Fellow rose introducers & hybridizers,
Last week, the AARS held its summer meeting in conjunction with the IGC show. The six remaining members of the organization came to the conclusion that it
I’m one of the less experienced on this forum, so take my response with a grain, or pound, of salt, but if the question is “would a [single, universal] US organization such as this serve a purpose to you as a breeder/introducing firm?” I would be hesitant to say “yes”. A bigger breeder with more clout to pull weight in a single organization could benefit, but I don’t see it as much help to me as a hybridizer or a consumer with regional concerns.
The notion of condensing concerns me as well. As is, there is only one test center even close to having the same disease pressures/climatic concerns/soil types that are prevalent in my area. If anything, I feel more test centers are in order for my region.
Perhaps the AARS could become an umbrella organization – call it the American Rose Trials (ART) – over regional selection centers. Perhaps the AARS designation could still be awarded to any universally successful cultivar, but I am suggesting a break-up of the Ma-Bell of rose-performance communications. Give us regional trials with detailed results that mean something to us, the educated consumer.
Cold-hardiness, resistance to mildew and rust, and similar concerns are not important in the Gulf Coast region. Remontancy is not much of an issue in the northern plains states. We have regional needs.
How would it play out in terms of financing and marketing? That I don’t know.
I have often thought that one of the roles RHA could play was to support each of the members by trialling each other’s roses with a protocol developed by us. Roses could then be released by RHA to support members and also support RHA with some of the proceeds… a two way street so-to-speak. Not much help to us here in Australia, unless we develop ‘franchises’… but there are members here in lots of different climates with fair amounts of land with enormous amounts of experience and knowledge… makes sense to me.
Meg said,
“Last week, the AARS held its summer meeting in conjunction with the IGC show. The six remaining members of the organization came to the conclusion that it?s time to bring AARS as we know it to a close. Yet, because of the two year nature of our beast, the ending of AARS will take some time.”
Isn’t it telling no one seems surprised?
That’s the current state of affairs. ARS is redundant in today’s world. The information age caught the old guard napping and now it’s apparently too late for them to catch up. It’s not like they weren’t warned. They wanted business as usual. It’s cost them the ultimate price.
It would be nice to have an independent organization monitoring rose ratings regionally. I don’t see it happening. There’s no way to fund it.
Online forums are the way to go. For instance HMF already has a system in place.
It could be expanded and utilized more fully if we could find a way to share seedlings for evaluation.
“The information age caught the old guard napping and now it’s apparently too late for them to catch up.”
Well, not exactly. The old guard actively resisted embracing the new information sharing technology, and that is what has led them into a state of redundancy. I remember about ten years ago trying to prompt someone in the ARS to make their Web site into something more social, with discussion forums etc. I was told that they weren’t interested in doing that. Period. I guarantee you there are still folks in the old guard that think that approach is unnecessary and without merit. And we wonder why the ARS is now just a cute anachronism, fast going the way of the Dodo. This is one of several reasons I don’t have a lot of empathy for the ARS and its plight; they dug their own grave, willingly and intentionally.
“For instance HMF already has a system in place.
It could be expanded and utilized more fully if we could find a way to share seedlings for evaluation.”
I wonder how many of us would actually participate in such a sharing of material? I’ve been quite free with sharing proprietary materials among other RHA members in the past, but I’m less inclined to do so today. There would have to be contracts drawn up and signed by participants to guarantee the safety and integrity of the test material, IMO. Then there’s the problem of space: I’m pretty much up against the wall in that regard. I don’t know where the next 120 selections from 2010 are going to live. I have to remove seedlings (and named cultivars I have been collecting for 15 years) to make room for new things. Making room for other people’s seedlings isn’t easily done!
I think the biggest problems with the AARS from my perspective are:
-
Winner-take-all award overlooks numerous good cultivars which may have more merit in certain settings
-
There are no degrees of performance, no categorizing of scores, no breakdown of regions. This thus renders results useless except for national marketing of token winners
-
Likewise, the Winner-takes-all single award gives a sense of “need-to-acknowledge” large and highly-regarded hybridizing houses and skews objectivity
-
If sole purpose is as a marketing tool, evaluative objectivity again becomes questionable where big money is involved
-
Little guy feels politics play big role, objectivity is hurt, and feels his/her odds of getting recognition are very slim
To have meaningful trials from my perspective and which serve my needs, trials must:
-
Provide regional results to acknowledge different needs of different regions. (Different regions would require different judging criteria.)
-
Acknowledge more plants in more categories for different purposes/uses
-
Allow review of objective trial results to permit public to understand selection process, to select based on their own priorities, and to provide transparency
WHile these may be most important to the overly-educated consumer, and it is likely that the public at large would not utilize such a wealth of information, this information presumably is collected in the trial process, and allowing access to it would make the process transparent. Permitting more levels of acknowledgement for a larger quantity of cultivars would help more hybridizers, and a rose that is winner of x number of prizes from the (working name) “American Rose Trials” would have a marketing tool every bit as valuable as (and more trusted than) an AARS designation. Once bloomers or tender cultivars would not de facto get the heave-ho if they were appropriate to their respective northern or southern regions.
Meg is correct in that the network should be utilized, and plans put in place for such.
The next step in my view would involve defingin regions and setting up regional tests with each region prioritizing their judging criteria according to their regions needs. If AARS wants to reform into an umbrella over each of these regional trials, fine. I have no problem with that if the politics of the old boy network can be kept at bay.
I would strongly urge this group to consider a means to take advantage of the existing network of test centers. I suggest that condensing is a BAD idea.
I would certainly like to understand how the funding of the AARS is operated to have a better idea of how my notion of the “ART” might be funded, or what type of funding needs to be avoided in the interest of objectivity.
(Simon, I fear that “members trialing each other’s roses with a protocol developed by us” might lead to some questioning the objectivity of such trials, and would not carry weight beyond this group. There is some benefit in a large operation with large staffs (i.e. multiple observers) growing many plants side by side for comparison. I would however suggest that “members trialing” could serve as a means for selecting cultivars worthy of entering into a larger trial – some system would need to be in place to keep any Joe from filling test gardens with junk. The test gardens would need to know that they have plants with merit to be willing to turn over realty to them.)
Paul and Robert, while the information-age might provide a valuable tool for us, gleaning through the wealth of information is a task that some credible organization would still need to do, and verifying the objectivity/comparing the feedback of multiple sources would be labor intensive. I think a large network of acredited test centers is still an effective and more controlled way to evaluate superior cultivars, even if the internet would be an awesome tool to chose cultivars that warrant testing.
Everyone seems to gush about the ADR and value its designation. I don’t think the ADR is a virtual test garden. They have actual test centers where multiple introductions can be objectively evaluated based on merits relative to each other, side-by-side.
I would argue that the AARS network of centers has real value and should be utilized – but under new oversight.
“I would argue that the AARS network of centers has real value and should be utilized – but under new oversight.”
On who’s dime?
ARS itself is on the precipice of collapse.
Thats usually the main issue. “Who’s dime” usually influences the scope of the work.
Robert, I picked up on the fact that they are on the precipice. That’s why I was attempting to solicit constructive ideas.
And yes, I recognize that the ARS is its largest problem and has dug its own grave. I don’t think the ARS merits survival as it is, but I wouldn’t want whatever assets it has created to be wasted.
I started by saying we need real, meaningful trials in America, and not just the ARS. The fact that they are “going the way of the DoDo” doesn’t change my view. On the contrary.
As I say, I’d like to hear any constructive ideas.
I am not sure what the answer is. I do know that I would be extremely sad to see the testing area disappear from Washington Park. I have visited it multiple times per year since I was 12 or so. Its really hard to think of because it is so engrained in my mind as the core of Washington Park. I do know that many visitors do not explicitly understand the who/what/where/why/hows of the testing gardens but they do realize the generalized concept. It adds a 3rd dimension to the park itself. Therefore, if it disappeared totally, meaning would be lost from the park. I imagine other parks would face similar scenarios. So I do hope a new solution could be made where a proper scenario could be met. I just have no idea how to even begin thinking of a working solution because I do not know the totallity of resources available for a solution to be made with.
By the way and for what it is worth, I see parks/gardens/etc as solitary living, breathing entities and as a vital part of society. I see them the same way I see a single person’s garden, which is an expression of the marriage between themselves and the land they occupy. Parks and public gardens are just more sociological and plural. So I do believe it is worth evaluating how the AARS and ARS has an affect on each of the parks and public gardens they have their name attached to.
Well, I’m a little surprised that weren’t more constructive ideas posted in this thread – it kinda turned anti-existing establishment – and I have to ask, Do folks feel:
a.) The internet is an adequate solution for all parties
b.) There is no need for organized trials in the USA
c.) It’s hopeless to try and have such, for whatever reasons…
Or what?
I think we all agree that the old-guard should not run such, and that funding would be the major hurdle, but surely there is a way… If the AARS survived as long as it did while being so badly operated, then some lifesource must exist.
Well…
There used to be more members, which limits membership funding. Societies are shrinking, and they usually raised funds yearly. The size of property has dwindled and Gen X/Y usually want very little to do with roses. One of the grave mistakes I have seen is that societies pretty much ward off my generation immensely. It amazes me that I have not even seen the societies try to reach out and try to engage Gen Y (let alone Gen X).
In the 1990s the wine industry began engaging Gen X with a blitz of advertising soley because their old cash cow was slowing down and Gen X really could care elss about wine culture. Look at it now – its booming and stille ven profitable in a horrible economy. They created a culture with very little effoft in terms of the pay off. All societies really have to do is to try and reach out when Gen X and Y will respond – and likely for the cost of nothing.
And then there is the ARS magazine, which is why I eventually said screw yout o the ARS. It is one of the glossiest, fluff pieces of crap I have ever read. I love reading the old ARS magazines. The writing ws relatable and the information was valuable. Now, it is just a bunch of pretty pictures, snooty bull crap and pointless articles that are thinly layered between a lot of advertising (ask me how I really feel). I’m sorry but any horticultural organization needs to be credible to its members. Otherwise, its pointless.
So, yeah, there could be funds and there could be new ways to do things but there are reasons things ended badly. In order for anything in this to work, things must relate properly and in current time context.
The RHA has trial gardens at the American Rose Center (i.e., the ARS) near Shreveport, LA and (this is new) at Virginia Clemens Park in St. Cloud, MN. These gardens were announced in the spring newsletter. The trial beds at ARC were reworked just this last year and are protected against invasion by deer and armadillos. I don’t think armadillos are a major concern in MN. Some years ago, we had trial beds at Boerner Botanical Garden in WI.
The AARS award was conceived as a marketing device, and it has been fairly successful over the years. That is not to say that the AARS winners have all been equally good–they have not been. One of the earliest winners, Fred Edmunds, was released regionally, if I remember correctly, because it was good in the Northwest but not in other parts of the US. Still, most of the AARS winners have been good within the expectations of those who grow roses–maybe a bit too much emphasis on exhibiting roses, but that is a matter of personal preference, and (to be realistic) those exhibitors were a part of what kept rose nurseries profitable. Winning the AARS was in the dreams of a lot of rose breeders because the royalties were often rather large. Money, you know. With rose sales way down (yes, the number of ARS members is way down, the number of those who exhibit roses is way down, and the average age of ARS members is way up) and with changes in the sorts of houses people have and the way they live (sitting in front of a TV or a computer instead of gardening outdoors) so that there is no reasonable expectation that rose sales will increase any time soon, the AARS and the ARS have fallen on hard times.
Tom Carruth and others are attempting to restructure the way roses are evaluated in this country. The message that Meg passed along (she forgot to give the source) was from Tom Carruth to rose growers and hybridizers. Tom was trying to get people thinking about ways to make something good come from the current situation.
The network of test gardens is something of value, and the AARS group and the ARS (yes, the ARS) have done some worthwhile things over the years. You don’t believe me? Think of all the things we hybridizers have that we almost certainly would not have if the ARS had not existed for a long time.
Did you ever use Modern Roses, or the information in it? The ARS has been a central collection and promulgation point for rose information.
Are you a member of RHA? RHA was founded by some members of the ARS, and the initial advertisements for members were in The American Rose. It is a a central collection and promulgation point for rose hybridizing info–a way of sharing.
If you’re not a member of RHA, do you use this forum? (Why do I ask, huh? You’re reading this.) Right. Your habit is supported by people who pay out big bucks (about 10 huge ones) every year to support the RHA because they are interested in hybridizing roses and find most of the discussions on the forum useful and they feel that they get their money’s worth, and more, from membership. They also get the quarterly Newsletter which sometimes (some would say “always”) has worthwhile stuff in it.
Do you use HelpMeFind.com/Roses? Yep. That grew out of people interested in roses (mostly ARS members) who started a rose discussion group on the internet. HMF was started by a regular contributor to the Usenet group rec.gardens.roses. Several members of RHA (actually, quite a few) used to participate in rgr.
These things probably would not exist if the ARS had not been around for a good while.
Despite many problems, often self-inflicted, the ARS still presents considerable potential for good. It has been resistant to change, but it is being forced to change and will be forced to change still more. I can’t even imagine all the things that will be changing, but change happens to all of us, even the ARS. Those who are outside the group often don’t know exactly what is inside. (Yes, some who are inside also don’t know.)
What’s history is history. If you have any ideas for a better trial system for roses, post them here or write an article about it for the RHA Newsletter.
The last horticultural organization I was involved with, (I withdrew from that one and several others due to circumstances), the main sponsor made the 10 most wanted list and others self destructed.
At the latest rose show the junior awards where notable for lack of participation.
AARS did a few things right finally over the last few years, going no spray on landscape shrub roses first and eventually, although too late with no spray on all the roses. Everyone can complain about the way AARS operated (including us members) but at the end there is still a need for a trial system that will give the consumer some confidence that she is buying a good product.
Peter,
One of the main issues is that a lot of people do not actually want to be “inside”. Part of the issue is that the social atmosphere became, in my opinion, overly image oriented and very much not horticulture-like at all. So, yes, the ARS does have potential. A lot of things have potential but its a question, in this context, of whether or not people want to be a part of that potetnial. I would LOVE to be around people that actually gave a crap about roses, gardens and horticulture in general. If those kind of people came around again, I’d be all in. Otherwise, I am not wasting my time, energy or emotional investment again.
Mike,
I can’t say what the social atmosphere was in the rose society you were a member of, but the ARS is bigger than one local experience in one time segment. Still, not much is perfect. I’ve heard/seen some pretty horrible things about some local societies. At the national level there have been some undesirable occurrences too. In-group politics seems to have been part of the reason. Some poor judgments at the national level are still being paid for in one way or another.
You praised the content of the ARS magazine in the good old days. The Annuals, to be sure, often have some good content, but I can recall a period in the mid-1970s when ARS had an editor who thought that Poa is a subgroup of Rosa, and indexed the Annual accordingly.
Since the ARS dropped back to bimonthly issues recently, the quality has been much better than it was for a number of years. So it’s better, but far from perfect. I don’t know how recently you’ve looked to see if things are up to your standard of excellence. Every once in a while an issue is poorly done or overdone (a couple of issues back there was way too much stroking of some presumably wealthy folks–I hope the ARS got good money for that: it was pretty embarrassing, and the issue seemed to have little about roses). Still, maybe some folks liked it.
When you find an organization that’s all good all the time, let me know so I can join. I have mixed feelings about the ARS, but I’m a member just to support it. And I always learn something from its publications. Folks in the local society have always been OK to me. I’m not interested in exhibiting (most of them are), but I help when there is a show. Most of them aren’t interested in hybridizing (I am). I guess it balances out, doesn’t it? If you’re interested in being part of an organization where people are interested in horticulture, I guess you’ll join when you find it. Till then, be inside or outside as you wish. My thought is that if we didn’t have the ARS we might invent it. Of course we would do a better job. Maybe. Many things that work fine in the hypothetical world don’t make it in this world that people say is real.
No, I started @ 12 so I am referring to the ARS Monthly magazines from the 1990s I received each month while being a member. I was only alive for 1979, so I am not talking about that.
I am not looking for a specific standard. I do not believe in perfection. Its not possible. What I am looking for is appropriateness of material and authentic relatability to us as rosarians, gardeners, artisans and fallible folks with real lives external to roses. If I wanted fake and bake, I would go to a wealthy area of Portland and gawk at triple-priced garden products in modern designer colors.
I have not seen the ARS magazine for about 2 years, which is when I finally felt I no longer cared to receive it or be a member. I stopped reading the magazine years before that. There is a formula in business for time vs. the monetary cost of winning a customer back. I cannot recall the exact numbers but it was a hefty sum for a few seconds of disconnect. If I felt or saw tha the ARS was relevant to my life again, I would of course give it another go. The online world has worked out great since then and I put my money and effort into HMF. The only thing I miss about the prior “world” is the few folks I grew to love. Most of them have now passed on, including my mentor in master gardening, John Biewinne, that I absolutely adored, Ray Spooner and Jerry Justice. Again, age disparity obviously played a role. There really is not that many people to fill the void after those of the pre-WW2 era.
How does one reach and retain my generation or even Gen X? Further, how does one compete with the complete lack of time our society as a whole deals with? Even before things got fast-paced here in America, retirement aged folks made the bulk of numbers. So how does one also reach and retain the Baby Boomers hitting retirement age? They have the most wealth too. Currently, people are really loving grass roots experiences. Farmers Markets and Community Gardens are making a huge revival because people want to both connect to reality/each other and experience something real. The potential obviously exists. Its just a matter of formatting it all in a way which works for current society so that it is sincere and worth their time.
My first suggestion, which I have implied, is to change the social atmosphere to one which is all-inclusive of Americana as a whole. So my quesiton is, is an adjustment in attitude and perception possible of those currently with the power to do that? If not, it is only worth the time for the few that want to invest themselves into a specific atmosphere. That is the challenge of the ARS – not mine. I did not sign up for such a task and I dont really place any value on an institution based on longevity or past work. Society is currently far too dynamic for that kind of value system.