# Chiu Hua Dancer "Abbie's Whiskers" Update



## Gcroz (Jul 9, 2010)

I thought some of you might find this interesting. As was predicted by members here, the recent HCC (78 pts.) was nullified by the AOS. The following is the AOS statement:

"According to the US Fish & Wildlife, these (note: referring to Paph gigantifolium) are not legally in cultivation anywhere - yes I know they are for sale here ... but there is a disconnect between USDA which clears plants and F&W which enforces CITES. Since no plants of gigantifolium can trace their history to legally obtained material none of their offspring can either. This then makes it impossible to clear them based on the CITES exemption for hybrids of paphiopedilum. Also, the JC voted (approved by the trustees) that we are no longer able to judge any of the post-ban species and their hybrids anywhere in the world unless it's the country of origin and they are collected legally or they have been released into the US by a rescue center."

As I stated before, I purchased the plant from Glen Decker and have the paperwork and am not dismayed at the nullification of the award. Personally, I feel that enforcement on the side of the government is flawed, arbitrary and capricious, and in some cases ignorant of the purposes of CITES. However, I applaud the AOS JC regarding judging "post-ban species and their hybrids" as it only seems fair to all of us in strict countries.

My fear is now FWS may know about my plant and come for me in the night.

Just thought you all might find this interesting.


----------



## smartie2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

"no longer able to judge any of the post-ban species and their hybrids anywhere in the world"

*gasp!*


----------



## Heather (Jul 9, 2010)

What really surprises me is that the judges who evaluated the plant in the first place didn't know this and/or awarded it anyway. I think they should have been more aware. JMHO.


----------



## Gcroz (Jul 9, 2010)

Heather, I think it it goes back to my comment about "arbitrary and capricious" decisions by the bureaucrats. I feel you can't fault the judges when there really is no way to have up to date info from FWS. From what I can tell, AOS has reached a fair decision which I support. 

Honestly, it would be nice to have an up to date list of "no-no" plants, but that would require effort from the powers that be.


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 9, 2010)

Heather said:


> What really surprises me is that the judges who evaluated the plant in the first place didn't know this and/or awarded it anyway. I think they should have been more aware. JMHO.



Most of these are caught before the awards are submitted to AOS by the show chair.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 9, 2010)

CITES enforcement sucks!


----------



## John M (Jul 9, 2010)

Eric, it's not CITES. It's US law. CITES actually encourages international movement of seedlings in sterile flask by NOT regulating them. CITES rules do *NOT* apply to flasks. Flasks are exempt from the jurisdiction of the CITES international agreement as a way to encourage artificial propagation and distribution of endangered species all around the world. 

However, your political representatives have done you a tremendous disservice by supporting foreign bureaucracy more than they support endangered species preservation or the freedoms of it's own citizens. If you want this to change, you need to start demanding that your elected officials put this right. For a country to label it's citizens "criminal" because they covet and dare to own a type of pretty flower that the state has banned, is eerily Orwellian.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 9, 2010)

Good words John..............Great plant George


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 9, 2010)

John M said:


> Eric, it's not CITES. It's US law. CITES actually encourages international movement of seedlings in sterile flask by NOT regulating them. CITES rules do *NOT* apply to flasks. Flasks are exempt from the jurisdiction of the CITES international agreement as a way to encourage artificial propagation and distribution of endangered species all around the world.
> 
> However, your political representatives have done you a tremendous disservice by supporting foreign bureaucracy more than they support endangered species preservation or the freedoms of it's own citizens. If you want this to change, you need to start demanding that your elected officials put this right. For a country to label it's citizens "criminal" because they covet and dare to own a type of pretty flower that the state has banned, is eerily Orwellian.



These rules have been in effect since the late 1980's so it comes down to interpretation of the law; as you know the U.S. is always right and wants everyone else to follow our rules. The AOS has tried to alter the approach along with others to no avail.


----------



## goldenrose (Jul 9, 2010)

Have clubs tried to approach political representatives or groups like ours? I can see them not feeling it has enough 'importance' to pursuit.
Regardless of it's status, I'd get one of these in a second!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 9, 2010)

That's a gorgeous flower, legal or not. Good thing to have papers.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jul 10, 2010)

Bloody gorgeous plant regardless.



Gcroz said:


> Personally, I feel that enforcement on the side of the government is flawed, arbitrary and capricious, and in some cases ignorant of the purposes of CITES.



Hear, hear!



John M said:


> Eric, it's not CITES. It's US law. CITES actually encourages international movement of seedlings in sterile flask by NOT regulating them. CITES rules do *NOT* apply to flasks. Flasks are exempt from the jurisdiction of the CITES international agreement as a way to encourage artificial propagation and distribution of endangered species all around the world.
> 
> However, your political representatives have done you a tremendous disservice by supporting foreign bureaucracy more than they support endangered species preservation or the freedoms of it's own citizens. If you want this to change, you need to start demanding that your elected officials put this right. For a country to label it's citizens "criminal" because they covet and dare to own a type of pretty flower that the state has banned, is eerily Orwellian.



Boy, you nailed that one John. CITES, as currently applied in the USA, is destined to help more orchids to go extinct. 



slippertalker said:


> as you know the U.S. is always right and wants everyone else to follow our rules.



Joy and happiness! Let's hope that attitude doesn't come back to haunt us...too much.


----------



## jewel (Jul 10, 2010)

i think its time for the laws to be updated as a lot has changed in the last 30 years


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 11, 2010)

The law that the US FWS uses is not CITES, they law that is US law that is being enforced is the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act was first enacted (I think on or about) 1929. It originally applied only to mammals and birds. It was the law that ended the capture and killing of showy egrets for their plumage for ladies hats. It has been ammended many times, just about every decade or so. This is the rule the jack booted storm troopers are using to harass orchid growers. 

Last time I checked, neither the AOS nor any of the local AOS judges were being paid as deputy FWS officers. I think the AOS should stop supporting government intrusion into our hobby. Especially since we are not getting paid for the effort. It is NOT our job to enforce the rule. If enough people ignore it, eventually the FWS service will have to give up, as they have with some of the Vietnam & Chinese species. There are only a couple individual plants of Paph armeniacum and micranthums that actually came in with paperwork. FWS gave up on enforcing Lacey on them because too many were already widely distributed through out the US. So spread a little anarchy, buy a plant without papers. If enough people ignore them, they will eventually have to go away. :evil: But the warning is, there is only safety in numbers, so the rest of you got to pitch in. Buy flasks of species that are legal with CITES and USDA and APHIS, but not with USFWS. :viking:

By the way, for any FWS agents reading this post, please recognize the elements of sarcasm and irony. I am not really advocating the breaking of US laws. I am advocating that unpaid organizations and hobbiest do not do your work for you. If you got a problem with that, then get the USDA and APHIS to agree with you and do the enforcing at the border. It is absolutely bogus that one agency will allow an import, yet another with arbitrarily declare that importation illegal. Especially when you confiscate plants that have been here for years. This whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" stuff is bogus.


----------



## John M (Jul 11, 2010)

Leo; seems to me that the anarchists are the USFWS. I don't get why the US population isn't absolutely livid and frothing at the mouth about your tax dollars being used in this way. Government isn't supposed to exist to serve itself; it's supposed to serve the citizens....and they get paid with YOUR money. I think you're all being royally ripped off.

It'd be nice if someone could think of a way to elevate this despicable infringment of your rights and freedoms issue up out of the gooey muck of the career bureaucratic world and into one of elected officials who have a vested interest in listening to reason......and who can make changes.


----------



## tenman (Jul 12, 2010)

They WERE legal, and then - oops! ten years later "oh, we've changed our mind - they're not legal!"

Idiots!


----------



## Gcroz (Apr 23, 2012)

UPDATE!!!!

The following are the texts of emails between me and Ron McHatton at the AOS and are a promising development:

_*Ron,

I own a Paph. Chiu Hua Dancer which I purchased in 2010 from Glen Decker. It received an HCC at the June judging session in Boylston Mass. and that award was nullified due to a blanket prohibition on awards to "controversial" species. I have the documentation from Glen Decker that my plant was legally imported. I'm curious as to whether I have any recourse to get the award re-instated. I will include the text sent by you to bob Winkley regarding this award at the bottom of this email.

I appreciate any help you may be able to provide.

Sincerely,

G. Croz
*_

Reply:

_*We have another one we are also working on. this has been a very complicated situation because the USF&W steadfastly insisted that the inclusion of these plants on Piping Rock's export permits was done in error and that when the permit reissued they'd be gone. Do you still have the award certificate? The record may have actually made it to the system and I'll check this week.

Ron*_

I will continue to post updates regarding the status of this plant's award. I will be getting a package together of the proper documents relating to this plant and sending them to AOS this week. Wish me luck!


----------



## NYEric (Apr 23, 2012)

Good Luck.


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 23, 2012)

The issue of Decker's Paph gigantifolium has been changed since last fall at the JC Meeting. As long as documentation can be provided that the parent was from his origin, the awards will be honored in the future. 

The primary worry from the AOS perspective is that while judging plants of questionable legality (or their hybrids), judges take temporary ownership of the plants and could be legally in jeopardy as a result. I personally disagree with that conjecture, but would not like to find out the hard way.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 23, 2012)

Did you see how many times gigantifolium and unknown hybrids were imported?


----------



## Gcroz (Apr 23, 2012)

slippertalker said:


> The issue of Decker's Paph gigantifolium has been changed since last fall at the JC Meeting. As long as documentation can be provided that the parent was from his origin, the awards will be honored in the future.
> 
> The primary worry from the AOS perspective is that while judging plants of questionable legality (or their hybrids), judges take temporary ownership of the plants and could be legally in jeopardy as a result. I personally disagree with that conjecture, but would not like to find out the hard way.



This must be an issue of State law since what constitutes possession from a legal standpoint can vary. I discussed this issue in the thread about Judging that I started. I'd be curious to discuss this with the lawyer who stated that was the case.

Also, it seems that AOS is going to work with those of us that have had his plants and our awards nullified. To me, on top of Orchids Magazine, makes membership 100% worthwhile!


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 24, 2012)

NYEric said:


> Did you see how many times gigantifolium and unknown hybrids were imported?



LOL, yes......I would prefer that all species and hybrids could be accepted for awards and if the plant police wanted to deal with the issue, the exhibitor would have to prove the legal origin. The pre-CITES I listing days were exciting times, now we are just sitting on the sidelines and lusting.


----------



## Potterychef (Apr 25, 2012)

Wow, what a mess, and no doubt clouded even more by the fact that I recieved my copy of Orchids magazine yesterday and they have in the article about FCC's of the year an FCC awarded p. Chui Hua Dancer?????? Doug


----------



## Gcroz (Apr 25, 2012)

This just in! Seems the award will be re-instated!:rollhappy:

Today's email from AOS:

_We will check the records and see if that file ever actually got into the old system. If it was nullified before it got to me it won't be there. If not we'll have the record. If the record already exists, we simply remove the nullified indicator and we'll send you an invoice. If the award record isn't in the old system, I'll put it in the new system and fill in the details. We will then send you an emailed invoice in the next billing cycle (I would think early in May). I will get back to you next week after I get back from the Wichita meeting.

Ron_

Now just need to bump it up to AM or FCC on it's second blooming...


----------



## NYEric (Apr 25, 2012)

That will be $50, please come again. oke:


----------



## Gcroz (Apr 25, 2012)

NYEric said:


> That will be $50, please come again. oke:



Seems like they should be paying me after 2 years of aggravation! But, I'm happy and $50 seems trivial to me when I get my first ever AOS award re-instated!


----------



## NYEric (Apr 25, 2012)

OK, congrats! Seems like a major victory when you think of the overall implications.


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 25, 2012)

True Doug and all, Thanh Nguyen in Florida received A FCC in 2011 for his Chiu Hua Dancer!


----------



## Potterychef (Apr 26, 2012)

Yep, and all the Chui Hua Dancers are from the same source!!! D


----------

