Context to an insult

[sabredance2]

Read recently where some individual challenged the Forum's host for calling out individuals who don't do the right thing in the orchid world. Greed and double standards have been characteristics observed far too often by those in prominent positions of influence over the history of orchid cultivation, and Andy has been one of the few with the knowledge and experience to expose such practices. One such organisation that has been on the end of a Mr Cym barb has been Kew (and its identities). To illustrate, back in August 2023 the following quote appeared on the forum:
[quoteBut I think the problem is that no retail nursery in the UK has shown interest in buying plants from either nursery. Thanks to that vile Cribb, importing plants from anywhere to the UK is a nightmare. Leaving the EU was the final straw. Plants from both these nurseries are sold into the European market currently.][/quote]
By way of background, and assuming members have a few free moments over Easter, it is worthwhile reading the following:
Orchid Fever/Eric Hansen responds to Kew allegations
Open letter from Eric Hansen, author of Orchid Fever, to the American Orchid Society,
organizers of the 2002 World Orchid Conference, Royal Horticultural Society, Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Orchid Digest Corporation, local orchid societies, botanical
institutions, orchid growers, scientists, hobbyists and general readers: I have recently
learned that Prof. Peter Crane, Director of RBG, Kew, has once again taken it upon himself
to circulate letters to many of you about the factual basis of my book - Orchid Fever.
I have already addressed earlier statements made by Prof. Crane which he included in a
similar mass mailing last year. My detailed rebuttal to those statements appeared in the
American Orchid Society magazine 'Orchids'. It now appears that Prof. Crane has come up
with a new claim that Orchid Fever is misleading because it suggests that Kew staff behaved
improperly in their dealings with Henry Azadehdel, the orchid collector and convicted
smuggler of thirteen, nursery-grown, CITES Appendix II orchids. Crane uses the term 'no
impropriety' on the part of Kew staff in his recent letter which suggests some sort of minor
oversight. I am uncertain what 'impropriety' means in the British context, but my statements
in Orchid Fever are solely concerned with whether the solicitation and acceptance of rare
orchids from Azadehdel was ethical, or legal, and if the plants were accompanied by valid
CITES permits.
Prof. Crane's comments have been reprinted in full in 'Orchid Review' as well as 'Orchid
Digest'. In the spirit of fair play, I requested an opportunity to write unedited rebuttals of
equal length to these accusations in both publications, but I was refused that courtesy by
Henry Oakeley at 'Orchid Review' and by Harold Koopowitz and Alejandro Capriles at
'Orchid Digest'. While I understand that these individuals have their personal reasons for
denying me equal time, it does not serve the orchid community to stifle open and public
debate. Because many orchid people who read these journals also follow online discussions,
I felt that this would be an appropriate venue to post my response to Crane's statements.
Chapter 5 of Orchid Fever describes Henry Azadehdel and his involvement with Kew staff
in great detail, and I invite each one of you to carefully examine the precise wording of the
text. There were early threats from Kew regarding this chapter but those threats evaporated
upon presentation of solid documentary evidence to support my statements. If Kew was
unable to challenge these plain facts at the time of publication, one must wonder why, 18
months later, they are now trying to assert that members of their staff were not guilty of any
impropriety.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the fact checking process and legal reviews carried
out by reputable publishing houses, I would like to describe the process as it applies to my
book Orchid Fever.
Orchid Fever is the result of nearly seven years of careful research, interviews, follow-up
interviews and painstaking fact-checking with the help of experts in the various fields
covered in the book. The completed manuscript went through an eight week, line-by-line,
review by the legal department of my US publisher, Random House, which is arguably one
of the most distinguished and well respected publishers in the world. Publishers are legally
responsible for the words of their authors, and for this reason they closely examine what is
submitted in manuscript form. All statements must be backed up by compelling
documentation. Following the legal review, the entire manuscript was meticulously fact
checked for several months by independent botanists, orchid taxonomists, experts in CITES
history, law and trade regulations, orchid breeders and conservationists, as well as people
from many other associated fields of study. The author had no say in the selection of these
expert fact checkers and was not allowed contact with these people during this process.
My UK publisher, Methuen, another highly regarded publishing house, insisted on their
own legal and fact checking review which lasted another four weeks. This was to make
certain that the text was fully in compliance with UK law. During both of the legal reviews
and fact checking procedures each sentence and its meaning was carefully and thoroughly
scrutinized. The back up documentation for Orchid Fever occupies approximately eight
linear feet of shelf space in my office. So with this in mind, let us take a closer look at the
recent 'facts' presented by Prof. Peter Crane.
Prof. Crane states that Henry Azadehdel "...contacted at least six members of Kew's staff at
various times in 1984 and offered to exchange plants with Kew from his collection." I am
uncertain how much fact checking Prof. Crane has done, but according to letters from the
Kew archives, the office of the CITES Scientific Authority for plants in the UK - which is
located at Kew, and from court documents from the trial of Henry Azadehdel (copies of
which I have in my possession), Prof. Crane has the story turned completely backwards.
The requests for rare orchids came from Kew staff, not from Mr. Azadehdel as suggested in
Crane's letter. As I point out in Orchid Fever, it was Kew staff that requested undescribed
new species, as well as rare and endangered, CITES protected orchids from Azadehdel. The
meaning of these letters is very clear. In one letter from 1984, Azadehdel is advised, by Dr.
Phillip Cribb, on where Paphiopedilum malipoense, a very rare species of slipper orchid,
might be found. Other letters acknowledge the safe arrival of mature specimens of rare
species that, to the best of my knowledge, were not available as nursery grown plants
through commercial nurseries, nor were wild collected plants legally obtainable without
proper CITES permits. CITES does allow for an exchange of wild-collected species
between bonafide research institutions for scientific study, but Azadehdel is not a research
institution and Kew staff would have been very well aware of this fact.
All of this correspondence was written on Kew stationary, by Kew staff to Henry
Azadehdel. As I have already pointed out to Prof. Crane and others, this information was
not, by any stretch of the imagination, intended to reflect official policy at RBG, Kew, or to
discredit this fine institution which I hold in very high regard. The purpose of my comments
was to bring into question the working relationship between Henry Azadehdel and certain
members of Kew's staff. Even after Dr. Cribb had alerted the authorities about the possible
illegal activities of Mr. Azadehdel (and had become actively involved in the investigation), he
continued to solicit and accept CITES protected orchids from Mr. Azadehdel (letter from
Cribb to Azadehdel, dated 3 April 1985, acknowledging receipt of P. javanicum for the live
collection at Kew).
Following publication of the UK edition of Orchid Fever in early 2000, Dr. Cribb instructed
his solicitors/attorneys to threaten my UK publisher with legal action for obscure and vague
reasons outlined in a 12-page, single-spaced document that can be politely described as
angry, confused, and in parts - incoherent. Upon threat of legal action for libel, Dr. Cribb's
solicitors demanded a financial settlement, retractions, and a public apology from the author.
In response, my publisher repeatedly asked for a clear, concise and final list of relevant
passages along with page numbers and direct quotes from the book. This sort of concise
and final list has never been received by my publisher.
Since publication of Orchid Fever, Dr. Cribb's solicitors have spent more than 12 months
looking for inaccuracies, factual errors and libelous comments. They have corrected the
spellings of Sigmotastalix (to Sigmatostalix), and the common name of a pit viper found in
Malaysia, but they have come up with nothing of substance.
My UK publisher has courteously refused to make any changes apart from several
instances of word usage to make the author's meaning more clear. This refusal to be bullied
or intimidated by legal threats is admirable and correct because the book is based on fact
which is backed up by hard data, court documents, personal letters, email exchanges and
other solid evidence. There has been no legal action taken against the publisher or author for
the simple reason that there was never any basis for legal action in the first place.
Over a five year period, I actively and repeatedly solicited Dr. Cribb's participation and input
regarding his mutually beneficial working relationship with Henry Azadehdel, but for
whatever reasons he declined my offers. These offers were presented in the spirit of fair
play. I articulated exactly what sort of information I was looking for and this approach to
fact finding far exceeds the most stringent standards for responsible journalism and writing.
Had Dr. Cribb offered an explanation I would have included this in the book. In fact, I once
again extend this offer to him, and I will carefully consider his comments for possible
inclusion in the future printings of Orchid Fever.
The last challenge from Dr. Cribb and his solicitors was directed at my statement of fact that
Dr. Cribb had made an undercover scouting visit to the Popow nursery prior to the (now
legendary) armed raid and confiscation of nearly 17,000 orchids in 1988. Dr. Cribb and his
solicitors claimed that no prior visit took place, that the statement was untrue and should
therefore be deleted from the book. My UK publisher and I have copies of the German
court document that provides full details and the date that Dr. Cribb made his prior visit to
the Popow nursery. Since mentioning this document to Dr. Cribb's solicitors seven months
ago, we have not heard back from these fact-finding gentlemen.
Prof. Crane claims that Orchid Fever "...denigrates individuals and institutions that are
actively trying to conserve orchids in the wild." But, of course, it must be understood that
Prof. Crane is simply referring to himself, his own institution and the various efforts of his
close colleagues. I find this statement especially curious in light of the fact that I have
recently been honored with an invitation to present a lecture on orchid conservation at the
2002 World Orchid Conference in Malaysia. Many independent, well respected, and
impartial experts in the orchid world have read Orchid Fever and their comments directly
contradict those offered by Prof. Crane.
Eric Hagsater, the former Chairman of the Orchid Specialist Group, IUCN Species Survival
Commission, called Orchid Fever "Most enjoyable" and went on to say that the book
"...should be required reading for anyone seriously interested in orchid conservation."
Michael Lidsky, CITES Program Coordinator USDA/APHIS, praised the book for its
insights into problems with CITES implementation, and he found the book
"...spellbinding." The highly respected Danish diplomat, environmental visionary and orchid
taxonomist, Dr. Gunnar Seidenfaden (who was entrusted with the responsibility of putting
orchids on CITES at the Washington Convention in 1973), said that Orchid Fever was "A
very insightful and important book...told with a fine sense of humor." Ned Nash, Director
of Conservation at the American Orchid Society, called the book "Fabulous and brilliantly
portrayed." Dr. Eric Christenson was quoted as saying "Powerful storytelling...balanced
and well documented." Cal Dodson, Peter Raven, Kingsley Dixon, Andy Easton (Director
of Education at the American Orchid Society), Joseph Arditti, Leonid Averyanov, Paul
Phillips, and Alasdair Morrison have also added their enthusiastic support. The list goes on.
Given the fact that Prof. Crane's background is in academic affairs, office administration
and the study of fossil flowers (especially pollen and spore dispersal from extinct taxa of
the mid-Cretaceous), I believe more weight should be given to the statements of the
knowledgeable experts mentioned above.
A writer's job is to tell the story in a readable, fair and balanced way. The reader, for his or
her part, is ultimately responsible for his or her interpretations and conclusions about what
the writer meant and whether the stories are supported by fact or fantasy. As a reader, Prof.
Crane is certainly free to agree or disagree, or to understand or misinterpret my book in any
way he wishes. But he must also realize that by offering his biased and misinformed
opinions in such a public way that he, just like the author of Orchid Fever, will be subject to
the same degree of scrutiny and accountability for statements made.
And so, to continue the fact finding process, I eagerly await Prof. Crane's publication of the
Azadehdel/Kew letters along with a detailed explanation about their meaning. I also ask him
to include copies of the CITES import permits and phyto-sanitary certificates for each one
of the plants provided by Henry Azadehdel. I look forward to these and other clarifications
that Prof. Crane may wish to share with us.
In the meanwhile, Orchid Fever will stand as written.
With regards,
Eric Hansen
ekhansen@ix.netcom.co

[cricketerry]

A very interesting read Sabre.

[royalarea]

Yes, where there is smoke there is certainly fire. I have read Hasen's book and it is a good read.

[wolfman]

To me it is crystal-clear that Kew worked with a criminal and orchid thief; all the dithering of “Professors” (I was one myself, so know some of the charades academics can invent) and “Chief Scientists” is aiming to distract from and disguise the fact that Kew supported a criminal.

Whether they did it knowingly and / or intentionally is a different question, but for me the reality is: at least they dealt with a criminal. Mr. Aza-whatever belongs in jail - period.