[MPWG] American Ginseng CITES Report

[David Lincicome]

This note is in response to Bob Beyfuss' comments regarding Natural
Heritage state ranks:
 
A Natural Heritage state rank of S3S4 does not mean that there are less
than 100 occurrences of the species within the state.  It means that the
exact rarity of the species is uncertain within the state.  Assigning a
species rank is a little more than a numbers game.  I can't vouch for
how New York came to their ranking.  In Tennessee we have 329 ginseng
records in our database, 50 of these are historical.  An additional 42
records have not been visited in the last 20 years and the current
condition of the occurrences is unknown.  158 of our records are from
within the last ten years, and only 26 of those have had viability
assessed as poor or better (40 in the last 20 years).  We do know that
there is a lot of harvest pressure on the species within the state
(typically number 3 state in harvest weight) and that in certain
portions of the state it is getting more difficult to locate.  When we
do locate the species it is often depauperate occurrences of a few 2 and
3-pronged plants.  On occassion I find a 4-prong plant.  We also know
that a fair amount of ginseng of uncertain origin is planted as
woodsgrown in Tennessee.  Taking all of this into account we felt it was
appropriate to assign a rank of S3S4 to ginseng in Tennessee because it
is of longterm conservation concern because it is commercially
exploited.  We know that it's rarity is within this range of 80 to
widespread viable occurrences.  Granted our databse is only as good as
the information we collect and people send in to us.  We do not receive
much point location and descriptive information on ginseng occurrences. 
Many people that do know where ginseng occurs are not going to give up
that information for a variety of reasons.  We also list the species as
Special Concern-Commercailly Exploited within the state.  I hope this
helps to explain more clearly the application of Natural Heritage
Ranks.
 
A full explanation of Natural Heritage Ranks can be found at this
website:  http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm
 
Regards,
 
David Lincicome, Rare Plant Protection Program Administrator
Tennessee Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Division of Natural Areas
401 Church St., 7th Floor L&C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-0447
 
Phone:  (615) 532-0439
Fax:  (615) 532-0046
E-mail: david.lincicome at state.tn.us
Website: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/na
 
 


 

>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> 06/09/06 10:43 AM >>>

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060622/184aa025/attachment.html>