Peripherals pay for forests

John Spikes geogood at
Tue Oct 19 15:04:04 EST 1999

truffler is right that little or no or scornful regard is given to managing
forests for anything other than macho stuff like pulp or logs or a chance to
break a new&expensive bit of equipment . fungi,moss,foliage,cones,contorted
branches,bark,ANYTHING  pays better than raw timber ; maintains rather than
traumatises the forest structure , and uses the energy of a man and a sack
on his feet . How do you tell these suburban lumberjacks that wood is not
the only dish . I don't know whether it works right yet , but we have a
website with a practical -aspect forum to start to drag some real solutions
to the industrial version of lifeonearth , at  . lets
show that words of more than 2 syllables can come out of the Country ...
<truffler1635 at> wrote in message
news:7u7fsp$l8k$1 at
> In article <7u61no$kv5$1 at>,
>   snowangel at wrote:
> > Support the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition -
> >
> > Read the book about environmental errors - "Uncommon Groung: Rethinking
> > the Human Place in Nature"  edited by William Cronon.  Collection of
> > essays, including "The Trouble With Wilderness"
> >
> > Setting aside forest lands for wilderness to prevent development is one
> > thing, but taking the 'hands off' approach in its management will
> > destroy the forests for the next generations.
> >
> I don't think it is being removed from development, nor is 'hands off'
> management to be practiced. But it is time for the Feds to start
> managing on a sustainable basis, which would include IMO cultivation of
> mycorrhizal fungi. (After all, how *sustainable* is anything when you
> aren't actually *growing* it?)
> Ectomycorrhizal fungi are extremely important to tree growth and health.
> Most tree farmers (and NF and BLM) don't know what they are, can't
> recognize the most common forms, haven't heard about them, and deal with
> them only from a deep denial standpoint. Since only 50-100 species have
> been cultivated (that I am aware of), and 3000 species are known with
> Douglas fir alone, I think there is a lot to be said for vastly reduced
> harvesting in national forests and public lands.
> Add to this the strong suspicion that there is a succession of
> mycorrhizae as individual trees mature, and the basis for set-asides
> becomes imporant as sources for inoculant of future trees.
> It has been said that only God can grow a tree. I'd question that, up to
> 60 years of age. I believe that age of tree have been well-documented
> over much of the world. But I'm concerned that growing 200-1200 years
> old trees is well out of mankind's reach at this time.
> Daniel B. Wheeler
> Sent via
> Before you buy.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list