the rest of the world and extra laws have been put on the USA law books to further restrict the rights of USA residents to acquire and own CITES listed plants. Unfortunately, a lot of USA residents complain about CITES; but, it's not CITES that is so restricting, it's the domestic USA laws.

In fact, recently, the USA has been pushing a proposal at CITES meetings that the USA-style "extra" laws be adopted by the convention and incorporated into the CITES rules, resulting in tighter restrictions on the movement of artificially propagated plants, thus, reducing the preservation of rare species through propagation and disemination goal of CITES. I'm quite sure that the whole world will be pissed off, big time, if the USA somehow managed to successfully lobby and push it's own agenda through by using political arm-twisting.

In Canada, I am free to own any Appendix I species that I like....and I do own and grow hangianum, helenae, etc. They come into Canada in flasks and are 100% perfectly legal in Canada. Canada follows CITES rules as they are written and the way they were intended to be interpreted. We do not add on a layer of extra restrictions, as the USA does. The CITES rules, as they are currently written, help to preserve wild plants by forbidding them from being exported for commercial purposes; but, seed collected from wild plants and grown in flask, is not only allowed by CITES rules, it's encouraged. CITES rules are written that way to encourage the production and disemination of artificially propagated rare species, which will in turn, cause the world-wide appetite for wild collected plants to lessen. Unfortunately, CITES does nothing to stop collection of wild plants for domestic consumption in the endemic countries. That's an area of law that must be addressed by each individual country. Some do and some don't bother.

 

[AquaGem]

Pete; I'm afraid you're confusing CITES rules with domestic law in the USA. CITES is not a USA law, it is an international agreement among signatory countries. No one country has more authority to dictate the rules than any other. The issue of "legallity" that you are refering to is purely a domestic USA thing. Those laws are in addition to the CITES rules and they apply only in the USA because they are only USA laws. Whether or not someone in Singapore can import, grow and/or sell hangianum, has nothing to do with USA laws.

CITES rules exempt all Appendix I species in sterile flask, regardless about where the seeds came from or the status of the parent plants. The reason is because promoting the artificial propagation and disemination of rare plants is the best way to achieve conservation of wild plants and assist in the preservation of the species as a whole.....a goal of CITES. But, the USA thinks otherwise, contrary to most of the rest of the world and extra laws have been put on the USA law books to further restrict the rights of USA residents to acquire and own CITES listed plants. Unfortunately, a lot of USA residents complain about CITES; but, it's not CITES that is so restricting, it's the domestic USA laws.

In fact, recently, the USA has been pushing a proposal at CITES meetings that the USA-style "extra" laws be adopted by the convention and incorporated into the CITES rules, resulting in tighter restrictions on the movement of artificially propagated plants, thus, reducing the preservation of rare species through propagation and disemination goal of CITES. I'm quite sure that the whole world will be pissed off, big time, if the USA somehow managed to successfully lobby and push it's own agenda through by using political arm-twisting.

In Canada, I am free to own any Appendix I species that I like....and I do own and grow hangianum, helenae, etc. They come into Canada in flasks and are 100% perfectly legal in Canada. Canada follows CITES rules as they are written and the way they were intended to be interpreted. We do not add on a layer of extra restrictions, as the USA does. The CITES rules, as they are currently written, help to preserve wild plants by forbidding them from being exported for commercial purposes; but, seed collected from wild plants and grown in flask, is not only allowed by CITES rules, it's encouraged. CITES rules are written that way to encourage the production and disemination of artificially propagated rare species, which will in turn, cause the world-wide appetite for wild collected plants to lessen. Unfortunately, CITES does nothing to stop collection of wild plants for domestic consumption in the endemic countries. That's an area of law that must be addressed by each individual country. Some do and some don't bother.

Thank you so much for clarifying. Taiwan is one of the largest country that artificially propagates orchid species. Many Paph. species seedlings can be bought there. :clap::clap:

 

[Pete]

it was and is my understanding that the flask exempt rule does not apply to any of the species described after the uplisting to Appendix I occurred, in 1989.
Furthermore, Vietnam does not legally export ANY CITES plants.

 

[Pete]

btw i certainly know how conservation works and the idea behind the CITES treaty. I study conservation biology along with botany and orchids and have been all for CITES to allow this to go on here in the US so as to lessen the pressure put on wild collected plants being introduced into the market place. and as far as i knew that each country ( a "party" ) in CITES, once they ratified their signed agreement with the treaty, into law, in their own country. they indeed must abide by the rules of the treaty. perhaps they dont and perhaps my understanding is skewed but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws, which in turn helps orchid conservation by letting the treaty do what it was intended to and encouraging artificial propagation of these plants, but my understanding has always been that there is zero allowed trade of any CITES appendix I species unless it came from a rescue center following a confiscation or the parent plants were CITES approved from the host-range country.

blah blah blah. lets end this thread already. CITES makes my head hurt. you have a nice plant AquaGem, im sure it will get the score you think it deserves in time, all that really matters is that you and your peers know how good it is. lots of politics (unfortunately) goes into judging, no matter the society.

 

[John M]

it was and is my understanding that the flask exempt rule does not apply to any of the species described after the uplisting to Appendix I occurred, in 1989.

That seems to be true in the USA because of hard-line domestic USA laws; but, they are not CITES rules. CITES wants everything propagated in flask and spread around the world, en-masse. The sooner this is done - the better, because then the presure on wild plants in-situ will be dramatically reduced and therefore, the wild plants will be saved....at least from over-collection for export purposes to foreign markets. The rules you refer to above, are USA laws and they do not apply in other solvereign countries, which is why so many people in other countries are allowed to have these plants and USA residents are not. It's the USA government that is restricting your rights to have these plants, not CITES rules. In countries where the CITES rules are followed; but, no other extra laws are also put in place, these plants are perfectly legal if they are imported in sterile media in flasks.

It's important to remember the difference between CITES rules and the laws of solvereign nations. In the case of the USA the two are like oil and water....they don't mix well. The USA feels that CITES does not go far enough in restricting people's rights to own these plants; so, the government created it's own laws that severely, further restrict the rights of it's people to have these plants. In other countries, where there are less, or no, additional restrictive laws, people enjoy more freedom to own and grow what they wish, without government watching over their shoulder. The terms legal and illegal mean different things, depending on where you are in the world.

Furthermore, Vietnam does not legally export ANY CITES plants. Again, you're mixing things up here. You're talking about "Vietnam" and "export(ing) CITES plants"; but the legal aspect of your sentence is from a USA viewpoint, when it should be from a Vietnamese viewpoint. Of course, other countries don't have to adhere to USA law; so, what the USA thinks doesn't matter to them. If Vietnam doesn't care to create an export permit issuing bureaucracy; then, the export of Vietnamese plants and flasks is not illegal, from a Vietnamese point of view, regardless of what the USA government thinks. What is legal here, with regard to the export of endemic plants, depends on the Vietnam definition of legal, not the USA's definition. If Vietnam doesn't want to bother with an export permit system, then, any plants/flasks that are exported from Vietnam are done so legally by virtue of it not being enacted in Vietnamese law that it is illegal.

Simply put, the USA has chosen to classify the new Vietnam Paph. species to be illegal in the USA, regardless of whether or not they were imported as seedlings in sterile flasks (something CITES encourages, regardless of the parentage source). The USA's viewpoint is: If it's not a government sanctioned export (demonstrated by Vietnam issuing an export permit), it's an illegal exportation and therefore, automatically can't possibly be a legal import into the USA. However, most countries don't use this hard-line definition. They follow the CITES intent that if it's in sterile media in flask, regardless of how it got there, it is by virtue of bing in a sterile flask, proven beyond any doubt, to be artificially propagated. .....And all artificial propagation and international movement of such flasks is encouraged to help fullfill the goals of CITES, by removing the incentive to collect wild plants and export them to markets around the world. This uncontrolled exporting of wild collected plants, could cause the total collapse of wild populations resulting in the extinction of wild plants; so, any action, including artificial propagation and export of flasked seedlings, is seen by CITES as a good thing that should always be encouraged and allowed to happen without restrictions.

..

EDIT: Pete, while I was formulating my response above, you were formulating your BTW addition; explaining that you do have a good working knowledge of the situation. I'm not beating a dead horse here; I just didn't get my post done before you added your addendum.

Yeah, let's leave this for now. I agree, we've hashed it enough and CITES makes my head hurt too! It just REALLY sucks that you guys in the USA don't get to have these things because of politics, ignorance and bureaucrats running amuck in Washington. It makes no bloody sense!

 

[AquaGem]

btw i certainly know how conservation works and the idea behind the CITES treaty. I study conservation biology along with botany and orchids and have been all for CITES to allow this to go on here in the US so as to lessen the pressure put on wild collected plants being introduced into the market place. and as far as i knew that each country ( a "party" ) in CITES, once they ratified their signed agreement with the treaty, into law, in their own country. they indeed must abide by the rules of the treaty. perhaps they dont and perhaps my understanding is skewed but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws, which in turn helps orchid conservation by letting the treaty do what it was intended to and encouraging artificial propagation of these plants, but my understanding has always been that there is zero allowed trade of any CITES appendix I species unless it came from a rescue center following a confiscation or the parent plants were CITES approved from the host-range country.

blah blah blah. lets end this thread already. CITES makes my head hurt. you have a nice plant AquaGem, im sure it will get the score you think it deserves in time, all that really matters is that you and your peers know how good it is. lots of politics (unfortunately) goes into judging, no matter the society.

I hope that one day, all the artificially propagated Paph species will be readily available to all and hopefully in the USA to. When there is cultivation, the chances of extinction and illegal trading will be minimize.

 

[John M]

".....but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws,....."

Sorry....just gotta comment to help clarify something......and then I'm done.

Unfortunately, I've heard numerous times of people asking US authorities (namely, USFW officials), about CITES rules and the big problem is that for the most part, the officials just don't "get" that CITES is not a USA law and/or, the USA laws are not made part of the CITES rules that all other countries must follow. These mistaken officials combine the USA laws with the CITES rules and give advice on that basis....making it appear to the person inquiring, that CITES rules contain all these extra and excessive restrictions, when it does not. It's just that the USFW officials are muddling the two and attributing the US restrictive laws to CITES, making it seem to USA residents that CITES is the culprit, when in fact, it's the ill-informed USFW officials that need more training because they are not giving out accurate or correct information.

As far as Japan, Canada and Singapore being lax with our laws: We're not really. We just don't have as many laws as the USA. We signed onto CITES and we follow CITES rules and that's enough for us. We don't have additional layers of restrictive laws, above and beyond CITES, like the USA. We feel CITES rules take care of the important concerns and anything more is just bureaucracy and politics, not conservation/preservation of endangered species.

 

[emydura]

Australia is no different to Japan, Canada or Singapore. There is nothing we can't grow as long as it was not illegally collected from the natural habitat.

David

 

[SlipperFan]

..
It just REALLY sucks that you guys in the USA don't get to have these things because of politics, ignorance and bureaucrats running amuck in Washington. It makes no bloody sense!

You certainly have that right, John! It drives me nuts.