Frederick, The first three words of CITES spells it out, and the first two don't count - "Convention (on) International Trade."
Regarding native sites selling natural hybrids - that does not mean that the products they are selling came from the wild. A natural hybrid is one that occurs in the wild and this may be how those produced may be referred to. Artificial remakes of natural hybrids and grown artificially are hybrids. Natural hybrids are also, but I don't think that in writing the regulations the feds would overlook the fact natural hybrids collected from the wild are not included in the hybrid category. I do not see how exempting artificially produced hybrids (or species for that matter) erodes the fundamental pricipal since it is trade related not conservation. They were included in the exemption anyway, but the paperwork still had to be done and proof that the plants were indeed artificially propagated. As I said previously, there will be some requirement that proof must be provided that they are hybrids so we are right back where we started anyway. The way Europe is set up, it will make it even easier for them but our FWS doesn't trust anyone to tell them the truth - great organization there - prove your not trying to pull a fast one. They make their own work and then complain because they are overworked and need more people and money. Sound familiar? The comment on rules with no indication of how to interpret or implement them is only too clear in looking at how each country has done differently and how the US for example will not accept documentation which should be acceptable and away we go. Those who have not experienced trying to follow the rules to make it simple and no problem only to run up against he feds deciding differently, can not appreciate the frustration of not having a decent recourse. Carson E. Whitlow
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
