hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Examples of harm

Sam020857@aol.com wrote:

> Chick:
>    Are we not mixing the IAC with the Preferred Grower Program here?

Well, not in my opinion.  They are definitely not the same thing, but they are
related.  The Preferred Grower Program applies, obviously, only to growers.  The
IAC is a list of plants that, unless registered by 1/1/01, the AHS will pretend
do not exist.  They can't be pictured or mentioned in the Journal, the name tags
would have to be hidden in convention tour gardens, and a bunch of other silly

Somehow, the board feels that this will force people to register their plants.
Those plants that are not registered will be shunned.  And what does the
membership gain by pretending these hostas don't exist?  Absolutely nothing.  If
a friend offers you a division of Embroidery, or even Blue Seer, Savannah, or
Tatoo, will you say "No thank you, it's unregistered".  I doubt it.  And if you
wouldn't, can you say that the program makes sense?  It's kind of like the 55mph
limit.  Most people supported it because they drove 65 anyway.  I think it's a
basic axiom of rule making that you shouldn't make rules that you know people are
going to ignore.

My guess is that most people in the society think the program won't hurt anyone
because they can't see how it affects them.  But the stated intent of the program
is to keep unregistered hostas from being sold, and there is no reason to keep
them from being sold except to make them unavailable to you.  If you think it is
the business of the AHS to decide which hostas belong in your garden and which
don't, based not on the merit of the plant but on whether or not it has been
registered, then you should support the program.


>    My original question was basically, how does the implementation of the IAC
> and the refusal of the AHS to allow "promotion" of unregistered varieties at
> its assorted functions and in its publications hurt "everyone" as some have
> said?
>    Unfortunately, I am in the middle group which you mentioned in another
> post --- I do not have strong feelings one way or the other about this issue
> ... and I am having difficulties understanding the reasoning behind strong
> feelings against it.  I do understand your position very clearly on the
> Preferred Growers Program and I understand why you feel that way.  Where the
> IAC is concerned, however, I am at a loss and can't seem to get a logical
> explanation --- is it because some feel this is a "slippery slope" and one
> thing will lead to another down the road?
>    And, with regard to AHS tour gardens, wasn't there a rule that
> unregistered plants were not to be designated by name on plant markers --- or
> did I just dream that up?  Hard to say at this point .... I'm so confused ...
> Sandie
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index