Cactus smuggling ring busted.

[mikethecactusguy]

I'm not sure how you equate smuggling for money to "loving cactus a little to much". Loving cactus a little to much would be stealing that many but then keeping them all for yourself. Mother nature is being decimated by selfish homosapiens. What happens today effects what happens 20 t0 30 years from now. I do equate it to killing off our planet. I think those who accept these pillaged plants should be made to suffer also. If people had to actually serve time for what they do, maybe we can still save our planet

[DaveW]

Trouble is Agriculture, home building, road building and Dam Building kill many thousands more than ever cactus thieves do. The main problem is the thieves usually target small populations of highly desirable species, or the latest novelties. How many native plants did the plot your house or factory is built on destroy, or the local golf courses and football fields etc, even the airport and it's runways?

The best way to remove the market is ex situ propagation, but countries seem reluctant to allow this.

[Jangaudi]

Well actually, people do serve time for drug related offences, and it has not in the least stopped the trade. As long as the price is high enough, some people will always risk it.
I remember being sort of surprised that after they discovered the Wollemia nobilis in Australia, instead of making any trade illegal, they did the opposite: started sending seeds around, even allowing nurseries and shops to sell the seeds and trees. This probably kept the price people were willing to pay for them reasonably low, while at the same time ensuring the tree would not become extinct. Their small population could still be wiped out due to natural calamities, which actually nearly happened in the recent bush fires.
If they want to stop the illegal trade in rare cacti and other plants, they need to give permits to nurseries to grow and export them "en masse", but then perhaps without the annoying and endless administration and fees...and trouble.

[Pushrestart]

If seed and plants are not made more affordable and readily available we are going to lose. It’s plain and simple. Any arrogant barb-wire doting organization is going to be responsible for the decimation that will come. Do they think by making it “difficult” they’re going to impede human greed? No chance and botanists and conservationists know this. If the market gets flooded the charm wears away, so that’s what needs to be done imo.

[DaveW]

The worst thing conservationists can do, unless it is absolutely essential to keep usually introduced browsing animals off, is to put a fence around a plant since it simply attracts attention to it's locality and illegal collection. To many people, usually the locals, you only put a fence around something that is valuable.

As an example of the difference a price tag makes. Somebody on the BCSS Forum reported a case where a householder put a no longer needed child's bike out in front of their property with a notice that said "Free" on it. It remained there for a week or two with nobody wanting it. Therefore they put a notice on it saying "£10" and it was stolen within the day.

EBAY exploits the same human desire for plants that have a value by putting "Rare" on even common plants and so selling them at inflated prices because few are interested when listed at their actual worth. How many would want an Old Master painting if they were sold for a few dollars compared with the clamour for them when the price tag is thousands of dollars?

The same applies to so called fakes, if originally attributed to a desirable painter it is worth thousands but if subsequently proved a fake it has little value, however the picture has not changed it was as well painted the day it was thought genuine as the day after it was branded a fake. Therefore so called art lovers are not actually buying the picture but it's perceived monetary value.

The Banksy picture that self shredded after being sold gained in value since he remotely had shredded it. If somebody else had done it they would have said it was now worthless but the result was the same. Illustrating the art world is filled with mental retards that now consider it worth more rather than now valueless.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ba ... &FORM=VIRE

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 55111.html

[Jangaudi]

The Banksy picture that self shredded after being sold gained in value since he remotely had shredded it. If somebody else had done it they would have said it was now worthless but the result was the same. Illustrating the art world is filled with mental retards that now consider it worth more rather than now valueless.

Bansky of course mocked the whole art business by trying to shred it, and the fact that it shredded now makes it even more famous / unusual / valuable. He also illustrated the art business craze, and the lack of insight from many rich buyers in "Exit through the giftshop" which I can recommend...but we digress.

Ebay seller raising the price by putting "rare" on their listing is pretty much the same as putting a cactus on CITES appendix I. Therefor from a conservational point of view it's the wrong tactic, but it's pretty common that politicians and authorities are not known to be very pragmatic, instead it's usually an idealistic approach of "what everyone is supposed to do", and their whole andministration circles around the documents, the fees, and the fines, but does little to protect nature itself. Their job and wage are more important.

If they would allocate an area where the plants grow, and permit a local nurseries to collect a certain amount of seeds, the plants become available, and the price crazy ends. Taking seeds from the natural habitat sounds like harming nature, but in case of critically endangered plants it's the better way forward, as these plants shed seeds every year, though barely any of them ever make it to adulthood in the harsh environment.

And an allocated area approach could even be used to reintroduce plants, after being grown from seeds, which exactly came from that spot.

[keith]

If they would allocate an area where the plants grow, and permit a local nurseries to collect a certain amount of seeds, the plants become available, and the price crazy ends. Taking seeds from the natural habitat sounds like harming nature"

yes good Idea I think most people don't care about cactus though so nothing gets done. If I owned land in Texas I would let collectors hunt cactus for a fee but only get to take one or two each season. Like deer or fish. And if caught poaching well its Texas so good luck.

[prickle]

I'm not sure how you equate smuggling for money to "loving cactus a little to much". Loving cactus a little to much would be stealing that many but then keeping them all for yourself. Mother nature is being decimated by selfish homosapiens. What happens today effects what happens 20 t0 30 years from now. I do equate it to killing off our planet. I think those who accept these pillaged plants should be made to suffer also. If people had to actually serve time for what they do, maybe we can still save our planet

its not the people smuggling them that cause the demand, its the people who want them. those people love cacti a little too much. the smugglers fill the demand.
it sucks to think of it like this because then we have to think about our own part in the problem, but most of us on this forum are actually a very small part of the problem.
yes, the people who blindly buy the endangered species are the main part of the problem, but most of us have cacti that are dying out in the wild. i have golden barrels, which i since learned are becoming extinct. i did not know this when i bought them, but i would be ignorant to think i am not part of the problem.
i dont think collectors are the reason why a lot of these cati are becoming extinct though, they seem to be levelled by traffic of all kinds more than cacti collectors, but we do not help matters.

the plus side of collectors is that we can keep those cacti alive in captivity while they become extinct in the wild, but they will never quite be the same again.

[prickle]

Trouble is Agriculture, home building, road building and Dam Building kill many thousands more than ever cactus thieves do. The main problem is the thieves usually target small populations of highly desirable species, or the latest novelties. How many native plants did the plot your house or factory is built on destroy, or the local golf courses and football fields etc, even the airport and it's runways?

The best way to remove the market is ex situ propagation, but countries seem reluctant to allow this.

great point. i had to duckduckgo what "ex situ propagation" meant but what is the risk of the species becoming something different (as discussed earlier in the thread)? can these cacti be easily kept away from others and kept "clean"? then later put back into their natural home? how high is the risk of accidental interbreeding?
this sounds to me like a project that high level breeders/collecors would jump on. im not sure why this kind of thing has not happened yet.

[prickle]

Ebay seller raising the price by putting "rare" on their listing is pretty much the same as putting a cactus on CITES appendix I. Therefor from a conservational point of view it's the wrong tactic, but it's pretty common that politicians and authorities are not known to be very pragmatic, instead it's usually an idealistic approach of "what everyone is supposed to do", and their whole andministration circles around the documents, the fees, and the fines, but does little to protect nature itself. Their job and wage are more important.

i think you hit the nail on the head here. its a sad reality, but the people we rely on to keep the world beautiful do not actually care if the world is beautiful or not we are just following along like sheep and hoping they will make the right decision.

[prickle]

And if caught poaching well its Texas so good luck.

which creates the same effect on humans as we are trying to avoid with cacti...

..i love it!