Motives and incentives for importing

(1) There are roughly three categories of plant/seed importers: Businesses
who import for resale (large quantities), businesses who import for
stock/propagation (small quantities), and private parties who import for
their own use. (small quantities).

(2) the ones who probably care least about bringing in hidden pests,
viruses, etc are the first (OK, shoot me, but I bet it's true). They are
rewholesaling (think cheap bulbs, bareroot perennials, etc) to mass
merchandisers and to big growers who are going to have a hard time proving
anything when the damage is discovered 6 months later. Nurseries who bring
in material for propagation, and private individuals (sophisticated
gardeners and plant collectors) are the most likely to be paying attention
to how their plants develop, and the most likely to destroy material that
shows any signs of disease, because they have every good reason not to want
it to spread into their other stock.

(3) I am guessing that APHIS spends most of its time inspecting the "large
import" category, because that's where the money is, and money isn't going
to sit around idly if its imports sit around for a month before being
inspected. This is appropriate but not, in my opinion, because it's where
the money is, but because it's where the pests are, especially if, as Iain
relates, the Dutch are so overriden with pests that they're farming growing
operations out to the Chinese, who, according to my ag inspector, are the
source of most of the baddies coming in.

(4) Problem is, the second two categories don't enjoy priority treatment
(again, guessing), and bad things happen to good plants while they wait. All
the stories that kick around amongst friends and peers have to do with this
category, and they add up to delays, spoilage, and inquiries or complaints
being met either with indifference or, worst case, with the sort of
shut-up-or-we'll-blow-you-out-of-the-water hostility with which messengers
of bad news seem occasionally to be greeted.

(5) A corollary: educating scofflaws properly, so that they get their import
permits and use the system, isn't going to help an already overloaded
system, and the numbers of disgruntled small importers will increase, the
flow of stories such as we are all joyfully sharing will increase, and if
history is a guide, the campaign of terror will kick into high gear (i.e.
more threats of dire consequences substituted for a functioning system for
small importers).

(6) Second corollary: the system would REALLY like to chase small users out.
This is certainly what many of us think is the bottom line here right now:
just go away. There's a reason why I'm growing more and more US natives -
we haven't gotten around to regulating those much - yet.

My thoughts as a former economist: user fees (to pay for the inspection
service) will help. The big guys are the least able to evade the system,
and what they're importing can hardly be deemed essential to the national
security, so why shouldn't they pick up a percentage of the inspection costs
proportional to their usage of the system? Of course it will have to be
built into the retail price of the material, and of course this will result
in smaller sales. This is the same reasoning that leads us to tax polluters
(I wish!) and let them build those taxes into the prices of their products:
it's just internalizing costs that were formerly kept as externalities and
born by the public. There is no argument I can think of that supports the
public subsidizatition of plant imports, and as I said above, the big guys
would have a lot of trouble hiding their imports. I don't think a genuine
user fee falls afoul of trade regulations - but - it may. Bill, do you
know?

I think there's a general feeling that user fees will drive small users back
into the illegal market, but I rather doubt this is the case IF small users
face proportionally small fees (I don't think $25-35 per shipment is
unbearable for a truly small shipment) and IF their shipments are handled
fairly and in a timely manner. I really do believe that most people would
prefer to do things legally if they could be sure of fair treatment. It is
clear that under the present system they do NOT believe they get fair
treatment.

Bottom line, for me, is that a system that treats all users fairly will be
used by most people, and you can't drive yourself crazy trying to catch the
rest, any more than you can get frantic about the small percentage of
welfare recipients who really do refuse to work. Most of them want to work,
and most of us want to be legal. And I bet we'd even be willing to pay for
it.

Thoughts?

Ellen

Ellen Hornig
Seneca Hill Perennials
3712 County Route 57
Oswego NY 13126 USA
http://www.senecahillperennials.com/