Xeric World Forums  

Go Back   Xeric World Forums > General Discussion > Rules, Regulations and Ethics

Rules, Regulations and Ethics Open discussion of Import, Export, Shipping, Restrictions. CITES, Endangered Species, Wild Collection and other related topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 01-19-2013, 05:28 PM
epiphyte epiphyte is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Glendale
Posts: 169
epiphyte is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Absolutely hilarious is the fact that one person actually gave you some credit:
"Epiphyte: I'm liking a lot of what you have to say"
The hilarious part is not that he had an appreciation for anything you said, but that even in the most friendly response to you, you still couldn't bring yourself to thank or appreciate what he said. Nope, you got right back on your soapbox and lectured some more. That is just too funny...
If you look at the bottom of his post you'll see that it says, "The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Maggio For This Useful Post: epiphyte (12-21-2012)"

In your following statements I've bolded the the word "protected"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
illegal activity of collecting and selling wild collected, protected species on Ebay for profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Every single one of your posts is you on your soapbox... preaching, excusing, justifying the illegal collection of protected species with the motive of profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
I challenge you to reconcile that statement with the fact that you support the illegal collection of protected species FOR PROFIT! Can't be done...two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Again, remember we are talking about PROTECTED SPECIES here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE ILLEGAL COLLECTION OF PROTECTED SPECIES FOR PROFIT!
Over and over you say that these species are protected, but obviously, they aren't. Yet, your conclusion is to boycott the collectors...

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Show me where you thanked the thread author for pointing out to all of us that this reprehensible activity is going on, and that we can all help by boycotting those sellers, thereby making their activity unprofitable.
If the government is failing to use our tax dollars to effectively protect these species...then why wouldn't we want to boycott whichever government organization is failing to do its job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Your links and quotes of all you have said to promote conservation are garbage. You want me to provide links and quotes of what I've said to promote the same? Dude, there are talkers, and there are doers. You like to talk it up a bunch, but the fact is you promote an activity that does extreme harm to the natural environment, and the very premises of conservation itself. I don't talk about it, I do it. For one, I have zero plants in my collection which are protected species which were illegally collected. Fact. End of story. Who cares what I say, it's WHAT I DO that counts!
My links reflect active concern...

Quote:
If a woman told us that she loved flowers, and we saw that she forgot to water them, we would not believe in her "love" for flowers. Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love. - Erich Fromm The Art of Loving
You can't provide a single link to where you've promoted conservation. Clearly, it's not a priority for you. It does not adequately match your preferences.

Quote:
First, economics is all about individuals. That is because economics is all about choice. We can’t have everything, so we have to choose which things are most important to us: would we prefer a new car, for example, or a summer holiday? To go out with friends, or to relax at home? Invariably, we have to give up one thing (an amount of money or time and effort, say) to get another (such as a new pair of shoes or a tidy garden). These are economic decisions – even when no money is involved. They are questions of how we juggle scarce resources (cars, holidays, company, leisure, money, time, effort) to best satisfy our many wants. They are what economics is all about. - Eamonn Butler, Austrian Economics
Your choices, based on considerations of the opportunity costs, influence how society's scarce resources are used.

Personally, having an optimal supply of public goods is a priority for me, which is why I sacrifice other things I value (a tidy garden) in order to have more time to promote tax choice. The time that I could have spent weeding, pruning and raking is instead used for writing blog entries, posting in forums, creating relevant Wikipedia entries and starting and maintaining a facebook page.

I spent a few minutes looking around my library to find a book that I purchased a while ago...Orchids and their Conservation by Harold Koopowitz. Is it a priority for you to purchase it? How closely does it match your preferences? All I can do is guess...but it's completely up to you to decide whether or not it's worth your money. That's how and why the market works...each and every one of us has a say in how resources are used.

But it certainly was worth my money to purchase the book and it certainly was worth my time to dig through it to find these passages that I'd read who knows how many years ago...

Quote:
The chance that [CITES] listing would even help in their rescue from extinction is uncertain and the lists become difficult to regulate if they become too cumbersome. Many of the species referred to here are not threatened by trade but by land conversion and deforestation. In addition, other species will become extinct without our ever being aware that they were threatened, while others will become extinct without us even being aware of their existence. One can predict that, as the ineffectiveness of CITES to save species becomes ever more widely appreciated, the reluctance to support the convention will become more evident. - Harold Koopowitz, Orchids and their Conservation
Quote:
Consider another scenario. You are a professor at a major university and one of your doctoral students calls from Costa Rica. He has picked up some orchid plants from broken branches on the forest floor. The usual fate of orchids that fall is premature death. This is a young man who is intensely committed to conservation and hates to see anything die. You have to tell him to abandon the plants because it would be too difficult for him to get CITES papers. - Harold Koopowitz, Orchids and their Conservation
Quote:
The usual pattern, however, is more like that of Zambia where it is legal to turn a branch bearing live orchids into charcoal but it is illegal to take the orchids off the branch to export before burning the wood. - Harold Koopowitz, Orchids and their Conservation
The last section in this chapter is titled, "Could the money have been better spent?"

Quote:
The amount of money spent annually to enforce CITES must be enormous. To this must be added the cost of travelling to the various meetings of committees and conventions. If only part of the money spent on CITES over the last 25 years had been made available to actual and real conservation activities, such as buying up forested lands or policing preserves, the world would now be a better place and conservation would have been far better served. - Harold Koopowitz, Orchids and their Conservation
At the countless plant sales that I've attended...I always see people searching for the best deals. They all want the most plant for their buck. They have a certain budget to work with and they want to maximize the benefit that they derive from their selections. They search and search and search to find the plants and prices that most closely match their preferences. This is "demand" that shapes the supply.

If taxpayers who valued conservation were given the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector...then their behavior would be exactly the same as it is at the plant sales. They would want the most conservation for the least amount of tax dollars. They would want more for less which would force government organizations to do more with less. Doing more with less is the same thing as being economical...resourceful. The least effective programs/regulations would lose funding...and this would free-up resources for more effective programs/regulations. And this is exactly how we make progress.

Quote:
Each taxpayer could be contributing to a community which would become more reflective of the kind of world in which he or she would like to live. Gaudeat Emptor! - Daniel J. Brown, The Case For Tax-Target Plans
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-19-2013, 06:14 PM
xslinky@dishmail.net xslinky@dishmail.net is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 711
xslinky@dishmail.net is on a distinguished road
Default

My challenge was very specific. I said:
"Please do pick out ONE SINGLE SENTENCE where you acknowledged, appreciated and understood the comments you reply to, rather than just argue." Uh, that means, a sentence written by you in any one of your posts.
The evidence you present to dispute the "mischaracterization" as exactly worded in my post does not satisfy my challenge. What you refer to at the bottom of post #28 did not escape me, and pressing a button "thanks", is not what I was talking about, and which is why I worded my challenge exactly. I am referring to actual discussion where you acknowledge the other's viewpoint.
FAIL

Also, you are seeking refuge with your semantic interpretation of "protected".
Again, as framed in post #1:
"Several plants have been listed/sold recently that are fully protected under both State and Federal Laws"
You:
"Over and over you say that these species are protected, but obviously, they aren't."
Excuse me? The protection is the fact that collection of these species is "subject to prosecution, fines and jail sentences."
FAIL

I don't know why you bother. You can't read or you can't understand what you read and you continually sidestep the issue which is that removing PROTECTED (BY LAW) species from natural habitat is in direct conflict with your supposed value of in-situ conservation.

And hell yes, those people should be boycotted, if not prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

And, an extremely important distinction, the removal of these species as again framed in post #1 is motivated by profit, not for the protection of the endangered species.
FAIL

Try again.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-19-2013, 07:29 PM
xslinky@dishmail.net xslinky@dishmail.net is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 711
xslinky@dishmail.net is on a distinguished road
Default

One measure of a an individual's proposal or thought process is to take it to the Nth degree, and imagine the resulting effect.
First, if there were NO laws or restrictions "protecting" endangered species, where would we be? How many more species would have bitten the dust all so long ago? Don't think too hard for a truthful answer...
One can complain all they want about the "ineffectiveness" of government regulation and protection, but the fact remains that that is the one thin wall separating the current existence of populations in the wild, and extinction or existence solely in zoos, botanical gardens, and private collections. Duh! All the justifications in the universe would not change that fact.

Also, if you are going to say, "well...I only care about removing protection for the ones I want in my personal collection", that doesn't measure to any standard of fairness or equality. If you want to remove government restrictions for the plants you "value", citing free-market forces as your guide to preservation, then you have to toss out protections for all flora and fauna.
Can you see how ridiculous the argument of "Getting rid of the red tape that prevents tens of thousands of collectors from going on regular collecting trips around the world" truly is? It's absolutely absurd!
Would there be wild populations of: Bison, Elephants, Tigers, all fauna, all flora.....ad infinitum, anywhere? Hell no, only what is not "valued". Where would that leave us? Wild populations of every "valuable" species would be at the mercy of human greed and it's consequent destructive force. Would the concept of "forest" be something we would have to illustrate from pictures in old books? Let me just say, a vast majority of all nature "with commercial value and without restrictions" would be LONG GONE already!
We wouldn't even be having this discussion now.
Thankfully, there are more people who do care and who do obey laws and respect "protection" and value nature than greedy people who would propose to toss laws and protections into the garbage can. Let's hope rationality prevails and that with more education, more restrictions, more law enforcement...we can actually enjoy wild populations for generations to come.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-19-2013, 07:56 PM
xslinky@dishmail.net xslinky@dishmail.net is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 711
xslinky@dishmail.net is on a distinguished road
Default

Take a look at all the cold damage threads there are and then ask how ultimately effective are individual attempts to preserve species? Preserving rare and endangered species outside of their natural habitats only goes so far and is only one practical matter of one accidental event to wipe out that effort. Wild populations exist because they have adapted to their specific environments and climates and their relationships to the other species symbiotically present in their habitats.
This is not even addressing the possibility of impact by feral population of species being "saved" where they didn't naturally exist before.
The more we mess with mother nature by all manner and means, the worse we make things.
Furthermore, one individual can make all manner of adaptation and protection for their "charges", but they are one lightning strike, one fire, one climate event, one Tsunami, etc. not endemic to the original habitat away from loss and disaster.
Also, what could happen as well if the well-intended "savior" of the rare species would pass on? Would the heirs be as inclined to continue the preservation. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly, relying on the "value" concept of collectors is not a long-term, viable solution! It is only as viable as the life span of the individual collectors, and that is not very comforting at all.
Leaving the plants and animals in their natural habitats and protecting them is obviously the easiest solution and most practical solution to preserving our natural heritage. Evolution of species and habitat takes millennium. Overzealous collectors and human greed can erase forever precious natural resources in the cosmic blink of an eye.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-20-2013, 05:38 PM
mitsukurina mitsukurina is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
mitsukurina is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky@dishmail.net View Post
Preserving rare and endangered species outside of their natural habitats only goes so far and is only one practical matter of one accidental event to wipe out that effort.
That's perhaps a little extreme; there are examples that spring to mind (echinocactus grusonii and euphorbia obesa) where taxons that are close to extinct in habitat are preserved from extinction by dint of the vast numbers of plants of same that are in cultivation. No one, surely would say that the private collections of either are at risk.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 01-20-2013, 08:16 PM
xslinky@dishmail.net xslinky@dishmail.net is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 711
xslinky@dishmail.net is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, I would generally agree. I was making a point which is not really that far-fetched though.
In the case of the easily grown and extremely popular Golden Barrel cactus, I would say that it's popularity and over-collection from the wild is the reason that resulted in it's current predicament in it's natural habitat.
In any case, I would certainly rather have species in cultivation than nowhere at all.
What about other species that are more rare and more difficult to grow?
As mentioned more than once previously, I am not an opponent of propagating rare species (seed collection, etc.) out of the wild and "hopefully" improving chances for ultimate survival. The more the merrier. Just not at the complete expense of wild populations.
My main argument was against the wholesale collection of rare and endangered species purely for profit as some part of crazy theory that their fate is better served in the hands of collectors due to free market forces and value. Also, even worse, that regulations and protections should be removed to better facilitate their removal from the wild. As far as I am concerned, that would be nothing more than a complete guarantee that wild existence would be extinguished as quickly as they can be completely stripped from their natural habitats.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-20-2013, 08:22 PM
peterb peterb is offline
Ready to Mulch
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tempe
Posts: 758
peterb is on a distinguished road
Default

E. grusonii was nearly wiped out in its originally known habitat by a dam project.

I wish it were capable of naturalizing in some habitats where it is used for landscaping, but this seems to not be the case. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's doomed.

By the way, does anyone have this publication? It looks interesting indeed and I have never read it. "Cactus and Succulent Plants: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan" Compiled By Sara Oldfield, published in 1997.

peterb
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-21-2013, 03:24 PM
mitsukurina mitsukurina is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
mitsukurina is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes, it was the Zimapán Dam that wiped out e. grusonii.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-22-2013, 11:50 AM
peterb peterb is offline
Ready to Mulch
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tempe
Posts: 758
peterb is on a distinguished road
Default

There was a distant habitat discovered also for grusonii-like plants. I can't find info on that right now. Apparently only discovered in 2003 and confirmed in 2005. The form of the plants from the new habitat is slightly different from the original locale. Also, I think, in spite of the dam, there is a remaining population of grusonii in the original locale.

peterb
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:48 PM
mitsukurina mitsukurina is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
mitsukurina is on a distinguished road
Default

" Twenty years later, a new disjunct population of this species was discovered about 500 km away in the state of Zacatecas. The DNA structure of the plants from the new and original locations is currently being studied by researchers from the Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, University of Reading, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico."

http://www.bgci.org/resources/article/0635/
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:49 PM
mitsukurina mitsukurina is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
mitsukurina is on a distinguished road
Default

These are pix of grusonii in the "new" habitat it would seem by the labels:

http://www.cactushabitat.com/Mexico/...sgrusonii.html
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:33 PM
cactusmcharris's Avatar
cactusmcharris cactusmcharris is offline
Ready to Mulch
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 755
cactusmcharris is on a distinguished road
Default

mitsu,

In your opinion, are those elongated from not enough sun or an in-between columnar/globular cactus?

I've seen some regular E. grusonii with necks, but nothing like those beauties you linked to.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:38 PM
mitsukurina mitsukurina is offline
Root Bound
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
mitsukurina is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not sure --- I've seen some e. grusonii in cultivation that are as tall as these; but every one in this population (even -- its seems relatively "young" ones) is very very tall.

Perhaps it will later prove to be a subspecies or be named as a variety?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:59 PM
xslinky@dishmail.net xslinky@dishmail.net is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 711
xslinky@dishmail.net is on a distinguished road
Default

What really stands out to me in those pictures is how they are growing out of rock and on an extreme slope of the mountain.
I wonder if having to grow out of cracks, and then upwards had some developmental effect on it's elongated form?
Regardless, I am amazed at their apparent size and likely corresponding weight and the fact that they are just hanging on rock which appears nearly vertical.
Fabulous photos!
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-22-2013, 03:20 PM
peterb peterb is offline
Ready to Mulch
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tempe
Posts: 758
peterb is on a distinguished road
Default

One of the reasons I remain optimistic about many wild cactus plants in situ is this history of newly discovered populations of certain entities that were thought to be completely or almost completely extirpated from the known locales. Echinocereus lindsayi, Echinomastus mariposensis, etc. New populations are being found in areas that one would have thought had been thoroughly and completely botanized, such as the very robust population of Morangaya discovered near La Paz recently. I do think wild plants are far more resilient in the face of human activity than we often realize. (not always, of course)

I would love to see a thorough update of Anderson's _Threatened Cacti of Mexico_, also.

peterb
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:25 PM
HBaumann HBaumann is offline
Sprout
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 3
HBaumann is on a distinguished road
Default

Its amazing to me there is even a debate on this forum about buying wild collected plants on Ebay... I can think of nothing more unethical for a plant collector to do. You are actively promoting poaching, the destruction of habitat and compromising the genetic viability of the species or population as a whole. It is as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by Very Little Water Version 3.7.4
All content and images are copyright Xeric World Forums