Restricting trade in endangered species is generally a very good thing. With cycads and some other plants the results of trade in them absolutely devastating. Poaching plants is also argued by some "collectors" as a way helping preserve their favorite types of plants, but in many cases it only contributes to their decline (again, thinking cycads). The best way to preserve a species is by protecting it and its habitat, not by cultivation. The risks in many cases outweigh the benefits, defiantly. For this particular species, not so much, but in general, no, you do not want private people and companies gathering plant material from endangered populations.

Does seem a bit unnecessary in this case. It should be judged on a case-by-case situation; with cycads, seed production is low, so seed productivity is a bottleneck in the species' reproductive cycle and removing even a few could cause significant harm to the population. With Fitzroya, seed production is massive (as already commented in the other thread!); its population problems in the wild lie in lack of seedling establishment due to competition from faster-growing introduced invasive species, and illegal cutting for wood. Seed harvest for cultivated trees would not harm the species.

Resin

Believe this should be on a case by case basis also.
Look at Arizona Cypress. Basically a small very limited area tree. Now it grown in Christmas tree farms, sold by nurseries, raised as ornamentals, wind-breaks, etc. The time may come when there are more of these trees in planted applications than there are in the wild. Monterry Cypress is probably similar.

I see Parasitaxus is on there too. I sure am glad they've got that one covered!

I agree collection from cultivated plants is really a non-issue, but the agencies do not seem to have the time or money to evaluate every single species and genera by a case-by-case basis.

And if a handful of people did grow this species, so what? It does not contribute to its conservation as a population. For example,the cultivated Arizona Cypress are not contributing to its conservation. Most cultivated stock has a limited genetic base. Gardens and plantings for the most part are temporary collections. So what if there are more Monterry Cypress planted around the world? Their native, regenerating population is really the one that matters in terms of conservation. Gardeners planting a rare tree is hardly the same as Ex-situ conservation for the most part unless the plant is so rare and its habitat so endangered that any and all plant material is useful.

Stop being weird about it. No one mentioned native versus non-native in the entire thread. I do not have any idea where the notion of nativiy comes into play with this. Nor did I attack your collecting habit of collecting species (I also like to have conifers from around the world). I stated that your specimens are not that useful for the species conservation, not that they were a issue where they are grown.

I also said that for this species the ban was not that big a issue, as in unnecessary. Please, if you are going to respond to my posts take the time to actually READ them.

It is not a native vs. non-native issue.

When I say the native regenerating population, that is the one that is always the focus of species conservation because that is where it has a long history of surviving. We are not talking about ex-situ genetic species conservation, we are talking about private plantings. Sometimes they are one and the same. Usually they are not. The rant on species purity and introduced species has absolutely NOTHING to do with conservation of a species habitat and populations. Eastern Hemlock is being grown in South America as a genetic ex-situ conservation program because of the HWA threat. Its non native there, but it was still planted for species conservation. The hemlock in my area's city garden is of the same species but it is not used for population conservation.

Lastly, where is Metasequoia considered invasive? Non-native plants reproducing and establishing themselves is not the same as invasiveness.

Damn, you got butt-hurt. I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention. I guess you can't hear somebody's tone in the text.

Anyway, I brought up the native vs. non-native because it's something I hear a lot and it's a splinter in my foot, not because you said that.

I'm not sure where else your argument went, but uh, sorry. I wasn't trying to give you hell. My only points are that seed distribution, in this case, shouldn't be banned, and b.) having a large amount of individuals (not clones) in propagation is better than not having that species at all. If you're still upset, I don't think I can do anything for you.

We wish to bring walnut nuts from Bulgaria for planting
here in Nebraska. Question; Is there any restriction as
far as being a banned tree? This would not be a commercial
enterprise, but only for our consumption and hobby.

Wayne B. Rupp P.O. Box 51 Weeping Water, Nebraska 68463

Email- Norwayrupp@windstream.net

I have to voice strong agreement with and support for the content (not the tone or manners) of Sequoia-named-guy in this thread. There is a choice to be made between conserving and adapting. Unfortunately both approaches involve risks that are hard to quantify. At this point it is more difficult to argue the dangers of inadvertent introduction of pests because the damage seems to be pretty much done.

One sees too many non-profit organizations panhandling for the cause without advancing it. Example, American Chestnut Foundation. Its corporate existence ends the day it succeeds in breeding resistant timber-worthy trees, a goal that should be in easy reach but somehow takes centuries.

Our "scientific leadership" in this area includes people who are happy to shrug off the elimination from eastern USA forests of hemlock and ash without really worrying about it:

• Ellison himself is dealing with the hemlock woolly adelgid, which is killing all the hemlock trees on his own 100 acres in western Massachusetts. But Ellison plans on just letting his trees all die and seeing what comes next.
  “I’m leaving it alone,” he said. “I suspect it will become a black birch forest and after that I have no idea.”

Ellison holds an adjunct appointment at Harvard and so gives credibility to Pennsylvania's laissez-faire forestry.

One really has a hard time swallowing the ban on Fitzroya seeds. Chile and Argentina want to keep their tree a national monument that cannot be observed anywhere else in the world. Conservation groups buy into it and put out glossy brochures and support the (doomed) status quo.

Interesting link on Alerce, it seems they are protected under appendix 1 of the CITES convention. Perhaps someone here can cite examples of specimens on east coast of US, I can't.