# Judging Legal and Illegal Plants



## SlipperFan (Jan 31, 2013)

This was in the latest Peoria OS newsletter:

UPDATE: Judging Legal and Illegal Plants
Paphiopedilum gigantifolium2 and its hybrids — they are considered legal ONLY if they can be connected to a receipt
from Piping Rock Orchids.
Paphiopedilum hangianum is simple — NO hybrids are legal and the only species plants that are legal were brought
into this country in July of last year. They were mature plants and could be flowering soon.
Paphiopedilum vietnamense and helenae — all are considered legal
Paphiopedilum wenshanense are considered legal because they entered the country during a period where they were
considered to be x Paph. conco-bellatulum


----------



## mrhappyrotter (Jan 31, 2013)

Interesting. I was actually wondering if there was a legal means for acquiring hangianum -- would love to get one some day. So, I guess that answers my question. Even if they aren't readily available in the U.S., it's only a matter of time now.


----------



## The Orchid Boy (Jan 31, 2013)

I was wondering about hangianum too. Thanks for the info Dot!


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 1, 2013)

Hengduan Mountain Biotech brings in legal hangianums. I have a seedling from a member who got a flask from them.


----------



## Linus_Cello (Feb 1, 2013)

Yup, Perner brought a bunch of Hang to last year's Paph Forum. But interesting that hybrid hangs are illegal.


----------



## mormodes (Feb 1, 2013)

This is on the AOS webpage on the left hand side under the image of the January issue of 'Orchids' in the section labelled FYI. 'Judging Illegal Paphs' I think there's a thread here on this already. Its been there for a few months.

AOS judges know this already and there's been some discussion amongst them, and since we are going into the show season its good for newsletters to let exhibitors and club members about this. Hence its on the AOS front page. We should tell our newsletter editors about it too.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 1, 2013)

Nonsense.


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 1, 2013)

Linus_Cello said:


> Yup, Perner brought a bunch of Hang to last year's Paph Forum. But interesting that hybrid hangs are illegal.



I think that is because no legal hangianum have been in the USA long enough to be blooming size. It's possible, if some of Hengduan's legal hangianums have bloomed in the USA, that there could be legal hybrids in/going to flask.


----------



## shadytrake (May 22, 2013)

I shared a hangianum flask that was brought in legally and not through Piping Rock. I can't remember where we got it but we have the paperwork.


----------



## tomkalina (May 22, 2013)

What Eric said........


----------



## Scott Ware (May 22, 2013)

This will probably be updated soon. Asendorfer was selling small _Paph. gigantifolium_ seedlings and one or two of its hybrids with legal paperwork at Redland last week.


----------



## NYEric (May 22, 2013)

It's still nonsense. I saw a hang hybrid awarded as something else a little while ago.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 22, 2013)

NYEric said:


> It's still nonsense. I saw a hang hybrid awarded as something else a little while ago.



Many of these (not personally awarded)!


----------



## littlefrog (May 23, 2013)

Anybody know the status of Phrag. braziliensis? I just realized mine was in bloom a couple days ago so I selfed it. I know it is rare enough that people have been selling it at $1000 (or at least asking that much, Alex was looking for $500).

Anyway, if I do get flasks I want to be able to sell them (for less, of course!).


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2013)

Our very own DrOrchid described it a few years ago. Maybe he can update us as to the current status.......


----------



## aquacorps (May 23, 2013)

This is another reason why I am not a AOS member. The plants are not illegal, only undocumented. The AOS has to get with the times. Offspring of undocumented aliens are legal, the same should hold true for plants.


----------



## slippertalker (May 23, 2013)

Good luck on explaining that the USFWS when they come knocking for your documentation.


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2013)

That's scary.........


----------



## NYEric (May 23, 2013)

aquacorps said:


> This is another reason why I am not a AOS member. The plants are not illegal, only undocumented. The AOS has to get with the times. Offspring of undocumented aliens are legal, the same should hold true for plants.



AOS does not determine if anything is legal, only that they will not judge undocumented species.


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2013)

Seems like the AOS should be more concerned with flower quality than political acceptability :evil: 

If a species or it's hybrids are considered legal anywhere among signatory nations, shouldn't it be judge-able in any signatory nation. Why shouldn't it be?


----------



## NYEric (May 24, 2013)

Did Vietnam ever legally release hangianum or vietnamense or..!?


----------



## tomkalina (May 24, 2013)

.....or delenatii?


----------



## NYEric (May 24, 2013)

The whole Yunnan province thing is annoying because plants were transported there from other countries (of course with no permits) and naturalized. Then CITES says they're legal. However, if I transport a plant without permits I'm breaking the laws!


----------



## Trithor (May 25, 2013)

Eric, I am unsure if you wish the plants were legal, or if you are glad they are not. I get a feeling of where everyone else stands on the issue from their posts, but you seem to be arguing from both sides?


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (May 25, 2013)

As I posted in the hangianum thread, there may be a false premise behind the plants "from Yunnan", but the consequences will be great for all of us. All you need is one clearly legal source of a paph, and the door is open. A year or 2 from now, all the species of paph currently legal from HG will be sold openly, regardless of source. And we know that good quality seed grown plants of these have been available clandestinely for some time.


----------



## Pete (May 28, 2013)

FYI that is incorrect.
first legal plants of hangianum, tranlienianum, were summer of 2011 actually! 2 years ago. I imported numerous plants *all with proper documentation* from Dr. Pernar at that time. Many plants are NBS-BS now.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 28, 2013)

You need to sell us some now Pete!


----------



## NYEric (May 28, 2013)

Trithor said:


> Eric, I am unsure if you wish the plants were legal, or if you are glad they are not. I get a feeling of where everyone else stands on the issue from their posts, but you seem to be arguing from both sides?


I wish they were all legal. I think the basis upon which those from one source being legal is preposterous and probably illegal on a monopoly basis. 


Pete said:


> FYI that is incorrect.
> first legal plants of hangianum, tranlienianum, were summer of 2011 actually! 2 years ago. I imported numerous plants *all with proper documentation* from Dr. Pernar at that time. Many plants are NBS-BS now.


What are you saying is incorrect? I know many people here who have had hang, tran, etc for years here and in a couple of years hybrids pf these will be shown and judged and no one will be able (or probably required) to show any receipts for the plant.


----------



## Pete (May 29, 2013)

hey eric, i was just saying that the dates originally stated by dot 



SlipperFan said:


> Paphiopedilum hangianum is simple — NO hybrids are legal and the only species plants that are legal were brought
> into this country in July of last year. They were mature plants and could be flowering soon.



were incorrect, as I imported my hangi's actually a full year earlier than stated. I hope that that is not truly what the AOS thinks is the case.


----------



## NYEric (May 29, 2013)

I think the AOS is following the BS that only hang plants imported from Perner are legal; while records show that for years MANY unidentified species legally imported from many sources with no issue. I don't believe in a few years anyone will be held responsible to have paperwork to have a plant judged or awarded.


----------



## gonewild (May 29, 2013)

NYEric said:


> I think the AOS is following the BS that only hang plants imported from Perner are legal; while records show that for years MANY unidentified species legally imported from many sources with no issue. I don't believe in a few years anyone will be held responsible to have paperwork to have a plant judged or awarded.




The problem is that CITES listed plants are not legal to import either unidentified or mis-identified.
Making a "mistake" importing CITES species is a crime in the USA.

How can a Paph species be imported as an unidentified species legally?
How can a USFW administrator make a decision that would legalize an illegally imported plant?

If you take a "suspect" species into public view be prepared to prove your innocence. If the AOS receives and illegal species into their possession (judging room) they could be considered as a participant in illegal species trafficing. If they award the plant they could be involved in a conspiracy to increase it's commercial value...... 

All depends on how much faith you have that the Government Agents always use common sense and compassion.

Remember now under the Lacey Act if you have any doubt about the legality of a plant's origin it is a crime to transport it across a State border.
It is not a crime to own the plant. But it is to transport it or use it for monetary gain, that includes gifting and trading.


----------



## NYEric (May 29, 2013)

The CITES documentation of import into the USA as noted was shown here. I believe the polices of the AOS show a pandering to the government instead of a real concern and movement to encourage our government to make a realistic effort to curb destruction of orchid habitats and to protect the financial interests of vendors here. 

BTW, how does showing a plant make it any possesion of the AOS? What is the monetary gain in a "gift"?


----------



## gonewild (May 29, 2013)

NYEric said:


> BTW, how does showing a plant make it any possesion of the AOS?



When you leave the plant at the show it is in the possession and custody of the "Show". If the show charges an entrance fee it is for people to see plants and thus the show used your plant for commercial use. If you take a plant to a judging Center and it goes into a room away from you the Judges are in possession. 



> What is the monetary gain in a "gift"?



If you gift the plant you have received the value of not having to buy another gift. so the gov sees that as a financial advantage to you.

If you trade the plant for another plant it has been used as a value exchange. Which means you did not expend money which is a value gain to you.

Any form of value gain or exchange is considered as commercial use in the eyes of the law.

It might even be considered as an illegal act to use the pollen of an illegal plant to make seedlings which you intend to sell for money.

The Lacey Act was carefully crafted to give the Prosecutors many advantages.  (we need a really pissed off smiley)


----------



## NYEric (May 30, 2013)

I'm not sweating it!


----------



## Trithor (May 31, 2013)

Wow, you Americans live a tough life!


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 31, 2013)

YES, it is frustrating. I either have the choices of paying an added expense for plants with paperwork, paying more for BS plants that are undocumented and unawardable or waiting it out while other growers get an edge on creating new hybrids. I see a loss in every account.

Most recently I purchased an anitum hybrid that was mislabeled, which is a common result along with the increased prices for plants CITIES determines are Appendix 1. The bottom line is, if I want the plant and believe I can grow it, I will buy it regardless; regardless of the ability to have it awarded ect. There is always the personal satisfaction of blooming the plants, the rest is secondary, but still important.

NYEric may be correct and that all of my efforts are in vain, because it will be unbelievably difficult to trace documented parent plants when new hybrids hit the US market. Is it realistic to think that the AOS will ask a presenter to provide third party documentation of a parent plant that they themselves did not cross. If the AOS does ask this and holds back awards, it will get listed with the other ridiculous rules.

Another example is tranlinianum. Many, if not all vendors say that their plants are 'legal', which may be so, but not awardable unless traced to Hengduan. The AOS is currently holding an award for this reason.

And another with Chi Hua Dancer and Piping Rock.

Will it ever 'just make sense?' Probably not. Until then, hopefully my plants remain labelled correctly.


----------



## slippertalker (May 31, 2013)

NYEric said:


> The CITES documentation of import into the USA as noted was shown here. I believe the polices of the AOS show a pandering to the government instead of a real concern and movement to encourage our government to make a realistic effort to curb destruction of orchid habitats and to protect the financial interests of vendors here.
> 
> BTW, how does showing a plant make it any possesion of the AOS? What is the monetary gain in a "gift"?



It isn't pandering of the AOS, but rather a need to protect the organization against liabilities created by these "illegal" plants. CITES was invented to protect animals and plants that are difficult to regenerate very quickly. Putting slipper orchids on the CITES I listing is more about politics than about real concern for the environment. The AOS plays a very small role in dealing with any of it, European groups especially the RHS is much closer to the issue. I don't buy the possession issue either, but the point is that the AOS is taking temporary possession of the plants while judging. If they don't own the plant, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## mormodes (May 31, 2013)

NYEric said:


> [snip]BTW, how does showing a plant make it any possesion of the AOS? [snip]



It doesn't. The AOS doesn't take possession of a plant brought in for an award. It accepts no responsibility for the plant at all. See section 5.4 of the handbook. As to exhibiting in a show you'd have to look at the individual society's show schedule for their rules on possession, which I'd imagine would be similar, no responsibility at all for anything anytime anywhere.


----------



## gonewild (May 31, 2013)

slippertalker said:


> I don't buy the possession issue either, but the point is that the AOS is taking temporary possession of the plants while judging. If they don't own the plant, it doesn't make sense.



You are right it does not make sense.


----------



## gonewild (May 31, 2013)

mormodes said:


> It doesn't. The AOS doesn't take possession of a plant brought in for an award. It accepts no responsibility for the plant at all. See section 5.4 of the handbook. As to exhibiting in a show you'd have to look at the individual society's show schedule for their rules on possession, which I'd imagine would be similar, no responsibility at all for anything anytime anywhere.



Do you think the USFW cares what the AOS policy says? Or a Societies rules about possession? 
The issue for the AOS is that they handle so many plants and the odds put them at risk. If an enforcement agent finds an illegal species on a show table and it is labeled correctly then someone knew what it was. If the agent wants to they simply arrest the person in charge of the area and let that person prove they are innocent. AOS legal advisers know better than to rely on the FEDs use of common sense.


----------



## Roy (May 31, 2013)

As far as I know, there are no bans/illegal plants listed in Australia. We can buy anything. I think they do need documentation that they are nursery raised plants ( easy enough to get) & flasks, no problems at all.
What the authorities need to realise is that if these 'illegal' plants are imported in flask, it's actually preserving the species. It may be lost to the wild like many orchids have been, nothing we can do about that, but by these plants being grown in cultivation, they won't be lost for ever.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 1, 2013)

Part of the Lacey Act.....

_As amended, the Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant taken in violation of any Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law that protects plants.
The Lacey Act also now makes it unlawful to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant covered by the Act. _

Note the word "receive".


----------



## Roy (Jun 1, 2013)

Great if it works, how can they tell if seedlings in a flask weren't produced from legally acquired plants & the paperwork supplied by a genuine registered nursery in the country of origin isn't correct & that nursery is allowed to export said plants/flasks. Dangerous to assume but I would think the nursery would have the authority number on the paperwork.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 1, 2013)

Roy said:


> Great if it works, how can they tell if seedlings in a flask weren't produced from legally acquired plants & the paperwork supplied by a genuine registered nursery in the country of origin isn't correct & that nursery is allowed to export said plants/flasks. Dangerous to assume but I would think the nursery would have the authority number on the paperwork.



Don't misunderstand, I'm not supporting the Lacey Act. 
I'm only pointing out why the AOS would have a policy to not accept certain suspect species for awards.

If someone is accused of a violation they must prove the plant is from a legal source. The legal costs of defense are enormous.

Just an example would be Paphs from Vietnam that were possibly smuggled into China and then exported as if they were native to China. If someone does genetic DNA research and concludes that the Chinese plants are in fact from Vietnam populations that would mean that someone violated a law to move the plants to China. Under the Lacey Act everyone that handles one of these species after the law was violated (forever) has violated the Lacey Act.

Ridiculous law but it was passed unanimously by USA congress and recently copied by the EU.


----------



## Roy (Jun 1, 2013)

Yep, crazy law. What would happen if flasks of seedlings (eg selfings/outcrosses) from Australian stock. We have plants here grown from flask direct from eg. Vietnam & China.


----------



## shadytrake (Jun 1, 2013)

So the hangianum crosses being sold at Redlands were illegal?


----------



## ZWUM (Jun 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> The problem is that CITES listed plants are not legal to import either unidentified or mis-identified.
> Making a "mistake" importing CITES species is a crime in the USA.
> 
> How can a Paph species be imported as an unidentified species legally?
> ...



When you say CITES plants are illegal to import, are you referring specifically to appendix 1 species? All orchids are listed, most being appendix 2, but that doesn't make them illegal to import. Even appendix 1 species can be imported. It's legal to do so as long as the country of origins CITES documents accompanying the the import have the appedix 1 plants contained listed on the docs. If importing CITES listed plant were illegal, what would be the purpose of issuing a permit to import them?


----------



## gonewild (Jun 1, 2013)

ZWUM said:


> When you say CITES plants are illegal to import, are you referring specifically to appendix 1 species? All orchids are listed, most being appendix 2, but that doesn't make them illegal to import. Even appendix 1 species can be imported. It's legal to do so as long as the country of origins CITES documents accompanying the the import have the appedix 1 plants contained listed on the docs. If importing CITES listed plant were illegal, what would be the purpose of issuing a permit to import them?



No I'm not saying CITES plants are illegal to import.
I'll try to clarify....
What I said was that if they are mis-labeled or unidentified they would be illegal to import.

CITES imports require exact and correct identification of species.
Since all orchids are listed on CITES it would not be legal to import an unidentified species.
If the species is mis-labeled it is a direct violation of CITES and now also the Lacey Act.

If you know that all orchids are listed on CITES and you include an unidentified species in the shipment youn are in violation of both CITES and Lacey.

There are no exceptions in the law that allow for honest mistakes.

CITES and Lacey are just laws and like other laws they are not always enforced to the letter of the law but they can be at any moment.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 1, 2013)

shadytrake said:


> So the hangianum crosses being sold at Redlands were illegal?



That is a good question.
Did they originate from Vietnam or China?
If they originate from Vietnam and have been Naturalized in China it could be argued that the species are in fact true Chinese plants and legal under CITES. 
But as a counter argument if the plants were moved from Vietnam to China for the purpose of Naturalizing them to circumvent CITES they may be legal under CITES but they would be illegal under Lacey.

The problem for orchid collectors is that under Lacey you are required to do "due diligence" to verify they species you are involved with are in fact from legal sources.
Since everyone knows there is controversy over the Vietnam species how can you be positive if they are legal or not? If you are not positive about the origin is it "due diligence" to purchase them?


----------



## gonewild (Jun 1, 2013)

Roy said:


> Yep, crazy law. What would happen if flasks of seedlings (eg selfings/outcrosses) from Australian stock. We have plants here grown from flask direct from eg. Vietnam & China.



The only way to know that answer will be to see the result of a criminal prosecution.
From China there is some form of defense to argue but if the parents are direct from Vietnam there is not much defense, is there?


----------



## Pete (Jun 2, 2013)

NYEric said:


> I think the AOS is following the BS that only hang plants imported from Perner are legal; while records show that for years MANY unidentified species legally imported from many sources with no issue. I don't believe in a few years anyone will be held responsible to have paperwork to have a plant judged or awarded.



my plants ARE from Perner. thats what i was saying.


----------



## shadytrake (Jun 2, 2013)

gonewild said:


> That is a good question.
> Did they originate from Vietnam or China?
> If they originate from Vietnam and have been Naturalized in China it could be argued that the species are in fact true Chinese plants and legal under CITES.
> But as a counter argument if the plants were moved from Vietnam to China for the purpose of Naturalizing them to circumvent CITES they may be legal under CITES but they would be illegal under Lacey.
> ...



I guess one would assume that the vendor brought them in legally, because a layperson would not know to do due diligence and ask for paperwork. I mean I knew that there was some controversy surrounding the species but I didn't know hybrid crosses were illegal without paperwork until reading this thread.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 2, 2013)

Pete said:


> my plants ARE from Perner. thats what i was saying.


Yes, I understood that. I just don't believe that technically they are any more legal than the same species or hybrids imported from Taiwan, or anywhere alse. Just a case of the Glorious People's Democratic Republic throwing its hefty financial clout around to circumvent laws.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 4, 2013)

shadytrake said:


> I guess one would assume that the vendor brought them in legally, because a layperson would not know to do due diligence and ask for paperwork. I mean I knew that there was some controversy surrounding the species but I didn't know hybrid crosses were illegal without paperwork until reading this thread.



You are 100% correct. But the New Lacey Act Amendment requires all persons including laypersons to do the due diligence.
Unfortunately it is not really possible (practical) for a layperson to comply with the law. And that is (probably) the underlying intent of the law, to make it impossible so you will give up and stop buying plants.

But some good news is that after 5 years of implementation the Lacey Act Amendment is failing and causing a lot of administrative problems for USFW.


----------

