ethically sourced native orchids?

[Subrosa]

Equating wild collection with poaching is a common enough error, particularly if one doesn't allow for changing attitudes. At around the time that FL's orchids were being exploited, the Caatinga forests in Brazil were being exploited by converting them for commercial agricultural purposes. This left the Spix's Macaw without its specialized habitat. More on the Spix's in a moment. Approximately 100 years later, the Llanos de Moxos region of Bolivia started receiving the same attention. This put the Blue Throated Macaw in the same predicament as the Spix's, and FL's orchids. None of the specialized habitat needed for survival. Fortunately for the Blue Throated Macaw a lot has changed in the way of technology and people's thinking in the ensuing century. Spix's were put under pressure before transportation and modern climate control allowed them to enter into commerce for anything other than their feathers. The result? Current wild population of Spix's is estimated at 0. Extirpated. Known captive population is 97 individuals. The Blue Throated on the other hand was put under pressure in more modern times. Many individuals were collected for the pet trade, and the economics of parrots made it attractive for people to work with those wild caught birds and learn to breed them in captivity. The results? Wild population is estimated at 100-150 individuals. Outlook is bleak, and they will likely be extirpated in my lifetime. Captive population? Thousands of individuals. The moral of the story? The surest way to ensure the survival of a species is to commercialize it. Particularly if its natural habitat no longer exists, or is under pressure.

[MattWoelfsen]

Originally Posted by katrina

For native slippers (and their hybrids)+ other N American terrestrials...

Orchid Growing Supplies - Plants for Sale Columbia Station Ohio | Roberts Flower Supply

Great suggestion Katrina! My society makes a pilgrimage to Robert's annual open house. Open ends this weekend.

[katrina]

One day I'll make it up there for the open house. I've heard great things about it.

[Subrosa]

Fwiw I purchased several FL natives from Lee's Botanical Gardens, Lees Botanical Gardens - Carnivorous Plants. Thanks again for the tip Tommy! Pricing was excellent, the plants very nice, although I would say the service was a bit distant. All in all a completely worthwhile transaction.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Equating wild collection with poaching is a common enough error, particularly if one doesn't allow for changing attitudes. At around the time that FL's orchids were being exploited, the Caatinga forests in Brazil were being exploited by converting them for commercial agricultural purposes. This left the Spix's Macaw without its specialized habitat. More on the Spix's in a moment. Approximately 100 years later, the Llanos de Moxos region of Bolivia started receiving the same attention. This put the Blue Throated Macaw in the same predicament as the Spix's, and FL's orchids. None of the specialized habitat needed for survival. Fortunately for the Blue Throated Macaw a lot has changed in the way of technology and people's thinking in the ensuing century. Spix's were put under pressure before transportation and modern climate control allowed them to enter into commerce for anything other than their feathers. The result? Current wild population of Spix's is estimated at 0. Extirpated. Known captive population is 97 individuals. The Blue Throated on the other hand was put under pressure in more modern times. Many individuals were collected for the pet trade, and the economics of parrots made it attractive for people to work with those wild caught birds and learn to breed them in captivity. The results? Wild population is estimated at 100-150 individuals. Outlook is bleak, and they will likely be extirpated in my lifetime. Captive population? Thousands of individuals. The moral of the story? The surest way to ensure the survival of a species is to commercialize it. Particularly if its natural habitat no longer exists, or is under pressure.

Some would say that poaching applies strictly to the taking of fish or game from someone else's land, but if the concept of poaching is extended to plants, and the plants are taken from land not owned by the person that is doing the taking, it is poaching. Or to use a more general term, stealing. Entirely different IMO if the "taker" has the land owners permission (local law enforcement might have a different perspective). It is still poaching (or stealing) if it is on public land - not too different from the concept of taking plants from a public flower pot for their own good, discussed not long ago in another thread.

Is preserving the last few members of a species in captivity better than extinction in the wild? It probably is. But IMO it is better to work for conserving plants and animals within habitats, in the wild. Ensuring the survival of species through commercialization will really only work for a very small fraction of species (those that are beautiful, cute/fuzzy, edible to humans, useful to humans, and easy to keep or cultivate). In every ecosystem, there are other "weed" plants and animals which may be very ecologically important, but which don't fit in the above parentheses; these may be ugly, thorny, venomous, poisonous, difficult, boring, or just useless to humans. Preserving habitat, and leaving the wild plants remain in the wild places, conserves both the "commercial" and "weed" species for everyone.

[Bud]

Ethically, you should help the plant stay alive and multiply=especially if its an endangered species. Because you obviously cannot bring it back to its habitat.
But make sure to learn where it came from so you can report the poaching = maybe it will diminish or never happen again.
I am not condoning poaching but if you are confronted with an endangered species being sold in the middle of the road=rescue it! And report the anomaly to the proper channel.
You are the best person to care for the plant since after all you are a member of this Orchid Board=you rise above any other ordinary humans.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

Some would say that poaching applies strictly to the taking of fish or game from someone else's land, but if the concept of poaching is extended to plants, and the plants are taken from land not owned by the person that is doing the taking, it is poaching. Or to use a more general term, stealing. Entirely different IMO if the "taker" has the land owners permission (local law enforcement might have a different perspective). It is still poaching (or stealing) if it is on public land - not too different from the concept of taking plants from a public flower pot for their own good, discussed not long ago in another thread.

Is preserving the last few members of a species in captivity better than extinction in the wild? It probably is. But IMO it is better to work for conserving plants and animals within habitats, in the wild. Ensuring the survival of species through commercialization will really only work for a very small fraction of species (those that are beautiful, cute/fuzzy, edible to humans, useful to humans, and easy to keep or cultivate). In every ecosystem, there are other "weed" plants and animals which may be very ecologically important, but which don't fit in the above parentheses; these may be ugly, thorny, venomous, poisonous, difficult, boring, or just useless to humans. Preserving habitat, and leaving the wild plants remain in the wild places, conserves both the "commercial" and "weed" species for everyone.

I agree that preserving species in their natural habitat is far preferable to simply preserving their genetics outside of the conditions under which the genetics evolved. But that is an entirely different and far more complicated can of worms. It takes a rare bird, pardon the pun, to sit in the US and tell people in Bolivia how they must utilize or not utilize their land. The only ethical way to preserve the habitat is to put your money where your mouth is and buy the land in question. Assuming the current owner wishes to sell of course.

---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Bud

Ethically, you should help the plant stay alive and multiply=especially if its an endangered species. Because you obviously cannot bring it back to its habitat.
But make sure to learn where it came from so you can report the poaching = maybe it will diminish or never happen again.
I am not condoning poaching but if you are confronted with an endangered species being sold in the middle of the road=rescue it! And report the anomaly to the proper channel.
You are the best person to care for the plant since after all you are a member of this Orchid Board=you rise above any other ordinary humans.

This does raise an interesting situation. While I certainly don't condone illegal collection of plant material, particularly imperiled species, who gets the material can most definitely have a bearing on the future outcome from it. I personally have an exceptional example of a non listed native plant which I know the full provenance on, and it was originally poached. No mincing words, the parent plant was and is in a local state park. I have seen the mother plant which mine came from in situ, and there's no mistaking that they are the same plant. I received a propagated piece 5 years ago from a person who received a propagated piece from the poacher. Starting last year, I started planting this plant in various locations around the area. Next season I expect to have some to give away to other gardeners. While the actual act of initially taking the plant was undoubtedly illegal and wrong, it has just as undoubtedly come to have a positive effect on the future of that plant

[Orchid Whisperer]

Well . . . the original post was about orchids native to the U.S./Florida, not Bolivia.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

Well . . . the original post was about orchids native to the U.S./Florida, not Bolivia.

The post is about the ethics of species and habitat management. FL is simply the specific area under discussion. These ethics don't change because arbitrary political boundaries.