Phleb protection/preservation/action

[Torsten]

Just a note from a finnicky conservation biologist ;)

A. phlebophylla is not rated as endangered. It is rated as 'rare and threatened' by the Vicotorian authorities. It has not been rated under the Cth EPBC Act or by the IUCN.

Actually, a few years ago it wasn't listed at all. Not because it wasn't threatened, but because it wasn't noticed. A few people made a bit of noise and eventually it got listed. The listing was based on very little data, and specifically very old data.

It quite obviously qualifies as rare & endangered as it is obviously rare being on only one mountain and with a small number of plants, and it is obviously endagered as many of the sites are tourist attractions, looksouts or roadways. Not to mention the fact that this N.P. is a popular tourist destination in summer and ski resort in winter. I have seen other species with much lower threat potential and much larger numbers listed as endangered. Not saying that phlebophylla should be listed as endangered, but I think once you take the 'well meaning', spitirually superior ethnobotanists into account there may well be a threatenign factor that was not considered by the authorities in their deliberations.

I wonder what the point of this thread is if there is obviously an acceptance that it is OK for some people to take phlebophylla leaves, while it is not ok to do so for other. How can you preach to noobs that it is not OK to harvest this plant if elders of the community provide justification to do so? I think before we continue to rant at strangers for what they are doing we need to look at our own community. And no, this isn't just Julian anymore. There are now many others who feel they have the same right. Whether they have come to that conclusion themselves or whether they are parrotting Julian makes little difference. We keep saying that *THEY* are the ones who are harvesting this material when in fact we should be discussing why *WE* are harvesting it. Whether we like it or not, most of the people who are harvesting are somehow connected to this community. In fact, the majority of people who I have communicated with about phlebophylla have cited Julian as their source of information and inspiration - a dubious honour methinks.

Julian, we know you do good work and even if we hypothetically agree that your harvesting was not a problem, don't you think that your spread of this information provides others with the excuses they need to maybe not do quite the right thing?

Even if we accepted that some people have a good cause to harvest material in order to save the species, then this should not be in the public arena. Almost everyone who has harvested from Mt Buffalo has done so as a result of reading a trip report, not as a result of reading about the scientific analysis of the leaves. So the very act of spreading information about this species is endangering it. While I am not one for restricting the flow of knowledge, I do think that there are instances where it can cause more harm than good and the right to do so needs to be used judiciously.

[occidentalis]

It quite obviously qualifies as rare & endangered as it is obviously rare being on only one mountain and with a small number of plants, and it is obviously endagered as many of the sites are tourist attractions, looksouts or roadways. Not to mention the fact that this N.P. is a popular tourist destination in summer and ski resort in winter. I have seen other species with much lower threat potential and much larger numbers listed as endangered. Not saying that phlebophylla should be listed as endangered, but I think once you take the 'well meaning', spitirually superior ethnobotanists into account there may well be a threatenign factor that was not considered by the authorities in their deliberations.

There is 'Endangered', a scientifically and legally meaningful term denoting a particular conservation status; and then there is 'endangered', in common language, a term used to describe a species that is at any kind of risk. The point I was making was that it is important to distinguish between these uses of the word when discussing conservation measures.

I'm not sure exactly what system the Victorian authorities use in their threat rankings, but most organisations use categories based on the likelihood of a particular event (survival or extinction) over a particular period of time in the future, or the observed rate of change in population over a period of time in the past. These decisions rely on models called Population Viability Analyses which require substantial information on the population dynamics and life history biology of the species.

For instance an example of the criteria the IUCN has for the category of Endangered:

A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild:

A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:

3. A population size reduction of 50%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years

or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying)

any of (B ) to (e) under A1.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories...ia2001#critical

Phlebophylla has probably not been assessed for IUCN inclusion and it looks like it would be classified as Data Deficient in any case. The best thing to do next from a legal/political conservation perspective would be to get it listed as a priority under the EPBC Act.

Edited August 1, 2006 by creach

[_e_]

The whole reason i posted this thread was to inspire discussion and an increase in awareness in regards to what is happening up at the mountain..

As many of you know i have a strong emotional and (even torsten recognises it)- 'spiritual connection' with this mountain... I was conceived there, my mum went into labour swimming there (beneath a phleb) and i spent the only innocent parts of my childhood there.... IT is my father more then anything in this world.

I only want what is best for this plant, and for this community, (both of which i love like members of my family) and as such i think i have achieved at least something in bringing about the dialogue that has unfolded...in this thread.

What is best for all? to have this incident ignored, or to have it discussed openly in a public forum as has been done? Have we not achieved something in at least bringing what would be percieved to be some of the key factors out into the open where they can be further scrutinised?

I totally agree that this isnt about us and them torsten, it is about the plant, and any activities influencing peoples attitudes towards the plant are relevant YES!

But i also feel there is a hell of a lot more shaping peoples attitudes and influences then Julian's trip report.

Our own individual perspective on things, and the way WE interact with this plant is whats important..

Perhaps yes, julians public spreading of information in regards to his spiritual interactions with this plant, have inspired others to seek such an experience... Or perhaps not. Perhaps a recount of his experience without such a botanically and geographically acute account of the acacia resposible may have been more apt in light of recent events. However, perhaps at the time julian was not aware that his remarks could have the possibility to at some stage later down the line inspire someone to think it proper to harvest living plant matter from an endangered species.

That is not for anyone to decide without actually knowing the people responsible for harvesting the material, and what their inspiration and intent was. Nor is it for us to make generalisations about what has shaped such actions, unless that is of course we know them.

I personally hadnt read julians trip reports regarding the phleb, nor had i heard any mention of anyone saying anything about harvesting live phleb material other then the two instances that have been discussed (prior to the fire and just after)..

T-u say you have heard numerous people reference julians attitudes towards phleb *parroting* and adopt them as their own... could it be as simple as this?

Personally i feel that any un-neccessary human activity amongst the phleb population should be avoided at all cost, and that our relationship with this plant should be loud and proud and focus on conservation, protection and preservation.

As such i have only ever visited the communities that are already readily accessible and accessed by humans (i.e along walking paths). I have never visited the more remote expanses of the population even though i know where the large specimens all are and where the more prisitine communities exist. AND I HAVE NEVER HARVESTED LIVING PLANT MATTER!

I have and will continue to explore the human relationship to this plant.

In terms of the hypocrisy of which u allude to torsten, perhaps i am to some degree a hypocrit in regards to this scenario by NOT posting about how to sustainably harvest this plant... Or would doing so be the hypocrisy? IS THERE SUCH THING AS SUSTAINBLY HARVESTING THIS PLANT?

take these two scenarios as hypothetical possibilities:

#the first time i collected phleb material i collected the material from gullys and crevices down creek from a large mother tree that stands over a waterfall in a very 'touristy' spot... This time i only collected a third of what was present, ON THE GROUND, and did so as i saw it as an offering from the tree to myself and those around me. I might add that the spots where i collected were all within 20m of the motherplant, however less then 1-2m away from a walkway.

#The second time i recieved a gift from these plants was when the park rangers slashed walkways and the material was left at the edge of the walkway to rot.

Are these scenarios sustainable?

Perhaps sharing this information is damaging to the plant as it suggest that it may be feasible to sustainably collect material and thus encourages others(whom may not do so in a sustainable manner)?

Or perhaps, by including the information that: (hypothetically)

#i have been working on establishing a research centre and plantation/back up community, and that i have always limited any physical contact to the leaves and plants themselves...

may help with harm minimisation and encouraging others efforts to learn about this plant and its protection/conservation?

Personally i think only good will come out of our communities exploration of this issue and i for one am very open to new ideas and dialogue... IT is very important that we get over the 'us' and 'them' because it is about all of us, just different parts of 'us'...

Our role in this matter is directly manifested by the way we interact on these forums and withint he community at large...

Edited August 3, 2006 by min(E)rval

[_e_]

Another hypothetical question:

if a relatively small amount of material was being sustainably harvested as per above scenarios to be utilised to benefit the plant, in terms of generating financial or otherwise resource based assistance to its preservation and concervation, would it be ethical? In my eyes it would, but perhaps there is some other perspectives on this i havent explored.

[Torsten]

When I last looked at the victorian listing process as far as I remember they had two or three categories, including the two distinct ones endangered and threatened. now it appears the FFG act only provides for listing as threatened, hence it is impossible to say whether phlebophylla is merely threatened or actually endangered.

IUCN guidelines also provide for protection in case of recent reduction in population, which is probably easier to document than future reduction. However, at the moment there are probably far more juvenile individuals than there were adult plant a couple of years ago.

population size reduction of =/>50% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible

[Torsten]

As many of you know i have a strong emotional and (whilst torsten may not recognise it) spiritual connection with this mountain.

what purpose does that comment serve? I might have my doubts about external entities and and gods, but I am a firm believer in natural connections.

What is best for all? to have this incident ignored, or to have it discussed openly in a public forum as has been done? Have we not achieved something in at least bringing what would be percieved to be some of the key factors out into the open where they can be further scrutinised?

I wasn't saying you should not have posted this thread. My point is that we need to look at each other first before we start preaching at those outside the community.

All of us, each one of us, acts in regards to our own personal worldview and perspective on life, and i dont think that julian or anyone else for that matter has any relevent sway on our attitudes and beliefs in regards to this matter MORESO THEN OURSELVES.

Hmm, so media has no sway on anyone? Educators have no sway on anyone? Gurus have no sway on anyone?

There ARE people who are easily swayed (or who just look for easy excuses) and some of these happen o be the same people who are drawn to a strong teacher or even someone they see as something of a guru. I think such a position carries with it responsibilities. Even if the teacher himself is a strong minded person who always takes full responsibility for what he does, the students are often far from that enlightened.

Perhaps yes, julians public spreading of information in regards to his spiritual interactions with this plant, have inspired others to seek such an experience... Or perhaps not.

I don't think ther eis any 'perhaps' about it. Ask ANYONE who ahs been on the mountain why they went there and the vast majority (probably over 90%) will tell you it is because the either read a trip report or they heard someone talk about it. Hardly anyone has gone up there because they read the paper by Lambert / Sioumis (? I think it was). The people who read scientific papers would also have a better understanding of the science of rare plants and the risks their presence can bring. These are things generally not conveyed in trip reports and definitely barely considered by copy cats.

I am not saying that Julian is the cause of all this. I myself went up there on the basis of a trip report I read in a german ethnobot book in about 1995. But by the time I got there I had talked to people who were growing the plant, who were trying to save it, who were protecting it, who had a grasp of the chemistry, and I was guided by someone who was even more familiar and experienced than myself.

Perhaps a recount of his experience without such a botanically and geographically acute account of the acacia resposible may have been more apt in light of recent events. However, perhaps at the time julian was not aware that his remarks could have the possibility to at some stage later down the line inspire someone to think it proper to harvest living plant matter from an endangered species.

Julian was made aware of the possible consequences and was provided with historical examples (eg how trip reports had drawn friends of his to the mountain long before him). He decided this was invalid. And here we are a few years alter and things unfolded exactly as predicted (not that it takes an einstein to predict such a repeptition of recent history).

That is not for anyone to decide without actually knowing the people responsible for harvesting the material, and what their inspiration and intent was. Nor is it for us to make generalisations about what has shaped such actions, unless that is of course we know them.

Hmmm, you were not that forgiving in your initial post. Why the sudden weakness? I thougtht you were making a stand against taking phelbophylla material and now it seems you are OK with it as long as it is only certain people

T-u say you have heard numerous people reference julians attitudes towards phleb *parroting* and adopt them as their own... could it be as simple as this?

I am not saying that these people had or had not the same intentions as Julian (although my personal impression was that they were more interested in the entertainment value than any spiritual value or even conservation value). So I am not saying they did what Julian did. All I am saying is that they parrotted his reasoning and justifications.

In terms of the hypocrisy of which u allude to torsten, perhaps i am to some degree a hypocrit in regards to this scenario by NOT posting about how to sustainably harvest this plant... Or would doing so be the hypocrisy? IS THERE SUCH THING AS SUSTAINBLY HARVESTING THIS PLANT?

I don't think this plant can be sustainably harvested by more than 20 people, but this may be less. I mean, it grows sooooooo slowly. These 20 people would mean harvesting of plants in well protected areas. And that in itself is a problem I think.

Personally I think the only sustainable harvest of an endangered species is one that has no impact at all. This would mean the only acceptable harvest is that of plants which will be killed or pruned anyway before producing seed. This means the plants along the lookout areas, the snowplough zone and possibly the walking paths. Nothing else.

#the first time i collected phleb material i collected the material from gullys and crevices down creek from a large mother tree that stands over a waterfall in a very 'touristy' spot... This time i only collected a third of what was present, and did so as i saw it as an offering from the tree to myself and those around me. I might add that the spots where i collected were all within 20m of the motherplant, however less then 1-2m away from a walkway.

These are arbitrary numbers. There are plants within 2m of walkways that produce plenty of seed and hence are significant to the survival of the species. For acacias the main survival tactic is to produce lots of seed.

To give you a scenario of how your actions could have a very detrimental impact. imagine all populations away from the waterfall are destroyed for some reason. The seed produced at the fall is the only source for a new generation. From 1999 to 2001 the trees produces virtually no seed at all, except one large plant on the fall itself. If you took a third of the material off this plant you would have seriously sapped it's strength and might have prevented any seed from being produced at all. It's hypothetical, but the thing about there being no seed for 3 years isn't.

When interfering with one grouping of a population you cannot simply assume that the other groupings will be unthreatened and hence your actions will not matter. That is short sighted.

I am also surprised at the sheer quantity you are describing. That would be something like 40 plants you pruned. Presumably without desinfecting your equipment between cuts?!? Why are you ations any diferent to the ones you are protesting in this thread?

#The second time i recieved a gift from these plants was when the park rangers slashed walkways and the material was left at the edge of the walkway to rot.

Waste is generally the most sustainable way. Sure, one could argue nutrient removal, etc, but I am sure there are also positives to balance these (eg removal of wasp larvae). I personally see no problem with this.

Similarly I have no problem with removing fallen phyllodes around the walking tracks. It was my experiments up there that established fallen phyllodes to be at least as potent as freshly dried ones and hence this has been a practice encouraged for those who can't keep their fingers off the material.

Are these scenarios sustainable?

Sustainablity must also consider the number of people who have the right to take material. if we said that only snow plough material was acceptable and no one ever took anything more than this material, then that would be sustainable. But how many people can be satisfied with the 30 or so (rather small) plants in that zone? Maybe 5? Depends on how greedy they are I guess. What happenes when we have 20 or 100 people lining up for it?

Now extrapolate this to your own accetable guidelines of only harvesting wihtin 2m of paths and only taking 30%. The golden rule in taking botnaical samples is to never take more than 10%. You would need a shitload of people to put a dent into a large plant if the limit was 10%. How many people do you need to make a plant unviable by taking 30% each? Maybe 5, or 10? In fact, in that climate/soil, 30% can mean the difference between seedproduction or not. So how can that be sustainable? And why 2m limit from path? Why not 10m or 50m?

Isn't it true that the limits you set yourself were the limits that allowed you to take what you want and still let you believe in your own excuses? This is not an attack on you personally, but on the process we use to justify our actions. I have been there (with a different species) and personally I no longer feel that such self regulation is acceptable, simply because time obscures previous individual's limitations. ie, what if there are no plants left in the 2m distance from the path because they have all been overharvested? Do you really think anyone who wants phyllodes is going to say "well, shit, I missed out!". Don't you think they are more likely to say,'well, I will only harvest 30% of plant in a 12m zone from the path" and thus justify their actions once again and in total vacuum of what has come before.

Or perhaps, by including the information that: (hypothetically)

#i have been working on establishing a research centre and plantation/back up community, and that i have always limited any physical contact to the leaves and plants themselves...

may help with harm minimisation and encouraging others efforts to learn about this plant and its protection/conservation?

This is a very interesting point. Again, it is easy to use this as an excuse. For example, when I was there and a friend smoked the dead leaf, I decided we need to establish the differences between brown and green leaves so that at least a small resource of this material is available without hurting the plant. So I took a few leaves of one tree and collected a few brown ones from beneath it. So yea, taking the green ones was wrong, but did that action not save many many future prunings which may have devastating results? My conscience is not 100% easy about this, but given the quantity and the direct purpose I felt it was justifiable.

We also took some seed to put into tissue culture, and even though we still do not have a TC cultured plant, the knowledge gained by trying to achieve this has brought anyone attempting this in future sooooo much closer.

[Torsten]

Another hypothetical question:

if a relatively small amount of material was being sustainably harvested as per above scenarios to be utilised to benefit the plant, in terms of generating financial or otherwise resource based assistance to its preservation and concervation, would it be ethical? In my eyes it would, but perhaps there is some other perspectives on this i havent explored.

I personally believe that conservation should be the financial responsibility of the state. However, as the state doesn't bother too much about these things, private intervention is often essential. For example, private reserves now protect more endangered animal species (number of species, not amount of area) in australia than public reserves. And in general they do it better. To do so they need to generate money and a growing percentage of this comes from 'passive recreation'. Personally I think a good managment plan that also includes some revenue making is a more sustainable process. I mean, what good is a national park if it is overrun by feral animals and the NP service laks the funds and the will to do anythign about them. Would it not be better to let the pig shooters get in there on a permit basis to take out the vermin, even if they happen to trample on the occasional orchid or moss? And while on the topic of orchids, why not encourage commercial orchid growers to propagate endangered native orchids rather than putting up more and more hurdles? Say there are only 100 individuals of a plant left and a new subdivision is about to lay waste to the whole habitat. Why not allow collectors to rescue these plants so they can live on in gardens and maybe escape back to the wild? The law is very inflexible in regards to these issues which encourage illegal taking of plants and animals.

if I had played it by the book and put in an application to collect phlebo seeds for TC I would have probably been knocked back. Forget the fact that Darklight and I have probably put more money and hours into this species than every individual and government agency combined, I am sure we would have still been rejected. The idea with TC phlebos was to use the sales of the plants to help establish new populations on the mountain as well as establish some seed stock mini-plantations on private land not far from there.

So, we steal a few seeds, but use them to establish a business plan that will increase the chances of long term survival of the species. And if TC had worked we would be half way there by now

I am not sure however just how much damage you can justify for unccertain benefits. A few seeds are relatively minor as long as it was from a prolific year. But a few kilos of herb material is probably a different story. Obviously if such a plan pays off then no one will ever ask. But if it doesn't then the taking of the material was of doubtful benefit.

It's a complicated issue. I personally don't think that causing any damage is justifiable for such a project unless the project is transparent and involves several people all of who are capabale of completing it (individuals often lose interest or funds and then the whole thing is wasted). I also think professional advice is really important. ie, if a conservation biologist who is intricately involved with the plant thinks the project has merit then this is to me probably better than an official government stamp by a department that probably has little clue about the matter.

[BlackDragon]

So Min(e), do you now see what I mean about the dangers of deceminating this info to the public? Re: you ethno mag? Your magazine would only cause more of this problem..... Even if YOU were trying to protect them(the phlebs), then information released is more dangerous to them in the long run.

Ps: How about sharing some seed around to other southern australians? Im sure there is plenty of other places phelbs will grow to mautirty to bare seed once again.... That could be a start..

[Tripitaka]

BlackDragon >>So Min(e), do you now see what I mean about the dangers of deceminating this info to the public? Re: you ethno mag?

Dialogue needn't be deterimental to the issues of conservation nor the experience. With out exchange of information (= ability to make informed decisions) we cannot enter into a discussion about the entirety of the issues together with the way individuals utilise that knowledge.

What ever exists as information whether it be;

Open ended forum style

Print media

Emperical observation

Scientific publications

Or any other of the many faceted ways that we communicate ideas, exists as a representation of experience. We cannot deny the expereince nor the want of those to share that with others.

The information is not the issue here rather the way people choose to utilise informational avenues that is the bone of contention.

The population exists and it seems increasingly that people are attracted to the plants and subsequently the issues that surround them.

People are using tryptamines and there is a wealth of available sources in the vegetal world. This is being discussed in many disciplines and is undeniable as a form of information that exists and is being actively discussed and applied.

What interests me would be to see some sort of represantation of people involved with these compounds and how they utilise these sources.

There is a very small number of people that are actually interested and capable of growing these plant species together with investigating a sustainable practice surrounding their application.

There are alternate sources and the question I would pose is, Are you growing them? People are brewing with plant sources and the source is coming from whom? There are often aggressive demands for material to work with and I feel that there is little attention as to where these sources come from. This often translates into some sort of fiscal representation that is absorbed in providing a suitable environment that fosters the needs of those working with these substances.

The botanical perameters that surround any given plant population are fairly narrow and requires a lot of upkep to ensure survival. We know this is particularly true with phlebophylla hence the minute number of people who are growing this species. I can think of only a handful of people in the community that are physically doing this ensure plant survival and I commend them for their efforts and determination.

BlackDragon >>Ps: How about sharing some seed around to other southern australians? Im sure there is plenty of other places phelbs will grow to mautirty to bare seed once again.... That could be a start..

Well if you have been following the discussions and issues for any time you would know that the availability of seed has declined for the past several years. It appears that aggressive harvesting together with climate fires and disease has ensured the population has little energy in producing viable seed for future generations. Awareness of these facts.....would be a start..

Australia is essentially a closed circuit for growing plant species and this can be evidenced in the availibility of genetic diversity. Its all to easy to demand for material to work with but if you want to be seriously involved with any conservation then we need to reduce the pressure from threatened species and maintain alternate source populations.

Investigate alternate species and grow them out to maturity. The Effort Vs available Biomass will do much to highlight what is required to ensure a sustainable population of plant sources is maintained!

[medicinedan]

I think the way to go about all of this is to try to find alternate sources, or make a bigger deal about plentiful sources that can be grown from readily availiable seed. So then the emphasis will be put onto more sustainable species of acacias and the phleb will hopefully fade into the background, and be disregarded as a source of tryptamines

[iNFiNiUM]

Hello all,

I am going to be growing seeds of Acacia phlebophylla, and was wondering if anyone from this forum that lives near or visits Mt. Buffalo Park would be able to send me a package of the rocky "dirt/soil" from the area, for me to grow the plants in. I could pay in a few acacia phlebophylla seeds or in $. I live in Ontario Canada.

Also, I am looking for any ideas as to how I could obtain the correct type of rhizobium bacteria that fix nitrogen in the roots of this species. I have grown phleb seeds a couple years ago with help from Torsten (through Druid), and had a high germination success rate but lost all the plants within a year. I would like to try again, this time with a more controlled environment. I will have some limited # of extra seeds available from this uber-rare species if anyone here is interested. It is my own site that comes up in the number 1 position on google when the name of this plant is entered: http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&am...G=Google+Search

If you would like to contact me, either send a PM or email [email protected] . Mention Acacia phlebophylla in the subject line.

-Steve

acacia_phlebophylla.html

acacia_phlebophylla.html

acacia_phlebophylla.html

[BlackDragon]

There are alternate sources and the question I would pose is, Are you growing them?

Precisely my point. The need to deceminate a few seed (no ones asking for hundreds of seed are they?) to a few individuals. I, like anyone,could go collect some(i could have at any time but of course wouldnt) but thought I would ask the 'appropriate' persone, eg min(e), I would never want to compromise their habitat. It seems only proper to ask the people that live nearby and know the land and walk it daily. I know those people, min(e) for example would have far less impact than myself. Dont tell me there is no seed, plus viability is 3+ years.

As for growing any myself? My cilmate would be fine, and I actually planted up 30+ acacia on "tree day" Sunday.... did anyone else?

The information is not the issue here rather the way people choose to utilise informational avenues that is the bone of contention.

Exactly. You have to remember we have a very special group of people here... Not too many others(there are a few granted) think that saving the species is far more important than a hit.

Hell we can even see this happening almongst us as torsten says. Im not about 'capping' the ideas of others, but sorted decemination of the information. IT is all available anyways... why publish its again? Im sure you can share you experiences without having to name the exact source.

Fuck it dude, has anyone ever asked or questioned the source of their brew product and refused it??

if its from a small-population plant like phlebs? I know I have. And I know of a few that dont care, knowingly accepting extract from phlebs. I find it sickening.

Tripitaka, do you always talk for min(e)>?

Edited August 2, 2006 by BlackDragon

[Torsten]

I have had three different individuals/groups come up to the nursery telling me about their phlebophylla journeys. Two of them were facilitated by Julian (no, these are not the same people who told me about their own harvesting), the other by someone known to both Julian and me. They spoke of their experience in such glowing terms that anyone else who would have listened would have had to get immediate urge to go harvest some themselves. These people were also mostly unaware of the rare status of the plant and compared it's rarity to that of caapi . None were aware that it was from an illegal harvest in a NP.

I then asked these people what they thought of illegal peyote harvesting and was given a lengthy spile about how evil it is to harvest endangered species and how they could not fathom how anyone could be so selfish.

When I pointed out the hypocrisy to them they were rather shocked. Surprisingly they did not seem to have any regrets though and proceeded to justify their actions.

This is what I am trying to highlight. if we want to protect rare species we need to do so at home rather than making demands of others. I mean, how many times have we heard on these forums that a rare plant should only ever be consumed if it was homegrown. Why not apply that simple rule to phlebophylla? Why take ANY material from the wild?

I find this whole hipocrisy sickening, but then again it is not surprising as *most* people in pass through this community as some sort of rite of passage, but really have little understanding of it and contribute little to either the community or the plant world. It's all about what the community and plant world can do for them.

And no, I don't mean Julian and Eli, and similar characters who do in fact give and take. I mean many of the people who simply pass through in search of themselves. I wonder what they find when they realise that threatened plants are part of their own development.

[Tripitaka]

BlackDragon >>Tripitaka, do you always talk for min(e)>?

I didn't realise I was, but to answer your question. No, I dont. I would not be so self righteous to feel that I could summate the experiences of others and enter into ANY discourse on their behalf! I am however priveleged to the fact that I have known Eli for many years and as such have an awareness of the issues we are talking about from "that" perspective. Eli is certainly capable of entering into a dialogue all by himself as is evryone else in this chosen public forum based discussion.

That aside, alternate plant populations will do much to ensure the survival of the species. It seems that any intervention from the state has not occured to date and is not likely to be forthcoming. With that in mind it does seem that the responsibility lies with people who are willing to become custodians and ensure an independent plant population exist outside and in addition to those that are existing. It needn't be in the form of conservation efforts such as that of the Wollemii pine and can exist on a "lowkey" basis provided that it does actually occur and is not something that remains in the realms of conceptual idealogies.

To this end there are the Wandjina Garden's, Darklight's, Ed Dunkel's and Darcy's of the world that are interested in maintaining the species and possess the specialised expertise to do so and are active in the process, as well as being willing to share losses and experiences in the process in a public forum.

Until techniques can be refined to ensure propogation we can simply support those who do so and try to ensure the marginalisation of mis-information that exists. I think that this is a steep learning curve for some and the sharing of experiences will ensure that the parties involved will not have to repeat many of the same mistakes in the process.

UTSE there are good archives that document much of what has occured in this regard.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Tripitaka

[BlackDragon]

Getting a licence would not be so hard and would make it easier to get help with growing this species, i've got a few licences for native QLD plants, all of which are considered protected in the eyes of the EPA and it only involved doing a few pages of paper work.

So after all this, no one has even actually formally put in an application?!

Get crackin darcy and see what you can do!!

To this end there are the Wandjina Garden's, Darklight's, Ed Dunkel's and Darcy's of the world that are interested in maintaining the species and possess the specialised expertise to do so and are active in the process, as well as being willing to share losses and experiences in the process in a public forum.

I think your really getting botanics confused with "experiences". Sharing botanic information is different than spouting experiences. There is a difference, dont confuse the two.

And please tripitaka, dont take me for a ill informed fool, I may not have many posts to my name but Ive been around for some time now.... poor assumption.

Edited August 2, 2006 by BlackDragon

[Tripitaka]

I think your really getting botanics confused with "experiences". Sharing botanic information is different than spouting experiences. There is a difference, dont confuse the two.

I would certainly think that the two are inseperable. Regarding "spouting" I am not sure where you are going with this? I think in terms of discussion based threads rather than fixed perspectives. Ill sentiments seem to pollute the issues. There are no conclusions drawn here only open ended discussions.

And please tripitaka, dont take me for a ill informed fool, I may not have many posts to my name but Ive been around for some time now.... poor assumption.

I certainly don't BlackDragon. Post tallying in no way indicates depth of experience. I don't assume anything, thats my point. I would ask you to extend me the same courtesy.

I don't feel the need to enter into a politics of consciousness based discussion nor am I defending anyone for the record.

[BlackDragon]

"spouted" was a bad choice of words, sorry. didnt help things at all.

Just for interests sake, what does and who does give the permission for seed collectionwhen application is approved?(nat parks?) , and on what grounds are they granted? not that im looking at doing it, rather how does the "save the phelb" operation begin legitly? Just a general question on how the whole process kicks off?

Like I said, we DO have a group of very special people here...

[Torsten]

I would consider taking seeds in the same light as taking leaf material, no matter what your intentions.

well, the legal application process doesn't see it that way. if you apply to take material for anythign other than propagation you will get amuch more difficult time from the relevant agencies (EPA in QLD). I know people who are applying for plant material for analysis purposes (with University backing) and often don't have their permits even 3 years later.

Julian may believe he should take leaves for brews and so others taking seeds think they should have the right to because of their intentions to propagate them, and how many have succeeded?

No one has succeeded to grow any plants or help the survival of the species by taking leaves. However, at least 15 people are successfully growing phlebs in various parts of the world as a result of seed sharing. Many of these are now over 3 years old and still doing well. I personally povided the seed for about 10 of them after selecting the individuals/organisations for location, climate and skill. That is a much better success rate than anyone else who has distributed seed and has already provided at least 2 plants which are now flowering size and will hopefully provide seed back-up in case of disaster. I know that others have provided seed to overseas seed companies and collectors for more than adecade now with virtually no surviving plants to show for it. I think that is wasteful and believe that better targeting can make all the difference.

Just like government agencies allow the collection of propagation material (but not other material) by qualified people, similar rules can be applied in a self regulated setting within this community.

I've received a small number of seeds (13) and have 7 healthy plants, 3 now in the ground and growing

I am glad you mention this. I think one of the biggest problems has been people keeping their precious plants in pots for too long and then killing them by either repotting or planting out.

Getting a licence would not be so hard and would make it easier to get help with growing this species, i've got a few licences for native QLD plants, all of which are considered protected in the eyes of the EPA and it only involved doing a few pages of paper work.

Yes, we also have two Qld EPA licenses which were very easy to get. neither of them were for listed species though and from what you are saying the same applies to your licenses. I think you will find a different degree of difficulty if you tried to get a license for a rare/threatened/endangered species.

[folias]

I am fully aware that taking plant material from National Parks is illegal!

And, also, taking DMT into your system is also illegal! (at least in Australia)

I haven´t yet seen the law stop anyone from taking DMT... so I do think the same applies to the national park issue. The outcome is perceived as much more important than the assumed risk or determination by the system that these actions are officially barred!

What Torsten says about people following in my footsteps as some kind of justification... I would suggest people will generate their own justification anyway, this strawman "julian" may be the most conveniant one... all this sounds silly to me I have to say, and I really don´t take ANY responsibility for other people´s actions... I do think it is very relevant that there is a certain awareness of the existence of the acacias as a DMT source in the world, and phlebobphylla was already the star of the scene, long before I wrote my report!

Mulga and Ott and Shulgin, the internet in general - are much more significant in terms of numbers of people who have come to comprehend this tree than me!

At the end of the day, I think really gross vandalism of the trees is rare and won´t effect the entire population as a whole and I think it will continue to some degree and its like "terrorism", its not something that can be stopped per se.

There are deeper root issues that relate to how scientific materialism determines how we perceive and treat plants, and not actually respect them as living beings... who can blame people who are brought up disconnected from the fact that all our human life force actually comes through plants? And that plants are to be used, dominated for our consumption and use, with little respect for any semblemce of their sentience.

I really think alternate plant sources are simple... for brews, Psychotria Viridis is a really incredible source of DMT...that I have come to appreciate more through drinking different strains here with different curanderos.

Many people are growing this plant in Australia!

And obtusifolia is a much more available source of material for freebase DMT. And there are other trees not on the public record that various people know about... that they are not forthcoming with this information... they have their own reasons, anything I know I have stated publically!

A lot of them know that pressure is being put on phlebophylla because they are holding back on releasing information on other species which people could use.

Seriously, there is not going to be a grand rush, I think people overestimate the numbers of people involved here...

In an ideal sense, I think as a community, we can be a self organising entity in regards to phlebophylla, its distribution and who it get out to, and so we can learn from the wisdom of this tree and what it has to teach us about DMT, ourselves and so on.

So we have to pull our finger out of colletive arse, and be a lot more open about this work and get out of this egoic fear and paranoia and get ready to face the music if it comes! Because, actually, this is happening and won´t be stopped. The law is not going to change that... we are involved in harm minimisation if we care! Ultimately, I think we really need to focus on the broader goal of changing the laws in this country and there are already people working on this behind the scenes... take some time to think about this - it is a viable in this country pending different forms of co-operation...

Phelbophylla is an innately incredible plant teacher and I think we need to be very, very judicious about its use... but to say we shouldn´t avail ourselves of its teachings at this point would actually be doing ourselves and I think also the tree a great disservice. It isn´t really a teaching, but there is something that often clicks are taking phlebophylla about the nature of the trees and the molecule, certainly for me, I have really learned a lot from this tree! I have accessed realms of information and consciosness I doubt any other plant would have opened up for me!

From many discussions with people who have been working with this plant intensively, its clear the tree wants to be in communication and connection with us at this time.

I´d probably agree with Torsten for the most part, if I didn´t feel there was a very strong agenda here, that DMT is really having a positive effect on the populice of the world... and effecting the evolution and growth of the species quite profoundly I think.

I think Phlebophylla is a key to understanding many issues, your average joe dimitree on the street is just not going to get or does not really require that information... its not that there are rules that are determined for others, and its alright for some and alright for others. I don´t even see that personally... its not for me to decide what is right for others... my example, I would hope, has been one of sharing primarily.

What I´ve been trying to do within the scene in Australia is instill a sense of culture of the work with the tryptamines as something that actually can occur and does occur, and provide an understanding of what fruits that does bear.

Phelbophylla does have great value... but to really understand that value, you have to make contact with it directly... I have been ONE of the people doing this work... but, I have just been doing it more openly than others.

I know I have inspired at least one person to grow plantations of this tree, people who already experience in growing thousands of similar trees! I know of others who are already successfully growing hundreds of trees... so the survival of the tree is assured as far as I am concerned.

Like Torsten, I have also distributed lots of seeds around the world... many are over three years old now.

Even this latest attack on the trees, only brings up an understanding of how we actually value the tree and why.

A lot of the issues that involve my name in the Australian scene, I feel involve a projection of other people´s ego´s onto mine... DMT is an inherently ego reducing compound and so that process seems reactionary.

I feel very separated from THAT in general and it seems like a separate process than anything that has to do with me as a person.

Julian.

[cisumevil]

Hi Everyone

Was just doing abit of reading and stumbled on this........

"Acacia phlebophylla regeneration after fire: Blackwoods and Lightwoods generally will

regenerate. Enzo had noted suckering of A. phlebophylla behind the Chalet. Certainly he had not

seen any sign of the related Acacia alpina suckering. Hybrids between A. phlebophylla and

alpina were remarked on."

How common are these "Hybrids" ?

Anyone ever done any testing ?

[_e_]

Sorry torsten it was silly of me to assume that you wouldnt recognise my particular spiritual connection to this mountain and plant.

But just how far does your recognition of natural connections extend?

I see these plants as living entities that form a collective plant intelligence and have a specific spiritual presence and personality. I also see this mountain as an external god, one of many that exist within the Australian land matrix, and one that offers guidance and direct communication in regards to my own metaphysical being and its energetic interactions on the morphic plane.

I was trying to communicate the fact that some might not understand or accept my spiritual beliefs, and im sorry for using you as an example.

I wasn't saying you should not have posted this thread. My point is that we need to look at each other first before we start preaching at those outside the community.

Yes i totally agree, i dont want to preach at anyone, nor ignore the fact that this is an issue we all play a part in. I want to look at what within ourselves, as individuals, motivates our attitude and actions towards this plant, and explore what could motivate or inspire the individuals in question...

And yes i think media and educators and what you call gurus have sway over collectives and influence peoples understanding and awareness of relevent issues...

However, and im only speaking from my perspective on things, NO ONE has been responsible for my ill doings or good deeds in the past more so then what i call my collective self.

I see gurus, teachers, media e.t.c as an extension of myself, or elements that exist only to the extent and manner that allow them to.

The energetic interaction one allows to occur with a 'teacher' only teachs so much as the student is willing to accept and learn, a 'guru' only has as much spiritual 'sway' over the individual as the individual allows.

Personally i feel that 'gurus' and 'teachers' learn and benefit just as much from the individuals they are 'teaching' and 'guiding'.

And as such i think all individual should accept full responsibility for his or her actions, because however much someone or something has supposedly influenced them, they have allowed and entertained 'this influence'.

That is not for anyone to decide without actually knowing the people responsible for harvesting the material, and what their inspiration and intent was. Nor is it for us to make generalisations about what has shaped such actions, unless that is of course we know them.

Hmmm, you were not that forgiving in your initial post. Why the sudden weakness? I thougtht you were making a stand against taking phelbophylla material and now it seems you are OK with it as long as it is only certain people

I dont think my stance towards the people responsible for phleb vandalisation is any more forgiving then it was at the start of this thread?

I state that i dont think any of us can say what motivated them without actually knowing them and having spoken to them about it, but this doesnt mean im being weak in regards to the matter?

And nowhere and no time have i felt that it is OK for some but not others. I think perhaps you have misunderstood something ive said or ive been a little convuluded in my remarks?

(although my personal impression was that they were more interested in the entertainment value than any spiritual value or even conservation value).

-totally, this whole scenario reeks of a lack of information, education and communication on many different levels. In regards to this particular scenario i have always felt it must be done by people WAY OUT OF THE LOOP.

Personally I think the only sustainable harvest of an endangered species is one that has no impact at all. This would mean the only acceptable harvest is that of plants which will be killed or pruned anyway before producing seed. This means the plants along the lookout areas, the snowplough zone and possibly the walking paths. Nothing else.

Even the snow traps/plough space and walkways have been decreased in size (by park management) in order to minimize the impact on this plant. As such i feel that harvesting of ANY live plant material, no matter where it is growing within the national park is unsustainable. 'cleaning up' on the other hand.

I feel it necessary to state that my comments in my last post were merely meant as examples to be explored.

Thankyou for your comments, but perhaps i didnt state my examples clearly enough, I NEVER MEANT FOR MY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE TO BE ASSUMED AS 'HARVESTING LIVE PLANTS'.

What i was tlking about was collecting fallen phyllodes, so sorry for any and all confusion.

As i have clearly stated before no one should be harvesting live plant material from A.phlebophylla (unless personally propagated). hypothetical or not.

Isn't it true that the limits you set yourself were the limits that allowed you to take what you want and still let you believe in your own excuses?

No! i was giving hypothetical examples of circumstances i considered to be hypothetically sustainable in order to gauge peoples feelings on the matter and inspire dialogue. This is not about MY excuses, nor anyones EXCUSES, im just trying to understand where the community is in regards to this matter. And mostly, what we would like to see change in order to decrease the possibility of this scenario happening again and again and on bigger and bigger scales.

Edited August 3, 2006 by min(E)rval

[_e_]

Torsten-

im rather surprised that there are people out there whom know they have taken/ingested phlebophylla and dont know about its background. thats quite a sad thing to hear I didnt realise the information gap was so large!

Ive never taken ayahuasca, but i think if i were to take ANY entheogen id wanna know the plant stats before anything else... but thats just me and im a bit biased towards plants anyway.

Black Dragon-

ive been away from the computer for a couple of days, and am rather sorry u feel anyone may have 'answered for me' (not that i personally feel i have anything to answer 'for')

although i assure you, no one answers for me, no matter how good a friend or how well they know me and understand what i might be TRYING to say.

I think perhaps that tripitaka was merely supporting and extrapolating upon some of my statements, however u would know that he isnt speaking my words by the way he is so clear, succinct and poetic!

Also, in regards to seeds, i have only ever had acess to seed material collected pre fire which was all planted out into germination beds earlier this year (yes all 25 seeds). thanks to julian.

However due to unforseen events i have had to travel oversees and thus am unable to comment on any success in germination nor monitor their progress.

What i can tell you however is that i dont know of any seed collected since the fire, and that the plants havent even flowered this past season. So perhaps yes i am telling you there is no seed, and even for those whom are well equipped to grow the plant, there has only been old minimal viability seed from pre fire (that i know of). I would think that it is of more importance and significance that at this present time any seed still in existance should go to TC efforts rather then individual horticulturalists/collectors. As you heard there are a lucky few out there who have had success growing this plant, but it is a largely specialised plant and we have only hope for the longevity of such projects.

And in regards to information and mis-use/mis interpretation of information. Again i feel it is all in the discresionary powers of the person providing the information and the observational and analytical powers of the person recieving the information.

You keep tlking about consequences of information, however i see 'possibilities for the right information' to emerge.

In regards to the entheo zine, i was merely communicating an idea to the community and looking for any dialogue on the matter. Again, it was just an idea, a simple concept for exploration BY THE COMMUNITY, i never claimed nor wanted 'ownership' over the idea, nor announced that i was actually going to make an entheo zine.

Furthermore the zine could possibly be the perfect avenue and format for exploring these scenarios as it 'hypothetically' could extend a little beyond the online community- (where all the hard information exists), and out a little further to within reach of those whom are interested but have minimal or alternative information sources.

The idea was supposed to be creative, progressive and different. Not some possibly incriminating communaly destructive handbook to other peoples illegal behaviour. What was proposed was a creative expression of the entheogenic experience, not a list of peoples email address's and what illegal drugs they may or may not be in posession of.

Edited August 3, 2006 by min(E)rval

[BlackDragon]

Also, in regards to seeds, i have only ever had acess to seed material collected pre fire which was all planted out into germination beds earlier this year (yes all 25 seeds).

However due to unforseen events i have had to travel oversees and thus am unable to comment on any success in germination nor monitor their progress.

Ok, so the few seed you did have were sewn without anyone looking after them once you left?

Not some possibly incriminating communaly destructive handbook to other peoples illegal behaviour. What was proposed was a creative expression of the entheogenic experience, not a list of peoples email address's and what illegal drugs they may or may not be in posession of.

? ok, so who will make the destinction between the above once the publication is out of our hands? And how can discussion help when no substances are specifically mentioned?

Like I said the idea is there, its just got alot of fine tuning to be done.... Im amazed how you have only focused on any negative points I have made here.... Ah well, I think its a case of botanists vs preachers(no, not derogartory term) so lets leave at at that. Like maturin saud, the ol' tim vs huxley

Meanwhile spreading a few seed to well practised people cant be a bad thing, yes, we all know t/c is the optimum way to go, but they (the t/c'ists)too may need some new genetic pools one day that could be taken from satelite populations.

[_e_]

In regards to the ecology, botany, conservation issues discussed in this thread.

Since the fires the re-growth has inspired a lot of attention, however the parks management seems to take the re-growth as a sign that everything is cool and theres nothing to worry about.

There are still a lot of areas effected by gaul and disease, with quite a lot of the mature specimens that made it through the fire in their death throes at present.

However, there is a phd being done on them At the moment (have the relevent information written down on a piece of paper in australia but alas am overseas). If your interested i suggest contacting the mount buffallo park head ranger Felicity Douglas, and asking her.

Also, i know there is plenty of specimens of seed bearing age that are just waiting for the right time to flower and seed...Butwhen this will happen is anyones guess.

The time scale over which these things react and adapt to environmental changes is beyond comprehension, so who knows where they are headed. All i know is that my communications and interactions suggest that they are quite fragile and deserve upmost care and respect.

I personally have heard much tlk about hybridisation, but have not witnessed it in the flesh, although as i have mentioned i have only visited the more touristy areas in the past 4-5 years.

Edited August 3, 2006 by min(E)rval

[_e_]

BLACKDRAGON-

Ok, so the few seed you did have were sewn without anyone looking after them once you left?

not ideal i know and trust me i would love to have had it any different. But life is an unpredictable thing and we can only do so much in our efforts.

I ony wish i had been able to stay by the mountain for as long as had been planned. However there wa smuch more pressing issues.

can discussion help when no substances are specifically mentioned?

Personally i think sometimes we are much too substance specific... but thats jsut a personal idea. And there a hell fo a lot of ways to convey an experience and what we did with the experience without DMT THIS and DMT that. Thats why i think the alternative zine thing would work, because it would allow for alternative expression of the entheogenic experience...

Ah well, I think its a case of botanists vs preachers

Hopefully its not a case of anyone v's anyone... I dont consider myself to be polarised to one particular mindframe, nor do i know much about timothy leary but have read plenty of huxley... And i can only hope im someone who explores and discuss's without 'preaching'.

Meanwhile spreading a few seed to well practised people cant be a bad thing, yes, we all know t/c is the optimum way to go, but they (the t/c'ists)too may need some new genetic pools one day that could be taken from satelite populations.

Even well practised people have a hard time with these ones. But yes i agree in the concept of developing satellite communities and understand there may already be people doing so..

And btw, i dont feel i have been focusing on the negative things you have said, more replying to what i felt were the more pressing elements or comments that id idnt feel were appropriately conveyed by other peoples posts.

If theres something positive you have said that i havent responded to/that you feel hasnt been taken into account in my replies please let me know.!

Edited August 3, 2006 by min(E)rval