The Cactus Conservation Institute (CCI) announces completion of the recovery of nearly 500 acres for the protection of the Zapata bladderpod (Physaria thamnophila = Lesquerella thamnophila) and star cactus (Astrophytum asterias). The recovery was completed in coordination with a regional conservation entity. The Zapata bladderpod is a rare flowering plant that is a part of the mustard family. The star cactus, known also as the sea urchin cactus, is one of the most at-risk cacti in the United States and now resides within a radius of ten square miles. Both species are threatened due to loss of habitat. The conservation area that has been set-aside will be used to protect these two flora species as well as the desert tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri) and other at-risk fauna.

The post Press release about conservation property appeared first on Cactus Conservation Institute.

Anna Ermakova, Martin Terry and Keeper Trout

It has been brought to our attention that Decriminalize Nature has presented words from our most recent article (Ermakova, Terry and Trout, 2022) in their social media in a way that implies we support their political agenda. Selectively taking a sentence out of the context of the rest of the article is misleading and counterproductive. We have said this before, but we would like to emphasize it again: We do not align ourselves with Decriminalize Nature or any other political organization. The Cactus Conservation institute promotes scientific research on conservation, and maintains a respectful relationship with the Native American Church and those who rely upon peyote as a sacrament. CCI has opted out of engaging on political issues around decriminalization.

We hope that in our article we are able to explain some of the complexity rationally, objectively and respectfully, taking conflicting evidence and points of view into account. We encourage anyone interested to read the whole paper and judge for themselves.

Ermakova, A. O., Terry, M. K., & Trout, K. (2022). Cultivation as a conservation tool for cacti: review of the botanical evidence and a case study of Lophophora williamsii. Bradleya, 2022(sp40), 71-82.

PDF of the paper is available here, and is reproduced with permission from the British Cactus and Succulent Society.

The post Short Clarification Note about Decriminalize Nature Claims appeared first on Cactus Conservation Institute.

Recently CCI weighed in on SB 519, which seeks to decriminalize some hallucinogenic substances, including peyote. We encouraged the bill to include cultivation of peyote for reasons that have been published in a prior blog and will not be repeated here. In responses to CCI and in sharing some of our posts, some have confused decriminalization with legalization. CCI wishes to emphasize that we take no political stance on the topic of decriminalization or legalization, but we do wish to explain the differences here and how they might impact conservation of peyote. In the USA, the legal differences between the two matters. For example, some describe the NAC having peyote decriminalized in 1996 yet the reality is that peyote was clearly affirmed by Congress as being completely legal for federally recognized indigenous groups to possess, consume and transport. It is also potentially legal for them to cultivate it by satisfying the requirements of its regulation as is described in the Controlled Substances Act.

Decriminalization simply means that an activity will no longer be policed and adjudicated through actions such as arrests and jail sentences, although possibly fines may still be administered and in some instances rehabilitation may be required. Legalization fully allows the activity as well as allows for additional regulation, which, for instance, may pertain to patents, distribution practices, acceptable usage, and other matters. It takes the substance out of the hands of illegal distributors and makes it a for-profit substance. For a detailed discussion of how decriminalization versus legalization impacts the cannabis industry, you can read this article from the early days of cannabis legalization. 

Our main interest in SB 519 was to ensure that peyote cultivation was included as an option for groups for whom it is already legal, namely, members of indigenous groups recognized by federal law, should they wish to cultivate. It should be noted that cultivation by such sincere worshippers is already permitted in many states, although not in the State of Texas, where it is naturally occurring. It is not our intention to tell NAC what to do or not do but we strongly support the ability of indigenous people to have the freedom to make their own decisions about cultivation. This one action alone could have significant benefit on the wild peyote population through reduction of harvesting pressures and would give indigenous peoples an autonomous conservation path while protecting their religious freedom. In addition, the law already clearly anticipates cultivation by those who are recognized to have the rights to possess, transport and consume it. This clarification to SB 519 would be consistent with what is already understood to be permissible, if not explicitly stated in federal law.

The post Legalization versus Decriminalization in the Protection of Peyote appeared first on Cactus Conservation Institute.