Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:28:00 +0100 From: Paul Temple <paultemple@ecologycal.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1226$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
>I agree that wild collecting is to be discouraged. The problem is that
it is a
>moral issue.
Not quite, Most counries now have laws forbidding colection of wild
plants (though seed may be OK). Most countries are also signitories to
the biodiversity conventions that prohibit removal of material without
permission. So there are laws that can be enforced. The trouble is
that gouvernment is not the best placed to enforce the rules. Botanical
institutes and Botanical societies are. But thy choose to avoid the
issue as it makes their lives more difficult. A true conflict of
interst.
>If I know that a tract of land is to be logged
>come winter and I am out hiking around there and happen across a
>plant I want, if it is not legally forbidden, I will wild collect
>it, or its seed.
This seems like the common sense that should prevail even if colleting
is potentially illegal.
>Therefore laws are the only answer. Moral education is vital.
I agree. And who better to contribute to this than the plant societies?
>any effort to reduce these deleterious actions should be encouraged -
but
>with a consensus for appropriate guidelines
Again I agree, specifically with the need for consensus, but again who
better to contribute to this than the plant societies?
>So, if a population is lost due to drought, there are fewer others
likely to
>survive. With this in mind, then perhaps the rescue of a highly
endangered
>population would be in order.
And thus are born criteria by which to act.
>Greenhouse pests? Well, most if not all of these are native critters.
In any case the primary attempt at plant rescue would generally be best
if managed within the source country of the plant being resued. This
should minimise the need for greenhouses of the "closed" environment in
which alien pests thrive. Thus infection with alien pests is not a
problem so quarantine would not be required. (Though it's still a
useful procedure where closed greenhouses have to be used.)
>The idea of quarantine would extend to the prevention of the
introduction
>of alien or exotic species.
And thus arises another conundrum. If climate change or man's local
influence destroys as natural environment, should a plant be introduced
to a similar environment in a totally different geographical area, if
this is the omnly way of maintaining it in the wild?
>Is obviously silly. What? you'd rather compost these plants?
Calling my statement silly is perhaps a trifle undiplomatic but I shall
still respond. You are indeed correct that there are exam-les where
plant materail would be best introduced into cultivation despite already
being in cultivation and common. Your example of saving a bog abouto be
drained is a good one. I did not attempt to promote my ideas as gospel
nor as perfect (nor even as correct) - they re simply meant to be spring
boards from which others might launch their views. I'm happy to rethink
my ideas based on what others can teach me, but like all others, I
prefer to be helped to think rather than criticised for being less than
perfect. (But it was a good point.)
>And what's your stand, then, on privately owned bogs?
The whole phrase is couched as what looks like a challenge. Why? As to
the example given, the man obviously "did good" by buying bogs to save
the wildlike. I personally have no problem that he then finds a way to
use the bog to finance his ability to defend its content. This seems
like a near perfect solution.
>but I don't at all agree that we, here, should second guess other's
activities
>without facts
Sorry but I must have missed where anybody did thgis. I do agree wityh
you that facts are needed both in the creation of rules and guidelines
and before assuming that someone has broken any such rules.
>If one collects from the wild a plant that is not endangered, how many
>does one take? Consider one of my favorite wild flowers, May Apples.
>(I saw someone selling them on Ebay...my wife and I argue about mowing
>them here.) Do you take a percentage?
I love this question. In the UK, I think (not sure) that our laws
forbidding removal of all wild plants without prior permission are
partly based on a presumption that we all have a right to enjoy the
wildlife. So, I like the idea that I can expect to drive to a forest
and see wild anenomes (or is it anemones?) growing in woodland without
any bare patches resulting from someonecutting the flowers for their own
private enjoyment. To me, if the plant is common then it probably is in
cultivation so why "steal" it from the wild at a loss to others who
might enjoy seeing them there?
>would not a stand of oreophila eventually be replaced by the cross?
And I think this qualifies as an example of introduction into the wild
of an alien. So many would agree that it should rarely be done and only
with careful thought and control.
Still just thinking aloud
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST