|
|
Post by kltower on Oct 12, 2007 17:02:36 GMT 8
This is a very dirty word and many members in this and other CP forum feel very strongly about it.
What is poaching? To me it means harvesting flora or fauna from protected area (like national park) or harvesting protected species in non-protected area.
So, I am poaching if I took seeds from N. edwardsiana regardless if the plants were from Kinabalu Park or not.
I am not poaching if I took N. northiana plants that is found outside a national park.
I am sure alot of you will have alot of bad things to say if I had done the above. But why? There are collectors who go out collecting rare fighting fishes or to many of us useless water weeds. Many of us also collect moss species. Or fishing kelah in Kelantan rivers. So what is the difference?
Am I poaching, if I dug up the colony of N. rajah, knowing very well they are going to bulldoze the area to build roads?
I think collecting plants from the wild is okay, if we do it sensibly. If the population is big, I think it is alright to take a couple of seedlings. Don't be greedy. Leave the adult plants to reproduce and regenerate. That is the reason why, you only find male mud crab on the menu. They don't harvest female crabs.
So what do you guys think?
Choong
|
|
|
|
Post by hongrui on Oct 12, 2007 17:27:36 GMT 8
What is poaching? To me it means harvesting flora or fauna from protected area (like national park) or harvesting protected species in non-protected area. So, I am poaching if I took seeds from N. edwardsiana regardless if the plants were from Kinabalu Park or not. I am not poaching if I took N. northiana plants that is found outside a national park. wouldn't collecting N. northiana outside a national park fall under "harvesting protected species in non-protected area"? all neps are protected species. my personal opinion is that collection of neps is okay for re-location if the area is going to be developed. There are collectors who go out collecting rare fighting fishes or to many of us useless water weeds. Many of us also collect moss species. Or fishing kelah in Kelantan rivers. So what is the difference? collection in all the above cases is not good, IMO. Even if a particular species is not a protected species, you do not know if that species will become locally extinct. And also you cannot equate the collecting a rare betta species to the collecting of a water weed, the betta is rare and collection will only put the species under pressure while collection of the water weed will probably not affect the species popluation in anyway. but i'd rather err on the safe side and say no to collection in any case at all. |
|
|
|
Post by tarence on Oct 12, 2007 23:10:03 GMT 8
Choong , refer to Petpitcher guidelines no 4 :
Quote
4. You may not encourage the collection of plants from the wild and you may not disclose the exact or detailed direction to their location. The only exception to the rule is when these areas are being designated for development and the plants are destroyed in the process.
Many species of carnivorous plants are endangered with extinction while others are threatened with possible future extinction in the wild. There are also local and international laws prohibiting the collection of endangered plants from the wild and trading of them. It would be wise to take note of these laws.
Unquote
I agree with hongrui....the example you gave about `taking sensibly`. if each of us were to `take sensibly` from the jungles, would there be any plants left in the future ? who is the to judge one person`s sensibility from another ? what may be sensible to you may be outrageous to me.
Not being greedy is easier said than done......i`ve personally seen huge colonies of n.hookeriana ( there were about 200 plants ) wiped out......it was not bulldozed or flattened, the plants were all poached. Mercilessly.
keep this in mind : tissue culture for the future of neps.
we can`t speak for or address other species of the world as this is a CP forum...
|
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Oct 12, 2007 23:54:14 GMT 8
I will have to disagree on some points. Tissue culture is NOT the answer. Continual pollination and breeding of specific traits to one another is the answer. And while I do not agree of collecting whole plants, I feel taking cuttings allows the breeding progenitor to still be a part of the genetic community. I would disagree with taking seedlings, as these are the better adapted plants that is evolving to a changing climate. Older plants that have been used to a specific climate is now obsolete and we could duplicate that economy in captivity, the seedlings that have emerged, from thousands of seeds have the progenitor genes that will make them better suited to these drier , hotter or sometimes extreme monsoon changes.
If N. clipeata CUTTINGS were taken instead of whole plants, the seedlings of true species would dominate the landscape. Instead a wealth of clipeata hybrids predominate the area.
There is too much misinformation regarding the "save-all" theory of tissue culture. If tissue culture were that significant, wouldn't cryogenic science be saving tissue samples. No, they are saving pollen, because it is the most significant aspect of that species. They are freezing sperm, not tissue. They are freezing the component required to make a whole entity. It will take many decades to overcome this myth, by then countless dozens of species will all perish. It is my hope that this emerging Asian Group will come to the rescue where American and European science has failed. As with each successive generation of collectors and scientists, the future holds a great promise for nepenthes survival. And the saving is NOT from tissue culture.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by kltower on Oct 13, 2007 11:24:14 GMT 8
Hongrui,
Maybe all nepenthes in Singapore are protected. I don't think this is the case in Malaysia.
My point is, if collecting nepenthes from the wild is bad, then collecting any wild plants or fauna is just as bad. No collecting of sphagnum moss, fishes, spiders, butterflies, water weeds, etc. Afterall, they are part of the ecological system.
Tarence,
I believe the wiping out the hookerina colony is more of the work of commercial collectors. Afterall, since not all the plants are protected, there is nothing the wildlife officers can do even if they see them carry sackful of them.
Let's hear more views.
Choong
|
|
|
|
Post by hongrui on Oct 13, 2007 12:50:51 GMT 8
Hongrui, Maybe all nepenthes in Singapore are protected. I don't think this is the case in Malaysia. My point is, if collecting nepenthes from the wild is bad, then collecting any wild plants or fauna is just as bad. No collecting of sphagnum moss, fishes, spiders, butterflies, water weeds, etc. Afterall, they are part of the ecological system. Choong, all Nepenthes are protected. All Nepenthes are covered under CITES of which Malaysia is a signatory. N. Rajah and N. Khasiana is covered under Appendix 1, while all others are under Appendix 2. IMO, its just a matter of enforcement, how strict the respective governments are concerning poaching, especially poaching of plants. somehow there is always more emphasis on poaching of animals when plants face the same problem. |
|
|
|
Post by kltower on Oct 14, 2007 0:15:37 GMT 8
Hongrui, Don't be confused with CITES protection and the protection of wildlife and plants by regulatory law in signatory states. CITES only regulated TRADING between member states. For example, the trading of elephants and elephant parts (tusks) between states is strictly prohibited. It is listed in CITES Appendix I. But in certain elephant rich African states hunting of elephant is allowed to cull the population. That is why these countries want the lifting on the ban on elephant tusks. What CITES Appendix I and II say: CITES Appendix I - incudes species threatened with extinction as a result of international trade. Trade in wild plants listed on this Appendix is, in effect, prohibited. However, trade in artificially propagated plants is allowed subject to permits. CITES Appendix II - incudes species not now threatened with extinction, but may become so in the future unless trade is regulated. international trade. Both wild and artificially propagated plants may be trade subject to permits. True all nepenthes specis (with the exception of N. rajah and N. Khasiana which are listed in Appendix I) are listed in Appendix II. What is means is that you can move plants between Malaysia and Singapore as long as you have a permit. Thatis all. When you buy from MT, MT just get the Dept of Agriculture to issue you a permit. NOW, there is ONE and ONLY ONE nepenthes is totally protected by legislation in Sabah. And it is N. rajah. No one may possess this species or any part or product from them without written authorisation from the Minister for Tourism Development, Environment, Science and Technology. (see: www.sabah.gov.my/jhl/TotallyProtectedSpecies.htm)If you read the articles on nepenthes conservation in Borneo (http://www.wildborneo.com.my/articles/art_nos_con.html) you will be surprised that the highly threathen N. clipeata has not been accorded protection by the Indonesian government. Choong |
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Oct 14, 2007 1:06:18 GMT 8
Aside from CITES I plants which exist in their native haunts, there are also other rajah specimens that were previously confiscated and sent to rescue centers. Many have flowered and some have been pollinated to make true seeds. It is interesting that none of the seeds were sent to any of the major nepenthes nurseries, but sent more to collectors and growers of non-nepenthes collections worldwide. These locations are of course confidential, as specimens can more easily be taken from private collections at an easier rate than being smuggled out of their native countries. I understand that there have been two successful pollinations of rajah which have born fertile seeds outside of Sabah.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by hongrui on Oct 14, 2007 2:06:01 GMT 8
Hongrui, Don't be confused with CITES protection and the protection of wildlife and plants by regulatory law in signatory states. CITES only regulated TRADING between member states. Choong Choong, i stand corrected in that CITES is with regards only to wildlife trade. however i shall argue the point that if nepenthes are covered in CITES, it should mean that they are in danger of illegal trade (and illegal collection). thus we need to protect them? from the website that you have provided, www.sabah.gov.my/jhl, i came across section 54 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1997, which states that: 54(1) Subject to section 56, no person shall havest a plant of - a) a species listed in Appendix I or Part II of Schedule 1; or b) a species listed in Appendix II or Part II of Schedule 2, without a licence (2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction- a) in respect of an offence relating to a plant of a species listed in Appendix II of Schedule 1, to a fine of fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment of 5 years or to both; or b) in respect of an offence relating to a plant of a species listed in Appendix II of Schedule 2, to a fine of thirty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment of 3 years or to both. Nepenthes rajah is listed in Appendix II of schedule 1, while Nepenthaceae is listed in Appendix II of schedule 2. from a quick reading, my understanding thus is that under this wildlife act, no one is allowed to do any form of wild collection of any nepenthes species from anywhere without a license. But i'm not sure if this applies to only Sabah or to the whole of Malaysia. if this act covers only Sabah, then there should another wildlife act covering the whole of M'sia, unless it's left to the individual states? anyone can verify? |
|
|
|
Post by artificialive on Oct 19, 2007 2:47:37 GMT 8
Hi Choong,
Just a simple question here that i know u are capable to answer..
What exactly are you trying to say/ proof?
I think it's better for u to go straight to the point to be clear of what are u trying to address, and only then we all can give some opinions
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacgoh on Oct 19, 2007 9:48:43 GMT 8
Does it mean that I need a permit for owning a Rajah even if it's from BE stock?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarence on Oct 19, 2007 10:31:42 GMT 8
Choong : Commercial collectors, private collectors, to me it`s all the same. The diff being the volume taken. Commercial collectors may wipe out the whole colony at one go whereas private collectors so-called `take with conscience` ( i see this a big joke) but eventually, if there are enuff private collectors with conscience or without, the colony will either be wiped out or suffer. You yourself mention about seeing neps in the wild in certain locations in the past tense, as part of history. I wonder how much damage needs to be done before it hits you.
Did anyone here ever condone taking wild plants or fishes or butterflies ? I did not read of any posts saying it was fine.
If you don`t feel any guilt taking wild neps, then I can`t stop you. But if you are asking us to condone your action, I think it won`t be forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacgoh on Oct 19, 2007 12:08:07 GMT 8
Guys,
I think this topic is getting out of hands already.
From what I read, everybody in this forum should stop keeping neps because by keeping neps you are encouraging people into this hobby. When more people are into this hobby, it's inevitable that some people will want to have some exotic variety, even if you get the exotic variety from a nursery. The source of the nursery is also from the wild someway or another. In a way you are encouraging the destruction of the neps population out there. The theory of demand and supply is common sense.
If you guys still want to harp on this topic, please stop keeping neps. Stop Nepenthes cruelty by donating all your neps to botanical garden. Don't sit in front of your desk and write your own theory. All talk does not mean actions until something is done.
Personally, I think some common sense is required here.
Thanks.
Rgds,
Isaac
|
|
|
|
Post by hongrui on Oct 19, 2007 12:50:29 GMT 8
Issac, i'm afraid i have to object very strongly to what you are saying here. The source of the nursery is also from the wild someway or another. In a way you are encouraging the destruction of the neps population out there. True, the original plant which the nursery has is probably from the wild but i trust and believe the nursery has the required permit/license to collect the plant in the first place. i'm referring to commercial CP nurseries like BE, EP, MT etc. these nurseries are propagating the plants in a sustainable manner; ad hoc wild collection is not sustainable. the onus is on us, growers to learn and educate other growers (and even the sellers/nurseries) to obain/purchase neps legally and ensure that those neps are propagated in a sustainable manner, either via TC or seed grown within nurseries. All talk does not mean actions until something is done. i think all this talk here is a form of education. and the message here is: wild collection is irresponsible and should not take place. wild collection is illegal too! |
|
|
|
Post by tarence on Oct 19, 2007 13:28:35 GMT 8
Isaac, we are not the ones who brought up the topic. We are merely trying to knock some sense into it. It should NEVER have been brought up here in the first place.
If one wants to poach, we can`t stop them but don`t preach about it. We don`t want to know. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Oct 19, 2007 14:02:19 GMT 8
Ok, this discussion shall end here! I will leave this thread here so that members and guests who are uninformed will know the issues and regulations governing the collection of wild nepenthes plants.
In the future please keep all disscussion focus on the cultivation of CPs instead of arguing on things like this. Please be reminded again that you may not encourage the collection of plants from the wild on PetPitcher forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Oct 22, 2007 11:08:16 GMT 8
Choong has emailed me his reply to this thread and requested for it to be posted as he did not get an opportunity to do so before this thread was locked. As such I have decided to post his reply on his behalf.
Below is his reply...
Dear All,
I apologised for ruffing up some of you guys in my thread on poaching.
But two issues did arised from the that thread.
Issue 1 - Misconception of the legal status on the protection of nepenthes.
We have all assumed that they are protected from law in this country. Clearly, this is not the case and we need to look into this. If you really want to protect the plants, then you must be sure of their status.
Imagine, you found someone digging up a whole colony of nepenthes and you called the police/wildlife officials to apprehend the culprit but was later informed they cannot do anything because the species is not protected. Don't you feel foolish. What the guy had done is morally
wrong but is not illegal.
Issue 2 - Why only sneer at poaching of nepenthes?
Why is taking of nepenthes from the wild wrong and taking of other plants from the wild alright? You may not have taken the plants from the wild yourself but look at your collection of exotic plants carefully. The staghorn ferns, the lycopodiuns, the orchids (in particular paphiopedilum (slipper orchids)) you bought from Sg Buloh are they TC plants. The matured staghorn fern is certainly not. They are still unable to tc slipper orchids. Many of the bulbophilum are not. Are they able to mass produced lycopodiuns - I think not.
Choong
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Oct 22, 2007 11:12:33 GMT 8
I have asked Fauzi to help compile the Government laws and regulations governing Nepenthes in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Once we have these ducuments I will post it on the forum for everyone's benefit. According to Fauzi, the laws are different in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.
I am also trying to get Cindy's help to get the laws and regulations for Singapore.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Oct 30, 2007 23:12:32 GMT 8
The laws and regulations have been uploaded on the Nepenthes Board and a "sticky" has been plced on it. Pelase refer to the article and PDF files.
|
|
