A sad site (image heavy)

[ballzac]

I think it was a good idea.

[t st tantra]

imo

its all god

all reality is sentient

our human chauvinism wires us not to appreciate the sentience of to us alien life forms

wasnt so long ago you had to be white to be human

t s t .

[ballzac]

I think it was a good idea.

I've changed my mind. If people are just going to reply in BOTH threads about the sentience of plants, it seems kinda pointless to have two threads. Mind you, I mean the SAME PEOPLE replying in both threads about the subject that the other thread was created for.

Edited January 16, 2008 by ballzac

[The Dude]

I've changed my mind. If people are just going to reply in BOTH threads about the sentience of plants, it seems kinda pointless to have two threads. Mind you, I mean the SAME PEOPLE replying in both threads about the subject that the other thread was created for.

too true! I'm just checking replies in both threads and responding to those also, i think it's best to move all discussion about plant sentience into that one, and not just keep talking about it.

[ballzac]

too true! I'm just checking replies in both threads and responding to those also, i think it's best to move all discussion about plant sentience into that one, and not just keep talking about it.

Haha. Funniest thing is, this statement was about plant sentience. And so is the post I am making now, and also my last one. Haha, I'll shup up now.

[incognito]

great post tst .

imo

its all god

all reality is sentient

our human chauvinism wires us not to appreciate the sentience of to us alien life forms

wasnt so long ago you had to be white to be human

t s t .

damn straight....

[Hagakure]

there is a reply in the other thread t st tantra

[reshroomED]

Ignoring for the moment the question of sentience.

I simply cannot understand the number of people that feel felling or bark-removal of rare/endangered species acceptable.

Why?

The whole east of Vic has suffered massive storms and floods in the last six months. This means a shit-load of *naturally* trashed trees to harvest from if so inclined.

Shit, I hunted and fished in the Vic High Country for years and have spent a day clearing tracks with a chainsaw and winch to get out more times than I can remember. 9/10's of all kindling I've used was acacia 'cause it's easy to find dead *on the ground* Ever walked through the bush? Notice how there are fallen branches and trees on the ground? This does actually happen naturally.

All that's needed to *minimally* impact the environment is a little common sense and perhaps a bit more effort.

Find a location where said trees are prevalent and wait for a storm/flood. It's not that hard. Although you may have to leave the bitumen and even hike from your car *gasp*.

Another point of interest is that all of this is actually illegal.

To remove wood from crown land requires a "Domestic Firewood Permit" from the Dept of Sparks and Embers. Around $20 from memory (less with concession) to legally remove fallen timber from crown land. And that's per cubic meter.

You could even pick an area with an acaia that's a pest. A. var sophorae is a weed here, and has varying reports of activity. So for $20 you could possibly asssay one cubic meter of bark whilst ridding the forest of a weed.

Or of course you could drive down the road and ring-bark a few healthy trees.

ed

[ballzac]

I don't think that obtusifolia is considered rare or endangered. Not that I'm disagreeing with much of what you say. Even without floods and storms there are enough dead trees etc. to get quite a haul without covering much ground. I just think that it probably doesn't matter if you chop down a couple of obtusifolia for whatever stupid pointless reason as they are not rare. Simply easier to use trees that have already fallen or whatever.

AFAIK a firewood permit restricts you to certain areas, in which I doubt obtuse grow. May help give you an explanation if you are stopped on the way back to your home with a carload of wood for stripping though. Either way, if you strip the bark and extract illegal substances from it, it is illegal anyway.

Most people don't bother with any species that isn't a dead cert. I think that's fair enough. If you're not planning on experimenting, why would you waste so much effort and quite likely get nothing?

[Mycot]

I don't think that obtusifolia is considered rare or endangered.

While this is true (at present) when the species is considered as a whole, the risk of losing forevermore desirable genotypes and chemical races of obtuse which may exist only in localised populations is all too real.

[reshroomED]

Was thinking of some bark-stripped A.maidenii I once saw when I wrote that, and you're correct that A.obtusifolia is not endangered/threatened as far as I know. It's quite common pretty well all through Eastern Vic and South-eastern NSW that I've seen personally.

 

I just think that it probably doesn't matter if you chop down a couple of obtusifolia for whatever stupid pointless reason as they are not rare.

This is exactly the attitude that I find so sensless. Why kill something unnecessarily?

I'd be very surprised if any members here have killed as many creatures as I have (unless some-one's a pro-fisherman or pest exterminator), but have always done my utmost to only kill for a damn good reason, and then to utilise the whole animal. Fish-bones and animal hooves are about all I ever discard. Never once for a skin or trophy.

But to do so for "whatever stupid pointless reason" is selfish and disrespectful at best.

I mentioned the fire-wood legality as information only, as I thought some here may be unaware that you can be fined for removing dead-wood from the roadside. I've been cutting my own fire-wood for years and have only purchased a permit twice, in both cases as it was cheaper to cut closer to town than travel to more remote areas. And not because I think it's fair or just, in my opinion paying to collect dead-fall is utter bullshit. Only 'cause i wasn't prepared to pay the fine if caught.

And as for the "dead-certainty" thing, most extractions performed by members here are far from lab-quality in their results for obvious reasons. So any yields are far from optimal. Hence an extraction which produced no usable amount of product when performed on 1kg of material may be worthwile if performed on 50kg. Then you'd have a "dead-cert" readily available source. I'd have thought that experimentation alone in such an area would interest some.

For me, entheogens are a way of become more aware and at one with all nature. Killing something needlessly to achieve this would void the whole process.

[ballzac]

Why kill something unnecessarily?

I don't know. I mean obviously anyone who kills a tree when they don't have to thinks there is a reason for it. I mean, they're not just being mischeivous or something. Anyway, I can't imagine anyone going in to an area where there are obtusifolia falling over everywhere and shit, and for some reason finding the healthiest standing specimen and chopping it down instead of using the ones that are either dead or don't have a chance. But really, you claim that unnecessary killing is "selfish and disrespectful", but it would be hard to convince me that everything you have ever killed has been absolutely necessary. Have you been attacked by hoards of wild animals and had to kill them? There are people who go their whole lives without eating meat or harming animals. Some people go to the extent of avoiding eating things like root vegetables that often require the killing of the plant, and instead stick to beans and fruits.

I kill weeds in my garden unnecessarily all the time. I could just let them grow. But for the selfish purpose of having a more aesthetically pleasing garden, I weed. I'm not gonna feel guilty about that, and I don't think anyone should be made to feel like the scum of the Earth because they've chopped down a few trees either.

I mentioned the fire-wood legality as information only, as I thought some here may be unaware that you can be fined for removing dead-wood from the roadside. I've been cutting my own fire-wood for years and have only purchased a permit twice, in both cases as it was cheaper to cut closer to town than travel to more remote areas. And not because I think it's fair or just, in my opinion paying to collect dead-fall is utter bullshit. Only 'cause i wasn't prepared to pay the fine if caught.

Yeah. A guy got a $3000 fine recently (in Victoria) which included five or six offences (don't know what they were seperately). Supposedly each offense has a maximum of $5000. I looked for a link, but couldn't find the story. I just read it about two days ago.

(EDIT: I found the story. I was mistaken. It is three years old: http://www.abc.net.au/centralvic/stories/s1299144.htm)

And as for the "dead-certainty" thing, most extractions performed by members here are far from lab-quality in their results for obvious reasons. So any yields are far from optimal. Hence an extraction which produced no usable amount of product when performed on 1kg of material may be worthwile if performed on 50kg. Then you'd have a "dead-cert" readily available source. I'd have thought that experimentation alone in such an area would interest some.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but I feel the need to say that even kitchen extractions using equipment from safeway should provide a fair bit from a kilo.

Of course experimentation interests some...good on 'em. Many just want a product. Especially for first time chemists, I think it's good if they have a tried and tested material, so they know they have good technique before they start experimenting.

Edited January 19, 2008 by ballzac

[MORG]

I just think that it probably doesn't matter if you chop down a couple of obtusifolia for whatever stupid pointless reason as they are not rare.

Two words: Passenger pigeon.

Ballzac, it doesn't matter if you cut down a couple of trees... what matters is the weight of every human holding that same view.

[ballzac]

Two words: Passenger pigeon.

Ballzac, it doesn't matter if you cut down a couple of trees... what matters is the weight of every human holding that same view.

Agreed. But what IS that weight? It does not seem to be much when it comes to obtusifolia. Perhaps this could change if DMT became much more popular. For example, if a species even as common as the blackwood was found to contain methamphetamine, the more resourceful addicts would be chopping them down in large numbers, and then dealers would realise that it was easier than procuring pharms for making meth, and the species may become endangered. But is that really a risk with obtusifolia? Perhaps in the future it could be. It is hard to predict social trends, and I don't think it is completely out of the question that DMT could become a very popular drug at some time in the future. But my comments refer to the social and environmental climate we live in.

EDIT: (I also should say that DMT would have to be popular for a sustained period of time, and people who hold my opinion would change their methods drastically if it ever even began to look like becoming a problem. Yes there may be people that would still kill trees in the wild, but THEN they would be doing something wrong, not if they do it now.)

Edited January 20, 2008 by ballzac

[Undergrounder]

I think Acacias will be very hard to kill off. Even if every single tree mysteriously died today, the seeds sitting in the ground will spring into life the very next time a bushfire passes through the area and for every large dead tree you'd have 20 small ones rising in its place.

As long as the message gets across that stripping bark from a trunk will probably kill that tree i don't think there will be a problem. One ignorant person stripping the bottom metre of a dozen trees will do a lot more damage to a local population than another person making use of a whole tree. That's the important thing to know.

[reshroomED]

Things die so that others may live. This is a fact of life, from the hundreds of seeds that must sprout for one tree to break the canopy, or the hundreds of little fish spawned so that one may reach maturity. These, strong, healthy specimens then go on to further their line.

I have both molars and canines, so I eat both animals and plants.

I'm not discussing the merits of vegetarianism, I'm arguing against killing a living thing with no better reason than to (and this is arguable) enhance your life.

For me to eat meat something must die. I can do it myself, humanely, or pay some-one to hand me a pre-packaged piece of meat. Either way something ends up dead, in my guts, and is eventually shitted out. My way is the least resource-consuming, most humanitarian method I've found, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

And FWIW I have been attacked by wild animals (although never by a horde thereof). Dropped large pigs charging at me several times, and also pissed off from striking snakes many times.

I fail to see the similarity between killing something to eat and clothe yourself and killing something to, again, enhance your life (and I can't put it more diplomatically than that).

We're all guilty of unnecessary death by proxy. Pretty naive for someone sitting in front of a computer to say otherwise. But, again, this is not what is being disputed.

Zac, you've agreed that there's plenty of dead-fall, so why kill a tree? And especially if you require less than a kilogram of bark (The one and fifty kg figures were pulled out of the air as a comparitive example).

So, you are now advocating felling a tree solely to recover less than a kilo of bark? FFS

If I wanted an eagle feather for ritual use, would this justify shooting a wedge-tail?

If I wanted a hat should I just go out, drop a roo, and take a bit of it's skin?

It's not about having little impact on a species, it's about killing something when there's no need. Shit, if there were fresh, dead, deer laying round in the bush I'd stop hunting them.

ed

Edited January 21, 2008 by reshroomED

[Coschi]

I think Acacias will be very hard to kill off. Even if every single tree mysteriously died today, the seeds sitting in the ground will spring into life the very next time a bushfire passes through the area and for every large dead tree you'd have 20 small ones rising in its place.

As long as the message gets across that stripping bark from a trunk will probably kill that tree i don't think there will be a problem. One ignorant person stripping the bottom metre of a dozen trees will do a lot more damage to a local population than another person making use of a whole tree. That's the important thing to know.

agreed 100%

I think it's an obvious point that a lot of you are pretending you've missed and continue to argue tangents

also keep in mind, that say if we have 100 people here at SAB interested in DMT and filtering through extraction teks even, how many of those do you think will ever actually make their way out to find a tree and take the next time? I'm betting not even 20%

[reshroomED]

WHY NOT TAKE DEAD-FALL?

ed

[ballzac]

ED, I'm not advocating killing trees. I have repeatedly said that it is unnecessary to kill healthy trees. The amount of bark one can collect from dead and dying trees is limited only by the time one has. One kilo, a hundred, whatever. It would be quicker and easier to use trees/branches that are already on the ground than chopping down healthy trees anyway.

I believe meat is also just a way to enhance our lives, as we could easily survive without it (but it tastes nice doesn't it ) You may justify it because we have evolved to eat meat, as you mention teeth, but I also believe we have evolved to utilise psychedelics.

[Ace]

Sorry to jump into such a heated conversation, but:

WHY NOT TAKE DEAD-FALL?

As much as I totally agree that fallen wood can (and very much should) be used instead of live trees, I think the issue of identification might come into it. In the middle of a forest with hundreds of different species, bark and other fallen debris could be quite hard to identify, unless one is clued up on the species at hand. That said, if one is familiar enough to spot an obtuse plantation then they should be able to spot fallen obtuse material.

I think the pecking order (if one can call it such a thing) for finding materials for extractions such as that of DMT (dont do it where illegal...) should probably go something like this:

1. Fallen material

2. Dead trees

3. Sick/diseased/dieing trees

4. Leaves from healthy trees

5. Single old trees

6. Several smaller trees

7. Whatever you could be arsed chopping down

IMO, nobody who is looking to extract a drug for self exploration (with absolutely no benefit to the plants from which the drug comes from) should ever go past number 3. The first 3 sources should surely compensate for enough material with as little damage as possible to the ecosystem.

Like Coschi mentioned, when taking a tree (if that is what it absolutely MUST come to), always replace it with at least 5 healthy young trees (of the same sort, and preferably from the same stock as the one that died). While these seedlings might not survive, at least something has been done in an attemp to compensate for the potential damage caused. Of course, any and all attempts to get these saplings to take the place of the fallen tree should be made as much as possible. If you are too lazy to do such a thing, then why not just stick to the first 3 things??

All in all, any sort of foot print that we leave on the planet (and perticularly in a small forest) can potentially cause havok on the local (and quite possibly, the outter) ecosystems. Things as simple as taking fallen bark can still cause severe damage (say for example there is a valuable fungus growing on the fallen bark that could potentially cure disease for a stand of obtuses, once it has been collected, the stand could possibly be wiped out, all for someone wanting to experience enlightenment). The thing is that we all need to find the least destructive path.

And of course, if anyone was truly a 'vegitarian' of entheogenic experiences, they would avoid all plant materials and simply take up a strong pursual of enlightenment via yoga or something similar which involves only training of the mind/body. Of course, most people dont have the time/energy for this, so they would prefer to take short cuts (myself included) and use a plant instead. And why not use what nature provides? Just remember to always use your head, apply common sense, respect the ecosystem and the sacraficial plant/s and hope that they dont come back to haunt you because of a stupid/ignorant choice made in the field.

[The Dude]

ED, I'm not advocating killing trees. I have repeatedly said that it is unnecessary to kill healthy trees.

fair enough, To me you seem to be pretty defensive of chopping down trees and liken it to weeding your garden.

I kill weeds in my garden unnecessarily all the time. I could just let them grow. But for the selfish purpose of having a more aesthetically pleasing garden, I weed. I'm not gonna feel guilty about that, and I don't think anyone should be made to feel like the scum of the Earth because they've chopped down a few trees either.

The difference is, a garden, which is a part of an artificial structure called a home is for the most part an isolated environment that you own and control. You do not own wild acacia plantations, and chopping a few trees down is quite different to weeding, unless acacias are aesthetically unappealing to you in YOUR garden. point is we share this ALL this garden, and any bullshit thought like "chopping a few trees down for no good reason at all is harmless when I or you, or individuals do it" is a very bad message to spread on a global internets, cuz the funny thing about individuals is there's billions of us on the planet.

[ballzac]

To me you seem to be pretty defensive of chopping down trees and liken it to weeding your garden.

I never said that there is any point in it, or that it should be done. I just think that people are a little quick to judge others on this issue, that is all. Also, I wasn't saying that it is like weeding a garden in every respect. I was specifically responding to the suggestion that it is immoral to kill things unnecessarily.

The difference is, a garden, which is a part of an artificial structure called a home is for the most part an isolated environment that you own and control.

I have always detested the notion that man-made things are not natural and only ever use the term artificial as a convenience. We, and our creations, are as much a part of the natural environment as everything else in the universe. Although you are right that there is a difference when it is something a person owns and controls. I think it is very important that anyone who chops down trees keep an eye on the specific location so that they can gauge the impact they are having and perhaps, as has been suggested, plant trees to replace ones taken if necessary. But, I get the impression that anyone who thinks that needs to be done hasn't seen spots like I've seen, where obtusifolia are battling each other for space and planting more would be pointless.

point is we share this ALL this garden, and any bullshit thought like "chopping a few trees down for no good reason at all is harmless when I or you, or individuals do it" is a very bad message to spread on a global internets, cuz the funny thing about individuals is there's billions of us on the planet.

But billions don't have the internet. Billions don't use DMT. Billions don't travel around the world to south east Australia to collect bark.

[Ace]

I really hate to gang up on people, but your last point:

But billions don't have the internet. Billions don't use DMT. Billions don't travel around the world to south east Australia to collect bark.

Perhaps it should be noted that word of mouth and even the internet has contributed to the over collection/threatening of the lophophorae. That said, I think that destruction of land due to human activity has probably played as much of a role in the threatening of the species, but still, as soon as mescaline became well known in the western world, it has since gained huge popularity (well, not by billions, but certainly by many thousands over the last century).

Many thousands do have the internet, maybe several thousand have consumed mescaline (via lophs or trichs), and many hundreds of people travel to mexico/texas to collect specimens or embark upon a mescaline voyage with the natives of the area.

As fair enough as your claim sounds at this point, I'm sure the same would have been thought of peyote many years ago

[ballzac]

As fair enough as your claim sounds at this point, I'm sure the same would have been thought of peyote many years ago

As I said earlier, my comments are only based on the current social and environmental climate. If the practice of collecting obtuse bark became very popular, that could change.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and it's not like I am giving location details or anything else harmful. I don't think the fact that I'm not totally demonising the practice of killing trees to collect bark will mean that more of it will happen. Really, maybe if everyone on the net shut up about how cool DMT was it would be less likely to BECOME popular . Not that I think that should happen.

For the benefit of all those people out there reading this and planning on killing trees: DO NOT DO IT!!!! Will that help?

EDIT #2: And I don't really like the "with us or against us" mentality. I mean, I just say it's not good to hate people for killing trees, and that there probably not doing as much harm as what you thing, and now I seem to be lumped in with said hated.

Edited January 21, 2008 by ballzac

[Ace]

As would have been the case with peyote? Sorry to sound like I'm having a go at you, but this point is very valid and is seen by quite a few throughout this thread. If people really care about these trees, then they will do their best to harvest them sensibly (just as peyote should have been done from day dot). The similarities between acacias and lophs are suprisingly similar in some ways:

- Generally takes many years to become a sustainable/mature plant

- Can be harvested sustainably, but is usually done in a damaging and devastating manner

- Both contain a substance that is used to intoxicate humans, with very little obvious 'use' to the actual plant (thoughts have been discussed about this topic, but there is no clear-cut answer as yet)

- Both are used by only a small percentage of people, but this percentage has the power to wipe out their existance unless the harvesting methods/cultivation takes place

I am not saying that they are identical, but the similarities are rather scary in how alike they are. I know that the thought of acacias becoming extinct seems like a completely absurd thing at this point as there are so damn many, but every one that is irresponsibly harvested can play a very detrimental effect on the surrounding plants. Like it has been mentioned before - one of the reasons that humans intoxicate themselves with these compounds is to become one with the universe and nature. Surely destroying (or playing a small role in the destruction) of these ecosystems is somewhat going against the grain of the whole venture? So why not simply harvest sensibly in the first place and do as little damage as possible?

I'm sure that if peyote were harvested in a sustainable manner every year for the last say, 200 years, that there would still be very large numbers and the idea of them fading out of existence would seem absurd. All I am saying is let's not let the same thing happen to our beloved acacias

EDIT: For the benefit of all those people out there reading this and planning on killing trees: DO NOT DO IT!!!! Will that help?

LOL, as much as I wish that would help, I dont think a dickhead will stop and think about things before acting like a dickhead (a possible person thinking about obtaining DMT via an old plantation of acacias, not you Zac ). The thing is, as much as it doesnt sound effective, alerting people to possible dangers and the destruction that can be caused by irresponsibility is effective in eliminating it (at least to some extent - see note about dickheads acting like dickheads). Just the very being of this thread has alerted me to the devistation that can be caused by ringbarking and stripping vital bark from living trees. I had not wanted to go collecting bark ever in the past or in the future, but if I ever come across someone doing such a thing, at least I now have the knowledge that it is detrimental to the trees and the ecosystem.

And I don't really like the "with us or against us" mentality.

Like I said above, I hate to gang up (the us vs them thing is a bit too cheesey for my liking too ). I am just talking my point of view (like ususal ). I dont hate someone because they have chopped a tree down, killed an animal, eaten a plant, etc, but I do dislike when people do things that can be quite detrimental to something that is very dear to myself and the people around me (those on this forum). I am not saying that I dislike you or anyone else, because of this convo, just showing that sustainability is the way to go. Everyone needs to think about the future, not just the now.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Ace