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.KarlR wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:03 pm 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.
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.