If it is [discovered] rather than [described], I'll be happy to use that instead. I agreed it's muddled, that's why I assumed it would be date of description as that is something that can be tracked.Phil_SK wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:17 amI know it's not the point you're making but it needs highlighting - plants described by a certain date might have been in cultivation for years beforehand. Without a list of which taxa were discovered after this date it's really muddled.Mexican cacti discovered after 21 November 1997
Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Completely agree with you.Stuart wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:53 am I've obtained many CITES permits over the years, they always have to state that the plants were 'artificially propagated' i.e. nursery produced. CITES is meant to help preserve plants in habitat. Plants that have been 'artificially propagated' reduce demand for habitat plants and I feel they should not be subject to CITES restrictions. Maybe Ian would like to do some lobbying and fix this? I've only ever had CITES permits for nursery grown plants, all pointless paperwork. When I hand CITES permits to UK Customs, they don't seem to know what to do with them, sometimes they hand them back to me, sometimes they keep them.
Stuart
- Acid John
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 1126
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: STOKE-ON-TRENT
- Country: ENGLAND
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Chair
- Location: POTTERIES
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I wasn't aware that CITES protected any plants in habitat. You can still concrete over them just as long as you don't try to sell them. CITES is control of trade in certain designated species across international borders nothing more. As an aside are all the plants outside of Mexico's borders to be destroyed, if so what a waste.
Acid John
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Pattock, I assume you're saying what you're saying in the interest of conservation, but I am curious as to whether you believe this actually benefits conservation of cacti in Mexico?Pattock wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:56 amAnd well-documented as being in cultivation and that they were named at a later date, surely? Those who acquired descendants or clones of those plants should have kept some proof of that, especially if they acquired them after 1997.
For those saying nobody has bothered documenting their legal acquisitions for the last 23 years despite the clear obligation in international law to do so - tough. If you want to change the law then lobby for that. If you want to break the law... you don't get to exhibit your criminal intent in a BCSS show or swap or sell them. Which is about the likely extent of your punishment.
What a shame it would be if publishing new species had to stop because of the uncontrolled illicit lusts of the vilest collectors.
You seem to be taking a very hardline stance on this. With Mexico's amendment to CITES in 1997 it would have been practically impossible for any ordinary people to get all the necessary permits and paperwork to legally take plants or seeds out of the country. So by following your logic I assume you believe that no one should be growing species discovered in Mexico after 1997? I doubt you'd be able to find anyone on here who could document that a post '97 plant in their collection was legally extracted and exported out of Mexico. Any old CITES certificate from a nursery won't cut it, because the way I understand the amendment is that any species discovered (and maybe described?) after 1997 is illegal to trade without permits from Mexico, and that goes for any cultivated material of those species too.
We probably see things very differently. I believe that making it easy and cheap to acquire cultivated material of rare species is the best way to combat illegal collection. Maybe you feel differently. For me the BCSS should be lobbying to change CITES and make international trade of cultivated material easier, as others have mentioned.
- Ian Thwaites
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 30 Jul 2012
- Branch: SPALDING
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Fellows
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Its important that we as a Charity stay within the law irrespective of what our personal views are. In the last few years I understand ELK was raided and also a visit by DEFRA to an AGS event resulted in a plant being seized at one of their shows - this was returned because the owner had appropriate documentation of where he got the seed/plant! I am sure we will get a visit or may already have had a visit?
The full list of Mexican plants described after 1997 can be found on the DKG web site https://www.dkg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2 ... t_1997.pdf. I have spoken to DEFRA and they understand the problem and it was them that said "although a plant was described in 1997 it may have been in cultivation for many years before that". It was then pointed out to me importance of keeping records of where and when we acquired the plants or seed. They also understand that many of the names are splitters names and may not be followed by many collectors.
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.
I have always stood up for the rights of the members and I am a great believer that we can propagate plants from seed / tissue then we can relieve the threat on wild collected plants. However, I was lucky enough to see the pristine habitat of Ariocarpus bravoanus before it was hit by collecting and now it is almost colleted out I understand. All of that was for illegal gain and whilst we have the plant common in cultivation it is now so scarce in its original location that it will probably not survive for too long. Is that right?
I am pleased that after all my lobbying I have been invited to join the CITES committee and please rest assured I will fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership.
The full list of Mexican plants described after 1997 can be found on the DKG web site https://www.dkg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2 ... t_1997.pdf. I have spoken to DEFRA and they understand the problem and it was them that said "although a plant was described in 1997 it may have been in cultivation for many years before that". It was then pointed out to me importance of keeping records of where and when we acquired the plants or seed. They also understand that many of the names are splitters names and may not be followed by many collectors.
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.
I have always stood up for the rights of the members and I am a great believer that we can propagate plants from seed / tissue then we can relieve the threat on wild collected plants. However, I was lucky enough to see the pristine habitat of Ariocarpus bravoanus before it was hit by collecting and now it is almost colleted out I understand. All of that was for illegal gain and whilst we have the plant common in cultivation it is now so scarce in its original location that it will probably not survive for too long. Is that right?
I am pleased that after all my lobbying I have been invited to join the CITES committee and please rest assured I will fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership.
Ian Thwaites
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I see that the legal route is the best. Documentation is best. People who have been paying Yuri from Kiev for plants that they know are the result of his henchman destroying habitat plants in Mexico (because they tell themselves the plants are now in the trade and thousands of other people have bought them) should be shamed. Because they are paying directly for habitat destruction.KarlR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:36 am We probably see things very differently. I believe that making it easy and cheap to acquire cultivated material of rare species is the best way to combat illegal collection. Maybe you feel differently. For me the BCSS should be lobbying to change CITES and make international trade of cultivated material easier, as others have mentioned.
Ian is on the righteous path. Thanks again for all your efforts, Ian.
Asclepiomaniac. Armchair ethnobotanist.
Occasional, eclectic blogger:
http://pattheplants.blogspot.com/
Occasional, eclectic blogger:
http://pattheplants.blogspot.com/
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5442
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Is there a list of non-cacti?
Other than nurseries' selling these plants at BCSS events, are there implications for any other BCSS activities?
Other than nurseries' selling these plants at BCSS events, are there implications for any other BCSS activities?
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I think your approach will only lead to the opposite of what, I assume, you want to achieve, namely reducing illegal collecting. I think your approach would lead to greater scarcity, which would mean a huge imbalance between demand and supply, which would increase prices dramatically, and which would finally increase illegal collecting.Pattock wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:01 amI see that the legal route is the best. Documentation is best. People who have been paying Yuri from Kiev for plants that they know are the result of his henchman destroying habitat plants in Mexico (because they tell themselves the plants are now in the trade and thousands of other people have bought them) should be shamed. Because they are paying directly for habitat destruction.KarlR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:36 am We probably see things very differently. I believe that making it easy and cheap to acquire cultivated material of rare species is the best way to combat illegal collection. Maybe you feel differently. For me the BCSS should be lobbying to change CITES and make international trade of cultivated material easier, as others have mentioned.
Ian is on the righteous path. Thanks again for all your efforts, Ian.
In my opinion, and in the opinion if a great many other people who have grown, collected, studied and sold cacti for decades, the best way to combat illegal collecting is to make the most desirable species (and the new and exciting) as easily and cheaply available as possible to as many people around the world as possible.
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I'm very happy to read this, Ian! I sincerely hope you are successful in your continued lobbying. Perhaps this might make for a good article in CactusWorld? To clarify the BCSS's position and discuss what you have achieved and what you hope to achieve?Ian Thwaites wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:43 am Its important that we as a Charity stay within the law irrespective of what our personal views are. In the last few years I understand ELK was raided and also a visit by DEFRA to an AGS event resulted in a plant being seized at one of their shows - this was returned because the owner had appropriate documentation of where he got the seed/plant! I am sure we will get a visit or may already have had a visit?
The full list of Mexican plants described after 1997 can be found on the DKG web site https://www.dkg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2 ... t_1997.pdf. I have spoken to DEFRA and they understand the problem and it was them that said "although a plant was described in 1997 it may have been in cultivation for many years before that". It was then pointed out to me importance of keeping records of where and when we acquired the plants or seed. They also understand that many of the names are splitters names and may not be followed by many collectors.
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.
I have always stood up for the rights of the members and I am a great believer that we can propagate plants from seed / tissue then we can relieve the threat on wild collected plants. However, I was lucky enough to see the pristine habitat of Ariocarpus bravoanus before it was hit by collecting and now it is almost colleted out I understand. All of that was for illegal gain and whilst we have the plant common in cultivation it is now so scarce in its original location that it will probably not survive for too long. Is that right?
I am pleased that after all my lobbying I have been invited to join the CITES committee and please rest assured I will fight to make it as easy as possible to make LEGAL seed and plants available to the membership.
You are lucky to have seen the type locality of bravoanus before it was looted! I don't know if it was utterly decimated or if it is recovering, but there are other localities discovered since, so while it may not be common it is not extinct in the wild.
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
You think making them cheap and easily available is inconsistent with the traceability in the supply chain that is being implemented in many of the more conscientious industries now? Do you think any conservation organisation will trust or certify a dodgy geezer who doesn't keep proper records to set up a massive international trade in endangered cacti?KarlR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:57 am
I think your approach will only lead to the opposite of what, I assume, you want to achieve, namely reducing illegal collecting. I think your approach would lead to greater scarcity, which would mean a huge imbalance between demand and supply, which would increase prices dramatically, and which would finally increase illegal collecting.
In my opinion, and in the opinion if a great many other people who have grown, collected, studied and sold cacti for decades, the best way to combat illegal collecting is to make the most desirable species (and the new and exciting) as easily and cheaply available as possible to as many people around the world as possible.
Perhaps we should embargo scientific publication of any desirable new species until the nurseries have sufficient stock to meet demand?
There are plenty of evil, selfish people who are funding the destruction of habitat for the prices they are getting now. Conophytums get their criminal collectors £2 per plant. Ameliorating poverty will help conservation in many areas.
Asclepiomaniac. Armchair ethnobotanist.
Occasional, eclectic blogger:
http://pattheplants.blogspot.com/
Occasional, eclectic blogger:
http://pattheplants.blogspot.com/