I like your thinking, Ellen.... which leads me to ask: What was wrong with the previous system? From where I sit it didn't require a difficult password which was hard to type, tedious registration, and the Department of Homeland Security which might be better used without the proliferation of rules and regs that seem to serve to no real purpose other than slowing down the system and making it more inefficient. Inspection of incoming parcels of plant materials with the green-and-yellow sticker as an alerting and directional device seemed to work well enough (from my point of view as the intended recipient--but maybe not.) The issue of inspecting contraband or its difficulty is not changed or ameliorated by my now having a password which I can't remember, and have difficulty typing even after I've written it down, because of the problem of shifting back and forth between characters. Further,plant inspection stations (if they were to follow the USPS law as previously done and intended -- a matter of precedent) , regarding shipment on to the recipient without additional cost seems to have fallen by the wayside for many California inspection stations. Postage was previously paid for serrvice to the recipient, not to the inspection station. The intervention by the inspection station, even though it is a governmental body, (actually a privatized service operating under contract) should not lead to ignoring or overriding that international postal agreement, even if it is doing so as an arm of Homeland Security. Making the recipient pay an additional fee does not seem justified as a matter of Homeland Security, for defense of our borders. But maybe we really are that broke. Dunno. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellen Hornig" <hornig@earthlink.net> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [pbs] Importing Bulbs and Seeds > Diane - it was an APHIS inspector who told me that about Czech phytos (a > voice on the phone) - I have no independent information. It was a > response > to my question about why plants coming in with a valid phyto needed to be > reinspected. > > At the risk of exhausting my welcome, I want to make some (ultimately) > positive remarks about this question of regulating and inspecting plant > imports. I do have to say, first, that it appears the system doesn't > function too well. Incoming legal plant material appears to be going > largely uninspected, despite the apparent fact that foreign export > regulation (issuing of phytos) is at best an uneven process. Incoming > illegal imports probably largely go undetected, because the first line of > defense - identifying a package that needs inspection - presumably depends > on the US postal and Customs services doing their jobs with greater zeal > than, say, Debbie's informant says they do. And if incoming illegal > imports > all became legal via the following of existing regulations (remember, > import > permits are free, though phytos usually are not), the system would be even > more overwhelmed than it is. > > One tactic, which seems to be the currently preferred one, is to threaten > people with large fines if they get caught. My previous life as an > economist leads me to observe that the expected cost of smuggling is > measured by multiplying the probability of getting caught by the fine > levied > if one is caught. Playing with some arbitrary numbers here, if the > probability of getting caught is as high as 1% (I'm guessing it's much > lower) and the expected fine is $2000, the expected penalty for smuggling > is > (.01)(2000) = $20, which renders the smuggling of a single plant > borderline > not-worthwhile - but if the probability of getting caught is 0.1%, the > expected cost is only $2 (versus whatever the perceived value of the > smuggled material is). A very high fine (say, $250,000) should definitely > discourage small-time smuggling, but only if people know with certainty > that > it will be levied if they're caught - and from what I hear from the > grapevine, penalties generally levied on individuals are much lower than > that. The only people who are discouraged from smuggling by POSSIBLE high > fines are the same types who won't fly, viz, people who are so terrified > by > the low-probability high-cost outcome that they don't look beyond that to > see that the activity is (alas in the case of plants) relatively safe. > > The bottom line is that a positive, energetic, informative public > education > campaign is about your only rational line of defense when you're woefuly > underfunded and understaffed. It's far more likely to get the attention > of > a rational individual than is threatening them with high fines - it > appeals > to their better natures, it's cheap, and it makes clear for them why what > they're doing is wrong. > > And them's my thoughts this fine morning, and there I will end it. > > Ellen > > Ellen Hornig > Seneca Hill Perennials > 3712 County Route 57 > Oswego NY 13126 USA > http://www.senecahillperennials.com/ > ----- Original Message ----- >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >> http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/