Illegal plants

[John E]

Who would have thought it. A picture of a 1cm wide flowering plant on an enthusiasts web site leads to a reply involving Interpol,the world association of Police Forces. What is the hobby coming to? The mind boggles!!!!!!!!!!!!

[agavemad]

This seems to me to be in the spirit of conservation, although it may technically be illegal.

I would agree wholeheartedly that it is. The sequence of events is quite a typical one, and the question of illegality revolves around whether the seed in the US that started the sequence you describe was legally exported from Mexico to the US, complete with documentation etc.

Once a plant has "escaped" into the global marketplace, personally I think it is difficult to justify that any form of control over subsequent generations is practical.

I am not sure this is the right stance for a society to take. The fact that Mexico has not issued export licences for what seams to be a large number of plants, (although I do not know a definitive list) These plants or seeds should not be available via the society. Theft is theft. Its like saying I would not steal from a shop but if someone else stole it them its ok for me to buy it from them.
If no one bought anything illegally obtained then there would be no market for stolen goods. Just because plants are 4 or 5 generations away from the original illegally obtained plant does not make it right.
As for pulling someone on here for showing a plant in flower that was obtained from the national show... surely the society should take the position that the seller of this plant is brought to task over this sale... its very double standards. We will attack a member of the public buying in good faith but we will allow a seller to sell this plant at our organised sale. What action is the society prepared to take against the seller of this plant.

[ChrisR]

We have local parking restrictions that are ignored because the Council say their resources won't run to policing it. So what's the chances poor old John Ede will have DEFRA or INTERPOL knocking on his door? Zero I'd suggest.

[FaeLLe]

We have local parking restrictions that are ignored because the Council say their resources won't run to policing it. So what's the chances poor old John Ede will have DEFRA or INTERPOL knocking on his door? Zero I'd suggest.

Well there needs to be a scapegoat once in a while and people who admit to their crimes on a public forum will be prosecuted to make an example of them.

The law is the law and anything on CITES without a permit should not be traded in. It is hard running a society like BCSS and the last thing we need is to be tarnished in the public media which can have severe repercussions and even cause the society to be forced to shut down for endorsing illegal trade.

[ChrisR]

The law is the law and anything on CITES without a permit should not be traded in. It is hard running a society like BCSS and the last thing we need is to be tarnished in the public media which can have severe repercussions and even cause the society to be forced to shut down for endorsing illegal trade.

Agreed, but that rather goes without saying I would suggest.

Well there needs to be a scapegoat once in a while and people who admit to their crimes on a public forum will be prosecuted to make an example of them.

That's my point entirely. Until that happens, it will not deter anyone!

[KarlR]

Fair enough, and I'm not really questioning the moderation. The society obviously must work against illegal collecting and not be seen to condone purchasing of illegal material. But the overarching discussion on the issue of just exactly when it does become acceptable to talk about species from Mexico described after 1997 is important, I think.

It's perfectible acceptable to talk about them, we just have to be careful about here's my Aztekium valdezii type posts.

I grow Digitostigma from seed I bought from Steven Brack and Mats Winberg, and while I have no reason to second guess their integrity, I have absolutely no idea whether or not the seeds or plants they originally acquired were from legally sourced material. But in any case, the likelihood is that the seeds I bought were from plants several generations apart from their wild ancestors. So the question is then whether this is ok since I got the seeds from well respected nurseries and the purchase of the seeds in no way impacted upon wild populations, or whether one should take the line that since I cannot prove the seeds were from material originally legally sourced that the seeds were in effect illegally gotten.

As I understand the regulations extend to all progeny of the original plants

So a sticky on the topic with some discussion and a list of what isn't ok to show off on here might be a good idea. At least it seems so to me.

Got a bit of work to do but I ill come up with something.

Bill

If you do make a sticky thread about this topic, I hope it will also be available to use for general debate and discussion (of course, providing it doesn't fall into point scoring exercises and such).

As for the legality of buying seeds or plants of species from Mexico described after 1997, your understanding of the matter is similar to mine, i.e. it's illegal unless you can prove that the original plant material was legally exported out of Mexico.

Like some others have said, I do find this stance to be problematic if one is to fully accept that view since it would either mean that you're knowingly growing illegally gotten plants or you're choosing to ignore the law. Most of us would find it completely unproblematic to buy and grow Digitostigma (and I even noticed one in a picture of the Astrophytum show bench from the National), even though the species most likely was originally taken out of Mexico without export papers. But, after being commercially available around the world for 15 years, I do not really see that there is a problem in buying or selling the species. I rather think that the fact it is so widely available helps protect the species in the wild, and so a strong argument could be made in my opinion that it's original illegal removal from habitat has helped protect the species in the wild.

In a decade (or perhaps two) Aztekium valdezii will likely be as easily available from seed sellers around the world as A. hintonii is today. Will it then be ok to show the plants off, or should they only be talked about as plants "a friend" owns. I'm not saying that you must answer this, but it is food for thought. For how long must a species have been commercially available, and how widely distributed in collections must it be before it becomes ok to show it off? When "everyone" has it, is there a point in not letting people show it off?

I think the debate on illegal downloads of music and films is a parallell to this debate in some respects. Some people liken the act of illegally downloading a song to stealing a physical product from a shop, and in this thread it seems that some liken buying a plant of a species illegally taken out of a country as a crime even though the plant in question that was bought might be five generations removed from it's wild ancestor. Others would argue otherwise. However, with the advent of services like Spotify and Netflix, statistics seem to be quite clear on the fact that illegal downloads go down in countries these services become available (and in some countries dramatically so). But what underlies all this is that people are going to stream or download media over the Internet whether it's legal or not, so it's better to create legal ways for people to do so than to make large segments of the population into criminals. Similarly, people are going to be buying A. valdezii whether it's technically legal or not, but I think it's obvious that it would be better if people could buy the species with a clear conscience.

This thread is basically a result of the society wanting to perhaps take a firmer stance on recent species from Mexico being illegally traded, and this again is founded on the society's desire to try and conserve species in habitat. Therefore, I think a discussion on whether or not it might be worthwhile to contact sister societies in other countries to try and discuss how they view this matter and whether or not it might be possible to make some form of contact with e.g Mexican authorities or NGO's about creating a system whereby some plant material could be legally exported out of Mexico for the express purpose of being further propagated in order to be made legally commercially available to hobbyists.

The Wollemi pine from Australia is one recent example of a success story like this where plant material was made available for propagation for a select number of nurseries and botanical institutions (like Kew) in order to introduce the species legally to the market.

[ragamala]

I think there are issues here that deserve attention and action by the Society, rather than member debate here.

I think we do have to start off with knowledge of what the law is, and it is our individual responsibility to decide how to obey or not that law. But there seems to me no virtue in arguing that because a law is inadequate it should be disregarded or disobeyed. If you don't agree with the legal situation, the right thing is surely to lobby for a change. And this brings us to the view that it is perhaps the BCSS which is best placed to make representations, if that is the view of the members.

It seems to me there are two big problems with the way this has been discussed here (I am not unfamiliar with such arguments, having grown cacti for approaching 50 years I have seen the kaleidoscope of views).

The BCSS ought in my view IF it is to lobby for law change (or even if it isn't) to demonstrate the highest standards in order to better its case. In the case of "illegal" plants being sold at the national show it has to my mind failed. To ask suppliers not to sell illegal plants, and then to avoid any responsibility for policing this request - which was weak at best - can not really be defended. To take action on the forum to criticise a members post is open to alternative criticism. A moderator of a forum should in my view liaise with a poster whose post has caused a problem, and hopefully resolve the situation amicably, rather than post in response to complaints a negative view to inflame the issue. Whether any negotiation took place I don't know. Frankly I would have removed the post anyway to preserve the Society's integrity, not engage in a sparring match with an individual.

In my view a better approach would have been to determine the supplier who sold the allegedly illegal plant, and for the Society to take this up with the seller. After all, it is the commercial trade in plants which is, or should be, the focus of international law in order to promote conservation principles, not action against individual collectors who may, or may not, given uncertainties, have been aware at the time of purchase of a plant's status.

This issue will not go away. If the UK leaves the EU we will not only have wider international law to consider. Outside of Europe there are basically two options for how imports will be considered of plants and seeds. But to imagine we will avoid the need in many cases for phytosanitary certificates and CITES certificates, looks hopeful at best.

The Society should take steps now to plan for this and to fix the - to me - that it plays both sides in asking for illegal plants not to be sold at the National, but takes no action to enforce the request.

[DaveW]

By the criteira proposed by some above if you run a car or anything on rubber tyres or anything using rubber you are acting illegaly since Kew Gardens illegally obtained the rubber seeds, raised the plants and then distributed them to our colonies, thereby bankrupting the Brazilian rubber trade. I wonder how many now crying illegality should never profit whenever it occured, will now be giving up their cars and walking instead, since even busses and aircraft use illegal rubber tyres and of course if walking make sure your shoes are not rubber soled!

https://medium.com/@gabrielnoble/to-wha ... .u8kc9ac29

"Natural plant monopolies have been short-lived. Being small and easily concealed, like diamonds or gold, seeds have often been smuggled. Until very recently, plant hunters and their sponsors, whether national governments, botanic gardens, commercial nurseries, or pharmaceutical houses, have treated plants as part of nature's bounty, theirs for the taking."

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/science/ ... ialism.htm

Even the authorities seemingly move the date at which illegality starts in order to cover themselves, since I suppose both police and Customs & Excise are also driving around on illegal rubber tyres to catch those illegally exporting seed?

Afraid the human race is filled with hypocrites and we are all guilty at times.

[Stuart]

As I mentioned earlier, if Mexico has never issued permits for Echinocactus Grusonii then how is anyone to know which plants can be legally grown. John E certainly didn't deserve the bucketload of **** poured on him for sharing a photo of a pretty plant on this site. Maybe we should all stop growing Mexican plants until someone can come up with a list or which plants have ever been given valid Mexican export permits.Whilst I've had plenty of US CITES permits over the years, has anyone ever seen a Mexican one?
Stuart

[Bill]

If anyone thinks I have chewed gonads or heaped bucket loads of ***** then you have led very sheltered lives, however if you have a genuine issue with what I have said then please take it through the proper channels otherwise end of conversation on that particular aspect of this discussion.

Bill