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

  • #41
Most people in this forum might, but if there was such a demand for location data, the market would provide it.  Check Petflytrap or Cook's or California Carnivores and you won't find location data.  Peter Paul's, who probably should be required to, doesn't provide location data either.  And you won't find it at Lowes.  If the mass market doesn't bother to provide location data, it must not have much value.  Or at least the added value doesn't warrant the extra effort necessary  to provide it.  The sale of plants with location data is a niche market poachers would be foolish to serve.  After all, a poacher can only be busted if someone knows where the plants came from.
 
  • #42
Well,I don't poach plants or buy poached plants.All plants that I have with location data were from trades with members.Of coarse a poacher is'nt going to put location data with it,they are not that stupid,well some might be.But they are for poaching plants.Opinions are like buttholes,everyone has one.Just my 2 cents.


                                           Jerry
 
  • #43
Most hobby growers(I do) like to have location data.

Jerry
 
  • #44
True enough, Jerry. Maybe Bruce isn't interested in location data, but most serious collectors are. The reason is only known to the hobbyist, but some tell me that each stand, let's say, Leucophylla, may look similar to another stand elsewhere, but there are many differences, however minor, that make each stand unique. The plants they mix with at their location, for one thing, passes around genetics from a whole different set of plants per bog. Coloration can be different per bog. A red tube in one stand may not be as red as the red tube leuc's just a mile down the road. Many differences that can make a collection different from other collections. Alata's from Mississippi will be more colorful than a Citronelle alata. Alata from Texas will vary in coloration, and form, county to county. Differences that keep all the bogs seperate and unique. It doesn't matter to me if you can see these differences or not, but many poachers go after specific/site specific plants. That requires location knowledge, and if they are smart, no, they won't tell any but the unscrupulous collector they collected for. If location plants were not important, then why do all the major collectors, want site specific plants. Just because a nursery does not give location data, doesn't mean they don't know where it came from. My friend Dean Cook, can tell you the location of every plant he sells, unless it is imported. if you want location data from Dean, just ask. If it is known, you will get it. No matter what I read in the Schnell's Ghost thread, Phil Wilson is wrong to lump the Citronelle whites in with Schnells from Baldwin County. Their are many differences if you just look for them. Location plants have their own intrinsic value, and I am with Jay L., Joe Mazrimas, Peter D'Amato, Dean Cook, Brooks Garcia, Jim Miller, Carl Mazur, Tamlin Dawnstar, and Imduff, when it comes knowing the value of these plants, and money has nothing to do with it. They are so different, even from each other per location, that maybe some of you should take a closer look. Especially in color variations! WOW!!!!! And these are natural bog plants we are talking here, not man made. You are missing something I think, Bruce, but your points are still well put, and food for thought. And one other point, Jerry's Long County minor is vastly different from my Horry County, South Carolina minor. I would not have known that except for getting a location specimen from Judith Finn at the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden. Bruce, there are many differences. Check closer!!
 
  • #46
Of course some people care about location data.  Many of them appear in this forum and I'm one too.  But we're a drop in the bucket that's the CP market.

What I said was that most people who grow CPs must not care about location data.  Otherwise Dean and other good vendors would see a benefit to including it with their listings.  I also said most poachers probably don't aim to sell to people who care about location data.

My comments were a response to those who've said the ABG encourages poaching by not propagating and distributing plants from their Georgia leuc site to people who'd want one from that location.  If a poacher plunders that site tonight, I think the plants will be appearing as anonymous leucs in garden centers or florists.  They certainly won't be labeled as being the last Georgia leucs.

It would be nice if the ABG would propagate some Georgia leucs for us, but they see their role as being something else.  And they do that something else very well.
 
  • #47
Bruce, Thanks for clarifying. And you are right! ABG is very good at what they do.
 
  • #48
I have been really busy in the last few days and I have not been able to keep track with this thread. So, I'm not going to be able to answer every post that I wanted to. I just want to say that sometimes I get a little too excited and words come out before I have a chance to see how it will sound. I think that may have been the case with my replies in the thread. I didn't mean anybody to take anything I said as personal attacks.
While I agree that development is the biggest theat to cp's by far, we can't ignore or pretend that another threat don't exist. It does and I've seen the damage it caused. Poachers probably won't take the whole site. But they will take the biggest best looking plants. Greatly reducing the gene pool of that site. It will take years for the seedlings of the colorful plants to start producing seeds again. I know that most of you don't want to believe that it is as bad as it is. I know that you don't want to believe that you have ever bought a poached plant. I am sure that every one of us that have a meduim to large collection have at least one poached plant. I have many. The damage from poaching goes alot farther than the empty holes in the ground. It shrinks the gene pool and after repeated poachings can cause inbreeding of the site. Then you have weaker plants that can't fight the overgrowth caused by fire surpression, or drier conditions caused by nearby development.
Now about the disscussion of ABG's rules of protecting the site. Personaly I think that if they shared some seeds it would do alot of good. But I'm speaking from total ignorance of their mission. I don't know thier rules or the reasons for those rules. But futher more I know what their end result is and I trust their judgement.
 
  • #49
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.

I have read every single word you have posted here. And I do understand what you are saying though I do not feel you really understand what I am saying. By using the word "making" you are implying deliberate intent on the part of ABG to keep these plants rare. That is not what tehy are doing at all. It is like Bugweed said:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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

ABG has been burned. How do you think they felt when the GA oreo site was stripped bare and word got back to them that it was because someone involved in the conservation of the site (from a different institution) told a "trusted friend" where to find it? Which leads right into your next comment:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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?

I know people are trying to find the sait. In the original GA leuco thread I made a post asking that if anyone for some reason knew the location of the site that they please not post it. As Ozzy and herenorthere have both mentioned, poachers don't go to sites because of the chance to get location data, they go to sites for convinence. A poacher in GA who learns of the GA leuco site will much rather go there than to FL or AL and if he does get to the site he will happily strip it bare because he can. And even if the GA leuco were being distributed among the community it would not stop a poacher from taking the plants.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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;

Making material available is not a significant undertaking if you are a major TC nursery and that is what you do. But you forget that ABG is not a major TC nursery and for them it is a major undertaking. The TC lab at ABG is not devoted to CPs (I have already stated this.) For them to make enought to enact some kind of distribution effort would probably require that they drop all their other TC projects. That just is not going to happen, the ABG does not exist solely to cater to the CP community.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.

I do not and never have underestimated this community. But I also do not underestimate greed driving the tenacity of a poacher to rip every last plant out of the ground. It does not matter how many people love the plants, it does not change the fact that the poacher loves money more.

Also, I do not believe I ever used the word "obsessive" and if I dod it was not in the negative context you are implying. I myself am rather obsessive so I would not use it in a derogatory manner.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.

Thanks Bug, I was beginning to feel like the only one.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.

I know this and I fully support the NASC for these reasons

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It will take time, effort, and work,

I have said many times that patience is a virtue. Thank you again for backing me on that.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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.

I have and will continue to. But like you mentioned, ABG is very gun shy of who they deal with and because of this I work at their pace. But I am still working.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It would be nice if the ABG would propagate some Georgia leucs for us, but they see their role as being something else. And they do that something else very well.

And thank you herenorthere. This encompases what I have been trying to get across. The ABG fill, and fulfills, the role it has set out for itself. And they do indeed do it well. It is a free country and you do not have to agree with what ABG does or how they do it but just because you do not agree does not mean that you are right and ABG is wrong.
 
  • #50
[b said:
Quote[/b] (0zzy @ Oct. 17 2004,11:35)]While I agree that development is the biggest theat to cp's by far, we can't ignore or pretend that another threat don't exist. It does and I've seen the damage it caused. Poachers probably won't take the whole site. But they will take the biggest best looking plants. Greatly reducing the gene pool of that site.
Ozzy, I think you and I can respectfully agree to disagree on many points but, I have to agree with your comments about the reduction of diversity by "selective" poaching. You made me think of plants like the leuco 'Tarnok,' antho-free jonesii, antho-free leuco, and most recently, antho-free alata. All, unique plants that were selectively removed from a site for introduction into cultivation. These sites no longer contain these unique plants, and the sites are now somehow deficient. I personally feel these plants should be in cultivation but, also feel remorse that they're no longer in the wild. In some way there should have been some kind of responsible collection of the material to place it in cultivation and keep it in the wild. That's another grey area (borrowing PDX's terms).
I'm not going to bore the astute memebers of this list with my redundant comments on the GA leuco site. I think I've repeated myself enough times. I would like to state emphatically that my comments are not critical of the work of ABG or it's key people. I applaud their efforts in conservation including: the Roberta Case Preserve in AL, the purp montana site in GA, and the "infamous" leuco site in GA. My comments are simply objective questions. As any goal-oriented members of this list will attest, objective questioning is paramount to success. Objective questioning is a practice that even the key people at ABG should exercise in their efforts. Any implication of my comments, as being anything other than objective questioning, is an effort to misunderstand and/or distort my comments.
Peace out, imduff
 
  • #51
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You made me think of plants like the leuco 'Tarnok,' antho-free jonesii, antho-free leuco, and most recently, antho-free alata. All, unique plants that were selectively removed from a site for introduction into cultivation. These sites no longer contain these unique plants, and the sites are now somehow deficient.

Hopefully, some plants with these unique traits were left in the wild at the time of the collection. That's primary difference between poaching and deterministic collecting.
 
  • #52
Carl Mazur did leave antho free alata in its place. The whole plant was not taken without the understanding to put it back in place. As long as its home is still there, the plant will continue in that spot, as that is an NASC goal. Only full removal under threat of annihilation. No other reason will suffice.
 
  • #53
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Oct. 19 2004,2:16)]Carl Mazur did leave antho free alata in its place. The whole plant was not taken without the understanding to put it back in place. As long as its home is still there, the plant will continue in that spot, as that is an NASC goal. Only full removal under threat of annihilation. No other reason will suffice.
Unfortunately Bugweed, I visited the site a couple of months ago and didn't see any. Although, the general condition of the site looked good.
imduff
 
  • #54
Keep an eye on the site, Imduff. Let us know if it returns in the spring. If not, I will find out why. If I have to, I will send back the piece I have and place it back where it came from, and wait for another piece when it can be placed in cultivation.
 
  • #55
This has always been such a "touchy" subject that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Responsible collection of material for cultivation from the wild. The field is a tremendous source of variability for plants in general, not just cp. I wonder how the orchid growers have resolved this issue. They seem to be years ahead of cp in handling most issues.
Another thought, some might also argue that it isn't wise to re-introduce plants back to a site after it's been removed.
imduff
 
  • #56
Imduff,

You make a good point mentioning responsible collection for cultivation. I think most can see there are 2 sides of this issue. There is flat-out poaching with no regard to anything but selling the plants asap to anyone who'll cut a check and then there is responsible collection with the end result being to get the plant into cultivation or as a last result to preserve the plant if in danger. I would tend to put the poacher in the realm of someone doing something for easy money. They could just as easily be poaching mushrooms or moss or even trilliums. It's just about cash money for easy work - they don't care what they dig up. I think any of us who love any type of plants can see that at one time someone somewhere "collected" a plant, in turn sharing it. When I think of responsible collection I think of someone removing a plant or two after weighing many factors - size of population, proper permission sought, whether or not the plant truly merits cultivation, and so on. I'm not saying specifically sarracenia but any plant. I think the sarracenia trade has come quite a ways from the anything goes days of the 1970's. One example where I think collection is truly at the level of poaching is in the area of arisaema. I can go on a website in China and "order" numerous plants which are then in turn collected from the wild. Do they have permission and have they weighed the factors and risks to the native populations? I don't know, but one night of research led me to decide not to order from them.

I do think another can of worms is the issue of who truly can "field collect" a plant or two. I don't feel qualified to answer that being out on the West Coast therefore not really having a grasp of local plant populations. I have visited most of the darlingtonia sites here and have never really seen evidence of collecting.

Just adding another $0.02 to the discussion.
 
  • #57
OK, now I see something I completely disagree with.  imduff said, "I wonder how the orchid growers have resolved this issue. They seem to be years ahead of cp in handling most issues."  Nonsense!  As one who has at least 5x more orchids than CPs, I feel qualified to say CP enthusiasts are miles ahead of orchid enthusiasts when it comes to conservation.

Part of it might be that CPs appeal to a different kind of person.  Part of it might be that many of us are familiar with some CP habitat.  Part of it might be that many CPs are so easy to propagate that efforts like the S. alabamensis project and NASC are viable.  But, whatever, the reason is, CP enthusiasts pay more attention to conservation issues.
 
  • #58
[b said:
Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ Oct. 20 2004,11:11)]OK, now I see something I completely disagree with.  imduff said, "I wonder how the orchid growers have resolved this issue. They seem to be years ahead of cp in handling most issues."  Nonsense!  As one who has at least 5x more orchids than CPs, I feel qualified to say CP enthusiasts are miles ahead of orchid enthusiasts when it comes to conservation.
Glad to hear your opinion. Taxonomy and cultivar registration for cp has come a long way in the last 5 years with the efforts of Jan Schluer (sp?). It is in it's infancy relative to orchids. With orchid cultivation having a much larger base of enthusiasts, how have orchid societies dealt with issues that are sensitive to cp societies, namely field collection?
Are you familiar with the way orchid societies handle the issues of responsible collecting? How is it handled? regulated? Is there some level of acceptance or just strict reluctance?
Thanks, imduff
 
  • #59
I have learned a lot from reading this thread. Thank you to everyone who commented. My thoughts would be for anyone in a position to cultivate any CPs they can for the purpose of re-introducing them to their native range to do so. I would volunteer to try to germinate seed that would ultimately end up back where it belonged. Well, maybe after I get a little experience under my belt so that my odds of being able to contribute would be increased.

We have a forest preserve in the local area that has CPs growing in it, S. purpurea to be exact. I know of a bog that has swamp orchids in it. The stewards don't even take most volunteers back to the site for fear of the potential of field collection. They are beautiful sites and now I am getting a better grasp on the mind set of some "collectors". Disgustingly selfserving comes to mind.

And bugweed, I don't think you should send back the piece you have. Leave it be for a few years in a protected environment and consider allowing it to mature to the point wherein which divisions would be possible. Maybe you could transfer those divisions to people you trust and in about 5 years from now, all of those divisions could be replanted at the site of origin leaving the parent plants with responsible people to help insure the perpetuation of the species in its natural community. Please think of that one plant you have being sent back and some jerk plucking it out of the ground for a collection.

I've read many comments here. This is merely my knee jerk opinion to what I have read. I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone. I believe these plants are our children's inheritance.
 
  • #60
I was just reading an old issue of CPN, I think it was June 2001. There was a nice article in there on poaching. Perhaps it is more of a problem than I thought it to be. Also, interestingly, in the seed bank listing of that issue, there was S. leucophylla (Georgia, USA) seed listed as available.
 
Back
Top