# Paph. gigantifolium & CITES



## goldenrose (Jul 18, 2009)

For those that subscribe to Orchid Digest, you've read this but for those that don't subcribe here goes:
_"For the last 9 years, slipper orchid growers were under the impression that Paph. gigantifolium could be legally grown in the USA. Now it appears that the Feds have decided that this is not the case, that the original plants imported with CITES had not been artificially propagated. They have reversed themseves & declared the original permits invalid. Thus those plants & their hybrids as well as additional plants of the species propagated from the original importation are all now "illegal". Plants have been confiscated from one important retailer. What to do if you bought & own some of these? The Feds have said that they will not go after amateur hobbyists, so if you have no intent to sell & breed with these plants & are a hobbyist there is probably no cause for alarm. At least for now!"_
I guess this shouldn't surprise us but this just blows my mind!
1. You mean to tell me that 9 years ago they couldn't tell the difference between jungle collected plants & artifically propagated? 
2. How can they be sure now?
3. How many of you would like go back 9 years & fix a screw up in this way? 

So what do you think?


----------



## Candace (Jul 18, 2009)

I read that Rose and thought what a fiasco. Once the genie is let out of the bottle, you can't go back 9 years later and try to shove it back in.


----------



## Rick (Jul 18, 2009)

I guess you are talking about Sam at Orchid Inn having his plants confiscated, and Sam sold many seedlings from his breeding.

Glenn Decker also had seedlings for sale, but I don't know if Glenn has had CITES issues with his plants.

So you bring up good points that there are now a lot of seed raised plants in collections that were (and should be) considered legal at time of purchase, that are questionable now.

Seems like the horses are out of the barn now.

Another question is what will happen to the confiscated plants, and how does this help conservation of the species?


----------



## John M (Jul 18, 2009)

This is extreme. It seems like a good case of more arrogant government stupidity. I really feel sorry for Sam. It wasn't that long ago that the concept of government telling people what kinds of flowers they were allowed to grow, was impossible to imagine. Yet, here we are......the flower police are alive and well and being paid with tax dollars. This is just crazy and it's about time that some good sense got knocked into the authorities to stop this madness. People like Sam have done more for the cause of conservation and preservation of species than any government agency!


----------



## Hera (Jul 18, 2009)

Makes you wonder who stood to benefit from such a stupid reversal. I'm always suspicious of glaringly mindless policy. Someone out there is reaping the benefit of someone elses loss.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 18, 2009)

I read that, also. I really don't know how it can possibly be enforced. Is there a "jury of peers" that would convict anyone???


----------



## Roth (Jul 18, 2009)

Some history here...

Jason Ong ordered from Au Yong, who passed away some weeks ago, some hudnreds sanderianum plants and some gigantifolium. At that time he choosed the plants from Au Yong nursery, obviously cultivated for some years and in pristine condition. 

Au Yong shipped then to him fresh jungle plants, as it was his habit - I know as I have been through that some years ago as well. But the importer has to recover his money, especially at 100-150USD/plant of sand, 300 plant make for 30.000USD...

Couple of months after, the plants were seized by the FWS on the basis that they were not artificially propagated, which was anyway obvious. Apparently at that time the FWS seized gigantifolium plants, but did not invalidate the gigantifolium CITES import permit, as they did for the sanderianum. Gigantifolium dyak warrior, to the best of my knowledge, has been seized at that time but the flasks were in the lab already, and pollen stored.

The gigantifolium plants occured as a trade between Au Yong and a Surabaya grower- in Indonesia, exchanging sands for gigantifolium. Gigantifolium being a post-CITES species, it was obvious that thoses plants were not legal, if we follow the regulations. Now, more interesting is that Au Yong got flasks too of thoses gigantifolium, with phyto from Indonesia. Yet Indonesia Governement denies that thoses could be legit, but claims that very, very mildly. It is just normal, there are so many jungle gigantifolium exported every year - as it is a very common and fast growing species - that it is a bit difficult to reclaim flasks from illegal seed pods, when there are cargo shipment of that species from the wild that leave Indonesia every few months...

Legally, the FWS is "correct" if they follow the regulations very strictly. I do not think that they are that bad in fact, but I am pretty sure that they are pushed by someone, and they have no other choice to act like that.

Why they bothered with artificially propagated flasks, even if the parents are of dubious origin? I will explain, having been a customs expert for some years...

IF you get a complain from the Indonesian governement, or from a professionnal grower that could not have gigantifolium and is jealous, or hobbyist that is pissed off, or conservationist, or from ET, with evidences that there is something illegal - that there is, indeed, for thoses gigantifolium. YOU MUST FOLLOW IT UP NO MATTER HOW DUMB IT IS.

Otherwise, it is the open door to many things, so the FWS must follow the rules. If they do not seize the gigantifolium, after someone proved that they are illegal, this someone could say that Sam tip the FWS officier at the worst, because he reported something illegal and they did not investigate blabla, or that someone can import hangianum, vietnamense, helenae, coccineum, the same way and say "yep, you say that they are illegal, but you did not care about the gigantifolium story I reported to you, so thoses multigrowth hangianum ARE legal, because I have a paper from the lab that made the sowing".

Technically, gigantifolium is nearly as impossible to legalize as hangianum anyway, because Indo does not issue export licences for paphs, and the flasks need a specific licence in Indo if they are paphs.

I do not think FWS is that bad, and it is very surprising that they are suddenly interested in gigantifolium. I am nearly sure, based on my experience, that someone pushed them to act. Otherwise, Sam already exported gigantifolium and its hybrids overseas with the proper CITES. 

FWS just got the proof that thoses plants are from an illegitimate parent, and they are forced to follow up now, no matter how dumb it is.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2009)

I wonder what happens if you are a hobbieist and plan on breeding w/ and distributing gigantifolium!?


----------



## Roth (Jul 19, 2009)

NYEric said:


> I wonder what happens if you are a hobbieist and plan on breeding w/ and distributing gigantifolium!?



If you plan on distributing gigantifolium, I think you would fall in the commercial grower category for FWS purposes... And anyway there must be a reason why Sam Tsui got a big problem suddenly. It has nothing to do with FWS being lazy or otherwise, it is absolutely related to a NEW event that happened some weeks or months ago, and forced the FWS to investigate. If it is a jealous competitor - who incidentally maybe has only legal and clean plants, and cannot access gigantifolium mature plants for his breeding, or otherwise- of course he will force FWS track anyone who offer for free or not such plants...

I remember that one famous professionnal grower in France would send a letter to the Customs every year to inform that I had several adult sanderianums and some hundreds stonei, blabla. I imported those with a CITES, so I did not care at all, nor the customs did. They knew me, but still I wanted them to check all of my permits to close this story. Otherwise there would have been unbelieveable rumors.

That grower was jealous because he could not afford to buy mature sanderianums from anyone, too expensive, that was the only reason. 

Few years before, when I presented him with some blooming size seedlings of the new delenatii strains, he went straight to the customs, jealous that I could have access to such plants... 

After that grower claimed that the customs in France were corrupt like hell. because I still had the plants. Of course they were LEGAL. Incidentally I still have a letter signed by this guy where he mentioned my plant collection and offered to store and grow the plants that could be seized from me... When I had the opportunity, he had after that quite a big problem, the worst I could do to him all at once :evil:

To sum it up, no one knows really the truth about why this happens with gigantifolium, but I am sure that it is a personal revenge or some competitors that want Sam down. 

FWS is not evil, the informant people who forced FWS to act are... If I was Sam, I would check every offer I turned down, every personal problems I had over the last 1 year let's say, and maybe he would find an explanation and the culprit name. FWS is just the tool, they did not decide anything by themselves...


----------



## goldenrose (Jul 19, 2009)

Thanks for the info Sanderianum, I can better understand it but 9 years is still 9 years!  and all of it's hybrids?  :crazy::crazy::crazy: 
All species have to be jungle collected, fresh jungle collected is obvious but once they are artifically propagated for 9 years, they're too late as far as I'm concerned! One just has to wonder if they're weeds in some countries do they need to be CITES protected?


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 19, 2009)

I had dinner with Sam the first of June (before the monthly meeting) and it is indeed a case of a competitor questioning the legallity of the plants. Sam did all he could to keep the plants (org. and seed grown) but they still took all. The plants went to a "rescue center" where they will become legal! What a rip!


----------



## Hera (Jul 19, 2009)

If they go to a rescue center, are they then sold off? Will his "competitor" buy up the stock?


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

Hera said:


> If they go to a rescue center, are they then sold off? Will his "competitor" buy up the stock?



"Sold" (other than recouping costs of some kind) from a rescue center I would think would be a hypocritical transfer of plants under the CITES no-commerce position.

That would leave CITES in a very difficult position to defend. 

More likely the plants would be quietly "dispersed" to neutral third party growers that have limited commercial activities.

Another possibility is that CITES may allow transfer to a another commercial entity that has a good track record of maintaining and breeding Paphs. ANTEC comes to mind for both P vietnamenis and P. helenae. Of which offspring of P. vietnamensis has been available to the public for a while now.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 19, 2009)

I believe Sam also mentioned that he applied to be a registered recure center but was turned down.


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> I believe Sam also mentioned that he applied to be a registered recure center but was turned down.



After or before confiscation of his gigantifolium?


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 19, 2009)

Rick said:


> After or before confiscation of his gigantifolium?


I believe before but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the pending visit by Dept of F&W. Meaning, around the same time period.


----------



## Heather (Jul 19, 2009)

How many rescue centers are there in the US?

Vietnamense was "rescued" by Antec, and, though they aren't as involved in breeding as they once were, I certainly would not call them a vendor with limited commercial interests.


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

Also aside from periodic internet auctions ANTEC has been running a relatively non-commercial enterprise for at least a few years now.


I do not intend in ANY way to insinuate that ANTEC has gone to this mode of operation to curry favor with CITES. Bob was upfront about his reasons to curtail the retail operation several years ago.

However, I believe that this is the type of institution that CITES would look upon more favorably than a general retail operation. 

I used to work in zoo herpetarium/aquarium facilities, and also saw allot of CITES issues work there way through the zoo system with fish/reptiles/amphibians. Usually the first choice for placement is "non for profit" institutions, followed by prominent cooperative dealers after the population became unmanageable at the zoo level.

What I have noticed in the orchid world (vs the zoo world) is the absence of a formal "Species Survival Plan (SSP)" system, where a group of institutions (Some of which could be private for-profits, and were all "recognized" and cooperative with CITES), controlled and transferred animals around under propagation agreements as kind of a "Noah's Ark" philosophy. In some cases as with Lake Victorian cichlid fishes, the population in "the Ark" became overpopulated, and release to the general aquarium trade was inevitable.

This system may be in place informally or secretly in the orchid world, and I'm just not aware of it. If it is in place informally then you end up with lots of suspicion and innuendo. When the system is in place you end up with jealousy and innuendo, but at least you know who has the plants at this point.


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

Heather said:


> How many rescue centers are there in the US?



I bet there is a public access list, but I don't think its been publicized enough for most people to know about it.

I believe the Atlanta Botanical Garden is also an orchid rescue center.

I have heard that being a "rescue center" is not much of an opportunity. Sometimes they have been overwhelmed with large confiscations of hybrid phals. rather than endangered species.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 19, 2009)

goldenrose said:


> For those that subscribe to Orchid Digest, you've read this



Unless you live outside the U.S. I haven't got the latest issue yet. Interesting article, though.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 19, 2009)

Rick said:


> I have heard that being a "rescue center" is not much of an opportunity. Sometimes they have been overwhelmed with large confiscations of hybrid phals. rather than endangered species.



I agree. As with what happened here, the 'rescue centre' is stuck with plants that they either don't have the time, facilities, or people to maintain. It might be a good idea if the 'rescue centre' could choose which plants they get to 'rescue', so there is a better chance of doing just that.


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Unless you live outside the U.S. I haven't got the latest issue yet. Interesting article, though.



I think Goldenrose posted the article in its entirety (it is only a paragraph), so you don't need the whole OD at this point.


----------



## Rick (Jul 19, 2009)

Kevin said:


> I agree. As with what happened here, the 'rescue centre' is stuck with plants that they either don't have the time, facilities, or people to maintain. It might be a good idea if the 'rescue centre' could choose which plants they get to 'rescue', so there is a better chance of doing just that.



That would be good, but unfortunately I think it would be impossible to get a contract that didn't include rescuing everything that got thrown your way.

Without a SSP type system "orchids are orchids" and institutions don't have much pick and choose over what they have to admit into their rescue programs.

At the very least they should be left with a better system to move the hybrid material out of their facilities faster.

I guess this leaves some catch 22's that are different from the zoo world.
With fish, frogs, and snakes there was no significant interest in hybridization compared to the orchid world, and subsequently no commercial interest in hybrid fish and frogs. However in the orchid world, there is definitely a commercial interest in hybrids. On the other hand, hybrids are definitely captive/seed produced and can be accomplished with neglibable impact on wild populations of "species". So I think it should be unnecessary for CITES to get all over the orchid biz over hybrids except that it points to sources of collected plants (evidence), and causes severe identity issues in the inspection of shipments.


----------



## Hera (Jul 19, 2009)

Well this has certainly been an interesting and educational conversation.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 19, 2009)

More CITES crap!


----------



## nikv (Jul 19, 2009)

I cannot believe that the FWS is basically saying that they made a mistake nine years ago and now they're reversing their decision. Too bad the military didn't do the same before invading Iraq. Now that would have been a decision that I could support.


----------



## practicallyostensible (Jul 19, 2009)

God, when will the BS end? Poor Sam.


----------



## goldenrose (Jul 19, 2009)

:clap::clap:yeah Nik!
There really ought to be a statue of limitations. 
Did they visit others holding permits or just Sam? (assuming there was a complaint they had to investigate.) Are there any awarded gigantifoliums? gig hybrids? Ahhhh another can of worms to open!


----------



## emydura (Jul 19, 2009)

The whole thing is just bizarre. Even stranger given nowhere else in the world has the same policy. The rest of the world has had easy access to gigantifoliums, helenae's etc for ages. What are the US authorities even trying to achieve? From a conservation standpoint it is pointless.

David


----------



## NYEric (Jul 20, 2009)

At the 2008 Orlando Slipper Symposium I asked if an organized effort was being made by the commercial slipper growers to contact and inform the government of the detrimental effects of the current policies but my question was shot-down! I guess it'll take a bunch of slippers being seized from all the major growers for something to be done! Oh I can see it now; "all besseae and her hybrids are illegal and must be confiscated!" :sob:


----------



## Elena (Jul 20, 2009)

What complete lunacy. I feel for Sam, how incredibly frustrating to be in a situation like that and suddenly lose years worth of work because someone else decided that they screwed up almost a decade ago. Urgh!


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jul 20, 2009)

goldenrose said:


> Are there any awarded gigantifoliums? gig hybrids? Ahhhh another can of worms to open!



Unless there is something very recent, looks like no AOS awards to gigantifolium or either of the registered hybrids, (x haynaldianum = Demmel's Spring Sensation), (x roth = Hung Sheng Eagle).


----------



## bench72 (Jul 20, 2009)

i'm sorry to hear about this development, and hope the effect isn't too detrimental to Sam's business.

is there anything that the orchid growing community do as far as changing the legislation or even the way it is executed? Would writing a letter to the elected representatives , maybe getting a petition going at least get this issue into the agenda? 

the implication are both environmentally and economically sound by 

a) allowing US nurseries to have access to these plants increasing their ability to compete in the greater world economy
b) allows the increase of the species by seed propagation

the changes need only be to allow lab propagated plants to be imported/exported without CITES docs e.g. if plants imported by flask that way it's definitely lab propagated.


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 23, 2009)

i'm a little late to the conversation but i believe that rescue centers can never sell the original plants they receive. if the plants die, oh well, they tried. they can sell divisions of the originals and seed grown offspring, i think.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 23, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> i'm a little late to the conversation but i believe that rescue centers can never sell the original plants they receive. if the plants die, oh well, they tried. they can sell divisions of the originals and seed grown offspring, i think.


If Bob (Antec) is a round he would know, since they where (are) one.


----------



## Rick (Jul 23, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> If Bob (Antec) is a round he would know, since they where (are) one.



They definitely have sold seedlings of vietnamense.

I thought I heard that helenae (or hybrids of) were in the pipeline too.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 24, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> i'm a little late to the conversation but i believe that rescue centers can never sell the original plants they receive. if the plants die, oh well, they tried. they can sell divisions of the originals and seed grown offspring, i think.


I believe this to be true. Also, the centers have a responsibility to return the original plants to their homeland. (yeah right!)


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 24, 2009)

the centers don't have a responsibility. i think that the first thing after the plants are discovered is that they are offered to be returned to the country of origin. if the country of origin doesn't want them, then they go to the rescue centers.


----------



## Kavanaru (Jul 24, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> the centers don't have a responsibility. i think that the first thing after the plants are discovered is that they are offered to be returned to the country of origin. if the country of origin doesn't want them, then they go to the rescue centers.



...and do they become suddenly legal (everybody tried to do their best to send them back and the homeland did not want them back - this legally would be like accepting they are legally expatriated!), or they just stay in the "twilight Zone" of burocracy?


----------



## Bob Wellenstein (Jul 24, 2009)

If people will be patient I'll explain the rescue center/propagation etc stuff in a day or so when I have a bit of time before it goes too far off track. In the meantime, if the plants of gigantifolium in question are from the importations a few years back for which a fellow in HI (I can't remember his name exactly but it was something like Neil Oyuoma) went to jail for, FWL declared the plants illegal and attempted to recover as many as possible at that time, this also included dozens or more of sanderianum. Leo, you told me the story regarding this and the person in question, and I understand your hesitance in coming forward, but maybe in the interest of less bashing of Uncle Sam and more proper understanding, you should tell the forum what you told me about this. Perhaps they flowered out the plant(s) they were given and got pretty pissed? At any rate, I do not have it first hand, perhaps Leo will tell the story. The "word on the street" rarely if ever contains the whole truth. I will stick to what I can explain which is the Plant Rescue System. I will add a little tease in that gigantifolium has been in the rescue system for several years now, and hangianum is also.


----------



## gore42 (Jul 24, 2009)

This is interesting because I spoke with Roddy Gable (Chief, Division of Scientific Authority U.S. Fish & Wildlife) about 3 years ago while trying to determine whether it would be legal to import Paph gigantifolium flasks from Taiwan. In doing so, I mentioned that the species was already being bred in the US. He said something like "Oh, you mean Sam's plants? We know the situation behind them and they're not really legal." He explained that since Sam thought that he had received them legally, that F&W weren't going to do anything about it. Clearly, they changed their minds. And he gave me some details about the history, most of which I've forgotten, so I won't try to repeat them here.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that Antec IS NOT a rescue center, but that they simply get access to seed or plants from a rescue center. When a rescue center gets rescue plants, they can't sell them... but they can sell the offsrping. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

As Ever
Matthew Gore


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 24, 2009)

from the fws website:
http://www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/prc.pdf


----------



## NYEric (Jul 24, 2009)

Line up all the FWS in front of a group of different paph seedlings and let the ones who can ID them live; all the rest...


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 24, 2009)

NYEric said:


> Line up all the FWS in front of a group of different paph seedlings and let the ones who can ID them live; all the rest...




hey now, play nice....
(i dunno that members of slippertalk would do any better unless we have to pick paphs from phals or somethin')


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 24, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> hey now, play nice....
> (i dunno that members of slippertalk would do any better unless we have to pick paphs from phals or somethin')



But we are not the supposed experts, and people's fates are not in our hands.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 27, 2009)

We don't do foolish things; because we don't have the authority and power to do them!


----------



## Rick (Jul 27, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> from the fws website:
> http://www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/prc.pdf



Well that confirms some of the assumptions / suppositions I was making.

Non for profit Institutions, and it looks like you agree to a whole shipment or nothing, and if the shipment is 100 hybrid phals then I guess you rescue them from Home Depotoke:oke:

I think Sam is in a better place for not having to deal with that. Maybe there is a segment of the plant rescue system that is more like the Zoo species survival plan that would be more appropriate.


----------



## Roth (Jul 28, 2009)

Back to the regulation matter, anyway, many paphs species are not "legal" per se but are accepted to be legal

The best example is rothschildianum. There are no legal origin plants anywhere....

Before Sheila Collenette collection, rothschildianum was extinct in culture, there are no evidences, no papers, nothing, that this species was alive before that. The last known recorded instance of a rothschildianum blooming was in 1936. 

The claims that Mt Millais is an 'old' roth is wrong. The best proof is that there are at least 3 sister plants, Mt Millais, Commander and... Collette that was a mistake for colleNEtte... And discussing with the former owner of colleNEtte, he confirmed that he got his plant at the beginning of the 60;s. So why Mt Millais and Commander story would be different?

In fact, someone asked me that dumb question, officially, about the legality, and why people would claim that some roths are from "last century"

Here is the reply.

The English, grateful that the local tribes of Sabah fought against the Japaneses, give them FULL CONTROL RIGHT on several huge areas, by a tribal law act. This happened at the beginning of the 50's. Therefore it was illegal to remove any plant from what we now know as the Kinabalu National park... I will find back that act someday, I got a paper copy, but once I found it as a PDF on internet...

Loong time after that, when CITES entered in force, the first legal roths ever exported by the Malaysia governement were in 1999... The legality can still be questioned, because Sabah apparently never agreed to have any collection of rothschildianum. The various roths collected and exported/propagated by botanical gardens do not appear in the CITES of export or import, but for sure they should all have been recorded. To say that some of thoses instances were maybe not that legal is an understatement...

Never before, and never, ever, from Sabah. No roths have been exported from Sabah legally apparently, as confirmed by a letter from the Sabah wildlife to me in 2001...

There is no trace of legal export from 1977 - start of CITES enforcement in Malaysia - until now from Sabah, for any purposes, whatever it means, and anyway, there has never been any permit to collect roths properly issued. It should be both from the Sabah Governement AND the tribal management authority, that's the law.

Maybe the English realized that, as they gave the benefit of all the wildlife in Sabah to the local tribes, hence most likely the claim of pre-Collenette, centuries old roths. I searched for many years for real ones, and so far I never found a claim that could be sustained...

That's why it is better sometimes not to open the pandora box. If the rules in the US keep being against tissue cultures seedlings from "illegal parents", there will be not that many species "legal". CITES might need to be changed to accept that maybe a couple illegal plants can make a lot of nice seedlings that will protect the species in the wild...

On another note, the sanderianum Deep Pockets and Jacob's Ladder were illegal, but the FWS at that time agreed Terry Root to keep thoses plants, that came from Azadehdel, and to propagate them, even if they were clearly illegal.


----------



## Rick (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm kind of confused by your post Sanderianum, but maybe for clarification I will ask your definition of "legal" with reference to when CITES placed slippers on CITES 1 status (which I thought was about 1986 or later).

So from a CITES outlook they don't appear to take jurisdiction about how anything got to the US before that time. So unless you are saying that most of the present day seedling grown paphs are "illegal" because none of the parent stock was imported before 1986 (if that is the date I remember) then I'm not sure if I understand your post at all. 

And I believe they do understand that a handful of collected plants can make a lot of nice seedlings. As in the present case of gigantifolium they (CITES) realizes that there are a bunch of seedlings from Sam's breeding that are loose in hobbiest cultivation now. I'm not aware that Sam has incurred any loss other than the confiscation of any gigantifolium he had on the premisses (including seedlings), and they presently do not seem to be interested in tracking down all the seedlings that were sold. This seems pretty lenient from what has been done to others in the past with illegal CITES plants in their collections.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 29, 2009)

I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric


----------



## Rick (Jul 29, 2009)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric



I was searching for the exact date too, and got 2 slightly different answers.
1) January 1, 1990, or
2) Before 1989 (without stating end or beginning of the year).

For those who picked up Koopowitz's book Tropical Slipper Orchids, he has a fairly detailed chapter on the how what and whens of the CITES embargo of slipper orchids. I googled "CITES I slipper orchids" and got a free peek of that chapter.


----------



## Roth (Jul 30, 2009)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric



At present time the issue in the US is for after 90's paphs, but nothing can prevent FWS, if they are not carefully teached and explained about the risks of what they are doing, to claim backwards that this or that species is, finally, illegal... I just give an example about rothschildianum, propagated in quantities worldwide as everyone knows, but that is definitely in a "shady" position regarding legality. Even I could not find any CITES related informations from Malaysia to England for Kew plants in the 80's...

Anyway the plants prior to 1990 and after 1977, coming from Malaysia, must have been exported as rothschildianum, appendix II as an example, if people really wanted to "enforce" the law. And I clearly demonstrate that it has been, at all time since the early 50's, considered to be a criminal act to collect rothschildianum, for one reason or the other. And before that, rothschildianum was lost in cultivation, completely. Therefore, rothschildianum could be deemed to be illegal worldwide if the people wanted to be "strict". Of course, it would be crazy to do this.

Some cases have been related to illegal import of paphs as Appendix II species, in Europe especially. And in the USA, they seized roths and sands in the 80's because they were illegally collected, even if some had App II permits, as Malaysia claimed they NEVER allowed anyone to collect roths and sands at any time. That's part of the history... If we follow the law strictly.

Back to Sam, the thing is that he has tried to propagate gigantifolium from a plant imported with a CITES - note that the exporter from Malaysia never got any problem after the FWS canceled thoses permits...

But if he was someone to be punished, gigantifolium is available all the time from Indo as wild plants, USD7/plant, minimum order of 100 plants, 4 days delay for the delivery, fresh from Sulawesii - The name of the supplier is Api, for thoses who do want to challenge my claim... 

Sam would not propagate something that is so easy to get as big plants if he did not want to do everything right...

That's where the USFWS is completely off target, there ARE collections such as that that enter US, I know it, because I met some Americans in Surabaya couple of years ago, and FWS never found them. 

If they really want to protect the species, it is better to target thoses plants, not the origin of breeding stock of tissue cultured plants...


----------



## tenman (Aug 10, 2009)

The chief problem is the refusal of the authorities to accept that conservation is promoted by the propagation and dispersal of seed-grown plants, including the importation of flasks, and that it is counter-productive to prohibit these activities rather than promote them. The US is the chief culprit in this as apparently all the folks involved from the top down are, in fact, self-important bureaucratic idiots.

Confiscating plants which were previously accepted as legal after nine years is itself a foolish and criminal act. Aside from being just outright stupid.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 10, 2009)

I've met and spoke at length with Roddy Gabel, Chief of the Division of Scientific Authority in the International Affairs Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on several occassions. He is a Paph grower. I know he is frustrated by the situation. Others may know more, maybe I've been snowed, but I think he is doing his best to get seed-raised plants of the naughty species in our hands within the limitations of CITES. Problem is that other countries interpret the Convention a lot looser to meet their economic needs. The biggest point of contention is that flasks are legal to trade *as long as the plantlets in the flask were created by legally-obtained parents*. US takes this verbatim, some countries disregard it, others are on the fence. 

-Ernie


----------



## swamprad (Aug 10, 2009)

We've all lamented the current state of affairs for so long, and it is so obviously wrong and counter-productive. I just wish I knew what we could do to change the status quo.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 10, 2009)

swamprad said:


> We've all lamented the current state of affairs for so long, and it is so obviously wrong and counter-productive. I just wish I knew what we could do to change the status quo.



Well, ya see, this could be a catch 22. If the US fusses because we follow the rules, it would blow if the rest of the world suddenly fell in line. Then no one would have them. 

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (Aug 10, 2009)

Road trip!


----------



## bench72 (Aug 11, 2009)

> If the US fusses because we follow the rules, it would blow if the rest of the world suddenly fell in line. Then no one would have them.




yeah... get George W to call all the countries that allow lab propagated orchids as an axis of evil!


----------



## Kavanaru (Aug 11, 2009)

Ernie said:


> *as long as the plantlets in the flask were created by legally-obtained parents*.



maybe not misunderstanding but having it written different!? oke:

I am not sure whether the CITES states the sentence above in the USA, but the copy of CITES I have here does not state anything about flask fromlegally-obtained parents... it is written: "(For all of the following Appendix-I species, seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the Convention)" 

in another section is also clearly stated: "4. Specimens of an animal species included in Appendix I bred in captivity for commercial purposes, or of a plant species included in Appendix I artificially propagated for commercial purposes, shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II."

so, I think is not the rest of the countries misunderstanding the law, but USA applying it even stronger than what it is, as already mentioned before in this forum...

This would then allowed flask from seeds collected in the wild without collecting the plants, which makes sense if the idea is to protect the natural populations, and suppporting legal trade and artificial propagation... IMO


----------



## SlipperKing (Aug 11, 2009)

Ramon,
The copy I read from the net states the same as you have pointed out. I just didn't know whether there was more added onto the statments you mention at a later date. Resticting artifically propagated plants more by have legal parent plants. I believe some cry baby complained that the propagated plants were available too quickly to of come from legal plants and they had to of harvested wild seed capsules inorder to get them to market so fast. SO WHAT! One season of wild collected seed capsules would of done the samething, pressure off of the wild population. Right?


----------



## Ernie (Aug 11, 2009)

Ramon,

Fair enough. I guess I used *...* on purpose (not "..."). That is apparently how the US interprets the Convention then. 

-Ernie


----------



## fcabarle (Aug 21, 2009)

I would expect that the American Orchid Society would take an agressive stand and pursue their stated goal "Support the preservation and perpetuation of orchid species.". They appear to be silent !! Obviously there is something wrong with CITES as currently written/enforced and the AOS has a wonderful opportunity to use their resources to correct the situation. There are many, many growers in the USA capable of producing plants from seed so why not get this seed into the USA instead of giving the advantage to Taiwan, China and Europe. They get both the plants and seed at the cost of raping the jungles when all we really need is the seed and an equitable distribution system for the flasks/seedlings. We (the AOS and the CITES) say we want to conserve but the actions result in destruction. Come on AOS, wake up and help out the orchid community; fulfill your stated purpose !!


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 21, 2009)

Of course the AOS has been lobbying regarding this situation....Many paph and phrag growers are part of the AOS including commercial growers that have great influence. The problem is the original placement of these plants as CITES I with whales, gorillas, etc and inconsistent interpretation of the regulations by the member nations and non-members such as Taiwan simply ignoring the regulations.

American orchid growers are at the mercy of the bureaucrats that determine legality. If they are strict, they are just following the rule of law as preferred by our conservative judiciary. Don't blame the AOS.......


----------



## NYEric (Aug 21, 2009)

I can't blame the AOS but certainly I would expect to see some kind of organized effort to revise or clarify the interpretation after all these years!


----------



## Scooby5757 (Aug 21, 2009)

OK, so in a elevator speech (45-60 seconds) to president Obama, what would be the bullet points that need to be driven home to at least peak some interest that would allow for possible further discussion?


----------



## Clark (Aug 21, 2009)

You'll never get past Pelosi.


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 21, 2009)

This isn't exactly a priority for politicians these days.


----------



## SlipperKing (Aug 21, 2009)

Awh Bill, You didn't have to be so hard on the guy! LOL


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 21, 2009)

Clark Edward said:


> You'll never get past Pelosi.



As if Pelosi is the problem!


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 21, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> Awh Bill, You didn't have to be so hard on the guy! LOL



Hey I got more than that!


----------



## Clark (Aug 22, 2009)

SlipperFan said:


> As if Pelosi is the problem!



If its not good for Nancy, it won't be good for Barry.
Stretch-face is running the show.
The show is called- How to Stay in Power.

No problem for orchid lovers, just not enough votes.


----------



## NYEric (Aug 22, 2009)

My bullet points would be:
. There is some room for interpretation of the CITES
. As it is being enforced orchid growers in the USA are being denied access to conservation and financial materials that are available to other nations.
. Someone in the government should meet with orchid expert in this country to see how the situation can be improved.


----------



## Rick (Aug 22, 2009)

NYEric said:


> I can't blame the AOS but certainly I would expect to see some kind of organized effort to revise or clarify the interpretation after all these years!



The AOS is broke and can barely keep the magazine going let alone lobby the US Government.

I used to fly high power rockets. The BATF massively increased regs on the hobby about 20 some odd years ago. Which is one of the reasons I got out. Anyway I was just dinking around on the web a couple of weeks ago and found out the hobby rocket versions of the AOS (Tripoli Rocket Association and National Association of Rocketry) had just this past few months won their case against the BATF. I can't remember how many hundreds of thousands of $ expended and a 20 year battle. During that time I also contributed to special fundraisers for the legal/lobbying battle, and a significant portion of membership dues was diverted to this issue.

So I wouldn't expect AOS to be able to put up much of a front against CITES without eliciting a major membership support campaign. Part of this I think will need to demonstrate much better membership support of the AOS sponsored in situ conservation programs. The parallel to this in the rocket hobby was the training, certification, and safety program put together by TRA. Basically if you wanted to fly a high power rocket you had the equivalence of passing a drivers license test, which included proficiency exams for construction of rockets.

This is where the Species Survival Plan system for zoos comes in with CITES. Basically licensed growers who have demonstrated proficiency get the specimens and breed the crap out of them until they become commodity items.


----------



## noel (Aug 22, 2009)

wow,you mention indonesia,surabaya,thats where i live
BTW,which surabaya grower?
trade for sand?
weird...
i have gigantifolium in my home in surabaya indonesia,and it's true that indonesian people can get it without dealing with serious problem,and the problem was it's rarity in the market...
but that's true,sometimes indo goverment are a bit stupid and selfish
but dont worry,although i'm indonesian,i'm on your side,hehehehehe...


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 23, 2009)

The CITES issues seem to be purely administrative issues at the USFW. I think what will eventually happen is that as more and more flasks of "forbidden" species become more and more available, along with uncounted hybrids that are indistinguishable from legal hybrids, the USFW will gradually relax their prohibitions on plants that are confirmed seedlings. I think that they will do this quietly and gradually. What will most likely motivate them will not be the demands of growers and hobbyists but the reality of dollars and cents..it won't be worth putting the resources into pursuing what is regarded as legal elsewhere in the world...and its hard to justify the cost of the legal efforts for plants that are clearly not a threat to wild populations. The AOS will probably be of no importance in changing the attitude of USFW...as mentioned, the AOS has too many financial problems of its own, and desperately wants more members...most of the AOS membership is into phals and cattleyas, and really don't consider CITES a high priority. The AOS wants new members more than anything, and does not want to distract or bore the potential recruits with arguments over obscure plants that most of these people would find ugly aanyway....Take care, Eric


----------



## Roth (Aug 23, 2009)

noel said:


> wow,you mention indonesia,surabaya,thats where i live
> BTW,which surabaya grower?
> trade for sand?
> weird...
> ...



Henry Foresta traded with Au Yong... 

In Indo the problem is not that it is rare, the problem is that Api or Slamet want to make big bucks and only care to get a batck if you order more than 200...


----------

