A sad site (image heavy)

[The Dude]

Without getting into semantics too much, true, at its essence everything is within the natural system and hence 'natural' however How is one to talk about anything if everything is everything? distinctions like natural/artificial have a purpose. For the purpose of this discussion I consider artificial to be something created by US that is disharmonious with the rest of nature here on earth.

In the greatest sense all is as is meant to be and we are experiencing perpetual bliss through every moment of life/death, so totality the universe and all that never needs to worry about the cessation of existence. Human beings on the other hand do, and with this in mind I use the word artificial to distinguish the way humankind seperates itself from the harmonious natural system that we exploit for purely personal reasons.

Homes and the materials necessary and the entire post industrial revolution methodology of extraction and production is disharmonious with nature. Therefore really there is less of an impact if in your 'artifical' construct you are acting out of harmony with nature as its already part of a larger artificial process of living there in the first place. Now I'm not advocating living in the bush or nothing, just that most everything we do is artificial and as such most everything we do is disharmonious or harmful to the survival of the nature on this planet (not nature as the all pervading force present in all totality). In other words if you've already fucked with a piece of land it won't matter fucking with it more as much as fucking with some fresh wild growth.

Anyway, the point is, yes we are damaging the planet with every breath of oxygen we take, at the same time we give back to the trees our carbon dioxide, all is consumption such is life, but we need to give back when we take. Or take as little as we need, we learn about our true needs with growing awareness (as aided by entheogens), why cling to lower levels of egoic motivation? Why needlessly damage trees? I understand they may as well be growing in epic proportions but so were all trees in Australia, the water table wasn't fucked and salinity wasn't a problem. Even if now as it stands you DO cut down a few trees and they regenerate quicker than you could cull them, so be it, that is fantastic. Don't tell anybody about it!!

cool you can sustainably do the lazy mans method, do not promote this to everyone. And in any case for every lazy man, there needs to be a much larger proportion of those doing the ethical sustainable thing, cause I don't see this experience dying in popularity any time soon. And obviously those harvesting and extracting would feel the allure of the all mighty dollar as this grows in popularity. In due time your harmless methods will cause enough harm to be considered heresy for sustainability and you'll think why the fuck did I promote this in the first place?

I imagine that most people doing work with this are enlightened enough to not be directed by greed, and do their very best to minimise the ecological footprint, regardless of how much easier and maybe more profitable a simple ringbarking would be.

I really hope people would stop playing down any kind of mass-deforestation - I'll say this again, it is purely out of selfish motivations to take the easier route. People must keep in mind that thoughts have a very real flow on effect. If you openly say you find nothing wrong with this, it allows other people to resonate with your thinking, especially if they're looking for justification to take the easier route. This is a substance of mass-appeal, the easiest methods are even more appealing = mass-deforestation.

In this case going against the grain of the ringbarker-vilification doesn't make it Good and Just and Brave to NOT not condone ringbarking. Nothing against the individuals and their mistakes, more against misinformation on the potential of severe damage caused by the method.

It takes the bigger man to do the more responsible thing and not promote this. Remember you are more than you, and everything you think/say is somehow sub/consciously adopted by others.

Nobody hates anybody here, some however hate ignorance and its all-pervading power that can too easily be used as an excuse to continue thinking about the immediate me/now, instead of us/eternally.

Edited January 21, 2008 by El Duderino

[ballzac]

Without getting into semantics too much, true, at its essence everything is within the natural system and hence 'natural' however How is one to talk about anything if everything is everything? distinctions like natural/artificial have a purpose. For the purpose of this discussion I consider artificial to be something created by US that is disharmonious with the rest of nature here on earth.

In the greatest sense all is as is meant to be and we are experiencing perpetual bliss through every moment of life/death, so totality the universe and all that never needs to worry about the cessation of existence. Human beings on the other hand do, and with this in mind I use the word artificial to distinguish the way humankind seperates itself from the harmonious natural system that we exploit for purely personal reasons.

Humans are not the only species to cause other species to be wiped out. I still think there is an unnecessary distinction you are making. Yes we have a high potential for changing our environment, so do a lot of other natural systems/processes. Anyway this is just, as you said, semantics, and is kind of irrelevant to the argument.

Even if now as it stands you DO cut down a few trees and they regenerate quicker than you could cull them, so be it, that is fantastic. Don't tell anybody about it!!

cool you can sustainably do the lazy mans method, do not promote this to everyone. And in any case for every lazy man, there needs to be a much larger proportion of those doing the ethical sustainable thing, cause I don't see this experience dying in popularity any time soon. And obviously those harvesting and extracting would feel the allure of the all mighty dollar as this grows in popularity. In due time your harmless methods will cause enough harm to be considered heresy for sustainability and you'll think why the fuck did I promote this in the first place?

I don't believe that anyone is promoting killing trees.

I really hope people would stop playing down any kind of mass-deforestation - I'll say this again, it is purely out of selfish motivations to take the easier route. People must keep in mind that thoughts have a very real flow on effect. If you openly say you find nothing wrong with this, it allows other people to resonate with your thinking, especially if they're looking for justification to take the easier route. This is a substance of mass-appeal, the easiest methods are even more appealing = mass-deforestation.

In this case going against the grain of the ringbarker-vilification doesn't make it Good and Just and Brave to NOT not condone ringbarking. Nothing against the individuals and their mistakes, more against misinformation on the potential of severe damage caused by the method.

I actually think that by coming on here and presenting my point of view I am helping. If it weren't for my comments, there would not be the responses by you and others, and many people might be unaware of problems, perceived or real, from killing trees in the wild. I always believe that knowledge is better than ignorance. Please trust other people who are reading this to make up their own minds.

[MORG]

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

There is the potential to cause much more harm removing a diseased and dying tree than a mature, healthy one.

Take the case of Phytopthera infection. Hack all that rusty, fungally-infected bark off and drag it out of the bush and you're sure to spread the pathogen over a much wider area than it would have been otherwise.

[Ace]

There is the potential to cause much more harm removing a diseased and dying tree than a mature, healthy one.

Very valid point. Like I said, it's all about harm minimalisation and that can only really be done while in the bush and looking at all the possible options.

If it weren't for my comments, there would not be the responses by you and others

I dont think anyone is denying that your comments are valuable, just that there are two sides to the arguement. Of course it wouldnt be half as interesting if there wasn't a second side to it (yours or ours), and you do have plenty of valid points so dont throw in the towel or think that you should have to be quiet

[ballzac]

I dont think anyone is denying that your comments are valuable, just that there are two sides to the arguement. Of course it wouldnt be half as interesting if there wasn't a second side to it (yours or ours), and you do have plenty of valid points so dont throw in the towel or think that you should have to be quiet

Actually, El Duderino WAS denying that my comments are valuable. In fact, he was specifically saying that my comments are harmful and that I should keep my 'mouth' shut.

[Ace]

Sorry Zac - I didnt notice. To be honest, I kind of skimmed Dude's post as it was quite long and seemed to be rehashing a lot of what had already been said (like I'm sure we all are starting to do).

For what it's worth, I still value your comments and think that you should continue contributing your POV, even if it is different to that of some of us. FFS, the whole idea of a discussion board is to discuss things, so dont let someone tell you otherwise just because they think your POV is incorrect

[ballzac]

To be honest, I kind of skimmed Dude's post as it was quite long and seemed to be rehashing a lot of what had already been said (like I'm sure we all are starting to do).

Yeah, that can start happening with these long threads.

For what it's worth, I still value your comments and think that you should continue contributing your POV, even if it is different to that of some of us. FFS, the whole idea of a discussion board is to discuss things, so dont let someone tell you otherwise just because they think your POV is incorrect

Very true.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TBH, I am no expert in these areas, and do not think my view should necessarily carry much weight. I have been clearly putting this forward as MY OPINION. Even though I think that killing a few obtuse probably isn't as destructive as what some people make out, I would not do so or recommend someone else do so because I am not %100 sure I grasp the wider implications. That doesn't mean that my opinion is any different, or that I should be quiet about my opinion.

The main reason I got involved in this discussion was because I do not like the biased way in which people feel that entheogenic plants should be left alone. It is clear at the beginning of this thread that most here care more about obtuse etc. than other plants. People were mostly talking about killing an obtuse as if that is immoral in itself in the way that killing a person is immoral and that is where the topic of plant sentience came in. I brought up killing vegetable plants and weeds etc. to show how hypocritical that notion is, not regarding any wider environmental aspects.

My understanding of the environment is far from complete (as is anyone's), but I have my own opinions and will voice them.

[El Barto]

I dont get it why are locally indigenous or wild plants more important that non indigenous plants or home grown plants

just because a tree is grown on land i "own" with my assistance that gives me more right to use the plant?

and what is indigenous really?

everything was indigenous to only one point once

are humans the only thing that is allowed to spread and still be valued the same

its been happening for millions of years life spreads and the strong survive

years from now much life will be gone and replaced by different life

why does a "weed" have lees right to play the game of life than an "indigenous" "plant"

but yea

i think when taking any resource that is finite you should always keep conservation in mind

in this case whether it be for our benefit or that of the plants ,conservation is the best policy

but sometimes it may just be ignorance and not lack of care or concern.

i wouldnt have a clue as to the best/safest way to harvest bark

[El Barto]

double post!

Edited January 22, 2008 by El Barto

[MORG]

The main reason I got involved in this discussion was because I do not like the biased way in which people feel that entheogenic plants should be left alone. It is clear at the beginning of this thread that most here care more about obtuse etc. than other plants.

Yeah, I came to see this in later posts and you've made yourself pretty clear I thought.

My argument was one of environmentalism and my call for utmost caution, harm-minimisation and ethical scrutiny in the matter of wild-harvest could well apply to any other native species within its natural range.

That's why I think the only truly ethical harvest is destroying those ones you own.

That said, I could be said to be a hypocrite by using paper and walking on floorboards which obviously have come at the cost of clearing of native vegetation.

[Coschi]

Hold up there a minute morg..

That's why I think the only truly ethical harvest is destroying those ones you own

*politely spoken* -- what the fuck is that shit?

Here's where I get a little hazy on the 'ethically correct'

A lot of people have said this same thing and personally I cannot see how you find a distinction between the trees you find in 'nature' and the ones you 'own'

If you're saying it's bad to kill a tree in the name of whatever then stick by that. Perhaps people can grow a.obtus forrests and pick all the fallen branches after a storm or something like that. If on the other hand it's ok to kill one of your own then... well i'm sure you can see my problem with that statement

FYI my feelings on this whole thing is that these and all trees for whatever purpose are never owned, they are what they are and that's it. Logging companies do not own the trees they plant for future harvest regardless what paper says; I don't own any of the cacti or vines in my backyard; my parents don't own any of their little flower plants scattered around their front lawn.

these/all plants, animals, etc.. have their own energy, their own soul, their own lives. There is a massive spiritual connection between my soul and what is dmt's source, and i have full confidence that it does not feel disrespected by me cutting down a live tree and spreading the word to the community; it is something which is OK by them (and don't anyone come back at me with this being some self-justification bullshit - anyone who knows me understands the depth from what i say), and furthermore the plant spirits literally laugh at people tip-toeing around a bush looking for a few fallen branches, 'if you going to do it, do it properly, but do it right'

This is why they are there!

nature's equilibrium mechanisms has amounted to the existance of psychedelic cactus, acacia, mushrooms, etc.. we are meant to be taking them

BUT they are not for teenagers looking for a extacy replacement

Or some ice freak to extract in bulk to feed his habbits

..and you certainly don't own that block of land you build your house on

Edited January 22, 2008 by Coschi

[The Dude]

FFS!!!

Ballzac who gives a shit about plant sentience the discussion is not about Acacias having a higher value because of a perceived sentience as expereinced whilst on dmt, all nature is sentient and if that experience stops one from killing anything, then their life may as well cease at that moment as life feeds on death, it is all one loop.

Having said that, go with what works for you, but don't spread harmful (admittedly uneducated) information. As you claim yourself you have little knowledge on the subject (as have I) so I do not see why with such little knowledge you must keep playing down killing trees. Individuals make no difference yes we understand that!!! If i throw out a cigarette it makes little difference, walking through the city it's easy to see that with that kind of mentality Everybody makes this Huge litter problem that on an individual basis makes sweet fuck all difference.

VERY simple logic here. Keep your mouth shut yes! If it is an admittedly uneducated opinion why contribute at all?

[edit] that was pretty fucking rude and arrogant of me. Every Point of View should be heard, the uber conservationists made theirs and you gave your support for the idea of killing trees as a means of harvest. We do not need to keep going over it I guess. Still I have No fucking Idea, you seem to have no fucking idea (as you claim) so why not err on caution? We're not picking on individuals, just the message that is spreading to the masses that killing for personal reasons is okay for everyone to do.

Now I realise that I probably came at this from the wrong angle and assumed purely personal motivations in ringbarking an entire tree instead of harvesting other plant matter from multiple trees. I remember the original message was that harvesting one trees bark and killing it is better than harvesting small amounts of bark from many trees and killing all of them too. With that being said why must any tree die if there are alternatives?

Coschi, if you must kill a tree, to .. thin out there numbers.. to save them, or whatever justification works, don't be proclaiming loudly that it regenerates miraculously, even if it does, as that kind of license to kill when adopted by the masses... and I'm repeating myself again.

[/end edit]

I hope you're not just posting the 'other side of the coin' argument for the pure argumentative sake of it, probably based on the misconception that this whole ethical harvest issue is pertaining to acacias because of some perceived sentience instead of the fact that such sustainability precautions should apply to any plant/resource that is likely to be overharvested.

Why, for the sake of putting your POV across would you jepordise the future survival of these trees? Yes individually you make little difference, do I really need to go over how public forums and the advice given on them affects the masses?

SIMPLE FUCKING LOGIC FFS!

why not err on the side of caution and NOT promote this.

no direct promotion you will say but by constantly arguing against the idea that this is bad... you are saying it is good, can you see that?

Same goes to you Coschi, awesome your experiences with a self reflecting ego and your personal desires validated your hope that you are doing no harm. Who knows if you are and if your experiences with this plant spirit are valid, having said that nobody can dispute a personal experience. In any case if this works for you so be it, I don't want to know about it! not in this open domain dude, seriously be responsible with what you say.

In one way I'm really pissed the fuck off that this information is so readily available, I can see bogans ringbarking entire plantations taking the same care as they do with mushroom patches and fucking up the whole environment with their litter in the process, so that they can trip balls on a substance that should teach them about selfless sacrifice in the service of the greater good, ie: a little bit of effort in caring for our planet. The irony of their destructive behaviour to seek out these experiences.. isn't funny, it just pisses me off that after all that they still never 'get it'.

Edited January 23, 2008 by The Dude

[El Barto]

well that was the long way of going about telling someone to shut the hell up and keep there opinions to themself

[ballzac]

FFS!!!

Ballzac who gives a shit about plant sentience the discussion is not about Acacias having a higher value because of a perceived sentience as expereinced whilst on dmt, all nature is sentient and if that experience stops one from killing anything, then their life may as well cease at that moment as life feeds on death, it is all one loop.

Having said that, go with what works for you, but don't spread harmful (admittedly uneducated) information. As you claim yourself you have little knowledge on the subject (as have I) so I do not see why with such little knowledge you must keep playing down killing trees. Individuals make no difference yes we understand that!!! If i throw out a cigarette it makes little difference, walking through the city it's easy to see that with that kind of mentality Everybody makes this Huge litter problem that on an individual basis makes sweet fuck all difference.

VERY simple logic here. Keep your mouth shut yes! If it is an admittedly uneducated opinion why contribute at all? I hope you're not just posting the 'other side of the coin' argument for the pure argumentative sake of it, probably based on the misconception that this whole ethical harvest issue is pertaining to acacias because of some perceived sentience instead of the fact that such sustainability precautions should apply to any plant/resource that is likely to be overharvested.

Why, for the sake of putting your POV across would you jepordise the future survival of these trees? Yes individually you make little difference, do I really need to go over how public forums and the advice given on them affects the masses?

SIMPLE FUCKING LOGIC FFS!

why not err on the side of caution and NOT promote this.

no direct promotion you will say but by constantly arguing against the idea that this is bad... you are saying it is good, can you see that?

Same goes to you Coschi, awesome your experiences with a self reflecting ego and your personal desires validated your hope that you are doing no harm. Who knows if you are and if your experiences with this plant spirit are valid, having said that nobody can dispute a personal experience. In any case if this works for you so be it, I don't want to know about it! not in this open domain dude, seriously be responsible with what you say.

In one way I'm really pissed the fuck off that this information is so readily available, I can see bogans ringbarking entire plantations taking the same care as they do with mushroom patches and fucking up the whole environment with their litter in the process, so that they can trip balls on a substance that should teach them about selfless sacrifice in the service of the greater good, ie: a little bit of effort in caring for our planet. The irony of their destructive behaviour to seek out these experiences.. isn't funny, it just pisses me off that after all that they still never 'get it'.

I really don't like the tone you are taking with me, and instead of getting all frustrated and writing even more replies, I'll leave it at this. Kind of a win-win situation because you want me to shut up and I'm sick of arguing. Take care.

[Coschi]

hehe awww don't get all hurt Ballzac!

this is an open forum and at times, sometimes, emotions run a little high

I can definitely see the truth and honest in what The Dude is saying and I respect your side of this also

one good thing Dude

In one way I'm really pissed the fuck off that this information is so readily available, I can see bogans ringbarking entire plantations taking the same care as they do with mushroom patches and fucking up the whole environment with their litter in the process, so that they can trip balls on a substance that should teach them about selfless sacrifice in the service of the greater good, ie: a little bit of effort in caring for our planet. The irony of their destructive behaviour to seek out these experiences

like I said above, I bet that less than 10% of these type of people will actually ever get there, and if they do they will soon realise what it is they're playing with and quickly change their ways; i bet

[incognito]

how about lets all agree to harvest 'sustainably' and 'ethically' ???

capeche?

okay i am biased, i feel sensitive to plants, and a ringbarked tree to me looks unsightly and tormented.

i think theres a better( more intelligent ) way to go about things, and is definately not a practice that should be encouraged or advised on a world wide web.

i think everyone has made good points.

[ballzac]

hehe awww don't get all hurt Ballzac!

I'm not hurt man, I'm just sick of repeating myself.

how about lets all agree to harvest 'sustainably' and 'ethically' ???

I think everyone who has contributed to this thread already has. I'm quite happy with that.

[MORG]

I don't see how this is getting so heated.

Coschi: Maybe "own" was the wrong word because if you want to get all esoteric then how can we ever actually own anything, blah blah blah. But if I buy a tomato plant from a nursery, its mine, I own it, and I own the fruit it produces, that is the definition I'm working on.

The distinction between the trees you find in 'nature' and the ones you 'own' is that the ones in your backyard are removed from their environment. In my backyard the question of conservation of biodiversity through stewardship of land of biological, evolutionary and ecological value doesn't come into the equation. That, is my point. No one's harming an ecological community by destroying a cultivated tree in their backyard insulated from valuable natural ecosystems, eg. National Park.

Honestly, I can't see your problem with the statement.

Oh and Coschi, the cacti in your backyard that you do not "own" are calling to me through our spirit connection. They want to move out and live with me in my collection (and don't anyone come back at me with this being some self-justification bullshit - anyone who knows me understands the depth from what i say) so it's OK, right?

nature's equilibrium mechanisms has amounted to the existance of psychedelic cactus, acacia, mushrooms, etc.. we are meant to be taking them

This sentence doesn't mean anything. Can you elaborate? Uh, actually, don't.

Edited January 23, 2008 by MORG

[The Dude]

VERY simple logic here. Keep your mouth shut yes! If it is an admittedly uneducated opinion why contribute at all?

That was pretty fucking rude and arrogant of me. Every Point of View should be heard, the uber conservationists made theirs and you gave your support for the idea of killing trees as a means of harvest. We do not need to keep going over it I guess. Still I have No fucking Idea, you seem to have no fucking idea (as you claim) so why not err on caution? We're not picking on individuals, just the message that is spreading to the masses that killing for personal reasons is okay for everyone to do.

Now I realise that I probably came at this from the wrong angle and assumed purely personal motivations in ringbarking an entire tree instead of harvesting other plant matter from multiple trees. I remember the original message was that harvesting one trees bark and killing it is better than harvesting small amounts of bark from many trees and killing all of them too. With that being said why must any tree die if there are alternatives?

Coschi, if you must kill a tree, to .. thin out there numbers.. to save them, or whatever justification works, don't be proclaiming loudly that it regenerates miraculously, even if it does, as that kind of license to kill when adopted by the masses... and I'm repeating myself again.

[ballzac]

I should just stop reading posts in this thread because I can't help being sucked back in...

We both have our own opinion and both agree that we have NFI. As you said, all points of view should be heard. We both agree that erring on the side of caution is the way to go. So I don't really see that we have anything to argue about.

Although I still have a problem with the fact that you say that even if something is the case, one should not state it as so. This is the sort of mentality that has motivated people to demonize drugs. You see, if we don't say that drugs are 100% all bad, then kiddies will think they must be okay, and we don't want that.

I always think it is best if all the cards are on the table and then people can make up their own minds. I'm not saying that Coschi is right, or that I'm right. I'm just saying that if people know what different viewpoints are out there, they can do some research themselves, and responsible people will do what they believe to be right.

[Coschi]

I should just stop reading posts in this thread because I can't help being sucked back in...

lol tell me about it!

The distinction between the trees you find in 'nature' and the ones you 'own' is that the ones in your backyard are removed from their environment. In my backyard the question of conservation of biodiversity through stewardship of land of biological, evolutionary and ecological value doesn't come into the equation. That, is my point. No one's harming an ecological community by destroying a cultivated tree in their backyard insulated from valuable natural ecosystems, eg. National Park.

Honestly, I can't see your problem with the statement....

Well of course that's what you meant

sorry I can't help but get a little defensive when I hear the call of ownership on something like this..

nature's equilibrium mechanisms has amounted to the existance of psychedelic cactus, acacia, mushrooms, etc.. we are meant to be taking them

This sentence doesn't mean anything. Can you elaborate? Uh, actually, don't.

 

No no that's ok

I mean nature has a way of adjusting itself to try and keep things under control and in an attempted harmony. Venus Flytraps grew mouths because the levels of potassium or something depleted to the point where they would have died had they not found some way to get the lacking nutrient; a mouth to allow it to get it from insects instead. We have fruit trees because animals need to eat to live. Obviously nature has some intention in giving us psychedelic shrooms and cacti and others. All of this is nature's equilbrium mechanisms at work.

All i'm saying that these things WANT to be taken, need to be taken, and need to be recognised. Going to a bush with good will and honest intent is OK (in MY HONEST OPINION).

and no you can't have the cacti which resides in my backyard

Oh and re what Jono said, AGREED!

[The Dude]

We both agree that erring on the side of caution is the way to go.

:scratchead:

...maybe now you agree. It'd be good for you to say this rather than suggest there is nothing wrong with a more destructive approach.

Anyway over it. Let the plants guide you and all that hippy jazz.

Coschi you are right to say that we are in a symbiotic relationship with plants and are co-dependent so our ingestion is part of their survival mechanism perhaps. However sustainability is always a problem with ANY resource, even things like naturally occuring drugs.

I think I read on erowid about a plant with birth control properties whose seed resembles the love heart shape, After its discovery sex obviously increased and the seed shape was adopted as a symbol of love and sex. Now we see the love heart shape still today but the plant is long gone after overharvesting. Apparently it was a kickarse natural and safe contraceptive too.

Over harvesting is a very real risk. [edit: thanks Xipe ] Easter Island is a MICROcosm of what could happen in Australia and indeed the entire planet.

Edited January 30, 2008 by The Dude

[XipeTotec]

\ Easter Island is a macrocosm of what could happen in Australia and indeed the entire planet.

i dont think easter island is that big.

[ballzac]

:scratchead:

...maybe now you agree.

From my second post in this thread, "most people I know simply try to avoid making too much of an impact, and I think that is a healthy attitude to have."

I may have stated that it probably doesn't matter, but I also made it clear (I thought) that ideally we should make as little impact as possible.

[Undergrounder]

Wow what a fun thread to get in on. Maybe i should not say anything. Maybe staying away would be prudent....

... I fish, occasionally. As fate has it i'm going fishing tomorrow. I kill fish. I justify it by only killing the fish that i intend to eat. I don't believe in God or Gaia or the natural right of one thing over the other, i just do this because i feel that killing to make use is justified where killing for sport isn't. There is also a bag limit and a size limit and a blanket ban on some fish and hell even some sizes of female fish are illegal to catch. I adhere to all those rules.

Now if i were to go out to the bush, apart from all the actual laws about nat. parks and firewood and permits and stuff, there is no legal path to follow to determine what is 'sustainable' and what is not. Now if fishing were the same, then the fishing forums would be LITTERED with different opinions on what makes your catch sustainable or not, This is no different.

You just have to decide for ourself. The most important message to get out is that people should be aware of what they are doing. You and I insisting here about dead fall or sick old trees won't influence anyone. But the general message of conservation will leave an impact. Suggesting collection of dead fall where possible, or taking one large tree, or limbs killed by borers or whatever will be infinitely more successful than running into a barrage of condescending eco-babble. If you have to gang up and tell someone off for doing whatever it is that you don't happen to agree with, then you've already lost them. You're talking about two completely different world views and in my opinion neither is more correct than the other - but people will tune out if they feel like they're being talked down to.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Undergrounder