Illegal Cacti and the BCSS

[ragamala]

I know that this is not the first time, nor the last, that this discussion comes up. I know you've been active in some of these discussions, ragamala, and I respect your thoughts on the matter. I know you're an environmentalist and know a lot about the subject.

My understanding that the law passed in Mexico in 1997 which forbids export of cacti seeds and plants was subsequently implemented by CITES at the request of Mexico as an amendment to Appendix 2, is based on what I remember you saying a few years ago in a similar thread. Please correct if I'm wrong.

Many thanks, Karl for the courtesy of the reply. I fear you do me too much credit. I have indeed been an ardent environmental campaigner, but on narrower issues, different from those involved in wildlife, and specifically cactus, exploitation.

I see the Cites issue differently. Mexico may well have exerted influence on Cites, ie lobbied, as is its right as a country with a major holding of world cactus habitats, a major stakeholder, as it were, in modern terminology. But my point is or was that Cites regulations are not dictated by national laws, but on the contrary provide a framework within which national laws may be passed by signatories to the Cites convention or treaty. So Cites does not implement any nation's law, it acts independently to establish international guidelines. In brief, Cites did not implement Mexican law.

Re the Chairman's post in this thread he said specifically he was attempting to change or undermine the Mexican restriction on plant material export. He later said he was wanting to lobby Cites to "fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership." These are two different things. (The caps on LEGAL are his.) In the view of BCSS as expressed in the August BCSS enews (no signature to the article, unfortunately, but we must therefore assume this is an official BCSS rather than a personal view) species such as M bertholdii have to be regarded as ILLEGAL.

Let Ian T answer for himself, if he thinks the "official" position of the Society is wrong. And let him also tell us what mandate he has for attempting by whatever means to make "illegal" species available to the membership as of right.

At the heart of my disagreement with your post is the idea that propagation of "illegally" acquired material based on the theoretical ability of a theoretical experienced grower can not only justify the illegality but combat environmental destruction. But most of all we do not NEED to grow M bertholdii. There should be no DEMAND for this species. On the positive side we should work to promote the cultivation of other beautiful species that have graced UK collections for many decades and raise no contentious issues. None of us NEED to possess M bertholdii. Few have the moral courage to say "yes it's gorgeous and I'd love to have one, but I'll content myself by admiring from afar". This is the commitment that is needed, and I see little sign in the postings in this thread that many agree with me, which makes me rather sad, and may lead to my abandoning my membership.

[el48tel]

I know that this is not the first time, nor the last, that this discussion comes up. I know you've been active in some of these discussions, ragamala, and I respect your thoughts on the matter. I know you're an environmentalist and know a lot about the subject.

My understanding that the law passed in Mexico in 1997 which forbids export of cacti seeds and plants was subsequently implemented by CITES at the request of Mexico as an amendment to Appendix 2, is based on what I remember you saying a few years ago in a similar thread. Please correct if I'm wrong.

Many thanks, Karl for the courtesy of the reply. I fear you do me too much credit. I have indeed been an ardent environmental campaigner, but on narrower issues, different from those involved in wildlife, and specifically cactus, exploitation.

I see the Cites issue differently. Mexico may well have exerted influence on Cites, ie lobbied, as is its right as a country with a major holding of world cactus habitats, a major stakeholder, as it were, in modern terminology. But my point is or was that Cites regulations are not dictated by national laws, but on the contrary provide a framework within which national laws may be passed by signatories to the Cites convention or treaty. So Cites does not implement any nation's law, it acts independently to establish international guidelines. In brief, Cites did not implement Mexican law.

Re the Chairman's post in this thread he said specifically he was attempting to change or undermine the Mexican restriction on plant material export. He later said he was wanting to lobby Cites to "fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership." These are two different things. (The caps on LEGAL are his.) In the view of BCSS as expressed in the August BCSS enews (no signature to the article, unfortunately, but we must therefore assume this is an official BCSS rather than a personal view) species such as M bertholdii have to be regarded as ILLEGAL.

Let Ian T answer for himself, if he thinks the "official" position of the Society is wrong. And let him also tell us what mandate he has for attempting by whatever means to make "illegal" species available to the membership as of right.

At the heart of my disagreement with your post is the idea that propagation of "illegally" acquired material based on the theoretical ability of a theoretical experienced grower can not only justify the illegality but combat environmental destruction. But most of all we do not NEED to grow M bertholdii. There should be no DEMAND for this species. On the positive side we should work to promote the cultivation of other beautiful species that have graced UK collections for many decades and raise no contentious issues. None of us NEED to possess M bertholdii. Few have the moral courage to say "yes it's gorgeous and I'd love to have one, but I'll content myself by admiring from afar". This is the commitment that is needed, and I see little sign in the postings in this thread that many agree with me, which makes me rather sad, and may lead to my abandoning my membership.

Alan ... not only are you right .... you have the strength and conviction to stand by this. I wish others would.

[Chris L]

I've never felt the need to have any of these fancy new species.

Never really felt any desire to spend a shed load of money on a plant that I'd no doubt manage to kill a month after I'd bought it. I can manage that just as well with common plants that have been around donkey's years.

Why buy one plant when for the same money you could get ten or twenty of something else.

[Aiko]

But most of all we do not NEED to grow M bertholdii. There should be no DEMAND for this species. On the positive side we should work to promote the cultivation of other beautiful species that have graced UK collections for many decades and raise no contentious issues. None of us NEED to possess M bertholdii. Few have the moral courage to say "yes it's gorgeous and I'd love to have one, but I'll content myself by admiring from afar".

But how is this different from any other plant that is considered to be legal?

You do not need to grow an Echinocactus grusonii. It's natural habitat is far from large and it might not be that far from extinction in its natural habitat these days (mainly due to construction works, not poaching), but this might well be in quantity the most grown cactus in the world. But you do not need to grow it. Nobody does. Yet almost everyone grows an E. grusonii, and this probably includes you too.

I am inclined to say: don't allow an arbitrary set date in 1997 by some official organisation decide on the principle you seem to have. I am all in favour of principles. But if you are strict about things (and of course you have that right) then at least be consistent on this. Then don't grow any plant.

But based on what I have read in the past seven pages, I really get the idea those that are in favour of banning the mentioned Mexican cacti described after 1997 are far more interested in rules and following up on them so they are doing things 'right', than they are interested in the well being of plants and its natural habit on the long run.

The future of E. grusonii as a still non-extinct plant looks brighter thanks to cultivation than it does without...

[KarlR]

Many thanks, Karl for the courtesy of the reply. I fear you do me too much credit. I have indeed been an ardent environmental campaigner, but on narrower issues, different from those involved in wildlife, and specifically cactus, exploitation.

I see the Cites issue differently. Mexico may well have exerted influence on Cites, ie lobbied, as is its right as a country with a major holding of world cactus habitats, a major stakeholder, as it were, in modern terminology. But my point is or was that Cites regulations are not dictated by national laws, but on the contrary provide a framework within which national laws may be passed by signatories to the Cites convention or treaty. So Cites does not implement any nation's law, it acts independently to establish international guidelines. In brief, Cites did not implement Mexican law.

This helps clarify things. Thanks.

Re the Chairman's post in this thread he said specifically he was attempting to change or undermine the Mexican restriction on plant material export. He later said he was wanting to lobby Cites to "fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership." These are two different things. (The caps on LEGAL are his.) In the view of BCSS as expressed in the August BCSS enews (no signature to the article, unfortunately, but we must therefore assume this is an official BCSS rather than a personal view) species such as M bertholdii have to be regarded as ILLEGAL.

Let Ian T answer for himself, if he thinks the "official" position of the Society is wrong. And let him also tell us what mandate he has for attempting by whatever means to make "illegal" species available to the membership as of right.

At the heart of my disagreement with your post is the idea that propagation of "illegally" acquired material based on the theoretical ability of a theoretical experienced grower can not only justify the illegality but combat environmental destruction. But most of all we do not NEED to grow M bertholdii. There should be no DEMAND for this species. On the positive side we should work to promote the cultivation of other beautiful species that have graced UK collections for many decades and raise no contentious issues. None of us NEED to possess M bertholdii. Few have the moral courage to say "yes it's gorgeous and I'd love to have one, but I'll content myself by admiring from afar". This is the commitment that is needed, and I see little sign in the postings in this thread that many agree with me, which makes me rather sad, and may lead to my abandoning my membership.

I agree that we do not NEED to grow M. bertholdii, but the logical extention of that argument is exactly what Aiko lays out - namely that followed to the extreme we do not NEED to grow any cactus plant. It seems that it is fine to NEED to grow an Ariocarpus bravoanus but not Mamm. bertholdii. And the only difference between this is that the latter is illegal based on this much discussed Mexican law. I fail to see the logic in accepting that it is OK to NEED to grow a certain plant so long as it is legal, all the while that plant (A. bravoanus in this example) is listed as Critically Endangered, and all the while there are no reported legal exports of that species out of Mexico (according to Cacti and Cites: A User's Guide (2012), https://www.kew.org/science/our-science ... -resources). I suppose that A. bravoanus, having been grown for many decades in UK collections, raise no contentious issues?

I agree with Aiko, that it seems that abiding by current laws trumps any other issues or concerns. It's as if questions of conservation are irrelevant so long as we follow the law. Abiding by any particular law is not an indication of greater or lesser morality. I do not accept your position that anyone who decides not to abide by this law lack moral courage. Any law can be deeply unjust, unfair, immoral and wrong. You can write anything into law. It does not make you a person of higher morality by following every random law out there to the letter. You clearly believe that this law must be followed no matter what. I do not. I wonder if you hold that position on every other sovereign nation's laws?

As far as I know, poaching of habitat plants in Mexico is as bad as ever (or worse, perhaps). The Chinese market (in particular) has exploded the past decade. The demand for habitat collected material is enormous. Arguing that we must all stick to some arbitrary higher morality will never amount to anything. It certainly doesn't work in the real world. The heart of the argument for me is that where there is a demand there will be a supply. The supply can be of cultivated origin or it can be of habitat origin. If you do not make it possible for the supply to be of cultivated origin you are forcing it to be of habitat origin. As far as morality is concerned I think it is rather the right thing to do for any hobbyist concerned with poaching of habitat plants to grow and distribute rare and threatened species, whether technically legal or not.

To me it is just mental acrobatics to accept that any species discovered in Mexico before 1997 is perfectly OK to NEED to grow, and any species discovered in any other country right up to today is perfectly OK to NEED to grow, but if you NEED to grow a Mexican species discovered after 1997 it shows a lack of moral courage.

Edit: Changed a part about moral obligation.

[ragamala]

Alan ... not only are you right .... you have the strength and conviction to stand by this. I wish others would.

Thanks for the support, eltel. I dithered for ages before putting my hand in what migh be a vipers nest.

Thanks too Chris L for your message.

[ragamala]

But how is this different from any other plant that is considered to be legal?

I agree. We do not "need" to grow any exotic plant. However, human nature being what it is, we must accept that many have had pleasure for many decades in cultivating interesting and beautiful non-native plants. But there IS a significant difference when it comes to the legality of such cultivation, and this is where the heart of the argument lies. Many would say they need a car. But they do not need to drive it at beyond acceptable legal limits. Perhaps I could come up with a better analogy. The point is, illegal acts can rarely if ever be justified, and certainly not in the current context. I find it absurd that some can justify growing "illegal" species because they are helping preserve that species. Amateur growers have little influence in that area. It is an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, my scrutiny at least.

[Ian Thwaites]

Re the Chairman's post in this thread he said specifically he was attempting to change or undermine the Mexican restriction on plant material export. He later said he was wanting to lobby Cites to "fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership." These are two different things. (The caps on LEGAL are his.) In the view of BCSS as expressed in the August BCSS enews (no signature to the article, unfortunately, but we must therefore assume this is an official BCSS rather than a personal view) species such as M bertholdii have to be regarded as ILLEGAL.

Let Ian T answer for himself, if he thinks the "official" position of the Society is wrong. And let him also tell us what mandate he has for attempting by whatever means to make "illegal" species available to the membership as of right.

I try not to interfere with free speech but I will comment on the above. As far as I am concerned all cacti in Mexico belong to the Mexicans and to be honest they can do with them what they please however much I may or may not agree! What I said was:-

"On another note I have been trying over the last few years to get (with the help of the IUCN) seeds legally from Mexico and if we are successful then this will be a big step forward. I have been citing Yavia as an example of what we can do."

Just so this is perfectly clear the IUCN is International Union for Conservation of Nature and I have been working with their secretary who has contacts with the Mexican government to see whether it would be possible to get some seeds for propagation to take the threat off the wild populations. I have even suggested that any profit could be returned to a mexican charity to further improve the country. The IUCN is an international body and they drive many of the conservation projects that the BCSS support. I WOULD NEVER EVER "change or undermine the Mexican restriction" as this has nothing to do with me. I was in Mexico a while ago and did some scientific work with Charlie Glass and Ted Anderson so I know what their dream was which unfortunately did not come true.

I want to support the members but if there is a chance that a BCSS organised event was found to be allowing the sale of illegal plants and potentially opening itself up for prosecution I will ensure that this does not happen.

The BCSS statement is nothing new just look at the ELK web site!

The BCSS is a UK charity and MUST operate within the law and abide by international conservation laws. I may suggest we lobby to get these amended / refined but I cannot endorse the BCSS breaking the laws.

[ragamala]

To me it is just mental acrobatics to accept that any species discovered in Mexico before 1997 is perfectly OK to NEED to grow, and any species discovered in any other country right up to today is perfectly OK to NEED to grow, but if you NEED to grow a Mexican species discovered after 1997 it shows a lack of moral courage.

Karl, Thanks again for the politeness of the reply.

But I am afraid your argument about "need" is based on false logic. I never said anybody "needed "to grow any species, legal or otherwise. Your invention is a straw man argument, and fallacious.

I have already made my position on demand clear. But I shall try again to explain. BCSS - and its chairman - should be working NOT to exert it's members "rights" to import and grow species which are now proscribed, it should be working to reduce or eliminate demand through greater implementation of international regulation and law. This is where the BCSS input on Cites should be directed. Once again., the idea that we UK growers can improve the situation by our growing and propagating of certain species, rather than tackling the main faults existing in the current rules and their implementation, is working in the wrong direction.

I perform no acrobatics, I speak straight and hope this is clear from my posts, if not I will try to explain further.

If the BCSS is to have a direct (or more likely indirect and ineffectual) input into Cites, I believe this should be an issue put to members, not left in the hands and personal views of figureheads, elected or otherwise. Nor left to members of this forum to influence our officials.

[ragamala]

I try not to interfere with free speech but I will comment on the above.

I should hope not, indeed. I don't see why you even have to make that comment. Nevertheless your input is welcome.

Just so this is perfectly clear the IUCN is International Union for Conservation of Nature and I have been working with their secretary who has contacts with the Mexican government to see whether it would be possible to get some seeds for propagation to take the threat off the wild populations.

Whilst not endorsing your approach, on the grounds that I like other members have no information on this, I hope that your lobbying and work with IUCN is directed towards releasing material to all international bodies involved as stakeholders, not just the BCSS.

it would be interesting to know on what evidence are you suggesting release of seeds would take the threat off wild populations?

I may suggest we lobby to get these amended / refined but I cannot endorse the BCSS breaking the laws.

Naturally, regarding BCSS obligation. But I would ask which takes precedence in your proposed lobbying, your personal views or the views of members, and if the latter, how will this be determined?