Incentives for Endangered Palm Collectors?

[Tom Hulse]

Mikey, in this context, for the purposes of our discussion, botanist & collector have overalpping meanings. No responsible botanist would permanently damage one of the last 3 wild specimens of a critically endangered plant, just to get more seed when the plant is already being grown ex situ. All major institutions involved that might include botanists; the DLNR-DOFAW, USFWS, & the NTBG; describe this incident as vandalism and a threat to the species. It doesn't matter really whether the collector had a "botanist" title or not (not likely in this case), it was still a collector not connected to the major parties... a lone rogue.

To clarify your clarification, here is a first person account from someone who has been observing this exact group of trees for several years: "One individual had permanent damage to its stem made by a person wearing pole-climbing spikes. A seedling in the population area was removed, after being observed by the author for over four years and an intentional, shovel-made hole in the ground remained", from here.

The USFWS, IUCN, CPC, and EPA all list Pritchardia viscosa as beinging threatend by collectors.

Btw, I would love to hear your personal experiences with Wodyetia. Timelines & quantities would be especially interesting.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[Tyrone]

Tom, I'll keep it brief. In regards to Tahina. You put too much weight on details published in the media. Those articles had so many inaccuracies. Tahina was discovered on Palmtalk, thanks to Bruno Leroy a friend of Xavier Metz. Bruno is a palm enthusiast like the rest of us. That article just talked about the 1000 seed going into the seedbank. It doesn't talk about the many more seed that went around the world. Did Kew deliberate with all the botanical gardens directly across the world. No. The botanical gardens across this country got this species not directly from Kew, but from Palm enthusiasts thanks to RPS. Believe me I know.

Tom never once did I say that RPS did not wild collect. You initially tried to put across that RPS were a sole wild collection company when they're not. I also did not condone the action of the Wodyetia tree cutters. You still have not actually provided any meaningful answer to - what do we do with an endangered species when the habitat it has is being cut down? What is your answer to that? That is the real situation in so many parts of the world. That is the one governments CAN fix. But your zero collection regime makes no sense in that case. A bulldozed forest is a total failure.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tyrone]

Tom, the exact location of Tahina is not secret either.

Tyrone

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Mikey, in this context, for the purposes of our discussion, botanist & collector have overalpping meanings. No responsible botanist would permanently damage one of the last 3 wild specimens of a critically endangered plant,

Tom stop putting the blame on Collectors, Just wondering please tell us about your travels

There alot about botantist's that are out for making a name and if you think different Open your eye's

and stop the quote's Perharps you should live with the people

in some village's to really get a grip...

P.M me I will not de-fame anyone on this forum...

Regards Mikey

Oh ...Did Kew deliberate with all the botanical gardens directly across the world. No. The botanical gardens across this country got this species not directly from Kew, but from Palm enthusiasts thanks to RPS. Believe me I know.

For sure.. cos mine come from Tyrone and I donated 4 to Flecker Botanic Gardens Cairns...

Edited December 2, 2010 by calyptrocalyx&licuala freck

[Toby]

Hi Tom, It just so happens that a lot of palms are native to poor, southern countries, while the rich, cold countries of the North, don't have many. If you have a problem with that, why don't you specify. That aside, there is nothing wrong with collecting wild seeds as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion. A lot of products come from wild forests, some even traded internationally on a larger scale (timber, nuts, fruits etc., some sustainable, others not), many others to just provide for people who live in or near a forest. Is it not preferable to harvest products from a wild forest than to cut down that entire forest to plant crops? People have picked things in forests since the beginnings of mankind. Has that destroyed the forests or exterminated plants? No. The one thing that has destroyed nearly all native forests on this globe is the white mans idea of agriculture, and that destruction is still taking place as we speak and on a frightening scale. And please don't get me wrong here, I am talking about sustainable harvest, which is usually something that works very well on a small scale, like palm seeds, but does usually not work too well when something gets to an industrial scale, such as, say Chamaedorea leaves in Central America.

Yes, I would at least exclude all seeds from CITES. The selection of plants on CITES makes no sense anyway. There are a lot of species listed that are well established in cultivation and where nobody would EVER go collect them in the wild, and at the same time there are many species much more endangered that are not listed on CITES even though they easily could be, at the request of a single country. Why is Pritchardia viscosa not on CITES? Why are Fitzroya and Araucaria araucana still in appendix I (= seeds are not exempt) when the threats to their survival were never international trade and when the threats to the wild populations have basically been eliminated? Why are so many Aloe on appendix I (= seeds not exempt) when all of them are in cultivation and a single plant can provide tens of thousands of seeds to establish it there further (= eliminating pressure on wild populations). Why is Ravenea rivularis on CITES (with seeds not exempt) if not for a power struggle between two rival government agencies in Madagascar? (I'll explain that one if you like to hear the story). I could keep going, there are plenty more examples…

Tom, yes, of course it is not possible to personally visit every single person that I buy seeds from and verify that it is done in a sustainable manner. For this, my business is too small and my funds too limited. However, people on this board who know me will be able to confirm that I have traveled extensively and have in fact been to most places I buy seeds from. Since you are not an IPS member (why?), you may not know that I have contributed a few things to palm research and I do know from plenty of first hand experience what I am talking about. May I be so bold as to ask what your background is?

I thought I had made it pretty clear what I think of people cutting down palms to collect the seeds. The guys who did this on Wodyetia were obviously complete idiots, as only an idiot would cut down a plant that could have provided seeds for many more future harvests, even if illegal. This in NOT how palm seeds are usually collected -- it is in the interest of any thinking collector to keep his source in good health, ESPECIALLY if it is very rare. Please do not make the mistake to think that Wodyetia is a typical example of how things go with collecting rare seeds. It is not. In fact, for horticulture Wodyetia was a discovery of one in a million. Most rare plants never get this kind of attention and this kind of distribution either. From a government/regulation point of view I think the perfect way to learn how to do it wrong is from how things went with Wodyetia and how to do it right is from how things went with Carpoxylon. Both had plenty of government involvement, but with Carpoxylon, palm enthusiasts were invited to join in saving a species from the brink of extinction. Not one tree was harmed in the process, and the species is now well established in cultivation, in Vanuatu and elsewhere, and starting to produce all the seeds one could ever wish for. Wodyetia could have been managed the same way. Aside from that I recall an article in the Australian Palm Society magazine that explained this all very well. I think it was mentioned there that the damage that feral pigs did to the Wodyetia populations was far greater than even the damage done by the idiots who cut down trees for the seeds. In any case, Wodyetia is so common now in cultivation that nobody would go to the trouble of bothering any of the wild trees for seeds. Despite some misguided government interference, the wild plants will be safe from that threat for all times. Is that not an achievement, despite all the things that went wrong (from government as well as from enthusiasts side, I totally agree)?

Yes, I completely agree that cultivated plants, even if well managed, are not a substitute for wild populations, but they are a way to satisfy the desires of plant enthusiasts by providing seeds from a safe and plentiful source. I am still waiting for your answer though on how you think a wild population can be reestablished if the causal factors for its original demise are still in place (pigs, rats, habitat degradation in the case of Pritchardia)? If a population cannot reproduce without human interference (fencing, replanting etc.), that population is essentially cultivated, not wild, as is the case with a lot of the Hawaiian Pritchardia. Let me answer your question with another: If collectors in fact are the main threat to P. viscosa reestablishing a stable population, what would happen if you removed that threat? By the way you are arguing, that would do it, but you know as well as I that that reestablishment will never happen even without seed or other collectors, instead, you will see further decline. My approach: Pick the seeds those last remaining plants produce, sell half of them for a high price into good hands and with the resulting funds, propagate the other half to be reintroduced into the wild later on.

As for Tahina, it is not my intention to diminish Kew's important role in this amazing story, but I maintain what I said in my post above. It was this board and some very dedicated individuals that initiated the entire discovery (please look up the original thread) and it was many people on this board that raised a very substantial amount of money that was sent down to Madagascar to help fund its continued survival. I had the honor to be involved in these efforts, and I know a large part of the story first hand. Trust me, you don't want to get any deeper into something you know too little about.

The exact location of Tahina is NOT a secret, the key to success here was and is to get people involved, not keep them out by wrapping it all up in red tape!

Finally, Tom, if I conceded your version of the Wodyetia story, of all the hundreds of endangered palms, is this the only example that has become endangered due to the efforts of seed collectors? If we were such a threat, shouldn't there be more, prominent examples?

I wish we could get a better understanding of the two sides out of this discussion and perhaps a way to work together for the benefit of saving rare plants from extinction. I try to believe in the good in people and I don't think there is anyone on this board who would want to risk the survival of a rare species just to have one plant in his or her collection. I think essentially we all here agree on the importance of the same fundamental issues, so let's try to work together.

Best, TOBY

[Tom Hulse]

Tyrone never once did I say that RPS was a "sole" wild collection company, or any exclusive word like that. I used the exact same kind of language they use on their own website. In fact in post #26 I said: "I already agreed they sell some cultivated seed".

Regarding you and Toby trying to minimize Kew's involvement in Tahina (Toby you certainly did minimize it), it is great that Bruno and Palmtalk had an early role, but still Tahina is not a success story of lone-rogue seed collectors saving a species by free-for-all harvesting for profit. Kew WAS heavily involved. They did the DNA analysis, they named it, they published it, they sent botanists on-site before seed was harvested. They counseled the natives (seed owners) on conservation. They can even legitimately take credit for ID'ing it, as John Dransfield, although a Palmtalk member, is Kew. From this link, speaking of Kew representatives:

"They had extensive discussions with the Metz family and met people from the nearby village. The major topic of discussion was how to conserve the palm population for the future and how to harvest and distribute seed fairly worldwide without damaging the wild population but at the same time providing potential income to the village to act as an incentive to the conservation of the palm."

and also:

"Already to this end the villagers have set up a parrot patrol to scare away the birds from the palm and prevent damage to the flowers and developing fruit. The palms have now been fenced by the villagers to prevent zebu cattle from damaging the young plants of the palm. A village committee has been set up to take control of the conservation of the palm and conspicuous signs placed outside the fenced area prohibiting access."

I believe that the first in the world to receive seeds were:

National Tropical Botanical Garden, Kalaheo, Hawai

Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, Miami, USA

Montgomery Botanical Center, Miami, USA

Honolulu Botanical Gardens, Hawai, USA

Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain, Sydney, Australia

Townsville Palmetum, Townsville, Australia

Durban Botanic Garden, Durban, South Africa

Singapore Botanic Gardens, Singapore

Kebun Raya Indonesia, Bogor

Jardim Botânico da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Palmetum of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Tenerife, Spain

... and that Kew was responsible for these first ones. Please do tell me if that is not true, but in any case, it would be a plain fib to claim Tahina is an example of why lone individuals should go collecting seed of endangered seed on their own. I can admit however that it is a great example of a partnership including major institutions, government, local natives, and palm enthusiasts.

Toby you asked about my background, it is certainly humble. I only wish to use the facts, not a resume, to make a point. I am a humble duffer at palms without broad knowledge... I only know about the ones that have interested me the most. I grow about a dozen species of palms here in Seattle, which is tough palm climate. My passion is brugmansia, I grow about 30 cultivars, and I served 3 years as the ICRA Registrar for Brugmansia and Datura. I have a background in orchids, I've been growing them for about 25 years, and that is where I got my intitial predjudice against collectors. It is SOP in the orchid world to keep locations secret of new species because history has shown over & over again that unscrupulous collectors will just take and take until they are completely extinct in the wild.

I understand that the Tahina location is not much of a secret, not suprising I guess, but the main point is different. Why did they feel the need to try and keep it secret in the first place?

Toby I equate your argument about the "achievement" of saving Wodyetia to me saying: "I wrecked a species, then I saved it from myself. Woohoo for me! What success! What victory! Everyone should let me at the other species too!'

Pritchardia viscosa: you asked what would happen if we removed collectors that you thought would "save" the species... did you get a chance to read any of those Pritchardia links I posted? USFWS is implementing a detailed plan that includes in situ & ex situ conservation. The trees are banded to protect from rats, fenced to protect from pigs, and ex situ plants preserved in cooperation with the National Tropic Botanical Garden. They would do just fine if the individual collectors would just leave them alone for awhile.

I don't buy your argument that a small population in need of help is "cultivated", therefore not wild, therefore not deserving of help. In situ has unique weather, soil, pollinators, complimentary species, and a unique, appropriate ecosystem that means it is the only place an endangered species is ever likely to grow wild. It must be preserved first, before the hobbiests get the chance to brag on the new fabulously rare palm in their own garden.

[Tyrone]

Answer this one question. "What do we do with an endangered species when the habitat it has is being cut down? That is the real situation in so many parts of the world."

[Lowey]

Sorry MH. I was replying to Tyrone, referring to Caledenia huegelii that I talked about a few posts ago that was found where they wanted to put a bus station.

Lowey,

the shortage of seed was originally based on a relatively small wild population, in comparison to World wide demand... and set up a viable, sustainable harvesting system run by them or licensed contractors

It's almost like you're assuming every critically endangered species is a crop to be managed, and "demand" should be satisfied. As if it was the government's responsibility to fill worldwide "demand" for seed. No, please my friend, lol, that is what this whole thread is about. We're discussing whether we should give the collectors free reign, no restrictions, so that they can "save" species, or if the normal government approach to restricting seed trade is better. on government & institutional efforts to save it ex situ if it is out of habitat. 50% or 80% or 90% of the seed kept If a plant is critically endangered we have to just keep our darn grubby paws off of it until they can save it in situ, or at least rely in situ (with some kind of "harvest" for collectors) is not the goal. No, we need 100%, all of it, kept to try and preserve the in situ population.

I did not oversimplify Wodyetia. It is just a plain fact, greedy collectors caused the Wodyetia endangerment. When you, with hindsight, say that the government could have done this or that to restrict collection... well that is the same side I'm on: restrict the collectors & save the species.

If we have the resources to travel to the site, and our intention is really to save the species, and not to just have a rare palm we covet, then we can certainly plant those seeds we were going to steal. Remember the sentiment in the very first post of this thread (I've had it too): "Wouldn’t this be a nice incentive for people to do the world a favor and plant more rare and threatened species?"

That is the kind of thinking that led to the demand that nearly caused the demise of Wodyetia.

The Governments in Australia only paid any attention when it became clear that some people were making lots of money from the sale of seed and they were not getting a cut, either in royalties or taxes.

Rubbish. Show me proof. I want to be more polite about it, I am sorry, but you can't just make wild accusations based soley on how your own cynical, radical world views tells you it "probably" happened. Please, please read the link I posted above that details the conservation efforts for the orchid we discussed, Caledenia huegelii, in Queensland. It paints a far, far differnt picture of a government who is trying hard, with honorable intent, and is doing a pretty decent job lately.

I think I stated that things are different now and your above comment is correct, "LATELY"

When Wodyetia was first discovered, things were very different and by the time things got sorted out, a huge amount of damage was done as we all know.

The Proof is that after the dust settled a number of government departments had to sack people after an public enquiry found that recommendations made by National parks and Wildlife were ignored and in a few cases government employees were directly involved in the illegal seed trade.

I also personally know an independent federal politician who told me the only way he and others managed to get the support to improve protection for the habitat was to suggest that the government was loosing potential revenue/taxes, that seemed to get some attention he said.

As far as (endangered species is a crop to be managed, and "demand" should be satisfied.) I was not saying that but as Tyrone has pointed out there are many examples of total habitat destruction causing the loss of species and at least if a balance of preservation and managed distribution of seed could be achieved things would be a lot better.

(If a plant is critically endangered we have to just keep our darn grubby paws off of it until they can save it in situ, or at least rely in situ (with some kind of "harvest" for collectors) is not the goal. No, we need 100%, all of it, kept to try and preserve the in situ population.)

The fact is "keeping our grubby paws off it" does not happen sadly, and after the powers that be at the time got themselves organized, they confiscated illegally collected seed and removed the seed themselves to prevent poaching and let it all rot in storage, tonnes and tonnes of it, that is not conservation.

[Tom Hulse]

Tyrone I already answered that question previously, post 10 & 17. Remember, you gave me a case-in-point about habitat destruction, and I showed you how that plant, Caledenia huegelii, although it was endangered, had 1614 specimens left spread over 33 sites and was being diligently managed by the government. Instead of being a habitat-destruction example, it was actually a good example of a common false choice that collectors present as an excuse: 'the bulldozers are coming, the bulldozers are coming! I must immediately take this plant/seed out of it's remaining habitat and make a profit selling it. I better not look too close at the institutional or government efforts that are already underway lest I feel guilty about interferring with them'.

However, I did say: "Let me first say that I agree 100% that some species are saved by rare plant collectors, but I certainly think that isn't the only story out there".

Bruce, that is about the farthest from proof that you could actually get. I do appreciate though that you agree that the government is doing a decent job lately. That's an important point because most of the bulldozer/habitat examples that had zero institutional or government efforts to save the plants are older examples, and are not as likely to happen in today's climate... so the current governmental restrictions against "saving" a species by stealing seeds are usually more appropriate because we need the seed to stay in situ and give local efforts a chance.

Also when you say that it doesn't happen very often that we all 'keep our grubby paws off them', I sure agree, but that doesn't mean that just because some seed is stolen or wasted that is an excuse to take even more out of the necessary habitat.

[Tyrone]

Tyrone I already answered that question previously, post 10 & 17.

"Answer this one question. "What do we do with an endangered species when the habitat it has is being cut down? That is the real situation in so many parts of the world." "

No you did NOT answer that question at all. Ignore the Bus Station Orchid which exists in 33 other locations. Who is collecting it anyway? It was never under collection pressure. I only brought up that case to show how hypocritical governments can be, not provide a case for collection versus habitat destruction. To be honest most of the time that orchid doesn't even show above ground. Hardly something with collection appeal. Instead take the situation in Madagascar where rainforest is being decimated without halt. Species ARE still being wiped out!!!! Answer the question, because you believe you have THE answers.

On another note do you still have your orchid collection?

[Alicehunter2000]

Human nature must figure more prominantly when discussing this long-winded thread. There is a basic question that should be asked when trying to save a threatened species whether plant or animal. Is there monetary profit in it or is it being done for some altruistic purpose?

My observations are that profit motives are more effective in achieving desired results than anyones good heart....sad but true IMO. This goes for governments as well....while one might think that governments do things for the good of the people and mankind, the reality is that government is just a collection of people that may or may not have profit and power as their main goals.

That being said, if government can join with collectors and in-situ conservationist and find a way to make their efforts a win/win situation in which both profit and altruistic in-situ species preservation by purist can be achieved then this balance would be far more effective than either/or.

[Tom Hulse]

Mike the idea that profit motives are better than government at rescuing the very last of a critically endangered species was sure true in the past, I would agree, but recently, especially if you include the efforts of major institutions, that is not really so. Even if you can still point to tracts of critical habitat being bulldozed (a crime IMHO), governments or institutions are still usually there mopping up and saving the last plants with legitimate, organized plans. Again, the caveat usually; usually private collectors are just interferring with organized efforts already underway.

I proved this earlier by carefully researching every single species that had been mentioned in the thread. Every single one had government and/or institional programs in place that the lone-rogue collectors would just be interferring with, yet most of these had been held up as examples of why habitat destruction needs private seed collectors and no government regulation. It took a lot of time researching every one & I'm tuckered out, lol. If you guys keep peppering me with new examples, I'm sure you could come up with the exception, but I already admitted that it existed.

So Tyrone, the answer to your question is that your question is a false choice, similar to "does your mother know you are ugly?", and so I was answering that question in posts 10, 17, and proving it in post 26.

Another way to answer is that "we" usually don't need to do anything but donate our time & resources to the organized efforts already underway... not just go undercut them and steal the last plant material they have to work with.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[Toby]

Tom, you have got to be joking. Everyone who is not completely blind can see forests all over the world vanishing at record speed to oil palm or soy bean plantations, pastures, for timber, or just burnt down for the heck of it, and you are actually telling us that governments are saving endangered plants from those terrible, terrible seed poachers that are responsible for it all? Conservation programs are at best a fig leaf to make reality seem not quite as bad as it is, at least "we are actually doing something".

Best, TOBY

[Tyrone]

Tom, once again you did NOT answer the question, or prove anything with your replies. They are all typical hypothetical government style responses we seem to get from you. You are dodging the hard questions.

You did not reply to my question regarding whether you still have your orchid collection. May I assume that you still do and that you have rare and endangered individuals in your collection. You likely would have, considering you have collected for 25 years as you said. Am I right?

There is quite a difference in the rare orchid collecting trade and the rare palm seed collecting trade which I'm sure you know. Let me explain to those who may not.

Orchids are incredibly difficult to propagate from seed. The seed is a very fine dust that needs a symbiotic relationship from a very specific fungus to grow. Most hobbiests simply do not have the facilities or expertise to propagate from this fine dust seed. In fact the seed gets attacked by wild fungi without perfect sterility as quickly as it grows.

Enter now the illegal Orchid trade in which many orchids are on CITES 1 classification. This bans all International trade between member nations to the treaty. Even owning the plant in the US for example could see you in trouble with the law. The illegal orchid trade is simply horrible. Do you think that the illegal smugglers wait for a specific species to flower in the wild and they go and collect the fine dust seed in special sterile environments to send out to illegal orchid collectors overseas. No way. That's way too hard and probably wouldn't work anyway, although it would be dead easy to smuggle a tiny packet of dust. No, they don't do that, they take bulbils, or cuttings or WHOLE PLANTS. Also they don't just take one, THEY TAKE THEM ALL. THIS IS A QUICK WAY TO DESTROY A SPECIES IN THE WILD. I can imagine that they would use the argument, "well the government is allowing the forest to be cut down so I'm just saving the species from the government", while they sell the specimens for huge profits in the black market in the US for example. This form of reasoning is nonsense, and I totally agree with your arguments in regard to the illegal orchid trade, however even these illegal orchid traders may have a shred of truth in their argument because governments in countries like Indonesia do not care about the environment at all. However wholesale stripping an area of all living specimens is NOT CONSERVATION either.

Now lets look at palms in comparison to orchids. Palms propagate very easily from seed compared to orchids. In general the parent tree/s is/are looked after by the custodians of the land (eg in Madagascar by law, that is the villagers) if there is some sort of economic value realised by these custodians. These are not stupid people. Often a bit of education is all they need to provide some care. Before education they probably look at most palms as the same thing, and concluded that their are many of them in their parcel of land. So when they needed to cut a palm down for some food or timber or to extend their rice field they may not have concluded cutting down a few palms as a great loss, when in fact they may have been cutting down the last specimens on Earth. These are the people that collect. By nature, they will protect the source of their income. Do you think that they're so stupid that they'll cut that tree down for it's seeds, or harvest every single one to sell and not plant at least some back or allow some to grow where they decide to grow after falling from the tree. Give them some credit!!!!!!!!!!! Most of these areas now lack the dispersal agents necessary to move the species around and need human intervention. Yes they may work in with Kew's efforts, but Kew does not have unlimited resources either. They must rely on the good nature of people, and I tell you, miraculously, these type of people still exist. This is Kew's approach, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But Kew is not involved with all such efforts in Madagascar. In addition these sort of economic remunerations for the local custodians would not exist without international trade in seed. There is very little local Madagascan demand for seed, and even less disposable income.

Habitat destruction goes on unabated. In the third world where most of our collectable species come from, big western mining companies and agricultural concerns work in with corrupt governments to do as they please. As undesirable as that is, it happens, and species would be lost completely if it wasn't for ex situ populations (notice I said "populations" not "specimens").

So from this alone you can see that the rare palm seed trade is quite different to the illegal orchid trade which ships live orchids across the world, often leaving nothing in the wild. You can't dig up a fruiting Dypsis carlsmithii from the wild and put it in your backpack, wrap it up and post it to another part of the world. It's physically impossible. You can with a mature orchid though. Most orchids are epiphytes so you don't even need a shovel to remove them.

I wonder how many orchid specimens are in official government collections that had been illegally obtained thereby aiding and abetting the illegal activity and destruction of the planet.

So you have failed to convince me that collecting palm seed is bad for the species involved, or that government and institutional efforts are all that is necessary for palm conservation. Not even Kew takes that extreme line. I agree that things can and do go wrong, but neither side of this debate has a 100% solution. The government can mess things up and collectors can do the same. But we knew that at the beginning of this whole thread.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

Vague generalities, Toby. You're still trying to tie the very broad idea of habitat destruction vaguely to the very specific, narrow time window where independant seed collectors would be the only ones cable of rescue. I did not deny habitat destruction or say that governments or institutions are doing a good job of stopping that.

Think about the actual point in time where the species really would need seed collectors to swoop down and save it. The point where the individuals plants are so low that there is a real danger they will become fully extinct soon, like Pritchardia viscosa. Imagine a big list of all of these. Then deduct from your list all the species names that have ex situ government plans (like viscosa). Deduct from the list all species that have major institutions working a plan to save them ex situ (like Tahina). Deduct from the list all species that already are saved ex situ (like Beccariophoenix madagascariensis, another one who has had seeds harvested with chainsaws), Deduct from your list any that may have been actually caused by collectors (like Wodyetia). Deduct from your list all that are endangered but still have a reasonable shot in situ (like Pritchardia napaliensis).

What's left on the list? Certainly I already agreed there could be some, but lone-rogue collectors are not generally the saviors of endangered species.

Tyrone, hypothetical? Really?? I'm the windbag who has taken the time to prove my point with every single individual species, name by name, and I'm tired of it. Your hypothetical question is the problem; I'm saying it doesn't often happen in the way you frame your (hypothetical, without specific species names) question.

On the orchids, if you are looking for hypocrisy in my actions of previous years, well then you got me. Btw I already confessed to my guilty conscience in this thread. If you're really curious about my orchids, I did give away most after the big move, but I still have maybe in the range 20 now. A bunch of Paphiopedilums, Phalaenopsis, Dendrochilum, & Restrepias that are good for houseplants, plus some miniatures, etc. Only a few pure species, mostly hybrids. Early on I wanted to import some rare orchids from Brazil, but when I found out I couldn't legally because of CITES I was so pissed that I researched the heck out of it to prove them wrong & unjust... except I learned the opposite and I'm glad they put that initial block up to make me stop & think.

Regarding collection, yes orchids are very different than palms (you started with the orchid examples ), but the real lesson from orchids is human nature as David talked about a few posts ago. Human nature is that individuals will take & take until nothing is left. Only in a group, like a government, an institution, or even a village, does collective morality reign in the baser urge to keep picking the money off the trees until it's all gone.

[Tyrone]

My observations are that profit motives are more effective in achieving desired results than anyones good heart....sad but true IMO. This goes for governments as well....while one might think that governments do things for the good of the people and mankind, the reality is that government is just a collection of people that may or may not have profit and power as their main goals.

That being said, if government can join with collectors and in-situ conservationist and find a way to make their efforts a win/win situation in which both profit and altruistic in-situ species preservation by purist can be achieved then this balance would be far more effective than either/or.

Agree with you David.

Tom, you put too much belief into documents. Many things never get documented. To say my question has basically no relevance is burying ones head in the sand. I'm sorry.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Lowey]

My observations are that profit motives are more effective in achieving desired results than anyones good heart....sad but true IMO. This goes for governments as well....while one might think that governments do things for the good of the people and mankind, the reality is that government is just a collection of people that may or may not have profit and power as their main goals.

That being said, if government can join with collectors and in-situ conservationist and find a way to make their efforts a win/win situation in which both profit and altruistic in-situ species preservation by purist can be achieved then this balance would be far more effective than either/or.

Agree with you David.

Tom, you put too much belief into documents. Many things never get documented. To say my question has basically no relevance is burying ones head in the sand. I'm sorry.

Best regards

Tyrone

I agree with you Tyrone and likewise with David, the point I have been trying to make is that if in a developed country like Australia where members and or employees of the Government that are said to be "protecting endangered species" are themselves involved in the exploitation of the thing they are supposed to protect for profit, what hope is there for species in underdeveloped countries where corruption is the norm.

Many species of plants and animals that are now extinct in there native habitat may well owe their continued existence to what Tom calls "rouge" collectors. Sad but true

And Tyrone is absolutely correct when he says that many things don’t get documented, if they did the fallout from what happened with Wodyetia would have been far greater.

[Tom Hulse]

Tom, you put too much belief into documents

Tyrone, perhaps you should change that to 'I put too much faith in facts'. I can see why you don't like documents after, for instance, I used them to prove that your bus-station-orchid-government-hypocrisy example (that you presented without any supporting facts, not even a plant name)... as pure fiction and having no government hypocrisy at all.

Bruce I am dissapointed you chose to accept a rumor as truth over the facts I have shown you. First no one said the government employees implicated with the Wodyetia investigation were part of those charged with protecting the species... the government is huge, with many employees. Even if they were, as Tyrone already agreed in post 48, that is an old example and things are different now. I address the old vs. new examples in post 49. May I propose both of you quit presenting opinion as fact, and instead of just repeatedly saying opinion over & over, return to specifics with real species names. Where are the species that are in need of seed collectors right now? There are many, many, many species that have government restrictions on wild seed collection at this moment, so if you are right then there should be at least half of those that need the wild seed collectors. Where are your tons of species names? Over & over in this thread I have proven each species presented as not in need of wild seed collectors. Can't you see that? The score is like 12 to zero right now. Where are the species?

Edited December 3, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[Tyrone]

Tom, I think you should just listen to those who know what they're talking about, who live in the areas where these things happen or have dealt with the situations presented. Not all of those species were examples used to prove that wild seed collection has merit. That orchid can't be collected. But I tell you that there are many many more undocumented cases where those orchids have been found and the area has been built on.

I stand by my argument that habitat destruction is the main cause of extinctions, not responsible palm seed collectors. Orchid collectors who you have drawn your strong prejudices from, are another story again and do destroy species, although even then, if managed correctly, they could help endangered species in my view.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

I don't wish you any ill will, or anything like that. Basically both of us care about the environment and love our plants, so we have that in common.

All the best with growing your palms, orchids, Daturas and Brugmansias in Seattle. I'm sure that would have it's own unique challenges. How about some pictures? We'd love to see some.

Best regards

Tyrone

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Tom please don't take offence, but as Tyrone asked if you could show us all some of your beautiful

collection, and maybe even add in some of your travels. Oh no rumors here in fact it was one of the rangers involed

with Wodyetia seed haul, plus others as well and they to this day have not being charged,

how do I know this... sad to say I know one of them, these guys just saw money but they did not cut

any palms down, in fact they wheren't even palm lovers(they used shot guns to shoot the seed bunches down).

Cheers Mikey

Edited December 3, 2010 by calyptrocalyx&licuala freck

[Tom Hulse]

Tyrone I sure agree that habitat destruction is the main of extinctions. If we don't have any specific examples of a species name that needs seed collectors, then I'm happy leaving it where it is.

Here's a fun pic of palm in the snow in my neighborhood (we're about an hour from the Canadian border), a brugmansia (that one plant can perfume a whole acre in the evenings), and a travel pic from this summer (Coccothrinax crinita in Kauai).

[Tyrone]

That's a lovely Trachie Tom. I'm always amazed at how Trachycarpus will handle everything from snow to hot humid conditions and even dry conditions.

Brugmansia sure do have a lovely scent. Very heady and strong. My sister goes nuts for them as well as frangipani's, hibiscus and tropical jasmines.

That Coccothrinax crinita is beautiful. Probably quite old too.

Thanks for the pics.

Best regards

Tyrone

[sarasota alex]

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

• Tens of thousands of plant and animal species are vanishing all over the world... and no one cares. No one talks about them on forums and sadly very few people, if any, would miss them. Then there are Wodyetias and the Siberian Tigers of this world. There are hundreds of them. We talk about them and we care. We talk about Wodyetias a lot because they're on every corner in many tropical and sub-tropical places. But whatever the reason - it helps. It puts it on the map. It has a better chance now. I would like it very much for Hyophorbe amaricaulis to become more abundant. Somewhere a good person in me wants it to happen for the noble reasons of preserving it's islands biodiversity. Then there is a selfish person inside of me that wants it saved, so that I can plant it one day. Which one do you think is more motivated? There is a much stronger chance that people on this forum would donate money to a project that saves Wodyetias, than to a project that saves some Unknowislandus remotus somewhere. Why? Because people here have seen it in cultivation. Not much money would be available for preserving the habitat of the Siberian Tiger, if they wouldn't be trapping those things and sticking them in the middle of the Bronx!
• One Hyophorbe amaricaulis is left in the wild, none in cultivation (and that wild part is debatable btw. it's in habitat but I've heard opinions that it might have been human planted). Now let's examine a reverse scenario - none in habitat, 100 in cultivation. Would the species be better of and have a brighter future?
• Animals disperse seeds. It's only natural. We're all animals. If the seagulls can do it, then so can we! The only difference is that humans can apply logic to it, so basically if we have a reason, we do a much better job.
• Cultivation introduces species into anthropogenic biomes, which eventually they would need to get adapted to in order to survive (whether we like it or not). No species can afford to stay away any longer

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

• Tens of thousands of plant and animal species are vanishing all over the world... and no one cares. No one talks about them on forums and sadly very few people, if any, would miss them. Then there are Wodyetias and the Siberian Tigers of this world. There are hundreds of them. We talk about them and we care. We talk about Wodyetias a lot because they're on every corner in many tropical and sub-tropical places. But whatever the reason - it helps. It puts it on the map. It has a better chance now. I would like it very much for Hyophorbe amaricaulis to become more abundant. Somewhere a good person in me wants it to happen for the noble reasons of preserving it's islands biodiversity. Then there is a selfish person inside of me that wants it saved, so that I can plant it one day. Which one do you think is more motivated? There is a much stronger chance that people on this forum would donate money to a project that saves Wodyetias, than to a project that saves some Unknowislandus remotus somewhere. Why? Because people here have seen it in cultivation. Not much money would be available for preserving the habitat of the Siberian Tiger, if they wouldn't be trapping those things and sticking them in the middle of the Bronx!
• One Hyophorbe amaricaulis is left in the wild, none in cultivation (and that wild part is debatable btw. it's in habitat but I've heard opinions that it might have been human planted). Now let's examine a reverse scenario - none in habitat, 100 in cultivation. Would the species be better of and have a brighter future?
• Animals disperse seeds. It's only natural. We're all animals. If the seagulls can do it, then so can we! The only difference is that humans can apply logic to it, so basically if we have a reason, we do a much better job.
• Cultivation introduces species into anthropogenic biomes, which eventually they would need to get adapted to in order to survive (whether we like it or not). No species can afford to stay away any longer

Hi Alex

Seagulls don't disperse seeds they eat rubbish not seeds

Hmmm...Thanks for your input some good thoughts there for sure.

Cheers Mikey..

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

I should have said at the start... Not again.... Lol

mikey

[Tom Hulse]

Alex I'm not sure I understand which side you come down on the discussion. Do you support wild seed collection without legal restrictions, or do you think we should let the government & major institutions take the lead, and focus our efforts to help them instead of taking seed on our own?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Alex I'm not sure I understand which side you come down on the discussion. Do you support wild seed collection without legal restrictions, or do you think we should let the government & major institutions take the lead, and focus our efforts to help them instead of taking seed on our own?

Tom you and i stand on the other side,

But you must take care on ya replies Alex is new, so you

must relax on the comments ..

Cheers Mikey

[sarasota alex]

Alex I'm not sure I understand which side you come down on the discussion. Do you support wild seed collection without legal restrictions, or do you think we should let the government & major institutions take the lead, and focus our efforts to help them instead of taking seed on our own?

I didn't really expect to have to chose a side to be on

The truth is usually in the middle somewhere.

Do I believe in letting the bureaucracies (what you refer to as government and major institutions) handle this? No. They can get things right, of course, but would screw things up a lot more often. Just imagine if the government of Madagascar would step in right away and start controlling the Tahina seed distribution. That would be a nightmare and not help the species one bit. The same thing would happen if Kew approached it with a "major institution" attitude. But it didn't, and that's what I like about the palm community. When I see Dr. Dransfield come to this board and answer people's questions, I find it to be amazing. He cares and that is why Kew did the right thing. But I wouldn't necessarily count on other "major institutions" to do this.

Now when I close my eyes and picture a government official who in charge of saving either a Wodyetia or a rare Pritchardia, based on my life experience, I don't see anyone that I would trust to do a good job. 99% of the time that person is not in that position, because she/he loves nature and cares. 99.9% of the time these people are easily corruptible by big business, who would want to develop the land. Make it 99.999% in developing countries.

At the end of the day, I think RPS has done more for rare palm conservation, then all the governments of the world combined.

[bgl]

Personal attacks and obscenities will definitely not be tolerated. I just deleted half a dozen posts, including one post which in itself was completely innocent but was in reference to some of the obscenities that were exchanged. This has been a very interesting thread with lots of very well thought out opinions and comments. Keep it that way. I'm going to let these recent outbursts slide, but any more and the thread will be deleted and individuals WILL be suspended. There will be no more warnings.

[Tom Hulse]

Thanks Alex, I think I understand better what you're saying now.

Do I believe in letting the bureaucracies (what you refer to as government and major institutions) handle this? No. They can get things right, of course, but would screw things up a lot more often. Just imagine if the government of Madagascar would step in right away and start controlling the Tahina seed distribution. That would be a nightmare and not help the species one bit. The same thing would happen if Kew approached it with a "major institution" attitude.

Most of us have predisposed world view that tells us bureaucracies are automatically inept, for instance when you mention a "major institution" attitude as though it were a bad thing. In this case however, whatever Kew does, by definition, IS the major institution attitude (and it worked great here). Throughout this thread I've shown in example after example how government & institutions have a working program in place and individual seed collectors are only getting in the way. I'm asking everyone here to look past their prejudices about bureaucracy and see the facts. Alex when you talked about people charged with protecting species in the governenment who love nature and are "easily corruptible by big business", you are really missing the hugely important comparison to their counterparts in the event that we should let the seed collecting companies have free reign without legal restrictions on collection. Their counterparts are those individual lone seed collector, often in very poor countries, with no boss, no piers, no one to check their morality... how corruptable are they? It's no comparison really as long as money is growing on trees.

Really, I've shown enough specific examples that we shouldn't keep bringing back the same old opinions without facts. If it's true, we should have example after example where government or institutions are not propagating these endangered species, and individual seed collectors are needed to swoop in grab seeds. It's a friendly challenge, no more vague opinions, what are the species names?

[Walter John]

why don't you check WikiLeaks .

Whoops, too late, must be a major institution issue there.

[Tom Hulse]

[Kumar]

This has been a very informative topic (and entertaining to read) and I have been composing my thoughts these past days. Now I set them down.

It is tempting to think of seed collecting as a non-intrusive and sustainable activity. A few well-educated palm enthusiasts go into a dense jungle and scout around for fallen seed near a rare palm (this topic applies only to rare palms) collect those, take photos and return home where they propogate it and even spread the species in cultivation while the wild form might even go extinct thanks to government inaction or apathy (together with land squatters and industrialisation).

But look at the variables that we have taken for granted. There might be plenty of people interested in gathering seed if it makes commercial sense. Everyone will not be thoughtful to the palm while seed collecting. Some may be tempted to pick up juveniles and seedlings if the size is right and the species is slow or difficult to germinate. Yet others may damage the palms, plants or wildlife in the area in attempts to get at the seed. Who is going to control or regulate all this? Collecters venturing into a jungle cannot be screened beforehand to ascertain what kind of people they are and with what purpose they come. Once you let one in, you must allow others. I think that is where the danger lies. Also remember that even by not disrupting the environment a good collector does not contribute anything whereas a malafide one causes harm so the balance of convineance may lie in not letting anyone in.

I've seen plenty of ordinary people cause lots of damage to fruiting trees including my own mangos, in an attempt to get at the fruit - and this in urban areas. I have myself (unintentionally) broken branches when I was young trying to reach for gulmohar seed pods so accidental damage to the rare palm in question cannot be ruled out. As an uneducated guess I estimate only an infinitesimally small fraction of collectors worldwide are skilled and thoughtful enough to leave the habitat in the same state as they found it.

No doubt some rare palms owe their continuing lineage to collecters but we will not know if any of them lost habitat due to the same collecters. Until the bonafides of a collector can be verified and his antecedents checked, it seems to me risky to allow people to go into forests and collect seed, let alone encourage them.

Comment?

[Tyrone]

Tom, this thread has somehow kept going. I actually wanted to stop the discussion because of it's potential to get too heated. At the end of the day you and I are just two insignificant people in the bigger scheme of things, so whether we can make a difference is anyones guess.

But you wanted species names, documents etc etc.

Here's some to look at.

Ravenea xerophila- critically endangered. Not protected. Seriously threatened by overgrazing by local graziers. That means any seed that falls to the ground is basically wasted.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38680/0

Dypsis hovomantsina -critically endangered. Major pressure from agriculture.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38537/0

Dypsis ampasindavae- critically endangered. Threatened by tree poaching

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38517/0

Dypsis tsaravoasira - critically endangered. Threatened by agriculture. Was not on IUCN database so is underneath the international radar.

Dypsis nauseosa - critically endangered. Habitat destruction

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38548/0

Dypsis oropedionis - critically endangered. Threatened by fire and tree cutting.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38552/0

Dypsis tokoravina - critically endangered. Threatened by agricultural pressure. Not listed on IUCN database so is underneath the international radar.

Dypsis ifanadiannae - critically endangered. Threatened by habitat destruction.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38538/0

Dypsis saintelucei - critically endangered. Threatened by mineral sand mining.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38562/0

Dypsis decipiens - critically endangered. Threatened by habitat destruction and fire.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38532/0

Dypsis ambositrae - critically endangered, presumed extinct in the wild in 2000. Since rediscovered in the wild. Threatened by habitat destruction and fire.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38737/0

Dypsis arenarum - critically endangered. Threatened by habitat destruction and fire.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38520/0

Dypsis psammophila - critically endangered. Threatened by habitat destruction and fire.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38559/0

Voanioala gerardii - critically endangered. Threatened by habitat destruction and palm heart harvesting. Almost zero natural regeneration. Presumed dispersal mechanism is an extinct giant bird.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/38723/0

The information above came from the IUCN website, "Palms of Madagascar" by John Dransfield and Henk Beentje and the Kew Gardens website.

Apart from Dypsis ambositrae, Kew and other government institutions have no visible conservation involvement with the above species. (If they do, please tell me.) This is no criticism of Kew, as they can't do everything and their funds are not unlimited. Kew has done most if not all of the necessary study and documentation of the palms of Madagascar.

All of the species mentioned above are on the verge of extinction. Some may exist in conservation zones, however that basically affords them no protection as they are still being cut down for various reasons.

I'm not recommending a wholesale seed collecting frenzy of these species, but unless an ex situ effort is made, these species will likely become extinct.

In my own case I have around 100 Dypsis decipiens and Dypsis ambositrae seedlings which could keep the species in existence on the planet IF these species disappeared from the wild. Others also have them in cultivation around the world. As the habitat of these species is being destroyed there is no argument in my mind to leave 100% of the seed to drop on the ground. I would not advocate 100% seed collection either. Just how close we came to losing Dypsis ambositrae is absolutely scary and it was not as a result of seed collectors.

Best regards

Tyrone

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

"Short and Sweet" Sad when you think about it...

Mikey.

[Tom Hulse]

Geez, you swamped me with homework, lol! Thank you though for returning the conversation to the facts. I'm under the gun with other commitments this week so I'll have to start researching these next week, I'll return then.

In the meantime, perhaps you could comment more on where you said Kew had no visible conservation involvement with those species. Really? Kew has had botanists on site, who are responsible for even finding these species in the first place; and teams of botanists there now working on conservation, collection, mapping, & ex situ propogation of the rarest species. The Kew Millennium Seed Bank project had a goal to collect & preserve 1000 more species by 2010 in Madagascar alone. Does anyone know if they made that goal? They already have saved 10% of all the world's plant species, and their stated focus is on endangered species... I just can't believe that they wouldn't have included these rarest palms.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[ariscott]

For some reason this discussion has been going around around around in circles, with everyone tries to convince one party only. Tyrone has gone through so much trouble typing all the relavant data to the discussion. I am actually running out of patient. Maybe we should just agree to disagree before something BAD happens again.

Regards, Ari

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

For some reason this discussion has been going around around around in circles, with everyone tries to convince one party only. Tyrone has gone through so much trouble typing all the relavant data to the discussion. I am actually running out of patient. Maybe we should just agree to disagree before something BAD happens again.

Regards, Ari

Oh No, Watch out Tom she's small, but I don't want to be on the other end

of her foot, well knowing Ari, and by the look of your Picture she'd kick

both of us down the street.......

P.S. Tom your Homework is late

Edited December 8, 2010 by calyptrocalyx&licuala freck

[Zayin]

How about Ceroxylon Sasimae.. Very rare, on private properties in Columbia, and as far as I can tell, not protected nor is in cultivation.

[Tyrone]

Geez, you swamped me with homework, lol! Thank you though for returning the conversation to the facts. I'm under the gun with other commitments this week so I'll have to start researching these next week, I'll return then.

In the meantime, perhaps you could comment more on where you said Kew had no visible conservation involvement with those species. Really? Kew has had botanists on site, who are responsible for even finding these species in the first place; and teams of botanists there now working on conservation, collection, mapping, & ex situ propogation of the rarest species. The Kew Millennium Seed Bank project had a goal to collect & preserve 1000 more species by 2010 in Madagascar alone. Does anyone know if they made that goal? They already have saved 10% of all the world's plant species, and their stated focus is on endangered species... I just can't believe that they wouldn't have included these rarest palms.

"Geez, you swamped me with homework, lol! Thank you though for returning the conversation to the facts. I'm under the gun with other commitments this week so I'll have to start researching these next week, I'll return then." No problem. Look forward to it.

"In the meantime, perhaps you could comment more on where you said Kew had no visible conservation involvement with those species." Yes. Not visible to me. I searched but could not find. If you can find the info, do tell, and anyone else for that matter if they know to the contrary please let us all know.

"Kew has had botanists on site, who are responsible for even finding these species in the first place; and teams of botanists there now working on conservation, collection, mapping,". Totally agree. Never said otherwise.

"Kew ......ex situ propogation of the rarest species." With Tahina, that is true, but was the Tahina case an unusual situation or are there more ex situ cases we don't know about? Again I could not find any more.

"The Kew Millennium Seed Bank project had a goal to collect & preserve 1000 more species by 2010 in Madagascar alone" To be honest, I don't believe palm seeds store that well. (Maybe P dactylifera does). Please define "preserve". Is that in alcohol or formaldehyde?

"They already have saved 10% of all the world's plant species, and their stated focus is on endangered species... I just can't believe that they wouldn't have included these rarest palms." Never heard that figure. I can't dispute it, except what do you define as "saved". Are you talking about seed in the Millenium Seed Bank or ex situ or even in situ species propagation?

So these are some great questions that need answers. Anyone out there reading this who has the answers please break the "cone of silence" and let us all know.

I will reiterate that I think Kew do a fantastic job. They have proved to be a pinnacle of plant education. Without them we would all know very little about the palms we grow and what we grow would be much less than it would be otherwise.

Best regards

Tyrone