Re: New Rules
Can't the market be a guide. The IAC list is good in that regard. "Many"
of the plants on that list have already been market tested and successful
( Many is highlighted as the IAC list doesn't mean the plant is worthwhile
Butch Ragland wrote:
The problem is you don't understand registration.
What is wrong with 2000 unregistered plants on the market. Is that worse
than 10000 registered plants, many of which are not memorable, couldn't
be picked out of a crowd. I am not against registration, I just don't understand
the "push" to register everything. Jim's second line above has much to
say. To record for historical purposes. Every plant does not need to be
It has nothing to do with garden worthiness and gives no seal of approval.
Think of the power you are wanting to give the registrar. It doesn't really
matter because he can not take that power.
Why do we want to give someone, anyone power. The oldest story in the
world "power corrupts, etc.
And it would not protect the buying public in any way, the power
is already in your pocket book.
From a recent posting by Jim Wilkins
The answer to this is very simple. The AHS is the registration authority.
I and many others feel registration is important historically and as
resource for our members present and future. I was a member of
of Directors when this proposal was drafted and passed. The intent
simplify registration, reduce the cost, encourage registration of the
nearly 800 plants in the trade which were not registered, to honor
grower/sellers who committed to the process, and to try to prevent
being 2000 unregistered plants in the trade in 5 years.
I am not ashamed
to support those goals. As stated, ad nauseum, there have been
problems and I am confident that a satisfactory solution will be
Even taking it one step further- why register breeding stock? It serves
a purpose, but it may not exist in a couple of years. Simplfy the registration
process is the only thing that makes sense, everything else seems like
a complete waste of energy.