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
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Policy Conflict II

At 07:45 PM 09/02/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a continuation of a discussion of AHS policies and programs
>flowing from them. They are
>intended to be a summary of events and facts to inform AHS membership of
>policies which affect the
>well being of  the Society. It represents a partial critique of the
>policies and in no way is intended to
>be personal judgments of people themselves.
>I have assessed the article written by President Jim Wilkins in Journal
>29.2, page 99.. My comments
>Jim Wilkins informs us that we have an increasing problem with
>unregistered hostas. There are more
>than 700 of them and more are coming in future years from hybridizers,
>nurseries and tissue culture
>labs.He explained that because the registration  process was difficult
>and the costs were high, there
>was little incentive to register new introductions. He says the problem
>is complex.  I looked further
>for what is the increasing problem. I could find no description of the
>increasing problem except that
>the numbers of plants that are yet unregistered are increasing. But what
>is the problem? He didn't say.
>I suggest that a discription of the problem  should have been made
>first, then an analysis made to
>determine if the problem is able to be solved. Included in this analysis
>should be an estimation of its
>costs, in qualitative and qualititive terms as well as expected
>benefits, both qualitative and
>quantitative..Only then should decisions be made to adopt policies which
>lead to program decisions.
>Summary of this portion of the article: The preliminary work in policy
>and program design was
>overlooked. The justification for the program is lacking. No proof is
>given that the program is feasible
>from a financial, economic, technical or social standpoint. Without such
>justification the proposal
>developed by whomever should not even have been presented and
>considered for adoption and
>implementation. The Board approved it nevertheless without meeting
>common sense criteria.
>But let us continue to examine other elements of the Policy/Program.
>The program flowing from the approved policies will deal only with
>hostas identified by a cultivar
>name. No species names or cultivars with numbers will be included. No
>reason is given for these
>technical decisions.. It was simply a declaration...a rule, without an
>explanation. If people are
>expected to follow orders/rules, they need to be convinced that there is
>a valid  reason that they
>should. This decision. IMO, fails the social soundness  criteria needed
>for widespread participation
>by the general membership and the many nurserymen expected to be
>The originator of the program was not identified. This is important
>information to present because it
>may reflect on why the program is being proposed for consideration An ad
>hoc Committee was
>established,  composed of Bob Solberg, representing the Growers
>Association, Steve Greene
>(Owner of The Hosta Finder, a reference book for retail  prices and
>sources of hostas), Warren I
>Pollock,and Jim Wilkins, Committee Chairman. Others who provided
>services in the development of
>the Policy/Program  include C.H. Falstad, W. George Schmid and Dave
>No comment is made regarding the selection of this Committee. I prefer
>not to make comments on
>anyone person selected because this could become  an inflamatory
>subject. I will let others comment
>in such cases where  selection affects them personally. Thus, I will
>remain flame-free.
>Rules decided upon are many and detailed. I will summarize the most
>important of them as listed by
>the author.
>Starting Jan.1,1999, hostas on the IAC list published in the Journal,
>compiled by Steve Greene, will
>be identified as IAC designated plants.When these plants are registered,
>this designation will be
>dropped. The goal is for all IAC plants to be registered by 1999 and
>Starting Jan. 1, 1999, all IAC designator plants not registered will not
>be allowed into AHS events or
>publications. They may only be referred to by parentage (meaning
>seedlings or sports of H. "x", for
>example). A list of these plants  which have been so designated will be
>published in early 2001.
>The details of these rules are so overwhelming in their attempt at
>control and   manipulation of
>people's behavior, that no further comments are needed. These rules fail
>in any social soundness
>criteria analysis.. Non- participation by members and growers has
>already occurred on a massive
>scale and is expected to increase. Short term performances and repulsion
>of these rules has been
>observed by many. This   points out  the failure of these rules to
>encourage stated  objectives of the
>Society. These polices are producing the opposite effect of what is
>desired. There certainly has been
>no proof that increased registration of named hosta cultvars has
>resulted from adoption of these rules.
>I give this element of the Program  a big minus for obvious reasons.
>The program provides for registering proceedures to be simplified and
>that costs be reduced . This
>has indeed provided the incentive for those with new introductions
>"worthy" of being registered, to
>proceed when the plant is considered mature and stabilized to a uniform
>morphology. I think this is
>the best
>part of the Program. In fact, this is the only part of the program that
>is needed to accomplish stated
>objectives. I congradulate the Committee for instituting this provision.
>But the rest of the elements  are
>not needed. They should be scrapped as being non- feasible and
>worthless, thus should be
>The program provides for educating AHS membership on the importance of
>registration. The AHS
>will try to influence members  of regional and local societies to only
>buy and sell registered hostas
>after Jan 1 2001.
>IMO, this smacks of manipulation of membership.. To achieve this goal, I
>suggest that first, it is
>necessary to demonstrate the importance of registration .Since this has
>not yet been done, it is
>important to first identify the reasons why named hostas should be
>registered, and to demonstrate just
>how important registration really is. Until this is done, no claims that
>it is important should, or can, in
>all honesty,   be made.
>The Program description continues with...Working with the American Hosta
>Growers Association,
>the Committee will attempt to obtain a committment of growers who will
>buy and sell only registered
>hosta plants. A list of Preferred Growers  who commit themselves to the
>ethical and professional
>standards (only registered hostas after Jan 1 2001) , will be
>established, promoted,etc.
>Only Preferred Growers will be given incentives to:
>   - use theur distinctive logos in AHS publications
>   - be listed annually
>   -be on the hosta growers list sent out to new members
>   -listed on the AHS Web Page
>   -allowed to advertize in  AHS publications
>   -allowed to sell at Concventions
>In summary, Jim Wilkins explained that the program will be LARGE  and
>IMPORTANT. And that
>he will report periodically on progress.
>For those of us who are keeping track of the response of growers,
>nurserymen, tc labs and just plain
>hosta gardeners to these rules within the Program, I believe it can be
>summarized that the
>simplification of the registration proceedures and the cost reductions
>are positive incentives to register
>new introductions. Other than that,  the rest of the program should be
>scrapped because the devil is
>in the details, so to speak. Many details, rules, prohibitions,
>incentives to some and punishnments to
>others and lack of rational makes the overall program destined to
>failure. If you don't believe it,  talk
>to the growers . Almost to a man (and woman) they are opposed the all
>elements of the program
>except the simplification of registration and lowering of the costs of
>registration. My recommendation
>is to junk everything else in the program. It doesn't meet the usual
>accepted  criteria for a successful
>This critique has not been requested by anyone. It is my personal
>opinion. In the absence of any
>periodical report from the president during the last year as promissed,
>I can make no other
>conclusions than those I have made based upon my own examination of
>events as they have
>Jim Hawes
>The next discussion will be a continuation of AHS policies as described
>by the Panel of AHS officials
>at the Winter Scientific Meeting in Jan. 1999. Stay tuned if interested.
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>jim, i think u hit the nail squarly on the head, in my travels no one  has
said anything good about this except let it pass. case closed, let it die.

I dought it well ever be brought up again

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

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index