What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poachers

  • #21
[b said:
Quote[/b] (0zzy @ Oct. 12 2004,10:28)]When I said local it was meant to be a relative term. There are well documented locations near the NC/GA state line. Asheville is about 50 miles north east from the documented locations. I can't say that these location are the ones that the ranger was telling me about. I didn't ask. I don't know very much about oreo locations but I don't know any locations that are east of Asheville.
Ozzy,

I do not know if it is the same location but I do know that a GA oreo site was stripped bare a few years back. I also know who was responsible for the poaching and how they learned of the site. I am not going to name names but I can say that the site location was "leaked" by someone who plays a big part in the community and who probably should have known better. It just adds weight to your comment of always being suspicious, even people who are big names can (and are) bad.
 
  • #22
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Oct. 13 2004,9:39)]Development took in 1 week, what a truckload of legal collectors could not. (Yes, they had permits). Come to think of it, the developer had legal permits too. So who was right???
I think the reason for the passion against collecting is that it is possible to feel good about attacking a single hobbyist that foolishly admits to collecting a plant from the median strip of a freeway, but it is considered hopeless to stop the highway department from grading that same plant to oblivion or stopping the 100 acres of bog from becoming a shopping mall. The individual collector is clearly committing an "immoral" act (!?), while the developer has completed all of the required hearings, obtained all of the legal permits, and probably contributed to the right politician's election campaigns.
 
  • #23
This seems to be topic that will forever be prevalent in the cp world. To me it seems to be on the order of religion and politics in that it’s probably best to only talk about it with friends over “beverages”. The whole subject is filled with so many gray areas that it seems to boil down to common sense on the part of the person having to make up their own mind. You can fall into the black & white side and acknowledge that any plant removed from the field in any situation is wrong. Or, you can believe that an argument can be made for responsible collection to the benefit of preservation. I believe arguments for both “camps” have expressed their opinion in this thread.

The example I keep thinking of is Crestview. Now, to take the black and white side you could say these plants were “poached”. I know the landowner gave permission, but in the black and white side, these are still field “collected” plants. However, these plants are now spread across the country, starting to grow again, and in a couple years everyone who truly cares about having a “Crestview, FL” rubra on their growlist will have one. This in turn falls into a gray area.

It was also said that we, the members of this board, may be the largest market for these plants. My thought on that is that most of the members of this group are probably much more educated on the issues than someone who unknowingly buys a poached sarracenia at Billy’s Plants ‘n Stuff in Mississippi and takes it home and pops it in their rock garden only to have it die 3 days later. I also think a majority of the growers here are going to have much more access to an Agri-start tissue culture leucophylla tarnok than they are a poached rubra alabamensis. There seems to be only a handful of online sources for these plants, and like Sarracenia mentioned in the opening post, I too have spent way too many hours hunting for every possible source of plants, and I’m just not seeing what appear to be “poached” plants. The sarracenia trade is still fairly small and tight-knit. You can spend a little time on the internet researching any vendor and find a wealth of feedback, opinions, rumors, and such. Also, an email to a dealer or grower you’ve found to be trustworthy can result in all the information you need to make your decision on an unknown vendor.

So…. This brings us back to the ABG and their protection of a leuco stand. I would like for someone in the area to let the group as a whole know the plans for this plant. I agree that protection should be the number one objective. Maybe someone could talk with them and find out what their program truly is. Some questions I have are: How long have they been the steward of this site? Are they growing specimens in their greenhouses as well as the site? Have they, or do they plan to, share the plant with other botanical gardens? Why don’t they tissue culture the plant? Hundreds of thousands of this particular plant available at the retail level for $3.00 - $5.00 would seem to me to make the actual site that much more secure. Are there really plans to release this plant to the hobbyist? If so, what is their timeframe like? It seems to me the longer they keep this plant to themselves the odds of something along the lines of the Kew Gardens mistake become more possible. If the site is as small as it sounds, even guarded 24 hours a day it sounds like a very precarious situation on many levels. A final thought could be that if they have no program in place to ensure this plant’s survival beyond “their” site, does this not differ much from a “greedy” collector hoarding a plant? Food for thought. (Yes, I do know there is a difference between an established botanical garden and “Steve” in Mobile Alabama with his backyard collection, but wanted to point out that what some consider hoarding could appear to be the case at all levels.)

In closing I would like to say I presented this post in order to show that no matter what you believe to be “right” there can almost always be an intelligent response that makes you look at individual situations in a different way.
 
  • #24
[b said:
Quote[/b] (PDX @ Oct. 13 2004,3:06)]So…. This brings us back to the ABG and their protection of a leuco stand. I would like for someone in the area to let the group as a whole know the plans for this plant. I agree that protection should be the number one objective.
PDX,

I can answer some of your questions right now.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Maybe someone could talk with them and find out what their program truly is.

First off, are you an ICPS member? If you are read the article about S. purp montana. The ABG is performing a similar operation with the GA leuco. That should at least enlighten you as to there plan

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How long have they been the steward of this site?

I do not know how long they have been stewards to the site but I personally fail to see how this is relevant. The point is that they are working to protect it and keep it viable. Exactly what a steward should do.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Are they growing specimens in their greenhouses as well as the site?

Yes, they are growing specimens at ABG. I said that in my earlier post.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Have they, or do they plan to, share the plant with other botanical gardens?

Yes, they have shared this plant with other institutions.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why don’t they tissue culture the plant? Hundreds of thousands of this particular plant available at the retail level for $3.00 - $5.00 would seem to me to make the actual site that much more secure.

Because as a conservation organization they are not interested in making a quick buck. Their goal is to stabilize and maintain the wild stand. The details of how they do this are in the S. montana article. TC does not enter into the equation because you can not introduce TC'd plants back into the wild.

I would also add that to look at the GA leuco you would probably not be able to tell it from any other typical leuco so putting it into TC would likely flop because no one would want to put "just another leuco" into TC when there are already so many out there?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Are there really plans to release this plant to the hobbyist?

I can not say, I have never asked. It seems to me that that should be ABGs decision and not something pushed on them by the community at large.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If so, what is their timeframe like?

Again, that is for them to decide.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It seems to me the longer they keep this plant to themselves the odds of something along the lines of the Kew Gardens mistake become more possible.

Point of clarification it is not a single plant that we are talking about it is a population. A single person is not going to cause the out and out death of all the plants through a screw up like at Kew. And even if some new employee of ABG did water all the CPs with tapwater it would not matter because that is what they use anyways. Here in Atlanta we are lucky like that.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If the site is as small as it sounds, even guarded 24 hours a day it sounds like a very precarious situation on many levels.

I can not tell you how large or small the site is or how well protected it is. But I can tell you that the only people who know about it are ABG and what ever branch of the government controls that plot of land. And it is pretty much a fact that the fewer people that know about the site the easier it is to keep it safe.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]A final thought could be that if they have no program in place to ensure this plant’s survival beyond “their” site, does this not differ much from a “greedy” collector hoarding a plant?

It is not "greedy" it is called conservation. The goal of their program is to ensure the stability and genetics of the stand. It is about the wild Georgia leuco wild.

You talk about not dividing it all into black and white but that is just what you have done here. ABG is black and the hobbyists are white. Look at it this way: What is the best way to ensure that the endangered black rhino does not go extinct? Do you limit access and breeding of the black rhino to people who know what they are doing or do you hand out black rhinos to everyone that says they want one? I would think the answer was pretty obvious.

What seems to be getting looked over is that conservation is different than preservation. Everyone is saying that the best way to conserve the population is to get as many plants in cultivation as possible. That is absolutly false!! That is preservation. Sure putting a plant into cultivation means that even if the wild stand die that the plant is not totally lost. but 10,000 copies of the same plant is worthless. Inbreeding works the same way with plants and a limited genetic pool just leads to sickly weak offspring. You can not re-introduce domestic strains back into the wild they are not fit to survive. Look at it this way, consider a wild caught mouse and a lab raised mouse. You take them and toss them out into a field. The lab raised mouse is going to die. No ifs. No ands. No buts. It is the same with plants, none of the plants in your collection would survive when placed in the hyper-competative environment of the real world. Conservation is about keeping things stable. It is about preventing loss or injury. It is the careful management of the environment and nature. That is what ABG is doing, careful managment. I cannot believe that their ethics are being questioned.
 
  • #25
Wow.  That has to be the longest thread I've ever started.  One other thing I was thinking of:   "poaching" of natural hybrids.  is it acceptable?  not any different from "species poaching"?   i know if I were to walk through a dense stand of leuco's somewhere, i would be in awe, nothing more.   if i were to walk through a dense stand of a wide variety of naturally occurring, stunning hybrids, i would be in awe, yet I would also be salivating, and perhaps seeing if anyone was around  
smile_m_32.gif
 
  • #26
PYRO<
I don't think PDX is questioning ABG's ethics but he is using the GA leuco as an example, probably not the best one. You are close to ABG and know the behind the scenes activities that most of the rest of the public CP world does not. You make excellent points about conservatation vs preservation that I did not understand fully. So, it is good that these topics come up from time to time so that we all can learn. There may never be a consensus but at least there is an open dialogue.
 
  • #27
Pyro,

I think the key point in PDX's message is that making a plant widely available will release pressure from the site. As long as you keep the plants rare, they will have a premium value and someone could find the value in robbing the site.
I don't agree with some of your points about comparing Sarracenia to black rhinos or lab mice. As I've mentioned before, 2 pods from the site could generate enough material to satisfy the globe. Personally, I enjoy hybrids but, appreciate others interests in having named location plants. Is it really that unthinkable to make some of these plants available to hobbyists?
ABG has unquestionably done a lot of work for Sarracenia habitat. However, they have made many quick bucks on the sales of plants like 'Akai Ryu.' Personally, I'm glad they have. I don't understand why they don't continue with other plants. The J.C.Raulston Arboretum in Raleigh,NC has a world-class collection of trees and shrubs. They make tremendous efforts to propagate material for sale to anyone, not just to botanical gardens.
Smile, imduff
 
  • #28
Pyro,

Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions regarding the ABG and leucophylla. Since you're familiar with some of ABG's operations I think it would be great if you could post more regarding the work being done by them. I'm sorry if you felt I was in any way questioning the ethics of ABG as that was not my intention and I didn't feel my post read that way.

I appreciate the fact that Imduff & Mr. Obsessed took time to respond to some of the issues I was trying to raise. My hope in posting was to further the discussion about the difficult issues of wild collecting, tissue culture as a means of protecting remaining stands, stewardship, etc.

I also think Bugweed and BobZ have made some very good points as far as "poaching" goes. Both brought new views and insights to the thread that make us think about things a little deeper.

So, I feel I've had my say and perhaps it's time to move myself back over to the "photos" thread
smile.gif
 
  • #29
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think the key point in PDX's message is that making a plant widely available will release pressure from the site. As long as you keep the plants rare, they will have a premium value and someone could find the value in robbing the site

I can see your reason but what everyone needs to understand is that ABG is not trying to "keep the plants rare." They are trying to protect the wild stand and ensure its stability. You can not superimpose the mindset of a "greedy" hobbyist to a carefully planned, large scale, long term organizational project.

As Brooks pointed out, I know more of the behind the scenes stuff than most of the CP community. And I need to remember that when I am involved in conversations like this one. On the flip side since everyone else has less information than I do then they need to remember that as well and not make judgments based on the little that they do know.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't agree with some of your points about comparing Sarracenia to black rhinos or lab mice.

I was more shooting for analogies and not direct comparisons. Yes the black rhino one is a bit over the top but I was trying to make a point that sometime it is better to let experts handle things. As for the lab mouse comparison, it is has a lot more to do with the situation. You can insert any wild vs. domestic animal/plant and the argument basically holds true. Wolf vs. dog. Wild turkey vs. domestic turkey. Maize vs. corn. The wild type is always better suited for the wild.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As I've mentioned before, 2 pods from the site could generate enough material to satisfy the globe.

True. But 2 pods from cultivated plants could also supply the globe. And as I mentioned before the goal of the ABG consevation effort is not to "satisfy" the CP community but to protect the plants.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Is it really that unthinkable to make some of these plants available to hobbyists?

Actually yes it is, again you are falling into the trap of viewing the ABG as if it were a hobbyist. ABGs first and foremost goal with the GA leuco is to protect the wild stand. If they just focused on getting the plants into the hands of hobbyists then what would they do if the stand got destroyed? As I said, you can not successfully restock a site with "domesticated" plants, they are weak and suffer lack of genetic diversity.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]However, they have made many quick bucks on the sales of plants like 'Akai Ryu.'

Not really they have not. Ron Gagliardo bred the 'Akai Ryu' and registered it and got it into TC before he ever got to ABG. So all the money made off sales of 'Akai Ryu' go to Ron and not ABG. Now Ron may give ABG that money for all I know but if he does that is his decision. And truth be told I seriously doubt he makes that much off of it.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't understand why they don't continue with other plants.

Ah, but they do. 'Tarnok' is an ABG plant as is 'Dente'. The TC S. montana is from ABG stock as are about half of the other TC plants out there, you see ABG supplied the original flasks to AgriStarts. They are also working on other things but as great and wonderful as TC is it still takes time and, as I have said in may a thread, patience is a virtue.

PDX,

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions regarding the ABG and leucophylla.

Not a problem at all.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Since you're familiar with some of ABG's operations I think it would be great if you could post more regarding the work being done by them.

I will see what I can do. Not sure when I will next be talking to anyone there.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry if you felt I was in any way questioning the ethics of ABG as that was not my intention and I didn't feel my post read that way.

I am sure I am more to blame and my comment was not directly aimed at you. As Brooks said, I am close with ABG and sometimes I get in a huff when I feel they are being disrespected.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I feel I've had my say and perhaps it's time to move myself back over to the "photos" thread

I hope that I have not scared you off, that was not my intention. Please do continue to contribute.
 
  • #30
Again, keeping the plants rare will give them a premium value. With a premium value comes the motivation to find the site and rob it. If the site is large, it may not matter but, if the site is small, the stability could be diminished. Rather than worry about someone finding the site and removing plants, why not remove any motivation to find it.
I remember well the release of 'Akai Ryu.' I was one of the many that sent ABG $7 for a single plant. Ron was at ABG when he bred it there and released it. This was prior to his leaving ABG and returning several years later. If it's that important check the '95 CPN or check with Ron. My point is ABG has done well selling plants in their giftshop and through royalties. I say keep it going. They have state of the art tissue culture facilities and the staff to run it. Why not use it?
We can argue whether they should or shouldn't release plants and their "goals." The spirit of sharing is how they've improved their collections and facilities. I think perpetuating this spirit should be a goal.
I'm not privy to the workings of ABG, just my opinion.
imduff
 
  • #31
[b said:
Quote[/b] (imduff @ Oct. 14 2004,2:48)]Again, keeping the plants rare will give them a premium value. With a premium value comes the motivation to find the site and rob it. If the site is large, it may not matter but, if the site is small, the stability could be diminished.
Imduff,

Thanks for bringing this thought to the discussion. Aside from development, which we all agree is probably the largest threat to sarracenia, this seems to be a rarely discussed topic that does to some degree effect the stability of sarracenia.

The other side of this issue though seems to be why some sources charge extremely high prices for a plant that maybe isn't all that rare? I have to wonder what the reasoning is when a vendor* offers a plant for $100.00+? I can see if it's a new discovery or one that a grower has spent years breeding but when, for example it's just a plain oreophila (or alata, albino plants, etc.) doesn't this also increase the odds of someone saying "forget it, I'll just dig one up next time I'm out in the bog"? I realize orephila is rare, but when you have a stable, continuous nursery stock it seems the price should reflect this. It would seem that a supply and demand situation would occur, but with high prices the demand may turn to an easier (bad) alternative. This in turn could lead to an ever-growing supply from propagation but a diminishing demand due to high (my opinion) prices....

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on the pricing matter.

* No specific vendor, website or dealer is implied. This was a generalization based upon too many hours viewing every possible website offering plants for sale.
smile.gif
 
  • #32
[b said:
Quote[/b] (imduff @ Oct. 14 2004,2:48)]Again, keeping the plants rare will give them a premium value. With a premium value comes the motivation to find the site and rob it.If the site is large, it may not matter but, if the site is small, the stability could be diminished. Rather than worry about someone finding the site and removing plants, why not remove any motivation to find it.
And again I have to say that ABG is not trying to keep the plant rare. They do not want there to be a premium value to the plant but they can not release any plants until their conservation work is done. And as I have also stated, no one is going to undertake a massive rearing of the GA leuco because it looks like any other leuco. I donlt know anyplance that specializes in locatin data plants. Heck I don't know any place that even keeps track of location data that is meerly a obsession of the hobbyist.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I remember well the release of 'Akai Ryu.' I was one of the many that sent ABG $7 for a single plant. Ron was at ABG when he bred it there and released it. This was prior to his leaving ABG and returning several years later. If it's that important check the '95 CPN or check with Ron.

I may be wrong but I seem to recall a conversation with Ron where he said he breed 'Akai Ryu' while he was in college and he still lived in his parents basement. Maybe I am thinking of one of his other TC plants though.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My point is ABG has done well selling plants in their giftshop and through royalties.

I do not know that you could necessaraly say they do "well." The running costs of an institution that large have to be huge and I seriously doubt that the giftshop sale of plants amounts to a drop of water in the sea.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They have state of the art tissue culture facilities and the staff to run it. Why not use it?

They do use it but they have a lot more on their plates than just catering to the wants of the CP community. They have over 300 endangered orchids that they are working on in the TC lab. They have hundreds of other species outside of the CPs and orchids that they work on too. The space in that TC lab is already at a premium fulfilling their professional needs (For those of you that have not been to ABG the TC lab is about the size of a large closet, maybe 8' X 8') Should they just drop all that aside in the interest of making a handful of CPs commercially available?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The spirit of sharing is how they've improved their collections and facilities. I think perpetuating this spirit should be a goal.

It is a goal but it does not take priority over the conservation goal. I do not understand why people think it is more important to get plants into the hands of hobbyists that it is to conserve and protect the natural stands.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm not privy to the workings of ABG

Yet you see fit to criticize their actions. This is what I do not understand.



I am starting to feel like a form of greed from the CP community is being perverted into an argument for why ABG is doing the wrong thing when it comes to the conservation of the GA leuco. ABG colaberates with the Forest Service, BLM, Park Service, DNR, TNC and dozens of other organizations when they come up with their conservation plans. The plants are discussed at great length and planned in every slight detail. Why does no on consider that these groups have a better grasp of what needs to be done than the average CP grower? Why do people see fit to question the activity of these groups just because it does not mesh with their own view of how things should be done? Are everyday hobby CPers smarter and better informed that these professionals? Do any of us seriously have enough understanding of the situation to go about questioning the actions of these professionals? They have their reasons for doing things the way that they do. Is it possible to accept that their reasons are sound and not think that we know better?

Here is something else for everyone to think on: If ABG were to offer the GA plants very few people would buy them because they look just like any other leuco that you probably already have in your collection. So why should they waste their time and money on a project to supply tons of plants when most of them will not be purchased?
 
  • #33
[b said:
Quote[/b] (PDX @ Oct. 14 2004,3:59)]The other side of this issue though seems to be why some sources charge extremely high prices for a plant that maybe isn't all that rare?
This is a great point PDX.

Some plants will always be seen as "prizes" because the commercial vendors will pimp them that way. The oreo example is a good one to run with. Anyone here could get an oreo for free if they asked around and were patient. However, if you want to buy one it will likely cost you a fair amount just because the vendors know that they are viewed as "prized" plants. Another one I have seen that I really do not understand it the "Okee Giant" form of minor or S. rosea going for $100. This is beyond ridiculous, especially when you consider that these plants are not rare by any means, either in the wild or in cultivation.
 
  • #34
It is sad when institutions or even individuals are seemingly hoarding well sought-after specimens. I have to confess ignorance as to what is happening at ABG. I've never even been to GA, other than switching planes at the Atlanta airport. Obviously, they are doing some important work in conserving this genus, but I do wonder if the apparent lack of distribution of their rare specimens negates some of their efforts.

Regards to pricing - pretty much every plant i've bought has been at what I consider an honest price. I consider up to around $20 fair for any plant. Even when my wife and I were both grad students, and would have to eat mac and cheese for a week before most monthly paydates, i was buying plants left and right. Which is why we ate a lot of mac and cheese no doubt. I think when you get higher than $20, it simply becomes an issue of monetary gain for the seller, which, in my opinion, it should be not! The only exception I can think of would be something like the NASCS benefit auction (boy I'm still peeved I was too broke to buy anything at that time, having just moved across country with no job yet). I know of someone selling a division of a plant for $30, almost reasonable, from a plant that sells for $50 on a certain website. Even that is just wrong in my opinion. To me, it amounts to nothing more than getting your $$ back. Said website has many other expensive plants for sale. Why sell so high? I highly doubt those plants are flying off the shelves. I understand said website is an NPO, but I would think you would raise more $$ if the prices were lower. I only had economics in high school, but I think if they were to lower their prices by 50%, at least of the expensive ones, they'd sell at least twice as many as they sell now. I understand they may only have a few available, but at least they'd sell. Some of those plants have been for sale for a long time. Personally, I think many of those plants aren't all that great and I would only consider purchasing at a much lower price. I guess someone out there is buying, though, otherwise you'd think the prices would've come down by now. I don't know, maybe i'm just bitter since I really haven't had much expendable cash since I got into this hobby. I tend to be extremely pessimistic, however, I am optimistic that eventually these plants will get into the hands of generous growers, who will in turn provide them to other generous growers, and, eventually, they will be readily available at much lower prices, forcing the greedy nice guys to lower their own prices. Enough rambling from me. my wrists are too sore to continue.
 
  • #35
[b said:
Quote[/b] (sarracenia @ Oct. 14 2004,5:19)]Obviously, they are doing some important work in conserving this genus, but I do wonder if the apparent lack of distribution of their rare specimens negates some of their efforts.
Under that logic the important efforts by the ICPS are negated because they have only once distributed threatened plants (the S. alabamensis clones) despite all the conservation projects they are involved in and all the plants from those that they undoubtedly have.
 
  • #36
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Pyro @ Oct. 15 2004,9:32)]Under that logic the important efforts by the ICPS are negated because they have only once distributed threatened plants (the S. alabamensis clones) despite all the conservation projects they are involved in and all the plants from those that they undoubtedly have.
Unless I'm mistaken, that plant distribution program was a one-time thing. It's not as if the ICPS itself is maintaining a population of those plants. They were able to obtain a large amount of seed, raised them for two years or whatever it was, then gave them away. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the ICPS actually grows any plants, as an organization. Certainly all members of it do. But is there a plant collection somewhere under the strict control of the ICPS? I haven't heard of any. Also, the ICPS is now, that they got the legal loopholes erased, selling alabamensis seed. Not the same as a plant, but pretty darn close. Now, if other "hoarders" would just follow suit....
 
  • #37
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Pyro @ Oct. 14 2004,4:29)]Here is something else for everyone to think on: If ABG were to offer the GA plants very few people would buy them because they look just like any other leuco that you probably already have in your collection. So why should they waste their time and money on a project to supply tons of plants when most of them will not be purchased?
Pyro,

 You don't seem to want to read my comments. Making something rare, deliberately or not, gives it a premium value. This is my fundemental point. You worry about people trying to locate the site for themselves, or even disclose location information about it. Are you worried that someone might want to poach it? Again, if material became easily available, this would likely eliminate any desire for someone to "take it into their own hands." I would think that this would be a favorable outcome for the stewarts of the site.
 Additionally, making material available is not a significant undertaking, as you imply. I highly doubt it would take any time or resources away from the conservation work. Stated simply, the effort to make these plants available to others is minimal; however, the rewards in eliminating poaching pressure from the site may be significant in ensuring the stability of the site. It's not difficult to understand why people might interpret any reluctance to distribute, as hoarding. This is not critisizm but, simply questioning.
 I think you underestimate the ability of people in the cp community that you call the "obsessive hobbyist." Many of these people are involved in cultivation, and nature in general. Many aren't clouded in their judgements by having to obtain an income from these plants but, are involved in cp for a love of nature's wonders. There are a number of these people that you call, "obsessive hobbyists" that likely have more field experience than you could imagine. Their motivation? A passion for these plants and nature. That kind of devotion shouldn't be negated, nor underestimated.
 Personally, I could care less about having a specimen of the GA leuco but, there seems to be enough desire in the cp community worthy of consideration of a small-scale release.
 Finally, these conservation efforts are possible from the sharing and generosity of others. Perpetuating this generosity and sharing is a responsibility.
Just my humble opinion, imduff
 
  • #38
Imduff makes good sense and has many fine points. I myself could care less about the inner workings of ABG, but know they work their butts off. I am behind them 100% in their efforts. I still believe what Imduff has said should be strongly considered. That is why I have instigated the NASC, for all of us to have the location species we desire, and relieve the "poaching" burden off of some locations, reducing the money aspect that seems to drive too many hobbyists. Anyone who needs a plant, just ask. There are many on this forum who are delighted to share. And Pyro is one of them. As is Brooks, me, and many others. We want people to have what they want so that this so called need to strip the land bare in pursuit of a fast buck, be eliminated. I think all CP'ers who love these plants in their hearts, share this common goal, to share with any and all who love these plants, and wish to protect them as much as we can. NASC will do that, and be sure we all can have what we want, and for the price of the shipping only. I believe purp montana's should be more widely available to all who desire one, as so the Georgia leuc, if it is so important to some to have it. But, this is something that can only come of trust from those that are in charge. They have been burned by those who swore their love to the plants, and the love for the site, only to turn around to make money off the site. Can you blame them for being so gun shy?? They don't know who to trust, and too many folks only see dollar signs where these plants are concerned. We may have to move slow, but I understand Pyro's point of view, and Imduffs. I do think that they should cut loose some seed of this site to alleviate the pressure of poaching, but they should have a great degree of information from those growing them out to distribute them. It will take time, effort, and work, but with the people on these Forums, I think it can be done. Put in a good word for us (NASC), Pyro. We would like to help.
 
  • #39
How many people who buy CPs care about location data?  It can't be very many because the big vendors don't provide it.

I think if the last stand of Georgia leucs is poached, the plants won't go to people who would care about the difference between a leuc from Georgia or Alabama.  Poachers of relatively low value/low demand plants run too much risk of being caught if they advertise the origin.  The only reason for poaching leucs from the last stand in Georgia instead of anywhere else would be that it's convenient for the poacher.

If a poacher moves in and grabs the plants, the plants will be sold as leucs, not as leucs from the last stand in Georgia.  They'll be unloaded to small garden centers or to a disreputable national vendor or to florists or maybe even listed on eBay.  And the eventual buyers won't know or care about the origin.

I only know from what I read, but it seems poachers go for striking plants, such as leucs and red tube flavas.  Nondescript plants seem to be left alone to die from draining, grazing, succession, development, etc.  Scarcity doesn't seem to be so important.  Maybe it's different for the endangered species, but here's a paragraph from the US FWS' S. jonesii page:

"Sixteen historic sites of this plant have been eliminated by the alteration of wetland habitat. Of these sites, six were destroyed after their habitat was drained; four were flooded by impoundments; three were converted into golf courses; two were eliminated by industrial development, and one was converted to agricultural use. At least two of the remaining 1O have been somewhat damaged by these activities. Occasional, moderate disturbance is necessary to maintain the species' habitat and reduce the encroachment of woody plants (natural succession). Natural disturbance has been suppressed in most bogs, and hydrological regimes have been changed to alter natural flooding and drought cycles. As a result, woody plants dominated many sites, creating a drier, shadier habitat unsuitable for pitcher plant survival. The role played by fire in this mountain species' habitat is still speculative, but fire may historically have opened areas for colonization. Severe droughts in consecutive years and the channelization of nearby streams also threaten the plant's habitat."

It does continue to a generic mention of collection being a problem, but doesn't mention any site lost to poachers.
 
  • #40
I think most people,including me would rather have a plant with location data.Every time I offer divisions of my S.minor Long Co.Ga.,people snap em up!

Jerry
 
Back
Top