Conservation a Confusing Issue

[rainforest]

I'm a little behooved at the idea of conservation. While we do need to "CONSERVE" on what nature has to offer. Is this done so in a way that we need to TAKE whole plants from habitat. Do we pat ourselves on the back for "SAVING" these from destruction's path? While it is not always possible to obtain seeds (which I feel is the best interest for conservationists and botanists alike), removal of whole plants from an area where it has grown accustomed to just seems like a crime to me. I don't condone taking cuttings. Should all those N. clipeata poachers just removed cuttings instead of whole plants, we'd still have a large population of plants in habitat today.

My appreciation for growing nepenthes is to be sure they are in habitat even if it means that they will be converted into rice paddies and homes. What I grow from seeds, or even cuttings is the product of having that plant in habitat and I wouldn't want it any other way. If I wasn't a good grower or if I had lost these to problems beyond my control, wouldn't it be nice to know that this entire plant wasn't totally removed from habitat? That this gene pool is available still in its niche.

This hobby is interesting. There is one school that justifies "POACHING" as translating to "CONSERVATION" and another saying that "POACHING" is bad because those TAKING from habitat aren't botanists and therefore has TAKEN everything from habitat.

I know I'll hear nay sayers saying that it's just my deviant mind that makes it look wrong. But Poaching is poaching period!

M

[philgreen]

OK, I'll bite

'Conservation' does mean different things to different people.

But to me, the main point of conservation, is to ensure a species continues to survive where it naturally grows in the wild - insitu. Or, in cultivation (plants) to be reintroduced when conditions allow.

I don't agree with leaving plants to be destroyed by development - if they can be saved (but that isn't conservation) or transplanted to a safer nearby site - so long as this won't harm any organisms at that new site (conservation in my book).

But on the whole, most 'saved plants' is nothing to do with conservation, but just getting plants into cultivation. I say most - because some good work is done like this.

But 'saving' a plant that isn't in immediate danger, is poaching.

Yes to me, poaching is poaching. It can occassionally end up by accident, saving a species that was later destroyed. As Cello mentioned with one of the IC species last year - shortly after poachers removed a load of plants, the site was destroyed. But this was by accident and not design - although it is hard to criticise someone, while thanking them at the same time. Hopefully, some of these plants (or their seeds) can be used to establish a new colony nearby.

We live in the real world and it ain't Black & White.

But on the whole (in my opinion), 'saving' plants is about aquiring nice specimens and not conservation. There are rarely plans to return them 'to the wild' when possible and how often are the regular 'plain janes' saved ?

Just my opinion.

[rsivertsen]

I'm inclined to agree with both of you Phil and Mike, removing a WHOLE plant, roots and all, from its natural habitat is just wrong, even if it's for a herbarium specimen, there's very little reason to include the plant's roots, (with the exception of those few plants that produce tuberous roots, or other specialized root systems). Again, in a perfect world, ....; but in this very imperfect world, Planet Reality often presents us with only bad choices, some worse than others (or less bad, depending on your point of view).

I heard some interesting stories recently where development in the northeast USA during the early-mid part of the 1900's whereby the Army Core of Engineers surveyed the real estate of an area that would be flooded upon a dam construction project, (or other habitat destruction due to development), and contacted several universities and groups alerting them to the pending project, and even helped with the removal, transport and relocation of many rare plants, CPs, orchids, ferns, etc. Today, this is considered unethical and illegal because it could introduce pests and parasites into an ecosphere where it didn't exist before, as well as disturbing a population and changing its natural range.

Many of these new locations were sites that had been strip mined for turpentine, and other lumber clearing and mining. Now, instead of a pristine and dense forest, an open and often boggy and barren slab of lifeless real estate is left, very much an "eye-sore"; so, they helped in bringing in doomed plants from bogs, even out of state, in effort to make these barren slabs of earth more natural looking, and help save some otherwise doomed plants from certain death.

Conservation to me is the effort in keeping plants alive and healthy in their natural habitats. But again, here in Planet Reality, people need to make a living, feed their families, and have places to live. If people knew that they could earn MORE money from their real estate investment by allowing rare plants (such as Nepenthes) to grow on their lands than rice, oil palm plantations, and other cash crops, they might NOT be so inclined to slash and burn these plant populations into oblivion so fast and thoughtlessly. This doesn't really work by legislation; you can't legislate morality; it just doesn't work. Once people know and understand that farming plants that occur on their lands, such as Nepenthes, may be more profitable if managed properly, conservation might work; tourism is another factor. You can't just tell someone "Don't do that!" without telling them what to do differently instead, in order to achieve their goals.

Having said all that, I still think judicious harvesting of cuttings and seed is the way to go in order to assure that these plants find their way into cultivation. There is no other way, especially where sports and rare natural hybrids are concerned. Now for the tricky and delicate matter of gaining permissions and permits; lots of gray areas here, like anything else in the real world, things are NOT always simple black and white issues and rules; you could get into more trouble trying to find out who exactly owns a particular piece of real estate where some very rare CP just happens to grow. Just my $0.02 - Rich

[agustinfranco]

Hi all:

Removing a plant from its natural environment IMO is definitely wrong. I don't care whether you are the best Nepenthes grower in the world. If the plant exists in its natural habitat, it's because it has adapted and evolved in that particular piece of soil. It's very arrogant to believe that by getting the plant from its natural habitat one will give it better chances of survival. There are some exceptions such as: if i see the plant being destroyed by animals, or humans (building roads, houses, etc. O.K. I'd take it, but if the plant is healthy, and there are no immediate threats against it..then leave it alone.

Seed collection is a very different story. anybody will have hundreds of seeds at his/her disposal and each seed represents a potential new individual. We should not; however, take all the seeds from the plant, as by producing seeds, the plants is ensuring the survival of its species or adaptive hybrid clone.

Gus

[Dave Evans]

Feb 15, 2010 9:00:17 GMT -10 rainforest said:

While it is not always possible to obtain seeds (which I feel is the best interest for conservationists and botanists alike), removal of whole plants from an area where it has grown accustomed to just seems like a crime to me. I don't condone taking cuttings. Should all those N. clipeata poachers just removed cuttings instead of whole plants, we'd still have a large population of plants in habitat today.

If I wasn't a good grower or if I had lost these to problems beyond my control, wouldn't it be nice to know that this entire plant wasn't totally removed from habitat? That this gene pool is available still in its niche.

Dear Michael,

Could you clarify, "I don't condone taking cuttings." Because in the next sentence you seem to indicate you do condone taking cuttings in certain, if unusual circumstance...

I'm very happy N. pitopangii is still present where it was found, even though several people have taken cuttings, the plant is still living there by itself. I hope fellow enthusiasts can continue to restrain themselves and work on propagating the material in cultivation without further depleting this species' presence in the wild.

A plant that is actively competing with other plants, i.e. just about all wild plants and especially Nepenthes, can only give so many cuttings before it gets weak.

[walterg]

I certainly don't want to speak for Michael, but if you insert the word "but" where the period is...

More like - "I don't condone taking cuttings, but if all those N. clipeata poachers had just removed cuttings instead of whole plants, we'd still have a large population of plants in habitat today. "

Of course a plant can only survive so many cuttings, which is why we really should not condone taking them from wild plants that are not spectacularly plentiful.

To paraphrase some famous guy I learned about in grade school a very long time ago: Give me seeds or give me death.

[rainforest]

Dave, be specific, I don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has time to dissect a sentence surely has enough time to read it through.

The idea of taking whole plants is just wrong to me. Even if a plant is "supposed" to be dead after slash and burn, farming, and even habitation. I have read articles of people posting images of N. ampullaria returning after farmers burned and replanted and left areas. Somehow the natural vegetation may return or sometimes hybrid swarms of these return. Perhaps this is a mechanism of species diversification or something. Yes there are instances where whole areas are bulldozed and converted into roads, etc. This is where my idea of a governing body separate from CITES to check on species on peril and actually do something about it.

The problem with N. clipeata isn't that they were over collected, it is in peril due to fires set to destroy plants after so many were collected. This kind of poaching and deliberate species elimination is what this hobby has lead to.

Being monopoly is what this hobby is all about and that is what I am all against!

M

[Dave Evans]

Feb 17, 2010 9:16:00 GMT -10 rainforest said:

Dave, be specific, I don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who has time to dissect a sentence surely has enough time to read it through.

So what you meant say was, "I don't condenm taking cuttings."

Thanks, I don't condenm taking cuttings either.