Illegal plants

[KarlR]

It's a very difficult issue, but I don't know if simply locking topics on a species such as Aztekium valdezii is the way to go. At least not unless a general sticky thread is added for this topic.

I don't recall the poster 'blossfeldia' from China being dealt with as harshly as John when the mentioned poster showed off images of a whole bunch of adult A. valdezii plants on their own roots obviously collected from the wild.

Nor do I seem to recollect posters showing pictures of Turbinicarpus graminispinus (described in 2011), Lophophora alberto-vojtechii (described in 2007) or Digitostigma caput-medusae (described in 2002) having their threads closed or posts dealt with like this. All of those species are fairly easily or even very easily available for a modest enough price.

I'm not trying to butt in on how the forum is moderated, but I think it would be worthwhile to have a sticky thread on the topic which could at least list which species posters should not make threads about (unless for reasons of general discussion).

Illegal collection of plants in the wild is obviously a big problem, and for some species pose a very real risk of extinction. And while I don't quite agree with Mexico's laws on the collection and export of plant material for commercial purposes (as in collecting material for further propagation by big, well respected nurseries to sate the market in a legal and open way instead of leaving it to the black market), their laws must of course be respected.

That said, I don't really know that I agree with seemingly picking a select few species and not allowing people to post photos of them (particularly not when they are highly likely seed grown specimens - perhaps even second or third generation Europeans at this point). Where's the line drawn? With A. valdezii and Mammillaria bertholdii? What about the other species I mentioned earlier? Have they been commercially available long enough to be acceptable to show off?

Or what about field numbers of Mexican species made over the past couple of decades? If someone posts a picture of an Ariocarpus retusus then that's no problem as the species was perfectly legal to export out of Mexico for a century. But what if someone posts a picture of an Ariocarpus retusus with a particular field number dating from 2010? It's highly likely that the seeds were illegally collected, and so the plant should really not be shown off here. Again, I'm in no way meaning to condone illegal collecting but I think it's a bit too arbitrary to simply pick a select few species as 'unmentionables'.

[Bill]

Is there a list of illegal plants? How do we discover this?

That is part of the problem while a cut off date has been made, the society is not aware of a definitive list of plants.

[Peter]

I can't imagine that anyone would knowingly buy an illegal plant and then post a picture on an open forum. Perhaps Bill had some sort of inkling about this because he immediately came out all guns blazing - no explanation or advice to John E that his plant was actually illegal and from where did he obtain it? The question that John may care to answer is - did he know that it was dodgy?

There's cause for concern here. There was a previous accusation that people who posted pictures were just showing off their trophy plants. That certainly weakened my enthusiasm for posting pics of plants that I thought may be of interest to forum folk.

There's also the matter of those plants that we obtained from the sale of collections, an example being all those very many lovely Chilean plants, many habitat collected, from Alan Craig's dispersal. Possibly for the best not to point your camera at them. Such a pity.

[Bill]

It's a very difficult issue, but I don't know if simply locking topics on a species such as Aztekium valdezii is the way to go. At least not unless a general sticky thread is added for this topic.

I don't recall the poster 'blossfeldia' from China being dealt with as harshly as John when the mentioned poster showed off images of a whole bunch of adult A. valdezii plants on their own roots obviously collected from the wild.

Nor do I seem to recollect posters showing pictures of Turbinicarpus graminispinus (described in 2011), Lophophora alberto-vojtechii (described in 2007) or Digitostigma caput-medusae (described in 2002) having their threads closed or posts dealt with like this. All of those species are fairly easily or even very easily available for a modest enough price.

I'm not trying to butt in on how the forum is moderated, but I think it would be worthwhile to have a sticky thread on the topic which could at least list which species posters should not make threads about (unless for reasons of general discussion).

Illegal collection of plants in the wild is obviously a big problem, and for some species pose a very real risk of extinction. And while I don't quite agree with Mexico's laws on the collection and export of plant material for commercial purposes (as in collecting material for further propagation by big, well respected nurseries to sate the market in a legal and open way instead of leaving it to the black market), their laws must of course be respected.

That said, I don't really know that I agree with seemingly picking a select few species and not allowing people to post photos of them (particularly not when they are highly likely seed grown specimens - perhaps even second or third generation Europeans at this point). Where's the line drawn? With A. valdezii and Mammillaria bertholdii? What about the other species I mentioned earlier? Have they been commercially available long enough to be acceptable to show off?

Or what about field numbers of Mexican species made over the past couple of decades? If someone posts a picture of an Ariocarpus retusus then that's no problem as the species was perfectly legal to export out of Mexico for a century. But what if someone posts a picture of an Ariocarpus retusus with a particular field number dating from 2010? It's highly likely that the seeds were illegally collected, and so the plant should really not be shown off here. Again, I'm in no way meaning to condone illegal collecting but I think it's a bit too arbitrary to simply pick a select few species as 'unmentionables'.

Some very valid points Karl. In terms of plants on here a blind eye has largely been turned in the past but of recent the situation regarding Mexican plants has become much higher profile with concerns that despite its conservation aims the society wasn't doing enough to at least discourage the purchase of these plants.

My comment on John's post was as a result of several complaints made, so it want arbitrary and any further complaints will be dealt with similarly. And if people read my initial response properly it left the door wide open for the post to remain open however the fact that John chose to came back and openly admit it was his illegally purchased plant left me no option but to lock the post.

[esp]

I find this entire thread ludicrous and hypocritical, given that the BCSS seed list for 2014-15 included
both Astrophytum caput-medusae and Geohintonia mexicana.
Or am I missing something?

[Aiko]

I find this entire thread ludicrous and hypocritical, given that the BCSS seed list for 2014-15 included
both Astrophytum caput-medusae and Geohintonia mexicana.
Or am I missing something?

I believe Geohintonia mexicana was described in 1995. So is before the 1997 mentioning.

Astrophytum caput-medusa was later. But that does not mean no seeds (or plants) would have been exported before 1997. I had my hands on two plants of Massonia roggeveldensis while it was officially still undescribed and only known as Massonia sp. Roggeveld before that time. I use them to produce seeds and distribute them further.

[KarlR]

Some very valid points Karl. In terms of plants on here a blind eye has largely been turned in the past but of recent the situation regarding Mexican plants has become much higher profile with concerns that despite its conservation aims the society wasn't doing enough to at least discourage the purchase of these plants.

My comment on John's post was as a result of several complaints made, so it want arbitrary and any further complaints will be dealt with similarly. And if people read my initial response properly it left the door wide open for the post to remain open however the fact that John chose to came back and openly admit it was his illegally purchased plant left me no option but to lock the post.

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.

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.

I think there is a very big discussion here that (although not new at all) is important to keep going. Hence, I think a sticky thread on the matter might be a good idea, especially as many posters might not be aware of Mexican legislation or perhaps not even CITES regulations. Particularly so if the society feels it must make a stronger strand on which species it's ok to show off. I'm sure many users on this forum would have gone to ELK and bought an A. valdezii not being fully aware that the species has, to my knowledge, never been taken legally out of Mexico for commercial purposes. I'm sure many will also have bought habitat collected plants from Specks auctions without quite being aware that these might not have been legally collected.

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.

[Werewolf]

In the (proposed) CITES Cactaceae Checklist Third Edition, followed by Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 34, David Hunt refers Aztekium valdezii to A. ritteri, effectively sinking the name to synonymy.

[Bill]

I find this entire thread ludicrous and hypocritical, given that the BCSS seed list for 2014-15 included
both Astrophytum caput-medusae and Geohintonia mexicana.
Or am I missing something?

If we accept for a minute that both are illegal, then yes it was poor show from the society to have them on the seed list, is it ludicrous and hypocritical to then "see the error of our ways" and do the right thing then no its not.

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

I think there is a very big discussion here that (although not new at all) is important to keep going. Hence, I think a sticky thread on the matter might be a good idea, especially as many posters might not be aware of Mexican legislation or perhaps not even CITES regulations. Particularly so if the society feels it must make a stronger strand on which species it's ok to show off. I'm sure many users on this forum would have gone to ELK and bought an A. valdezii not being fully aware that the species has, to my knowledge, never been taken legally out of Mexico for commercial purposes. I'm sure many will also have bought habitat collected plants from Specks auctions without quite being aware that these might not have been legally collected.

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

[John E]

Referring to the allegation that several complaints had been made concerning the photo I submitted,surely the right place to make them is on the forum!!!
I used to wonder why so few of the really talented growers and seed raisers so rarely offered any hints when a novice enthusiast asked for advice on growing such and such a plant. Having had my gonads chewed after submitting what I thought was an interesting photo of a tiny grafted cactus plant in flower, I would be amazed if any member was short sighted enough to submit a photo of any plant described over the past 20 years in case just in case a long dead relative had been illegally collected.