A Different Perspective

From: Regferns at aol.com on 2001.07.27 at 18:55:48(7153) We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the side that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that at one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me from voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. I like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and order, but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, this is what I have seen. The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or even woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of CITES know best. As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River in Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and looking at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm groves is enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to your knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take down a century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES appendix 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in the sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the understory now vanishes. +More My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these countries require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There are those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I have always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize the meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are so many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is not due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is now destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, the loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I visit. Reggie Whitehead South Miami, Florida

From: Aroideae at aol.com on 2001.07.27 at 21:00:42(7157) Well put, Reggie!! We have our nice little system for picking nits in order while an asteroid approaches the earth. The Law will not sway the asteroid. lynn

From: Phil Bunch pbunch at cts.com> on 2001.07.28 at 03:16:04(7171) I think we need to keep the purpose of CITES in mind. It is only meant to regulate the international trade in some species, it is not a blanket conservation measure. It is true that habitat destruction is the major known cause of endangerment and probably extirpation. This however is not amenable control through treaties. CITES represents an effort to control one small part of a much greater problem. As collectors I think we have a responsibility to do our part, small though it may be. Phil Bunch On Friday, July 27, 2001 11:57, Regferns@aol.com [SMTP:Regferns@aol.com] +More wrote: > We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the side > that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that at > one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same > water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me from > voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. I > like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and order, > but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, > this is what I have seen. > > The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never > stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for > yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or even > woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of > CITES know best. > > As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is > chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River in > Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and looking > at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm groves is > enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to your > knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other > countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take down a > century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES appendix > 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in the > sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent > trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of > protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the > understory now vanishes. > > My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these countries > require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There are > those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I have > always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize the > meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. > > This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are so > many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. > And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best > intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is not > due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is now > destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a > biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, the > loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I visit. > > Reggie Whitehead > South Miami, Florida > << File: ATT00000.html >>

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.07.28 at 03:16:15(7172) Bless You, Reggie for so poignantly writing from the Heart. Indeed, yours is a different perspective. As Joe reports, in 14 years it will all be gone. Is it then the inexorable helplessness of watching ones most beloved die? So do we all resign ourselves beforehand to the inevitable? Do we rather do all in our power it should not be so? 14 Years? I am choked & numb & have no words. Without Wild Nature Man has no Heart to cry, no Spirit to pray. Ron Iles +More ----- Original Message ----- From: Regferns@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:56 PM Subject: A Different Perspective We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the side that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that at one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me from voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. I like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and order, but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, this is what I have seen. The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or even woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of CITES know best. As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River in Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and looking at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm groves is enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to your knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take down a century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES appendix 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in the sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the understory now vanishes. My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these countries require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There are those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I have always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize the meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are so many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is not due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is now destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, the loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I visit. Reggie Whitehead South Miami, Florida

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.28 at 04:47:27(7174) I have heard many opinions and suggestions on this wonderful subject of CITES and I want to commend those who have so passionately given their perspectives. I, for one, have enjoyed seeing the diversity of approach, pro and con, to this subject. It might just be that each of us, if willing, will learn as we go down this alley. Just one suggestion, let's not do it forever. +More Aroideae@aol.com wrote: Well put, Reggie!! We have our nice little system for picking nits in order while an asteroid approaches the earth. The Law will not sway the asteroid. lynn

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.28 at 04:47:37(7175) You know it is funny how what you say could mean either don't obtain that which is being destroyed in situ or get it at all cost because it is going to be gone in so few years. Think about that one and come to your own conclusions. You just made an argument that could go both ways. Is there a right or wrong? As a few have alluded to, this really is a power and control issue and really has so very little relevance to the saving or destroying of habitats and species. Perhaps when we see a bigger picture, like survival of ourselves, we will look back and realize by saving what is, we by all rights, save ourselves, but it just may be tooooo late. At that point fear of our own survival or that of our offspring will take on a precedence that has true relevance to so many that the power and control will be in the hands of those many who are in this day and age ignored and not cared about. It may come down to saving ourselves before we wake and see the bigger issue and let go of the old greed and control and callous nature of humanity and come to a respect of all that lives and that is on this planet. Does that sound philosophical? WEll, at some point, philosophy is likely to play out in reality and then where will we be? Each of us, in our own ways, wants the same thing. Tolerance and caring and sharing and helping and being there to assist each aspect in the chain, will potentially enable the chain to function and survival to result. Weak links, of which there are many now, make the outlook bleak. I, for one, hope that we wake up and start working together to not save individual plants, but those all along the chain from human, to animal, to plants so that it all will be there, to share. Is that not what we all hope for? +More Phil Bunch wrote: > I think we need to keep the purpose of CITES in mind. It is only meant to > regulate the international trade in some species, it is not a blanket > conservation measure. It is true that habitat destruction is the major > known cause of endangerment and probably extirpation. This however is not > amenable control through treaties. CITES represents an effort to control > one small part of a much greater problem. As collectors I think we have a > responsibility to do our part, small though it may be. > > Phil Bunch > > On Friday, July 27, 2001 11:57, Regferns@aol.com [SMTP:Regferns@aol.com] > wrote: > > We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the > side > > that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that > at > > one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same > > water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me > from > > voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. > I > > like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and > order, > > but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, > > this is what I have seen. > > > > The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never > > stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for > > yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or > even > > woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of > > CITES know best. > > > > As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is > > chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River > in > > Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and > looking > > at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm > groves is > > enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to > your > > knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other > > countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take > down a > > century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES > appendix > > 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in > the > > sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent > > trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of > > protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the > > understory now vanishes. > > > > My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these > countries > > require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There > are > > those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I > have > > always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize > the > > meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. > > > > This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are > so > > many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. > > And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best > > intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is > not > > due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is > now > > destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a > > biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, > the > > loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I > visit. > > > > Reggie Whitehead > > South Miami, Florida > > << File: ATT00000.html >>

From: Phil Bunch pbunch at cts.com> on 2001.07.28 at 14:49:52(7179) I personally support the CITES treaty and it's enforcement. I also work as a consulting biologist to a utility company and manage the day-to-day implementation of an endangered species/habitat conservation agreement with both the state and federal government (U.S.). I deal with this problem everyday and am constantly in between powerful interests. At times NO one likes what I say or do as part of my responsibilities. This is may be why my post appears to argue both sides of the issue. The realities of the problem are indeed painted in shades of gray. Effective solutions are rarely within the province of ideologues on either side. I have a rather pessimistic view of our real capacity to stem the tide of extirpation before we realize what we have lost. This is based on personal/professional involvement with environmental issues in Colombia and Mexico as much as my current job. Development is going to occur and with it, much additional habitat will be lost. There is no clean solution to the active interface between human needs/desires and habitat destruction. We are a short-sighted species with a great capacity to invent and an inability to see the long-term consequences of the implementation of our creative ideas. +More As a plant collector I also have struggled with the problem of our responsibility for the conservation and preservation of endangered species with commercial value. I am inalterably opposed to practices that may adversely effect the survival of species with very limited distributions in habitat. Such practices almost always involve the removal of material other than seeds, spores or cuttings. In some very rare species only the removal of tissue for in vitro propagation is acceptable. In some cases, seeds may be collected without affecting the long-term viability of populations. I think that collectors may be able to provide an "ark" for some species subject to habitat destruction but this is not a simple proposition. I would support the "rescue" of plants from areas where development activity will adversely affect their chance of survival if there were an effective way to distinguish between plants collected in such situations and those collected for purely commercial purposes. This is why the CITES treaty is important. How can we distinguish between responsibly collected material and material that should be left in place once it is on the market? Collectors in "rich" countries are an important driving force for the market. We are part of the demand side. I think everyone needs to consider the question: If I buy this plant, will it create more demand for more habitat collected plants? In regard to the people responsible for the enforcement of laws implementing the CITES treaty, keep in mind that they are just people. Some are ideologues, some are very rational in their approach, some are just putting in eight hours a day. Recall that their job is to enforce the law no matter what their intrinsic characteristics may be. They are often demonized. IMHO trying to deal with such complex problems is hampered by concepts of "right and wrong." There are only our actions and their subsequent effects. A person with a gun may kill a few others, a person with an ideology may kill millions. To be effective we must lay aside our personal points of view and TRY to see the "realities." Phil Bunch On Friday, July 27, 2001 21:48, Betsy Feuerstein [SMTP:ecuador@midsouth.rr.com] wrote: > You know it is funny how what you say could mean either don't obtain that which > is being destroyed in situ or get it at all cost because it is going to be gone > in so few years. Think about that one and come to your own conclusions. You > just made an argument that could go both ways. Is there a right or wrong? As a > few have alluded to, this really is a power and control issue and really has so > very little relevance to the saving or destroying of habitats and species. > Perhaps when we see a bigger picture, like survival of ourselves, we will look > back and realize by saving what is, we by all rights, save ourselves, but it > just may be tooooo late. At that point fear of our own survival or that of our > offspring will take on a precedence that has true relevance to so many that the > power and control will be in the hands of those many who are in this day and > age ignored and not cared about. It may come down to saving ourselves before we > wake and see the bigger issue and let go of the old greed and control and > callous nature of humanity and come to a respect of all that lives and that is > on this planet. Does that sound philosophical? WEll, at some point, philosophy > is likely to play out in reality and then where will we be? Each of us, in our > own ways, wants the same thing. Tolerance and caring and sharing and helping > and being there to assist each aspect in the chain, will potentially enable the > chain to function and survival to result. Weak links, of which there are many > now, make the outlook bleak. I, for one, hope that we wake up and start working > together to not save individual plants, but those all along the chain from > human, to animal, to plants so that it all will be there, to share. Is that not > what we all hope for? > > Phil Bunch wrote: > > > I think we need to keep the purpose of CITES in mind. It is only meant to > > regulate the international trade in some species, it is not a blanket > > conservation measure. It is true that habitat destruction is the major > > known cause of endangerment and probably extirpation. This however is not > > amenable control through treaties. CITES represents an effort to control > > one small part of a much greater problem. As collectors I think we have a > > responsibility to do our part, small though it may be. > > > > Phil Bunch > > > > On Friday, July 27, 2001 11:57, Regferns@aol.com [SMTP:Regferns@aol.com] > > wrote: > > > We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the > > side > > > that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that > > at > > > one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same > > > water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me > > from > > > voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. > > I > > > like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and > > order, > > > but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, > > > this is what I have seen. > > > > > > The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never > > > stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for > > > yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or > > even > > > woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of > > > CITES know best. > > > > > > As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is > > > chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River > > in > > > Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and > > looking > > > at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm > > groves is > > > enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to > > your > > > knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other > > > countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take > > down a > > > century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES > > appendix > > > 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in > > the > > > sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent > > > trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of > > > protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the > > > understory now vanishes. > > > > > > My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these > > countries > > > require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There > > are > > > those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I > > have > > > always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize > > the > > > meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. > > > > > > This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are > > so > > > many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. > > > And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best > > > intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is > > not > > > due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is > > now > > > destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a > > > biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, > > the > > > loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I > > visit. > > > > > > Reggie Whitehead > > > South Miami, Florida > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> >

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.