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:

> I don't believe there is anything anyone can do to stamp out the presence of
> unregistered hostas in my garden or anyone else's.  Those of us who suffer
> from the obsession see a plant which appeals to us and absolutely must have
> it in the garden --- this won't change and I've never gotten the impression
> that anyone within the AHS believes it will.  I have also not gotten the
> impression that the AHS is out to control what individual's grow in their
> personal gardens --- is this not a bit of overstatement?

Of course it's an overstatement.  But the point is, what is the purpose of this
policy?  What IS it intended to do.  If the policy is not aimed at discouraging
the growing of unregistered hostas, what is the point of trying to keep growers
from selling them, of not mentioning them or picturing them in the journal, of
banning them from the auction and all other official activities?  If the objective
is not to make the plants disappear, what is the objective.  And if everyone
agrees that the effort won't amount to much because everyone is going to ignore
it, why was it brought up?  There must be a purpose for the program, and if you
can't tell me exactly what the goal is, then the whole idea is rediculous.
Assuming that all hostas will not be registered, which I can guarantee, what is
the proposed disposition of the unregistered hostas as you see it and why is that
a good thing?  If you can't tell me that, then how can you keep saying there is no

> I believe most commerical growers will continue to produce and sell whatever
> they believe the consumer wants --- business is business after all.  You have
> been quite outspoken as to your unwillingness to "cow" to such policies --- I
> am one of your loyal customers --- you supply a superior product, registered
> or not --- I still have every reason to believe it will not affect hosta
> gardening as I know it! ;-)

Please read my above paragraph again.  The fact that most growers intend to defy
the AHS if it institutes this policy does not make it a good policy.

> As to the four plants listed above, I grow three of them and I don't consider
> the fourth worth having --- but you should know that 'Tatoo' has been
> registered.

Many of the plants on the IAC list will be registered now that registration is
easier.  If the simplification of the registration proceedures and the lowering of
the fee had been the extent of the changes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not trying to browbeat you (well, maybe I am), but as a member of the board,
if you are going to defend the program or say it is unimportant, then I can't help
but respond.


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