Human Influence on Roses
Hybrid Tea RosesThe common wild rose is not an endangered species because it is able to grow in shady areas, and protect itself with its thorns present on it's stem. The roses that are likely to be threatened are the hybrid roses. These roses need tender love and care to survive in order to co-exist in a standard garden. Most hybrid roses are susceptible to diseases causing their leaves to develop green splotches, also causing corrosive moisture. There are certain genes that different roses possess, and by mixing genes to reproduce certain types of roses, the final offspring could develop genes that counteract with each other. Such as the Liger. The male lion has the gene of growth so that their offspring can be strong and continue to grow through generations. Female lions have a gene to limit the growth of the cub, in order for the cub to live successfully in life (less weight makes it easier for lions to hunt). When a male lion mates with a female tiger, the tigers genes don't limit the growth of their cubs, not making it fit for the wild. Same things happens with roses. By mating two genetically different species, it creates a rift in the ability for the offspring to survive without the helps of humans.
Very few people doubt the fact that some plants are almost impossibly slow to grow from seed or some other form of artificial propagation in cultivation. It is also a fact that many people find many collected plants far more beautiful than those grown from seed in cultivation. Even with the advanced methods of cultivation available today, many plants take very long periods of time to grow from seed.
In my opinion, one objection to collected plants does have some merit. This is the objection based on the fact that some species of plants have been threatened in habitat because of over-collection. This has been the case in a few species of roses, orchids and possibly a few other species. There is no doubt in my mind that this type of thing is wrong and should be discontinued. This is, however, not nearly as common as some people would have us believe. In fact, there are many more instances of plants being saved from destruction or extinction by development or agriculture than there are instances of plants being harmed by over collection. Most species of plants have a much larger range than is generally known and are in no danger from collectors.
The objection to collected plants based on the statement that it is just wrong, is the one thing that I really have an issue with. Is it wrong to wipe out a species for any reason? I think it is. Is it wrong to offer local people comparatively large sums of money to collect every plant of a given species they can? In many cases, I would say yes, it is. But I would also say that the dissemination of information designed to make a person who enjoys growing rare and unusual plants feel like they are committing what should be a criminal act, is totally ridiculous. The fact is that in most cases, this is harmless. In fact, when people are allowed to pursue their interest in nature, they usually develop a much stronger regard for it. The real point here is, why should people not engage in an activity they enjoy if it is legal, gives them pleasure and has a minimal effect on the environment?
In my opinion, one objection to collected plants does have some merit. This is the objection based on the fact that some species of plants have been threatened in habitat because of over-collection. This has been the case in a few species of roses, orchids and possibly a few other species. There is no doubt in my mind that this type of thing is wrong and should be discontinued. This is, however, not nearly as common as some people would have us believe. In fact, there are many more instances of plants being saved from destruction or extinction by development or agriculture than there are instances of plants being harmed by over collection. Most species of plants have a much larger range than is generally known and are in no danger from collectors.
The objection to collected plants based on the statement that it is just wrong, is the one thing that I really have an issue with. Is it wrong to wipe out a species for any reason? I think it is. Is it wrong to offer local people comparatively large sums of money to collect every plant of a given species they can? In many cases, I would say yes, it is. But I would also say that the dissemination of information designed to make a person who enjoys growing rare and unusual plants feel like they are committing what should be a criminal act, is totally ridiculous. The fact is that in most cases, this is harmless. In fact, when people are allowed to pursue their interest in nature, they usually develop a much stronger regard for it. The real point here is, why should people not engage in an activity they enjoy if it is legal, gives them pleasure and has a minimal effect on the environment?