Yes so do I. I’ve just looked up the Forum rules, very interesting.
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!
- juster
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2124
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 17 Sep 2013
- Branch: CROYDON
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Show
- Location: Surrey
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Croydon Branch member, growing mainly cacti and Echeverias
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
The words Rudy and calm rarely appear in the same sentence. He's a great bloke though.
Stuart
Stuart
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Cheers Stuart, Tina, Diane and juster
Easy to be polite when you're out in the greenhouse having a criminally good time...
Easy to be polite when you're out in the greenhouse having a criminally good time...
- Diane
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 5578
- Joined: 15 Jun 2007
- Branch: None
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Aiko
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 3867
- Joined: 12 Aug 2010
- Branch: None
- Country: Netherlands
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I had a look at the link Ian provided on page 3, to the PDF at https://www.dkg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2 ... t_1997.pdf.
I think almost everyone with a bigger than moderate collection of cacti will have at least one of the mentioned species. Most prominent ones are: Ariocarpus confusus, Astrophytum caput-medusae and Mammillaria perezdelarosae subsp. andersoniana. Even Mesa Garden (not really considered to be a dodgy seed supplier) offers some of the mentioned species, such as Echinomastus hispidus and Echinocereus fitchii subsp. bergmannii.
Most of the species mentioned on the list are varieties and subspecies. I think it is safe to assume some of these have already spread out in collections worldwide even well before they were documented and described by a splitter. Lumpers might still have these now 'forbidden' plants labeled without a variety or subspecies name, making them essentially still 'legal'.
Anyone interested in following the rules just because there are rules to follow (but aren't really aimed at benefitting the plants and their natural colonies) are free to do so, but should judge their collection plant by plant first before starting to propose to ban plants and people from events or to name and shame them.
I think almost everyone with a bigger than moderate collection of cacti will have at least one of the mentioned species. Most prominent ones are: Ariocarpus confusus, Astrophytum caput-medusae and Mammillaria perezdelarosae subsp. andersoniana. Even Mesa Garden (not really considered to be a dodgy seed supplier) offers some of the mentioned species, such as Echinomastus hispidus and Echinocereus fitchii subsp. bergmannii.
Most of the species mentioned on the list are varieties and subspecies. I think it is safe to assume some of these have already spread out in collections worldwide even well before they were documented and described by a splitter. Lumpers might still have these now 'forbidden' plants labeled without a variety or subspecies name, making them essentially still 'legal'.
Anyone interested in following the rules just because there are rules to follow (but aren't really aimed at benefitting the plants and their natural colonies) are free to do so, but should judge their collection plant by plant first before starting to propose to ban plants and people from events or to name and shame them.
-
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 1791
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008
- Branch: None
- Country: Scotland
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
Absolutely! I echo all that's said regarding Karl's input into this thread and personally admire his knowledge, balanced outlook and communication skills
Ross
Dunbar, SE Scotland.
BCSS member #46264 (originally joined 1983).
Growing cacti since 1978, with a particular interest in Sulcorebutia and Rebutia.
Dunbar, SE Scotland.
BCSS member #46264 (originally joined 1983).
Growing cacti since 1978, with a particular interest in Sulcorebutia and Rebutia.
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
- Tina
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: NORTHAMPTON & MILTON KEYNES
- Country: England
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
ario confusus has been in cultivation for quite a while as I have some I grew from Doug rowland seed.sown 2004 & they are in 4" or 5"pots now. I'd struggle to think as them as being illegal as I have grown them, I also have geohintonii mexicana that I have grown from my own seed.
At ELk you never get a receipt for purchases its the same at all cactus/plant marts
At ELk you never get a receipt for purchases its the same at all cactus/plant marts
Tina
varied collection of succulents and cacti but I especially like Euphorbia's, Ariocarpus and variegated agaves.
Bucks, UK
Branch co-ordinator, Northants & MK BCSS https://northants.bcss.org.uk
BCSS Talk team member, contact me- BCSS.Talk@Gmail.com if you want to volunteer or suggest a speaker plz.
varied collection of succulents and cacti but I especially like Euphorbia's, Ariocarpus and variegated agaves.
Bucks, UK
Branch co-ordinator, Northants & MK BCSS https://northants.bcss.org.uk
BCSS Talk team member, contact me- BCSS.Talk@Gmail.com if you want to volunteer or suggest a speaker plz.
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
I have read the posts here with some raising of eyebrows, and feel obliged to support Pattock, who has never gone unreasonably beyond the position he set out in the OP. Karl R has not represented his knowledge or his side of the argument well, IMO, despite the vocal support.
The Chairman further confused the issue by referring to Defra accepting that plants "described" in 1997 could have been in circulation earlier. But again the OP talked about new discoveries. NOT new descriptions.
Ian T himself also said he was attempting to secure import of seeds from Mexico legally. Some might see this as admirable. Others might see ait as a further attempt to subvert the law of another sovereign nation. And if this is to "stand up for the rights as members", what right do we have to grow whatever plant we want, in possible contravention of another country's or international law? Smacks of total selfishness to me. Of course the argument will always be used that "we" can do better to propagate a rare species than the international community, or the home country, but really, this is to me a poor argument which only promotes self-interest.
At the end of the day this is a moral issue. I know which side of the divide I stand. At my age I can not lust after a new or desirable species. There are enough beauties to go round and fill my greenhouse space. More than enough already. At my age I can not falsely pretend my propagation efforts will help the survival of a few species, especially when we are talking about a drop in the water with impending climate change chaos looming. I have no personal greed left.
The whole argument falls. This has given rise to further misunderstanding. The Mexican law applies to all cactus exports. The 1997 issue has only been raised because species discovered after the passing of the law must therefore be illegal exports if found elsewhere. Some folk seem not to understand this critical point. The Mexican law has also been confused with Cites. Cites is a guide which is subject to implementation by national legislation. A couple of times I have seen "Mexican law" referred to within derogatory contexts, and this is something I feel extremely uncomfortable with. This smacks of foreign law being inferior, and this is totally inappropriate in a post-colonial and post-Brexit age.KarlR wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:14 pm The way I understand the reasoning behind Mexico banning trade out of the country of (only?) cacti described after 1997 is that it is really to do with attempting to protect potential domestic economic interests in the selling of cacti, and not to do with conservation.
The Chairman further confused the issue by referring to Defra accepting that plants "described" in 1997 could have been in circulation earlier. But again the OP talked about new discoveries. NOT new descriptions.
Ian T himself also said he was attempting to secure import of seeds from Mexico legally. Some might see this as admirable. Others might see ait as a further attempt to subvert the law of another sovereign nation. And if this is to "stand up for the rights as members", what right do we have to grow whatever plant we want, in possible contravention of another country's or international law? Smacks of total selfishness to me. Of course the argument will always be used that "we" can do better to propagate a rare species than the international community, or the home country, but really, this is to me a poor argument which only promotes self-interest.
At the end of the day this is a moral issue. I know which side of the divide I stand. At my age I can not lust after a new or desirable species. There are enough beauties to go round and fill my greenhouse space. More than enough already. At my age I can not falsely pretend my propagation efforts will help the survival of a few species, especially when we are talking about a drop in the water with impending climate change chaos looming. I have no personal greed left.
- KarlR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 635
- Joined: 13 Oct 2014
- Branch: None
- Country: Norway
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Re: Illegal Cacti and the BCSS
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. My suggestion to Ian, that this subject could be a very useful one for CactusWorld, was precisely because there is a lot of confusion.
Further, my understanding of the law from 1997 is that it does, indeed, affect all cactus species from Mexico, but as regards species that were already discovered prior to the law taking effect, it is near impossible to call these illegal since they may have been exported before 1997. New species discovered after 1997, however, are by definition illegal to grow outside of Mexico since they must needs have been exported after the law took effect. This does not only apply to ex habitat plants, but to any and all progeny too even if these are of cultivated origin.
Contrary to what you might believe, I have no xenophobic beliefs about Mexican law. I do not think it is inferior in any way. While I think the law was implemented for economic reasons, I will accept it if someone can show me that the intent was to protect the plants in habitat and that there was no economic motives. I do not believe that conservation was the motive since there has not been any attempts, as far as I know, by the Mexican governments since then or by other official institutions to create a program geared towards propagating and distributing all these species en masse to the international market.
I believe Charlie Glass tried to set up something like this in Mexico before he died, but it was obviously not successful.
I do not believe that this particular Mexican law benefits the conservation of cacti in habitat. That is why I do not abide by it. I do not believe that the CITES regulations on international trade of cultivated cacti, as they currently are, benefits the conservation of cacti all the while the paperwork needed for legally sending plants and seeds across borders are too time consuming, too impractical and too costly for most people and smaller nurseries to bother with.
All this boils down to my belief that generally the best thing we hobbyists can do to help conservation in habitat is to make the most desirable and threatened species as easily and cheaply available as possible to as many hobbyists as possible. I have no problem disregarding the regulations when I believe they work against that goal.
It is completely feasible for a skilled grower to produce 50 Mammillaria bertholdii seedlings from 100 seeds, graft all the seedlings on Pereskiopsis and have flowering plants within 3-4 months. Within a year those 50 seedlings could produce ten times the seeds you started with. This is the way to satisfy international demand as far as I'm concerned. There will always be those who will buy ex habitat plants even if cultivated plants are much easier to find and much cheaper, but I think there are many more people who would rather have cultivated plants or seeds for far less money. But if that is not available I think a lot people are willing to shell out for habitat plants. So there again I just don't believe that current regulations help conservation.
I'm very glad that Ian is working towards making it easier for hobbyists to grow these species legally, by lobbying CITES. I was very happy to hear that.
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. My suggestion to Ian, that this subject could be a very useful one for CactusWorld, was precisely because there is a lot of confusion.
Further, my understanding of the law from 1997 is that it does, indeed, affect all cactus species from Mexico, but as regards species that were already discovered prior to the law taking effect, it is near impossible to call these illegal since they may have been exported before 1997. New species discovered after 1997, however, are by definition illegal to grow outside of Mexico since they must needs have been exported after the law took effect. This does not only apply to ex habitat plants, but to any and all progeny too even if these are of cultivated origin.
Contrary to what you might believe, I have no xenophobic beliefs about Mexican law. I do not think it is inferior in any way. While I think the law was implemented for economic reasons, I will accept it if someone can show me that the intent was to protect the plants in habitat and that there was no economic motives. I do not believe that conservation was the motive since there has not been any attempts, as far as I know, by the Mexican governments since then or by other official institutions to create a program geared towards propagating and distributing all these species en masse to the international market.
I believe Charlie Glass tried to set up something like this in Mexico before he died, but it was obviously not successful.
I do not believe that this particular Mexican law benefits the conservation of cacti in habitat. That is why I do not abide by it. I do not believe that the CITES regulations on international trade of cultivated cacti, as they currently are, benefits the conservation of cacti all the while the paperwork needed for legally sending plants and seeds across borders are too time consuming, too impractical and too costly for most people and smaller nurseries to bother with.
All this boils down to my belief that generally the best thing we hobbyists can do to help conservation in habitat is to make the most desirable and threatened species as easily and cheaply available as possible to as many hobbyists as possible. I have no problem disregarding the regulations when I believe they work against that goal.
It is completely feasible for a skilled grower to produce 50 Mammillaria bertholdii seedlings from 100 seeds, graft all the seedlings on Pereskiopsis and have flowering plants within 3-4 months. Within a year those 50 seedlings could produce ten times the seeds you started with. This is the way to satisfy international demand as far as I'm concerned. There will always be those who will buy ex habitat plants even if cultivated plants are much easier to find and much cheaper, but I think there are many more people who would rather have cultivated plants or seeds for far less money. But if that is not available I think a lot people are willing to shell out for habitat plants. So there again I just don't believe that current regulations help conservation.
I'm very glad that Ian is working towards making it easier for hobbyists to grow these species legally, by lobbying CITES. I was very happy to hear that.