As a plant collector I also have struggled with the problem of our
responsibility for the conservation and preservation of endangered species
with commercial value. I am inalterably opposed to practices that may
adversely effect the survival of species with very limited distributions in
habitat. Such practices almost always involve the removal of material other
than seeds, spores or cuttings. In some very rare species only the removal
of tissue for in vitro propagation is acceptable. In some cases, seeds may
be collected without affecting the long-term viability of populations. I
think that collectors may be able to provide an "ark" for some species
subject to habitat destruction but this is not a simple proposition. I
would support the "rescue" of plants from areas where development activity
will adversely affect their chance of survival if there were an effective
way to distinguish between plants collected in such situations and those
collected for purely commercial purposes. This is why the CITES treaty is
important. How can we distinguish between responsibly collected material
and material that should be left in place once it is on the market?
Collectors in "rich" countries are an important driving force for the
market. We are part of the demand side. I think everyone needs to consider
the question: If I buy this plant, will it create more demand for more
habitat collected plants?
In regard to the people responsible for the enforcement of laws
implementing the CITES treaty, keep in mind that they are just people. Some
are ideologues, some are very rational in their approach, some are just
putting in eight hours a day. Recall that their job is to enforce the law
no matter what their intrinsic characteristics may be. They are often
demonized.
IMHO trying to deal with such complex problems is hampered by concepts of
"right and wrong." There are only our actions and their subsequent effects.
A person with a gun may kill a few others, a person with an ideology may
kill millions. To be effective we must lay aside our personal points of
view and TRY to see the "realities."
Phil Bunch
On Friday, July 27, 2001 21:48, Betsy Feuerstein
[SMTP:ecuador@midsouth.rr.com] wrote:
> You know it is funny how what you say could mean either don't obtain that
which
> is being destroyed in situ or get it at all cost because it is going to
be gone
> in so few years. Think about that one and come to your own conclusions.
You
> just made an argument that could go both ways. Is there a right or wrong?
As a
> few have alluded to, this really is a power and control issue and really
has so
> very little relevance to the saving or destroying of habitats and
species.
> Perhaps when we see a bigger picture, like survival of ourselves, we will
look
> back and realize by saving what is, we by all rights, save ourselves, but
it
> just may be tooooo late. At that point fear of our own survival or that
of our
> offspring will take on a precedence that has true relevance to so many
that the
> power and control will be in the hands of those many who are in this day
and
> age ignored and not cared about. It may come down to saving ourselves
before we
> wake and see the bigger issue and let go of the old greed and control and
> callous nature of humanity and come to a respect of all that lives and
that is
> on this planet. Does that sound philosophical? WEll, at some point,
philosophy
> is likely to play out in reality and then where will we be? Each of us,
in our
> own ways, wants the same thing. Tolerance and caring and sharing and
helping
> and being there to assist each aspect in the chain, will potentially
enable the
> chain to function and survival to result. Weak links, of which there are
many
> now, make the outlook bleak. I, for one, hope that we wake up and start
working
> together to not save individual plants, but those all along the chain
from
> human, to animal, to plants so that it all will be there, to share. Is
that not
> what we all hope for?
>
> Phil Bunch wrote:
>
> > I think we need to keep the purpose of CITES in mind. It is only meant
to
> > regulate the international trade in some species, it is not a blanket
> > conservation measure. It is true that habitat destruction is the major
> > known cause of endangerment and probably extirpation. This however is
not
> > amenable control through treaties. CITES represents an effort to
control
> > one small part of a much greater problem. As collectors I think we have
a
> > responsibility to do our part, small though it may be.
> >
> > Phil Bunch
> >
> > On Friday, July 27, 2001 11:57, Regferns@aol.com
[SMTP:Regferns@aol.com]
> > wrote:
> > > We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on
the
> > side
> > > that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize
that
> > at
> > > one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the
same
> > > water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented
me
> > from
> > > voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an
education.
> > I
> > > like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and
> > order,
> > > but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That
said,
> > > this is what I have seen.
> > >
> > > The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have
never
> > > stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for
> > > yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests
or
> > even
> > > woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators
of
> > > CITES know best.
> > >
> > > As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance
is
> > > chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang
River
> > in
> > > Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and
> > looking
> > > at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm
> > groves is
> > > enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop
to
> > your
> > > knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from
other
> > > countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they
take
> > down a
> > > century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES
> > appendix
> > > 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake
in
> > the
> > > sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these
magnificent
> > > trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of
> > > protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on
the
> > > understory now vanishes.
> > >
> > > My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these
> > countries
> > > require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source.
There
> > are
> > > those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I
> > have
> > > always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly
recognize
> > the
> > > meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest.
> > >
> > > This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there
are
> > so
> > > many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will
lose.
> > > And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best
> > > intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And
it is
> > not
> > > due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of
Borneo is
> > now
> > > destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a
> > > biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the
area,
> > the
> > > loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I
> > visit.
> > >
> > > Reggie Whitehead
> > > South Miami, Florida
> > > << File: ATT00000.html >>
>
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
