# Arbitrary Rules



## Darin (Apr 14, 2011)

Look what came in to the judging center last weekend:





The thing that bugs me is that as a Judge in the US, I was not allowed to look at it because it is considered illegal. However, the same cross was awarded in Canada. Is not the plant still illegal there? The legality question stems from the fact that Vietnam claims that none of these have been "Legally" exported from Vietnam. Therefore, shouldn't all hangianum, except those in Vietnam, be considered illegal and therefore not eligible to be judged (at least under the same judging system)? It seems asinine that a judge should have different rules for plants simply because they are in different countries (both not native habitats for the species).

I'll end with: Orchid judges aren't law enforcement officials, we should not be tasked without due training, authority and charter to determine the legality of a plant presented for judging. If we are to be so tasked, it needs to be formally discussed, proposed, approved and formalized in the AOS Handbook on Judging and Exhibition and should therefore apply to all judges in a system anywhere they are judging under that system. In this case, the only place that hangianum or its hybrids should be able to be judged is Vietnam. Make some standards one way or the other.


End rant


----------



## SlipperFan (Apr 14, 2011)

It is all so stupid!

What a beautiful flower!


----------



## Heather (Apr 14, 2011)

Agreed.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Apr 14, 2011)

Ditto^^ 

What a fabulous cross. :drool:


----------



## Shiva (Apr 14, 2011)

Lovely! And I agree with you Darin.


----------



## Hera (Apr 14, 2011)

Gosh that's beautiful. Its too bad.


----------



## Rick (Apr 14, 2011)

Darin said:


> However, the same cross was awarded in Canada. Is not the plant still illegal there?



Apparently not in Canada and Europe. The problems with between Vietnam and USA seem to be more with USA than Vietnam and interpretations of CITES. (Basically the US is bent at Vietnam about the way it handles CITES. Vietnam could care less about where its plants end up.)



Darin said:


> It seems asinine that a judge should have different rules for plants simply because they are in different countries (both not native habitats for the species).


Orchid judging rules have nothing to do with the conservation status of plants. However, the AOS follows a charter that agrees to follow CITES regulations as part of the conservation mission of the AOS. The mission of the AOS is broader than just judging flowers, and theoretically the mission of an orchid judge is broader than simply judging flowers.


Darin said:


> I'll end with: Orchid judges aren't law enforcement officials, we should not be tasked without due training, authority and charter to determine the legality of a plant presented for judging. If we are to be so tasked, it needs to be formally discussed, proposed, approved and formalized in the AOS Handbook on Judging and Exhibition and should therefore apply to all judges in a system anywhere they are judging under that system. In this case, the only place that hangianum or its hybrids should be able to be judged is Vietnam. Make some standards one way or the other.
> End rant



None of the rest of us are law enforcement officials either, but doesn't make it legal for us to possess/trade said CITES banned plants, illicit drugs, or foreign child sex slaves. The plant was not confiscated or the owner turned in to CITES. So I don't see anything turning the AOS judge into an "enforcer", but they are protecting themselves from becoming complicit with an international trade violation by recognizing the plant in the judging system. When did it become the job of AOS judges to rewrite International trade regulations.


----------



## jtrmd (Apr 14, 2011)

*mmmmmm*

I've been wanting one of these for a long time.Hopefully I am still alive when they finally do become legal in the states.lol!


----------



## Darin (Apr 14, 2011)

Rick, 

Agree with you on many points. That being said, I stand by my statements that should the AOS judging system place a standard that all plants must be legal under CITES, then 

1) it should be so written in the handbook on Judging and Exhibition as those are the official rules for judges. If it is not formally in the rules, it will be implemented arbitrarily and differently at the various judging centers and functions throughout the world. 

2) How am I as a judge to determine the legality of a plant (E.g., Paph Ho Chi Minh)? And why at some point to we begin allowing things to be judged that may or may not be illegal (e.g.all the helenae crosses from In-charm???)

Arbitrary differences in judging based upon unclear, undocumented rules and standards leads to confusion and frustration. A simple revision of the Handbook bringing all judges under the most restrictive rules seen in the AOS home countries would remove that frustration. 

Additionally, when a hobbyist grower brings in a plant that is bigger, better form, better colour than an existing award but we tell him that we cant judge it because it is in the US. If he takes it 3 hours away from home to Canada he can have it judged and awarded. It shows a lack of consistency in our system and casts doubts as to what other inconsistencies may exist. 

(Kinda playing devil's advocate with this whole thing to get people talking and thinking)


----------



## Darin (Apr 14, 2011)

Warning... Smartass comments follow cause that is the mood I am in tonight. No offense meant, but I want to call out what I see as a valid argument to some of your points. This is to make people think about the situation and to have constructive discussion on possible solutions.



Rick said:


> Orchid judging rules have nothing to do with the conservation status of plants.



EXACTLY!!!! So conservation shouldn't play into the decision to judge a plant or not.





Rick said:


> However, the AOS follows a charter that agrees to follow CITES regulations as part of the conservation mission of the AOS.



That is fine and admirable. Then that should be across all AOS bodies using the interpretations held by the most restrictive country in which the AOS functions on a regular basis. ( in this case US interpretation should be used... If Canada suddenly lost all common sense and put some wacky interpretation out there then we would need to use the Canadian interpretation as it would be more restrictive.) Additionally, I would pose that it should be under the laws and regulations of the Government under which the organization is incorporated.



Rick said:


> but they are protecting themselves from becoming complicit with an international trade violation by recognizing the plant in the judging system.



If that is the case, then they should not award these plants in Canada either as awarding them there recognizes the plant in the judging system and under US law (the place in which the AOS is incorporated) the judging system may have become complicit.


----------



## tenman (Apr 14, 2011)

Rick said:


> Apparently not in Canada and Europe. The problems with between Vietnam and USA seem to be more with USA than Vietnam and interpretations of CITES. (Basically the US is bent at Vietnam about the way it handles CITES. Vietnam could care less about where its plants end up.)



Has nothing to do with Vietnam per se. Applies across the board. It's a head-up-the-bum interpretation leading to the exact opposite effect from the intention of the entire CITES idea.



Rick said:


> Orchid judging rules have nothing to do with the conservation status of plants. However, the AOS follows a charter that agrees to follow CITES regulations as part of the conservation mission of the AOS. The mission of the AOS is broader than just judging flowers, and theoretically the mission of an orchid judge is broader than simply judging flowers.




Yeah, they also follow a charter which devotes them to education, conservation and research - and we all know they haven't bothered with that in at least 2 or 3 decades, so why cherrypick an excuse from a meaningless charter?



Rick said:


> None of the rest of us are law enforcement officials either, but doesn't make it legal for us to possess/trade said CITES banned plants, illicit drugs, or foreign child sex slaves. The plant was not confiscated or the owner turned in to CITES. So I don't see anything turning the AOS judge into an "enforcer", but they are protecting themselves from becoming complicit with an international trade violation by recognizing the plant in the judging system. When did it become the job of AOS judges to rewrite International trade regulations.



Anb when did it become their job to take positions on and become enforcers of arbitrary *interpretations* of laws (interpretations that are doing no one, no plant, and no business any good - not while every other country in the world uses a different standard - admitting flasks no matter the provenance, thereby relieving some pressure on the habitat and collecting, surely the intention if not the stated purpose of CITES - but are in fact damaging the orchid businesses and growers)? Never. The slope is so slippery the only thing that is moral and justifiable is for orchid judges to do just that: judge orchid flowers presented to them. Leave the rest to whoever's business it is. If they want to do anything else, then the judges should be required to complete the normal course of eduction for law enforcement officials and then for CITES specialists. It's a matter of put up or shut up. And I think they should shut up and judge plants. We have enough jack-booted thugs whimsically enforcing laws and regulations haphazardly, inconsistently, and heavy-handedly enough already!


----------



## Kevin (Apr 14, 2011)

Good points, Darin. The AOS is the AOS, no matter which country the plant is being judged.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 14, 2011)

Darin said:


> I'll end with: Orchid judges aren't law enforcement officials, we should not be tasked without due training, authority and charter to determine the legality of a plant presented for judging. If we are to be so tasked, it needs to be formally discussed, proposed, approved and formalized in the AOS Handbook on Judging and Exhibition and should therefore apply to all judges in a system anywhere they are judging under that system. In this case, the only place that hangianum or its hybrids should be able to be judged is Vietnam. Make some standards one way or the other.



I was under the impression that this was already the case. Who then tells the AOS judges what they can and can't judge, if it's not in the manual? Do they just get a memo from the AOS saying that 'bye the way, don't judge anything that might be illegal'?


----------



## Marc (Apr 15, 2011)

I'm not an expert and I understand the point that the op is trying to make. But seeing that it is a hybrid we can assume that it is flask propagated. The parents might be propagated but there is no way to tell.

On the other hand if you would have goten a for instance a rotschildianum on your desk or even a simple insigne would you have had the same reservations? 

A species that is considered legal in any given country because it's pre cites or artificialy propagated from propagated parents can still be illegal by being a wild collected black market import.

So what would be the best way to handle this situation? I for one can't tell.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 15, 2011)

Darin,

I totally agree with you. Judges judge plants. We aren't law enforcement, we aren't politicians... We see nice plants, we award them. Done. At least that's the way it should be. When we refuse to look at a plant based on its protection status, we encourage folks to change names on tags etc, and create a black market. 

Another kicker is that folks that _touch _naughty plants can be taken down just like the owner. So, one can fight for the argument that education could be a _bad _thing because then we couldn't say "I didn't know I was not supposed to touch it". 

Another thing about education is that some judges don't really care. We here are all slipper enthusiasts. We know the traits the parents pass. People that don't grow Paphs might sit through a lecture on it, but won't suck up the info as if they were genuinely interested. I've seen a lot of Pleuros up in the midwest, but I still don't know one species from the next other than the common ones. Although I can probably get to genus if I really strained my brain. The Pleuro growers are like "what do you mean you can't tell?!"

To top it all off, I've been on several teams where a "Mem Larry Heuer" or "Sugar Suite" comes to the table and everyone ooos and ahhhs. And I go through the process of explaining why it is centimeters larger than the old awards, the sepals are wide and proud, the stami is flat and marbled. We end up in a discussion and a gorgeous flower gets passed out of fear or ignorance. However, at another judging table, the same hybrid gets awarded under a false name...

It's all a bunch of rubbish, especially for the hybrids.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 15, 2011)

Isn't hangianum found in China? I was at WOC in Florida and watched an AOS judge buy the entire lot of hangianum seedlings with Certification papers. This confusing legality issue is making it hard to give fair judgements because it's splitting the standard.


----------



## Rick (Apr 15, 2011)

NYEric said:


> Isn't hangianum found in China? I was at WOC in Florida and watched an AOS judge buy the entire lot of hangianum seedlings with Certification papers. This confusing legality issue is making it hard to give fair judgements because it's splitting the standard.



That's one of the issues with any conservation issue, that plants/animals/water...... could really give a rats ass about where humans put political borders. However given the lack of documentation of where plants originate, how do you know if you have a Vietnamese or Chinese hangianum? especially when hangianums from Vietnam are transported into China for sale in the local trade. In the case of the above judge, he's putting his trust in the certification papers presented that they are legitimate. If he keeps the plants to himself, then the odds are very good that there won't be an issue. If they become a big public money maker, then the legitimacy of the papers may get investigated with iffy outcomes. Similar to what happened to Sam with his gigantifolium. 

If the papers get investigated and deemed illegitimate at least the above judge could claim that he got the plants in good faith and deflect harsher penalties than just confiscation. But hopefully the papers are good, and aforementioned judge will flood the market with legal seed grown hangianums to the point where CITES is irrelevant.


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 15, 2011)

I have raised an issue with F&W about hangianum and am awaiting a response from the relevant experts in F&W whom the question was passed too. I has been verified as growing naturally in China (Yunnan) and seen there by a prominent Paph expert. I have heard as mentioned elsewhere on this site, hangianum may soon be legally sent in flask to the USA. I wont hold my breath. 

There are some on Vietnam profiting off this species being prohibited in the USA, but from what I can see, the reason its not allowed into the USA, is US interpretation of CITES and the Lacey Act

The whole this is insane. You can get hybrids of hangianum and other Vietnamese species worldwide, not to mention the species themselves. I hope you can judge them soon


----------



## Rick (Apr 15, 2011)

I'm not trying to support CITES, but just pointing out an old adage, that ignorance of a law, does not make you exempt from a law.

You can still get a speeding ticket if you are speeding and fail to see the speed limit sign.

As Ernie said if you touch a dirty plant you can get in trouble too. The AOS did not invent the CITES laws, but that doesn't make AOS judges (or any orchid grower) exempt from following the laws. 

Personally I wouldn't worry about the plant being judged in a more lenient country. Ultimately the market will get so flooded with these hybrids and species that enforcement will be impossible.


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 15, 2011)

Rick said:


> .
> Personally I wouldn't worry about the plant being judged in a more lenient country. Ultimately the market will get so flooded with these hybrids and species that enforcement will be impossible.



From what I see on other countries, it is flooded now.


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 15, 2011)

s1214215 said:


> I have raised an issue with F&W about hangianum and am awaiting a response from the relevant experts in F&W whom the question was passed too. I has been verified as growing naturally in China (Yunnan) and seen there by a prominent Paph expert. I have heard as mentioned elsewhere on this site, hangianum may soon be legally sent in flask to the USA. I wont hold my breath.
> 
> There are some on Vietnam profiting off this species being prohibited in the USA, but from what I can see, the reason its not allowed into the USA, is US interpretation of CITES and the Lacey Act
> 
> The whole this is insane. You can get hybrids of hangianum and other Vietnamese species worldwide, not to mention the species themselves. I hope you can judge them soon



I don't understand how anyone in Vietnam could be profiting from this species being prohibited in the US. At the moment the smugglers have a limited market when it comes to the US. 
Should hangianum become "legal" in the US all the plants that are already there will materialize and those people that don't want to wait for flask grown plants to mature will buy collected plants. 

So in summary I believe the smugglers in Vietnam would profit from the plants being considered "legal". Would a few plants smuggled into the US affect the wild population? I don't think so but the huge numbers going into China and other Asian countries will.

Regards, Mick


----------



## Braem (Apr 15, 2011)

Everytime I see that a hybrid is considered illegal, I get a fit. (I also get a fit when species from forest that are cut down at a rate of 1 footballfiled per second are considered illegal, but that is another story.)


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 15, 2011)

Braem said:


> Everytime I see that a hybrid is considered illegal, I get a fit. (I also get a fit when species from forest that are cut down at a rate of 1 footballfiled per second are considered illegal, but that is another story.)



I agree. Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to all species. Worldwide the orchid industry in its various forms is worth hundreds of millions of dollars yet very little money is put into conservation. 

Mick


----------



## Ernie (Apr 15, 2011)

Rick said:


> I'm not trying to support CITES, but just pointing out an old adage, that ignorance of a law, does not make you exempt from a law.
> 
> You can still get a speeding ticket if you are speeding and fail to see the speed limit sign.
> 
> ...



Agreed that ignorance is no defense! However, it does sometimes get sympathy. Ever been to traffic court? If you bother to show up, they usually reduce your fine/points. Just saying that some average judge would likely get sympathy from an "I dind't know" defense that a Paph 'expert' wouldn't.


----------



## Rick (Apr 15, 2011)

Ernie said:


> Agreed that ignorance is no defense! However, it does sometimes get sympathy. Ever been to traffic court? If you bother to show up, they usually reduce your fine/points. Just saying that some average judge would likely get sympathy from an "I dind't know" defense that a Paph 'expert' wouldn't.



Totally Ernie. Compared to just a few years ago the "speed limit" signs are falling all over the place and enforcement is greatly reduced. I predict in just a couple more years threads like these will be non starters.


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 15, 2011)

Just got a letter from F&W relevant to this. Posted here.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=279349#post279349

Brett


----------



## AquaGem (Apr 16, 2011)

Isn't it true for humans that if the illegal immigrants in the US give birth to a child in the US, even though they are illegal aliens, their child will be legal citizens? If so, the hybrids of hangianum should be considered legal.


----------



## paphreek (Apr 16, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> Isn't it true for humans that if the illegal immigrants in the US give birth to a child in the US, even though they are illegal aliens, their child will be legal citizens? If so, the hybrids of hangianum should be considered legal.



But only if they're "born" in the US. The few hangianum hybrids I've seen were "born" in Taiwan. oke:

That brings up the question: Does an orchid's life begin at pollination or germination? Should we now refer to seeds in a capsule as "ungerminated orchids"?

Back to topic: Darin I share your frustration, not so much at the rules being arbitrary, but at the lack of consistency. A few years back I had a Paph Ho Chi Minh pulled for judging, then rejected because I didn't have a "paper trail" leading to the original "legal" ones released by Antec. I had purchased it from another slippertalk member here in the U.S. Now, the same plant is deemed judgeable because of their general availabilty or whatever.


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 16, 2011)

I find it facinating that a plant can be confiscated, then given but some authority to a "rescue center". Who makes the decisions who is a rescue center? All seems a little dodgy about about who you know and what you know.

It also bemuses me that Vietnam wont allow the export of Paphs, yet they are collected for the medicinal trade which seems not to be affected.

I agree with you anyway Darin, its a frustrating and silly matter. The USA and Japan seem to be the few countries that are really in on this though. 

Brett


----------



## likespaphs (Apr 16, 2011)

s1214215 said:


> I find it facinating that a plant can be confiscated, then given but some authority to a "rescue center". Who makes the decisions who is a rescue center? ...




i believe the info is here:
http://www.usbg.gov/plant-collections/conservation/Plant-Rescue-Center-Program.cfm

the original plant cannot be sold/divided/given away, i think, *but* divisions, seedlings, any other type of propagated material can be


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 16, 2011)

I had a read. I will respond tomorrow. However, the word arbitrary comes to mind 

Probably needs a new thread so I dont hijack this one

Brett


----------



## Heather (Apr 16, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> the original plant cannot be sold/divided/given away, i think, *but* divisions, seedlings, any other type of propagated material can be



So, that begs the question, how do you get a legal division if the original plant cannot be divided?


----------



## cnycharles (Apr 16, 2011)

it's probably that seedlings or mericlones can be made but any part of the plant that was brought in can't be sold


----------



## Gcroz (Apr 17, 2011)

On the issue of judging, I submitted a Paph. Chiu Hua Dancer, the legality of which is still being determined (I have the properly issued US papers for it from the grower I purchased it from), for judging. It received a HCC and a few weeks later it was rescinded. Here is the text from the letter from AOS:

"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."

So, it would seem that this particular Paph. Liberty Taiwan will have it's award rescinded as well, if it was awarded, at least if AOS follows its own rules.


----------



## s1214215 (Apr 17, 2011)

I am glad I am moving back to Australia where we give two fingers to this beaurocratic BS. 

Brett


----------



## Wendy (Apr 17, 2011)

There was a Paph Liberty Taiwan pulled for judging at the Toronto show yesterday. I didn't stay to find out what happened but based on this thread I bet it didn't get anything. It was incredibly gorgeous so it's a shame that it can't be awarded.


----------



## Rick (Apr 20, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> it's probably that seedlings or mericlones can be made but any part of the plant that was brought in can't be sold




Another key word in the above is "sold".

CITES is a commerce ($$$$) regulator. The point is to take away the profit motive to discourage commercial trade in the species.

If an organism is very prolific (either by asexual or sexual means)in a "rescue center" then at some point free offspring will get moved around to qualifying parties.

When these other qualifying parties are overwhelmed by the reproductive contribution of the material they recieved, then the decision is usually made to start selling offspring into general trade.


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 20, 2011)

Just to clarify a point about AOS judging and these "illegal" species. There have been some awards to Paph hangianum hybrids in Canada and Taiwan by AOS judging. About a year ago, it was determined by the Judging Committee that the rules should be equally applied and that American legality issues would apply to any AOS judging whether offshore or not. Such plants CANNOT be judged until the legality issue is changed.

At the present time there is a listing of "illegal species" that AOS will not judge, nor their hybrids. This is more due to the narrow interpretation of the USFW regarding CITES and the possible ownership while judging such plants by the AOS judges. The last thing we need is government agents arresting judges for dealing with such plants. 

I personally think that all plants should be reviewable, and that eventually the heavy handed U.S. view of such plants will lessen. It's a shame that such species and hybrids can be legally grown and exhibited in the rest of the world and not in the land of the free and home of the brave.


----------



## mormodes (Apr 20, 2011)

If you want the relevant section in the Handbook its 5.5.2.1 (13)


----------



## Darin (Apr 20, 2011)

mormodes said:


> If you want the relevant section in the Handbook its 5.5.2.1 (13)



Thanks!!! I missed it the last time I went thru the handbook.


----------



## W. Beetus (Apr 20, 2011)

*drool* My absolute favorite hybrid. Stunning! 
Too bad that plant couldn't be judged... It is a spectacular example of the cross.


----------



## tenman (Apr 26, 2011)

Heather said:


> So, that begs the question, how do you get a legal division if the original plant cannot be divided?



The loophole that has been used is that any new growth once in a rescue center is considered 'art.prop' and CAN be used for breeding, asexual reproduction, etc. A ridiculous distinction given their stance on flasks.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Apr 26, 2011)

s1214215 said:


> I am glad I am moving back to Australia where we give two fingers to this beaurocratic BS.
> 
> Brett



Ah, just stay in Thailand Brett where nobody seems to care :rollhappy:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 26, 2011)

tenman said:


> The loophole that has been used is that any new growth once in a rescue center is considered 'art.prop' and CAN be used for breeding, asexual reproduction, etc. A ridiculous distinction given their stance on flasks.



It may be ridiculous but at least in this case it favors the introduction of rare species to the orchid hobby.


----------

