Moving to main topic, U.S. National Sarracenia Collection
Moving to main topic, U.S. National Sarracenia Collection
Phillip J. Crane
"Sarracenia are rapidly disappearing from the wild. Currently, three of the ten species are listed as federally endangered and protected by federal law and state laws. In many states, the remaining species are also protected and considered threatened. In some states, populations of particular species are limited to single sites."
Then WHY are they disappearing. It seems the states don not enforce the laws or preservation quite well at all.
Nepenthes - hail to royalty
I don't believe it's all the state's fault there are only so many USFW Reps. that can be employed with in budget restraints.Short of putting up constantina wire and armed guards,they seem to be very limited to what they can do.This is where we come in. We are limited only by our dedication!
I always suspect everything is a trap....thats why I'm still alive
* * * * * * *
Times fun when you're having flys
If I can play devil's advocate:
While the goal of preserving Sarracenia is excellent, I'm not sure that a National Collection is the best way to do it. *
Large collections are expensive and vulnerable: *Funds run out. *Caretakers become sick or die. *Viruses spread among plants. *Storms can destroy plants. *Thieves or vandals can strike. *Greenhouses burn down or freeze. *
The record of ex-situ conservation is not good. *Look at the great Victorian collections of Nepenthes and orchids. *They were mostly gone in less than 100 years. The old clones that did survive were the ones that were widely distributed.
So, to maintain plants in cultivation, distribution is vital. *A seedbank and studbook would be much less expensive if it were not linked to a national collection. Does everyone carefully pollinate their plants and distribute them to the ICPS seedbank? *If so, the only innovation required is a studbook. *Participants could list their plants and contact information. *That would facilitate the trading of pollen and help preserve as much genetic diversity as possible. *There's no need for any one collection to contain all the varieties, but hopefully each variety would eventually be distributed to more than one grower. *Money that would have been spent on maintaining a national collection could be donated to organizations like the Nature Conservancy that purchase land.
In the long term, I suspect that attempting to maintain geographically pure plants in cultivation is doomed to failure. *The risk of virus from prologed cultivation and frequent vegetative division is high. *Just ask the orchid growers. *Ex-situ conservation should focus on growing from seed ,frequent outcrossing, and propagation of horticulturally interesting plants to alleviate pressure on the remaining wild populations.
Thanks for your post, but these issues have been addressed and are still being addressed. And the collection will be housed in one place, but the cultivation of their offspring will be all over the country by experienced and trained growers. I am not worried. We plan on getting out as much locale material we can to as many sources as possible. The problem of only one place was addressed long ago, and is a moot point. Still, a devil's advocate is valuable, and I will be looking further for your input. Thank you.
45 yrs. growin\'
Perhaps the issue of viruses (for example) in a national collection in one location has been addressed, although I haven't noticed it in this thread. *My general point is that a national collection is not the only way of preserving these plants, and the value of gathering all these plants into a single collection is not worth the cost/effort. *While distribution of plants from a central collection is fine, distributing seed and pollen without the central collection would work, too, and might be better in the long term. *All that is required is a good database.
A central collection might be a place for the public to see Sarracenias, but several collections scattered in different parts of the country would be better (And they already exist -- botanical gardens). *The 'evangelistic' value of a Sarracenia collection doesn't depend on it being an exhaustive collection of all the different localities. *All that is required is a nice display of several species.
So, if the central collection isn't required for the distribution and preservation of the plants, and if it isn't required for education and CP evangelism, then what is it required for? * Would cost and effort of maintaining the national collection draw attention away from habitat protection?
For an example of what can be done without a central collection check out The orchid seedbank Project (http://members.cox.net/ahicks51/osp/) and the Meyer's conservancy (http://www.troymeyers.com). *These two organizations help to preserve a huge number of orchid species, but they do it by taking advantage of smaller, pre-existing collections scattered all over the country.
I think it is a great idea and I would be happy to help in any way possibly just let me know what I can do.
This is something I've thought a lot about as well and why I suggested such a decentralized collection. See my post toward the bottom of this page:
for more on this.
Whatever way we choose will have to be the decision of whoever is involved, not one person. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what this is going to end up being, and most have valid points. Most likely we can work out a hybrid somewhere. However, individuals can do no more than suggest ideas until we get some kind of governing structure for this collection. Agreed? A goal and rationale we have - and Carl did a great job of outlining them. A specific plan has yet to be made. Could we elect or appoint a committe to form an official plan?
As acting President of this society, I would like to ask everyones input on our charter. This is our next step in this project getting off the ground. I am working with some great and knowledgable people in the community very closely. Now I want your ideas.
What do you think we should set for our 1 year goals? 3? 7?
What do you think our mission statement should say?
Any polocies that you think we should adopt? (besides the obvious legal ones)
Any other thoughts or ideas? Throw em out and lets discuss them. Thats what this Society is all about. Everyone has a voice to be heard.
I would also like to thank everyone for your support. Its amazing what has been acomplished in such a short time, but make no doubt about it, the hard part is yet to come. I feel we are a determined group and we shall prevail.
I have quoted it once, but it sticks in my head so much I feel I should quote it again.
"The only thing needed for evil to prevail, is for good men (people) to do nothing"
You have stood up and said "We will do something". Now it is time to act upon those words.
Feel free to contact me either by pm or e-mail at any time. I am here to serve.
I want everyone to know that I beleive, in year 1, having plants in the cultivation in the orginazion is not a nessessety if many essential tasks have not been completed, altough it would be great if they were.Originally Posted by [b
About the greenhouse where will it be placed, and how will we feed them? I have some suggestions, altough none without their drawbacks. Buying a prexisting greenouse would be cheaper than building one.
I think mybie a large opening in the sides or top of the greenhouse would alow insects to enter. It would also let pests in, tough. If there is a greenhouse, i think it should be in a place where these things grow naturally, thus to reduce cooling and heting costs. how will you keep them dormant? tempertures from where they are found would be sutible to overwinter them (it;s a little warmer in a greenhouse, so mayby a bit farther north?) A area with really clean tap water would also reduce costs, but, tap water chemestry is subject to changes. Also i suggest taking a close look at the ways commercial peopegators who mass produce plants solve the problems of sensetive plants with dormancy requierments, humidity, and pure water.
With these problems just remember
that makes no logic