(no subject)

Michael.Chamberland (23274MJC@MSU.EDU)
Tue, 26 Nov 96 16:38 EST

> From: "Carlo A. Balistrieri" <cabalist@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>
> Michael C.and John B. make some good points (everyone has) but let's step
> back from the map issue for a second to see if what is proposed makes a
> difference. It appears that the main objection to a good CP map is that some
> ne'er-do-wells will use it to strip habitat clean. The posts on this issue
> make it clear that there are many sources of site information. Much of the
> detailed information came, not from conservationists but from scientists and
> plant lovers (including growers). Is it going to make it that much easier to
> locate populations if a map is produced? Couldn't the collectors get the
> site information from other sources anyway? Aren't some of you
> underestimating these plant poachers?

Yes, detailed info on plant localities is already available. But it is
scattered about in many different publications. It takes a lot of
research and footwork to assemble it all. How much info is found is
proportional to the researcher's determination and interest. During this
process the researcher is bound to learn a lot about CP, and about the
plight of rare CP species. The hardened CP poacher will ignore this and
collect anyway.
Carnivores are bizzare plants which often capture the interest of
people who never thought twice about plants before. I worry that a map
of precise CP localities, available over the internet, will tell these
people where to find plants before they have any concept of the problem
of collecting. Sure, a disclaimer that the map shouldn't be used to
field collect might be added. But there is no guarantee this will be
heeded any more than the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes has
stopped people from starting smoking. The idea that the plants are
rare may be dismissed when the neophyte sees a bog filled with hundreds
of plants.
In addition, locality data may increase traffic in wild CP sites. This
traffic tramples plants and the bog mat. Even if no big poaching raids
hit, a certain amount of low-level collecting is inevitable. The impact
of this will increase with the level of visitation.

On another note, because assembling precise locality data from available
sources is difficult, I question the ability of a single person or even
a small group to produce a comprehensive map. Such a map (released on
the internet or not) will be useful to science only in proportion to
its accuracy. In other words, I don't think a comprehensive world list of
localities CAN be assembled with the accuracy that would benefit researchers
More likely it would assemble only the most well-known localities. Releasing
these on the net would only exacerbate their visitation problems.

> I take no position on whether it should be done or not. I really haven't
> thought it through and don't know. Do the maps of the homes of Hollywood
> stars cause them to be robbed more than others?

I don't know. All homes are protected by the law. Celebrity homes are
renound for their security devices which provide additional protection.
Rare plants are protected by law, proportional to their rarity. But
even very rare plants receive little or no physical protection other than
their isolation. Rangers on patrol are few, if any.

Michael Chamberland