[MPWG] American Ginseng CITES Report

[Bob Beyfuss]

Dear List
By now you have seen the USF and W findings regarding the export of 
American ginseng. I applaud the decision made and commend the USF and W 
staff highly on their efforts to learn as much as possible (I also respect 
their courage in seeking out diverse opinions through public hearings, I 
attended one of these public meetings and watched the USF and W people put 
up with much abuse and personal attacks)
However, I still have a couple of major concerns. First, I see that the NY 
Natural Heritage program now lists ginseng as S3/S4 (vulnerable/apparently 
secure). Previously it was classified as S4 "apparently secure" S3/S4 is 
defined as less than 100 "documented" populations statewide. This is 
NONSENSE! I can personally show anyone more than 100 ginseng populations 
and there are likely thousands more out there. One single dealer I 
personally know has bought ginseng from over 400 different individuals. 
This is documented data and has been duly reported to the state ginseng 
coordinator.  Does anyone think that all these people are all digging from 
the same 100 or less populations? We have dealers all over the state buying 
from many other diggers, Ginseng coordinators have data in their files to 
refute this nonsense. Do other states have this same "disconnect" from the 
data that has been recorded by state ginseng coordinators and their NH 
programs?  A similar situations exists in KY which exports some 5 or 6 
million wild roots each year despite their Natural Heritage Program saying 
there are fewer than 100 populations. Their export data is also well 
documented but apparently the folks at Natural Heritage are also clueless 
about this. Will someone please tell me what needs to be done to get NY and 
other NH programs to change their rating? They seem to exist in some sort 
of "ivory tower" that does not bother to touch base with reality. I have 
gone on their website and have offered to show them populations but have 
not ever even received a reply.  This elitist attitude breeds contempt from 
harvesters and creates a sense of hopelessness among concerned ginseng 
researchers and needs to be addressed.
Second, as comprehensive as the USF and W "findings" appear to be, they are 
loaded with citations of "personal conversations" and "unpublished data" . 
This amounts to no less than "hearsay" and indicates bias since neither 
"personal conversations" nor "unpublished data"  to the contrary is cited. 
I strongly support and encourage USF and W to use science as a basis for 
their decisions, but "unpublished data" and "personal conversations" are 
not science.
Bob Beyfuss


At 10:45 AM 6/9/2006, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:53:50 -0400
>From: Patricia_Ford at fws.gov
>
>The Fish and Wildlife Service recently completed the CITES non-detriment
>finding for wild and wild-simulated exports of American ginseng.  The
>finding (40 pages) is posted on the FWS's Web page at:
>http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/ginindx.html
>
>A press release on the finding is attached.
>
>(See attached file: Ginseng press release.doc)
>
>Pat Ford
>Botanist
>Division of Scientific Authority
>U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 750
>Arlington, VA. USA 22203
>phone: 703-358-1708
>fax: 703-358-2276
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. 
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The 
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a 
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific 
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare 
>information that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by 
>the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts 
>do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant 
>Conservation Alliance.