Peripherals pay for forests

truffler1635 at truffler1635 at
Thu Oct 28 19:20:29 EST 1999

In article <7uiitc$401$1 at>,
  "John Spikes" <geogood at> wrote:
> 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 .
> 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 .
Uh, er, I _am_ one of those "suburban lumberjacks" you speak of. Yikes!
But they don't call Portland, Oregon "Tree City" for nothing!
> 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 ...
Amen! The problem with forestry is that loggers consider themselves
equals of foresters. Foresters grow (or should grow) trees. Loggers are
mostly concerned with how quickly trees can be cut down, converted to
pulp or board feet, and marketed.

Fortunately NTFP/SFP markets are developing quickly. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist (or even a competent logger) to figure out what Paul
Stamets has been saying for years:

"I hold in my hand about 1c worth of sawdust. From it is growing $10.00
worth of mushrooms. Which is more valuable?"

Unless you're making millions/mile of road to get to the site, the
answer is fairly simple. ;)

Daniel B. Wheeler
> <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.

Sent via
Before you buy.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list