Worrisome trend of Dudleya farinosa poaching in California

I was just reading a worrying/depressing article about the problem of succulent poaching on the NorCal coast, and wanted to share the issue (I hope that’s OK).

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9327697-181/plant-smugglers-take-massive-toll

In particular, I wanted to alert other local naturalists so they can keep an eye out for these people. Just gross.

From the article:

“Investigators now believe several hundred thousands plants worth tens of millions of dollars on the Asian black market have been torn illegally from bluffs along the Northern California coast over the past several years, in some cases stripping whole areas of the plant species, said Adrian Foss, a captain with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.”<

13 Likes

there may be a case for obscuring some dudleya species on inat that don’t have official rare status yet, based on this trend. I don’t like going overboard when obscuring isn’t necessary, but in this case, it may be worth it.

8 Likes

Agree @charlie, this is clearly a case where curators need some latitude to respond to immediate threats. Maybe even with the ability to put a lock on the status that only staff (or other selected super-curators) could unlock?

4 Likes

From reading the article, the poachers already know where to find it, and it is not a rare plant. I think what is more needed than obscuration, is more naturalists in the area documenting what is there, and capturing evidence of the poaching to pass on to the authorities. This is not just a few plants to feed the family or pretty up the home garden, but wholesale rape of the land. Catch them in the act, prosecute hard, and send a strong message…

6 Likes

That might be a bit knee jerk though… personal safety above all else!

yeah that is a good point. I kind of think that’s true for all of it. Plus a few ‘honey pot’ observations orchids and turtles, with some game cams and wardens ready to swoop down and make back a years worth of wages on the fines extracted from whoever they catch. But… we are left cobbling together what little we have i guess.

The premise of hiding stuff is a little sketchy and not data driven though i think it does have a time and a place. I have heard stories of populatins of plants disappearing that only biologists knew about… things like that. Or a certain other naturalist data recording site that obscures everything but the guy who runs the site and anyone he deems ‘trusted’ can see the locations. Dude could be selling tons of herps on the side for all i know. Not cool. But… this is perhaps way off topic

1 Like

I agree with @kiwifergus that obscuration isn’t a great tool with species that are widespread and easy to find. Dudleya farinosa is common on pretty much any coastal terrace along the central coast. While illegal collecting is a concern, finding these populations (which is the piece of the puzzle iNat could potentially play a role in) is unlikely to be the bottleneck thwarting poachers. The bottleneck in this case is likely policing of protected areas and enforcement of laws and demand for these plants.

For what its worth, California Native Plant Society conservation statuses are up to date in iNaturalist for Dudleya with all rare Dudleya species are being obscured.

4 Likes

yeah that makes sense, you know i am an obscuring skeptic in terms of this stuff anyway.

1 Like

I know it’s never as simple as it “could” be, but I imagine that if a non-profit organisation was set up to train and manage collectors that would take low numbers of these on a sustainable basis, and then put those out to the markets that are taking them on a black market basis, then the profitability of it is crippled, the market need is met, and any “profits” could go to policing the environment against illegal takes.

To my thinking the worst part of this behaviour is the damage done that is completely avoidable, but because we are dealing with people that have no regard for the law, they also typically have no regard for the damage they do in the process of collecting. Instead of wholesale taking in a large area, one plant taken from every 10sqm (ie 3m between plants taken) would likely allow the environment to recover very quickly. Those taking illegally want to get as much as possible in as short a timeframe as possible, to minimise the chances of being caught.

Reaching hearts and minds… much harder to do than say!

3 Likes

probably they aren’t that hard to propagate so in a few years you could just go to growing them commercially. ,Totally on the same page though. Hiding data doesn’t work that well to deter illegal behavior and in some cases may make it worse (people do more unsavory things when no one is watching). I wonder the extent to which things like iNat make poaching/collection more VISIBLE because more people are looking… that could incorrectly be attributed as an increase in collection. Though this dudleya thing seems to be off somewhere else.

We need better native plant nurseries!

4 Likes

imagine being the person who is paid to abuse cultivated Dudleyas in a nursery!

6 Likes

Just wanted to add that a San Francisco NPR station recently did a call-in segment about this: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101870252/california-succulents-attract-native-plant-enthusiasts-and-smugglers

4 Likes

Hi, I’m just getting started at iNaturalist and went searching for any thread pertaining to protecting rare plants, at least in CA. I contribute observations to CalFlora but I decided that it might be helpful to contribute here too. I believe strongly in cross-sharing data where it can be of use to science.

That being said, I must say that there is a huge concern among native plant scientists in California about poaching of succulents and possibly cacti as well. If any of the folks in this thread are California Native Plant Society members, this concern will be familiar to them.

Generally speaking, it is the succulents / cacti that are in danger. Joshua Tree National Park was created to protect desert plants because Minerva Hamilton Hoyt saw an extensive level of poaching and wanted to protect them so she lobbied FDR who designated it a national monument in 1936.

Since then we have treasured and protected our natural resources but there is a substantial uptick in poaching of plants. In at least one case, the perpetrator was caught sending succulents to Asia in a profit-making scheme. And just last night in my first foray into exploring the iNaturalist site, I saw many observations of native succulents that I wish were not visible to the public.

As I said I’m a new member and am looking to share many of my observances with iNaturalist but at this point in time I am reluctant to share cacti or succulents unless that information is obscured. I am aware that I can choose to obscure the location data but read several threads where location data somehow became public later, which made those who were involved uncomfortable with sharing their observances. Perhaps those issues have been resolved…?

I understand there is a feature on iNaturalist to obscure locations of all listed species, but this will not protect many of California’s treasures. For anyone who is not familiar, the California Native Plant Society has a ranking system of plants that are rare or sensitive, even where those plants are not State-listed or Federally-listed. The California Floristic Province is a world biodiversity hotspot which results in a ton of rare species. It is impossible to get them all listed federally or by the state. Nonetheless many plants are extraordinarily rare and we should make all efforts to protect them.

As an example within the last week, 17,000 rare Tiehm’s buckwheat plants in Nevada were intentionally dug up, destroying 40% of the plant’s global population. This plant is being considered for federal listing by the USFWS.

My point is that this is a discussion that I hope we continue to have. It is sad that we have to take extra precautions but I think they are warranted.

Would love to hear feedback from CNPS members as well as the iNaturalist folks.

Thanks for all you do!

4 Likes

Welcome to the Forum!

If you select obscured geoprivacy for an observation, and never give permission for project curators or other iNaturalist users to see your true coordinates, this should never be an issue.

That said, nothing on the Internet is ever 100% secure. So if it is something that absolutely can never be known publicly, it’s better just to keep it off the Internet and out of databases entirely.

2 Likes

Thanks for that info! I would love to share data if I knew it was going to be used to help in plant conservation. I suppose that I will need to review those requests on a case-by-case basis.

And yes, nothing is 100% where hackers are concerned. Good point.

Cheers

3 Likes

I just looked that up. (“Rare Tiehm’s Buckwheat population ravaged near Silver Peak, Nevada”) That’s incredibly sad… and if perpetrated by people as it seems, downright loathsome.

2 Likes

I agree that curators should have the possibility to obscure the position of certain species.
There are plants smugglers because, evidently, there is a market for those plants. One possibility is to create a legal market by propagating those plants in nurseries through seeds or through vegetative propagation. This would make smuggling uneconomic and could also create new job opportunities.

2 Likes

Any species can be set to have locations automatically obscured, regardless of conservation status. You can flag the taxon page of the species to start a conversation on whether or not it should be obscured.

3 Likes

If it was only one person, maybe. But when ten people in succession – none of whom know about the others – each take one plant from every 10sqm, that is ten plants taken from every 10sqm.

2 Likes

please don’t mis-quote me like that.

Immediately prior to what you quote from me, I frame the idea in context of a community group that would manage the collection, and that it would be undertaken in a controlled way to subvert any black market supply.

The full text that you have mis-quoted from:

3 Likes