# Legal vs. Illegal



## SlipperKing (Sep 13, 2012)

Hot off my email press! Info passed on to me by my local Judging Chair


On Sept 11, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Julius Klehm wrote:
I received the following from Harry Gallis and I figure that it is worth the reading for all of us. I値l need help in this as each team usually checks the background of each orchid awarded. Therefore, you can check with the exhibitor after an award to see if it follows the correct protocol. When in doubt, leave it to me to handle. I知 copying some of our Paph growers with this e-mail so, hopefully, it does not catch anyone by surprise. I知 sure that I致e left someone out so please feel free to send this on to anyone else. Thanks, Julius

The following very useful information was provided to me by Ron b/c I find that I have trouble keeping track of what is what because we see these so infrequently. I have pasted this into my Blackberry for instant access. I suggest that each center post this information where awards entry is done. In addition, it is important that accurate research with regard to the breeding line be carried out by teams judging Paphs that could have these species in their background. This would preclude our having to nullify awards because they were inappropriately judged or documented. 

Paphiopedilum gigantifolium and its hybrids are simple - they are considered legal ONLY if they can be connected to a receipt from Piping Rock Orchids. Period.

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.

Paph. vietnamense and helenae - all are considered legal

Paph. wenshanense are considered legal because they entered the country during a period where they were considered to be x conco-bellatulum

ALL other Paph species described after 1990 are not in legal cultivation.

1. Cultivars of species released into cultivation by Hengduan Biotech (Holger Perner) from South China and hybrids between these species and other pre-ban species of Paphiopedilum may be AOS judged. To complete processing of the awards, exhibitors will be required to provide proof suitable to the AOS that such plants are traceable to legally released material. Such proof must include a copy of the CITES document issued to Hengduan Biotech under which the plants were entered into the country in which the exhibitor resides AND a copy of the receipt of sale transferring said plants from Hengduan Biotech to the exhibitor. If the exhibitor has purchased plants from third parties, a complete chain of receipts will be required in order to complete award processing. 

2. Cultivars of Paphiopedilum gigantifolium and hybrids between this species and other Paphiopedilum species and hybrids legally in cultivation may be AOS judged only if the cultivar can be traced directly to plants sold by Piping Rock Orchids. To complete processing of the award, the exhibitor will be required to furnish a copy of the receipt from Piping Rock indicating purchase of the plants and a copy of Piping Rock's EXPORT CITES list on which Paph. gigantifolium is listed. If plants were purchased from sources other than Piping Rock directly, for the award to be processed, a complete chain of sales receipts must be provided that trace the cultivar awarded from the exhibitor to a plant originally sold by Piping Rock. 

Copies of the above documentation should be forwarded to Ron to keep on file at AOS headquarters and a statement that documentation is on file should be included in the award description. Harry

Harry A. Gallis MD

19401 Mary Ardrey Circle

Cornelius, NC 28031


----------



## SlipperFan (Sep 13, 2012)

You beat me to it, Rick! I just got this email (from a different judging center) today!


----------



## aquacorps (Sep 13, 2012)

When did Helenae become legal?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 13, 2012)

Is this legal status based on fact from USDA or is it simply the "official" judging committee opinion?


----------



## NYEric (Sep 13, 2012)

This is crap.


----------



## kentuckiense (Sep 13, 2012)

aquacorps said:


> When did Helenae become legal?


When so many were imported that it became impossible and impractical to try to differentiate, I imagine. Same with vietnamense. And soon to be same with hangianum et al.


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 13, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Is this legal status based on fact from USDA or is it simply the "official" judging committee opinion?



I have the impression its an AOS "policy" with obviously no official rules,status or mandated stance laid down by a governing body.


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

I am not sure how this is supposed to work. When I bought my hangianum from hengduan the CITIES just listed everything they brought in, for example paph species 17 flasks, paph hybrid 20 flasks, paph hybrid 80 plants. It does not list what the species or crosses are. It says no hangianum hybrids are legal, but they could have brought alot of hangianum hybrids in under that cites. Makes no sense.


----------



## Justin (Sep 14, 2012)

curious what the stance on adductum var. antium is. i would think it is just considered adductum?


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

I have been wondering about anitum too. It should be legal because its a variety, same with jackii. But I have been asking vendors to order some and they won't do it. Also I have been trying to find if I can import them anit has gone nowhere. If Cites doesn't care about varieties then why can't we order them. Glens gigantifolium are legal but he is out of them, so I asked him if he is going to order more and he said it wasn't going to happen. Its ridiculous because Sams gigantifolium came from the same source as Glens. Glens just went to Germany first them imported to the USA. Alot of unanswered questions still and I don't know who to ask.


----------



## slippertalker (Sep 14, 2012)

Paph anitum is considered a variety of adductum, so it is ok.

These rules are based on USFWS "legality" decisions. Paph helenae was legal by being produced in a rescue center as was vietnamense.

I am trying to re-write the rule to accept all plants regardless of legality with the liability between the exhibitor and the government authorities. We will see how that is received......


----------



## Gcroz (Sep 14, 2012)

slippertalker said:


> I am trying to re-write the rule to accept all plants regardless of legality with the liability between the exhibitor and the government authorities. We will see how that is received......



Good luck with that! 

I think that AOS id performing a CYA service for itself, and I don't blame them. Plus, it is nice to know instead of exhibiting an "illegal" plant so that the plant police know where you are. Eventually, these plants will be legal here, just going to be a long time and many generations of breeding that foreign growers will have a leg up on.

I have a Paph. Chiu Hua Dancer from Glen and the award was nullified and is now being re-instated. Personally, it really doesn't take much to ask for documentation and to store it, digitally or on paper. That way you are "protected" since this is a situation where " Sh*t rolls up hill," if you have a no-no plant with the documents from the seller.

Here are my questions: what will USFWS do about the flasks of illegal plants that the OK'd into the country and were sold at the WOC in Miami? What is USFWS doing about the illegals that according to Roth's CITES database info were legally imported into the U.S.? What is AOS going to do about these?


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

Exactly, that CITES database shows many importations of gigantifolium that someone decided were okay to come into the country. Glen Decker didn't import all of them. He made one imporation, why are only his leagal?


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 14, 2012)

I have another listing emailed to me from Anita Aldrich at the same time I recieved this one. I will post it as well. The 2nd listing addresses many other species, paph anitum being one and called illegal! It should be treated as delenatii v. album and vinicolor are currently treated but apparently not.


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

That was another point I was going to bring up. The vendors I have tried to get to order anitum give me the talk about the parent plants have to be collected legally blah blah blah. But you can order as many delnatii var album or vinicolor as you want from whomever you want. They seem like they were all over the market recently after they were found. I may be wrong but haven't some of them been awarded?


----------



## NYEric (Sep 14, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> Good luck with that!
> 
> Here are my questions: what will USFWS do about the flasks of illegal plants that the OK'd into the country and were sold at the WOC in Miami? What is USFWS doing about the illegals that according to Roth's CITES database info were legally imported into the U.S.? What is AOS going to do about these?



LOL! Forget the flasks! What about the pile of hangianum juvies i saw sold with documents at WOC!?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 14, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> I am not sure how this is supposed to work. When I bought my hangianum from hengduan the CITIES just listed everything they brought in, for example paph species 17 flasks, paph hybrid 20 flasks, paph hybrid 80 plants. It does not list what the species or crosses are. It says no hangianum hybrids are legal, but they could have brought alot of hangianum hybrids in under that cites. Makes no sense.



Probably since the"in-vitro" plants are exempt from CITES there was no need to list the species. In fact there probably was no required CITES certificates for the flasks. Any species entering under CITES would have to have the species name listed.
There should be a Lacey Act document for the importation that lists the species.
So in reality the CITES certificates you mention do nothing to show legality of the plants you bought. What you would need is a document from the importer stating that the hangianum flasks you purchased were in fact part of that specific importation.


----------



## NYEric (Sep 14, 2012)

I still would like to know how a judge or organization reached such a conclusion. I re-checked the CITES trade database and, in fact, according to CITES, from 2001 to 2009, 14 cultures (flasks) and 56 live gigantifolium plants were imported into the USA. Additionally according to the USFWS hundreds of un-identified Paphiopedilum species were legally imported into the USA. Glen's plants may be in this quantity but I would be willing to bet not all of them went to Glen!


----------



## gonewild (Sep 14, 2012)

There is a catch to common sense.
Just because plants entered the USA with legal documents does not mean they originated from a legal source.
We now have to abide by the Lacey Act for all plants.

The Lacey Act comes into effect when a plant is commercialized or transported across a domestic or foreign border.
What really screws us up here is the Lacey Act makes it a criminal offense to commercialize or transport any plant that is associated with any violated law in any Country at any time. So technically Paph species from Vietnam could never be legal under the Lacey Act until Vietnam issued export permits and then only those plants exported after that date could be legal.
It is a bad law and a big mess and it is enforced by USFW.


----------



## nikv (Sep 14, 2012)

So what is the AOS gonna do ten years from now when Paph. gigantifolium has been propagated repeatedly and the seedlings sold? And then again twenty years from now? I don't see how this is sustainable.


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 14, 2012)

Here is this other list I spoke of; The second list makes absolutely no sense! Paph platyphyllum has been here forever! The clone 'Ruth Kennedy' has been selfed a number of times and the plants are growing the greenhouses of America. Helenae and vietnamense has already been cleared and what about lynniae, kalinae and tigrinum?

Paphs since 1990 (Cannot judge):
anitum
gigantifolium
hangianum
helenae
hiepii
jackii
kalinae
lynniae
ooii
platyphyllum
tigrinum (1990)
tranlienianum
vietnamense


By Section:
Paphiopedilum
helenae
tigrinum (1990) ???
tranlienianum

Parvisepalum
hangianum
hiepii
jackii
vietnamense

Cochlopetalum
kalinae

Polyantha
anitum
gigantifolium
lynniae
ooii


----------



## naoki (Sep 14, 2012)

AOS does have "interesting" policy as usual.

Isn't there quite a few more speices which were discovered since 1990? I'm not completely sure about whether they are recognized as species or not now, but for example, there are P. vejvarutianum, areeanum (syn. rhizomatosum), chaoi, sugiyamanum, dixlerianum, parnatanum etc.


----------



## slippertalker (Sep 14, 2012)

NYEric said:


> I still would like to know how a judge or organization reached such a conclusion. I re-checked the CITES trade database and, in fact, according to CITES, from 2001 to 2009, 14 cultures (flasks) and 56 live gigantifolium plants were imported into the USA. Additionally according to the USFWS hundreds of un-identified Paphiopedilum species were legally imported into the USA. Glen's plants may be in this quantity but I would be willing to bet not all of them went to Glen!



Glen's gigantifolium was imported from Germany with CITES paperwork from their authorities. It was legally done, but without documentation from the original country of origin. All of the other shipments cleared customs but according to USFWS the paperwork doesn't meet their criterion. It is a case of multiple government agencies not working together. Also USFWS is being selective as to their enforcement efforts much of it due to budget restrictions.

It is certainly a messy problem with peril for anyone involved. The AOS is basically trying to prevent any legal issues.


----------



## mormodes (Sep 14, 2012)

I wouldn't know what a real CITES certificate looks like. Never seen one.


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

slippertalker said:


> Glen's gigantifolium was imported from Germany with CITES paperwork from their authorities. It was legally done, but without documentation from the original country of origin. All of the other shipments cleared customs but according to USFWS the paperwork doesn't meet their criterion. It is a case of multiple government agencies not working together. Also USFWS is being selective as to their enforcement efforts much of it due to budget restrictions.
> 
> It is certainly a messy problem with peril for anyone involved. The AOS is basically trying to prevent any legal issues.



But of course gigantifolium is not native to germany so how are his legal.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 14, 2012)

mormodes said:


> I wouldn't know what a real CITES certificate looks like. Never seen one.



USFW inspectors have a CITES procedure manual they follow. In that manual are samples of each countries CITES certificates so they have them to compare to. If you are interested you can read the manual online.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 14, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> But of course gigantifolium is not native to germany so how are his legal.



Because the USFW CITES authority allowed it to pass at the time. Not likely to happen again.

The new problem is as I said, now with the Lacey Act. Even though the CITES inspector passed entry into the USA there could be an underlying problem in the "legality" of the progeny of the species. Offspring of illegally obtained species are illegal "forever"..... Everything is up to USFW and how they decide to enforce it. And that policy can change as fast as the weather.


----------



## Cheyenne (Sep 14, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Because the USFW CITES authority allowed it to pass at the time. Not likely to happen again.
> 
> The new problem is as I said, now with the Lacey Act. Even though the CITES inspector passed entry into the USA there could be an underlying problem in the "legality" of the progeny of the species. Offspring of illegally obtained species are illegal "forever"..... Everything is up to USFW and how they decide to enforce it. And that policy can change as fast as the weather.



Well all I can say is we heard today that gigantifolium from piping rock are legal, PERIOD. I have two gig from piping rock, and when they reach blooming size, which should not be that long. I am going to self them and sib them. I will get as many flasks as physically possible and send them to every person that will take them. That is all I can do on my end. I hope people get on board and do that with any of the other species, like the anitum that came in pre–cites as adductum.


----------



## Stone (Sep 14, 2012)

NYEric said:


> This is crap.



I would have said gobbledygook but yes crap will do:rollhappy:


----------



## Gcroz (Sep 14, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Because the USFW CITES authority allowed it to pass at the time. Not likely to happen again.
> 
> The new problem is as I said, now with the Lacey Act. Even though the CITES inspector passed entry into the USA there could be an underlying problem in the "legality" of the progeny of the species. Offspring of illegally obtained species are illegal "forever"..... Everything is up to USFW and how they decide to enforce it. And that policy can change as fast as the weather.



Man, this topic makes me hot under the collar! If the CITES inspector allowed the entry,the plant should be legal. Forget "illegal 'forever'" that is quite honestly not true. If the plants were allowed into the USA, for example the WOC hangianums, ownership is legal, but commerce in them is not (this is how it was explained to me). Legally, if you trade in the no-no species, you risk the punishments, and those that own "rescue centers" reap the benefits of your labor. It's a very tidy arrangement for the "rescue-centers" and the Government!

EDIT: Because I become agitated about this topic, please assume that anything I say that may be mean or rude is not directed at anyone on this board


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 15, 2012)

Technically, the only P. delanatii that are legal would be the ones from the original Lecoufle line. All the post-"rediscovery" delanatii's from vietnam should be illegal. but practically, that's impossible to enforce, given the large amount of delanatii plants already present before the new Vietnamese plants appeared. Same way, vietnamense and helenae should only be legal if they can be traced back to the progeny of the rescue plants propagated by Antec. But once something is legal, it becomes a mess tracing them all....so, essentially, those 2 species are legal. Both album and vinicolor (Dunkel) are named varieties of a legal species, delanatii, so, again, it's too much of a hassle to differentiate them. But anitum and jackii were originally claimed to be species in their own right, and named as such...(in fact, are still considered by some as separate species), so therefore they are illegal. The "variety" concept has been used as a cover...many years ago I saw plants of helenae sold as "barbigerum var. helenae", and rhizomatosum/areeanum/vejvarutianum sold as barbigerum, even though they are huge compared to a typical barb.


----------



## eggshells (Sep 15, 2012)

Are paph intaniae legal in the US?


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 15, 2012)

Not if they were named post 1990.


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 15, 2012)

The intaniae that just sold on ebay went for a pretty penny!


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 15, 2012)

AOS must be working off of this chart


----------



## Paul Mc (Sep 16, 2012)

WOW!!! This thread has made me extremely nervous. How are the regular folk supposed to know what is legal and what is not! I could only follow half of what was being said here, despite my love for Paph's. I checked every tag this morning, but since some are hybrids, the do not list all parentage. Hope I'm not a simple man that became a criminal overnight!


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Sep 16, 2012)

Paul Mc said:


> Hope I'm not a simple man that became a criminal overnight!



I wouldn't lose any sleep over it :rollhappy: If you are selling plants then you need to careful, but otherwise I don't think the slipper police will be knocking anytime soon.

Still, this whole thing really is a circus. By the time anything is sorted out, there could be untold thousands of plants in country anyway. And what contorted ways of handling plants that got in "by mistake" or are official because they have been processed through "rescue centers"! Wow...

Meanwhile, plants in the wild go on being collected. I know it is just kicking a dead horse to discuss this topic, but how frustrating can you get?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 16, 2012)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> I wouldn't lose any sleep over it :rollhappy: If you are selling plants then you need to careful, but otherwise I don't think the slipper police will be knocking anytime soon.
> 
> Still, this whole thing really is a circus. By the time anything is sorted out, there could be untold thousands of plants in country anyway. And what contorted ways of handling plants that got in "by mistake" or are official because they have been processed through "rescue centers"! Wow...
> 
> Meanwhile, plants in the wild go on being collected. I know it is just kicking a dead horse to discuss this topic, but how frustrating can you get?



The way the Lacey Act amendant (2008) was written plants produced by rescue centers are probably no longer legal to commercialize. (I said probably).


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Sep 16, 2012)

gonewild said:


> The way the Lacey Act amendant (2008) was written plants produced by rescue centers are probably no longer legal to commercialize. (I said probably).



Oh good, well, err, that clarifies things


----------



## cnycharles (Sep 16, 2012)

if things are muddy, then they can change their tune at any time depending on how or what they want to enforce


----------



## NYEric (Sep 16, 2012)

I was discussing the matter at judging this weekend and the deal is don't bring the plants for AOS judging now. Eventually either you will be able to download a copy of required paperwork off the internet or there will be so many of the plants around that no-one will be able to tell legal from not so legal, ala vietnamense and helenae!


----------



## SlipperFan (Sep 16, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> Well all I can say is we heard today that gigantifolium from piping rock are legal, PERIOD. I have two gig from piping rock, and when they reach blooming size, which should not be that long. I am going to self them and sib them. I will get as many flasks as physically possible and *send them to every person that will take them*. That is all I can do on my end. I hope people get on board and do that with any of the other species, like the anitum that came in pre–cites as adductum.


Please keep me in mind!


Gcroz said:


> Man, this topic makes me hot under the collar! If the CITES inspector allowed the entry,the plant should be legal. Forget "illegal 'forever'" that is quite honestly not true. If the plants were allowed into the USA, for example the WOC hangianums, ownership is legal, but commerce in them is not (this is how it was explained to me). Legally, if you trade in the no-no species, you risk the punishments, and those that own "rescue centers" reap the benefits of your labor. It's a very tidy arrangement for the "rescue-centers" and the Government!
> 
> EDIT: Because I become agitated about this topic, please assume that anything I say that may be mean or rude is not directed at anyone on this board


That goes for a lot of us! Maybe even all of us!


NYEric said:


> I was discussing the matter at judging this weekend and the deal is don't bring the plants for AOS judging now. Eventually either you will be able to download a copy of required paperwork off the internet* or there will be so many of the plants around that no-one will be able to tell legal from not so legal*, ala vietnamense and helenae!


I hope that happens sooner rather than later...


----------



## gonewild (Sep 16, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> if things are muddy, then they can change their tune at any time depending on how or what they want to enforce



Sadly that is the intent of the law.


----------



## Gcroz (Sep 18, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Sadly that is the intent of the law.



a law, if I remember the history correctly, that was established to protect egrets from the feather trade. Nice to see the "one size fits all" approach is still being applied.

BTW, has anyone heard anything about the proposed "de-criminalization" amendment to the Lacey Act? Is it still in committee, or did it utterly fail?

Citation: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h4171_ih.xml


----------



## mormodes (Sep 18, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> [snip]
> BTW, has anyone heard anything about the proposed "de-criminalization" amendment to the Lacey Act? Is it still in committee, or did it utterly fail?
> 
> Citation: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h4171_ih.xml



According to govtrak it's in committee

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4171


----------



## gonewild (Sep 18, 2012)

In July the amendment failed for lack of support and has been dropped. It failed for lack of support. Our leaders are fine with the law as they wrote it.


----------



## mormodes (Sep 18, 2012)

gonewild said:


> USFW inspectors have a CITES procedure manual they follow. In that manual are samples of each countries CITES certificates so they have them to compare to. If you are interested you can read the manual online.



I found a manual for checking fish health and a CITES manual for timber... *G* I'm sure its there somewhere but after trying various combinations for about a half an hour I figure its just too buried.


----------



## Gcroz (Sep 18, 2012)

gonewild said:


> In July the amendment failed for lack of support and has been dropped. It failed for lack of support. Our leaders are fine with the law as they wrote it.




*Sigh* Oh well. At least someone is trying to do something.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 18, 2012)

mormodes said:


> I found a manual for checking fish health and a CITES manual for timber... *G* I'm sure its there somewhere but after trying various combinations for about a half an hour I figure its just too buried.



Try this one, it seems to be a new version that I have not read, maybe it has some useful info.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/plants_for_planting.pdf

You can view the sample CITES certificates in the Timber manual, the actual paper documents are the same forms.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 18, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> *Sigh* Oh well. At least someone is trying to do something.



At least they were but not now. 

The pressure was (is) coming from the Music Industry. There is not enough support to get a change because the support in favor of the Lacey Act is huge from Conservation NGOs and the USA Timber Industry. The Lobbyists win as usual.


----------



## Gcroz (Sep 18, 2012)

gonewild said:


> At least they were but not now.
> 
> The pressure was (is) coming from the Music Industry. There is not enough support to get a change because the support in favor of the Lacey Act is huge from Conservation NGOs and the USA Timber Industry. The Lobbyists win as usual.




Yes! You are correct. "Was" is the operative word.


----------

