New Forest Service policies take a big step backward

Geoff Kegerreis Geoff at
Fri Apr 19 22:22:07 EST 2002

> Greg, there are millions of varieties of fungi. Not all are
> mycorrhizal (but an extremely large number are). The fungi you note
> that kill cotyledons are not mycorrhizal. They are termed parasitic.
> The fungi you mention are probably a form of damping-off fungi, and
> are extremely common in greenhouses where the humidity is kept too
> high.

-First of all, it's Geoff.  Secondly, I meticuloulsy prepared those seeds
myself, using preparation techniques that do not incorporate "greenhouse" problems,
and had controls sitting in the same places, so I know these fungi were not introduced.
I never said that they were mycorrhizal fungi, just that these particular fungi had
a specific destiny to destroy the seedlings, not help them grow.

> >
> > There are many ways to grow trees and including mycorrhizal fungi as
> > a requirement is wrong.  What is right is that those types of fungi will
> > promote the growth of some species signifigantly.
> Trees without mycorrhizal fungi are stunted.

-Not true.  You can grow a tree that is absolutely not stunted in the complete
and utter absence of any fungi, in fact you can increase it's growth through
plant hormones, and increased light among other things so that it will grow
at a higher level than one that has any kinds of fungi associated with it.

> They are often called
> bonzai, and they do occur in nature, usually on extremely steep slopes
> and very rocky conditions. There is little soil in those areas, and
> many (but not all) mycorrhizal fungi are found in soils.
> >
> > As far as the doing away with current forest plans, I doubt anyone is after
> > cutting down all the old trees.  There is a small minority of people that want
> > to cut the existing old trees, but no administration would get away with that
> > in this day of age.  I suspect the reason to do away with the old plan is that
> > it is not an efficient plan regarding other agendas.  I do not know though, and
> > that is simply speculation based on common sense.

> The history of the timber industry in the PNW for the past 100 years
> would disagree with you. It would be more widespread, but old-growth
> forests in most of the rest of the US has already been, as "foresters"
> euphamistically call it, "harvested."

-If you consider the past 10 years, or even 20 years, us "foresters"
have been implementing plans that suit the landowner's objectives
rather closely.  I don't know any foresters who want to go out and
cut old growth.  Maybe some of the corporate wood buyers do, but
I don't feel that type is a legitimate forester anyway, despite what
state registration and laws suggest.

> >
> > I don't know much about Gifford Pinchot III, either - never met him.  I do not
> > know if he is a forester or what he does.
> >
> Neither do I. But I bet he has a good idea of what his grandfather
> would have thought. Don't you?

I've read a few things about old Gifford.  I think he was right on the money, and
said things just the way they ought to have been said.  He was right, but he was
also pro-harvesting, but I do not feel he was pro-harvesting to the extent of
cutting everything down.  As I said, not sure whether I have ever heard
any forester say that all the old remaining forests should be cut, or even any!

It's not much of a debate, we need them for a keepsake of American heritage
to the extent of keeping what we can.

However, if someone like butterfly hill came on my land to sit in a tree that she
heard I was going to cut down, her ass would be on the ground so fast it's not
funny, because I would fell that tree.  Landowner's rights are next to freedom
in importance in this country, and should be respected - even if they want to
clear cut the old growth, it's completely fine.  It's different on public land of course,

-Geoff Kegerreis

> Daniel B. Wheeler

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list