Killing Acacias

[wandjina]

Apparently you can extract something valuable out of some Australian Acacia species.

Apparently some individuals remove (i.e. kill) entire trees to do this, rather than a branch or two or some bark (then there's those who accidently ringbark said trees in the process).

I have heard that some people justify killing these trees by saying they only take old trees/unhealthy trees/a small number of trees...or that because acacias dont live very long they're not that integral a part of an ecosystem, that some ecosystems are degraded anyway so it doesn't matter...or that supply=demand, so what do we expect? etc etc.

Well, having studied ecology, I can say that the first set of excuses are utter bullshit. Anyways,

My questions are:

Do the people that deliberately kill a significant number of trees, and profit from it financially, consider the complex ecological consequences of what they are doing? Do they do anything to remediate this?

Do they realise that the long term effects of removing a relatively high proportion of trees from a given area may have impacts on

-future genetic variation (remove older trees, especially those with high alk. content, thus removing them from gene pool...projeny not neccessarily guarenteed to posses properties of 'mother').

-secondary succession (i.e. many acacias are relatively short-lived trees referred to as 'pioneer' species. Especially regarding symbiosis between N fixing microbes in acacia root nodules, the N being released when the plant dies, faciliating the maturation of slower growing 'secondary' species that may have spent years coming up under the acacias branches). Remove entire acacia, remove shady 'nursery', change soil conditions, and remove reservoir of future N.

-again, soil composition (inc. 'macro' and microbial diversity/chemically-avail N, pH etc/physical structure etc)

-biodiversity, especially invertebrate spp. (insecta) to which acacias are a habitat/food source. Linked to diversity re insect pollination (I'm actually not sure if this is the vector for poll here, but...), also birds, small mammals etc.

As i've already mentioned, the roots of acacias are especially important, because when they biodegrade the fixed N is released into the soil. One could say that acacias 'prime' the soil for other trees, for the development of slow growing/longer living species, and the myriad other animals/plants that are connected to such processes. Decomposing wood/ leaves etc are a crucial part of any ecosystem, providing nutrients/habitat for fungi, other plants and animals.

However, apparently some people are removing everything with little consideration or regard for short or long term effects. More, as the removal of mature trees is a relatively recent phenomena, who are we to say what the long term effects of this may be?

Perhaps i'm wrong, and it will have no effect, but, as 'they' say, every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

I think this behaviuor is irresponsible and selfish.

More so if somebody is making a buck, and can't even be bothered to stick a few seedlings in the ground when they remove a tree. Even the dept. of forestry does that (well, not all the time). It's not much to ask.

You take from nature, you may make profit...why not give something back?

Sure, time and effort should be recompensed, but doesn't the environment deserve to be recompensed too?

Many people here piss and moan about environmental degradation, but few seem to have made a connection to where acacia derived substances come from....I mean, come on...

I'm sure not everyone kills trees willy nilly, but I know for a fact that some do.

What do others think about this?

[cisumevil]

I havn't been lucky enough to try anything extracted from Australian Acacia species yet, but i did plant a heap of Acacia's that i got from the http://www.seedring.org/ with GREAT germinating rates. I now have a heap of little Acacias

Just found a great source for Acacia seed also, so should have a heap in the future

I also found germinating Acacia's to be quite simple. All i did was pour boiled water on seeds, within 3-5 days most had swelled and by 10 days most had Tap roots showing.

[Happy Cadaver]

People in areas which are affected by this type of vandalism could try their hand at burning around each dead tree to stimulate seed germination to replace the dead one.

there is no justification for stripping bark and leaving the tree to die. As you say wandjina, they could trim the tree branches for their use. At least they could plant more back or weed around seedlings for their profit made, doesn't take much and if not perhaps the dmt should teach them a lesson.

[planthelper]

an other methode is to introduce said accacias into new areas.

collecting seeds and distributing them would help aswell to keep the numbers up.

i don't think anybody would kill an accacia just for profit...

planting seedlings on the same spot where mature trees got chopped down is unnessassary because there would be allready some seedlings struggling for light at the very same spot!!!

those acacias need low intensety fires, only those one's promote seedlings. but big fires caused by lack of small fires can kill big healthy accacias never to re shoot again.

so i think bad forrest managment is the worst enemy of those rare accacias. this is what happend at mt. buffalo with the big fires...

and as said often before, phyllodes and twigs will give you a karma free harvest!

[Leo^]

I dont agree with the culling of these trees but on my property weve had to actually cut down a whole bunch of acacias as when they all start flowering we cant breathe and they end up falling over in the wild storms we get at times, destroying other trees in the process.

[Torsten]

While a lot of vandalism and reckless harvesting still goes one, the good news is that those people who do it for money (or status, or spiritual reason) have over the last few years changed their modus operandi quite dramatically. For example, one group I know used to strip the bark off a standing tree. This would only yield them about 10-20 of the possible bark of that tree. Some years later they worked out that going out in the forrest directly after severe winds will yield several fallen trees. Another group realised that selecting the perfect location is paramount to not getting busted and that it is much better to find a single tree in a very sheltered and secure location, to chop it down and then concentrate on stripping the one tree to the max.

The ecology of the acacia means that if you chop down a tree that is past it's prime of life (ie, it has already deposited a large reservoir of seed below the soil), you will allow new trees to grow in it's place. They might not be acacias, but that doesn't matter, because when a fire comes through the area it will kill most of the other trees and will promote a new flush of acacias.

I used to be very much against acacia wild harvesting, but that was mostly because of the reckless and wasteful way it was done. I am still very much against such methods. However, using ethical methods that allow a tree to reach full maturity, replenish the in ground seed store, and does not remove more than 10% of specimen from one area seem to me an aceptable way of doing things. Knowing your harvest area intimately would also be an advantage so that you could introduce some seed from nearby adult plants if the balance is not maintained over time. We are not going to stop people harvesting acacias, but we can use a combination of economic and ethical forces to make sure it is done with a minimum of damage or even to the species' advantage.

[Torsten]

collecting seeds and distributing them would help aswell to keep the numbers up.

I think this is an important aspect, athough it may also create weeds as some acacias simply aren't meant to be elsewhere.

i don't think anybody would kill an accacia just for profit...

Actually, much of this debate started nearly a decade ago due to one group doing exactly this on a huge scale and without ANY regard for ecology.

those acacias need low intensety fires, only those one's promote seedlings. but big fires caused by lack of small fires can kill big healthy accacias never to re shoot again.

so i think bad forrest managment is the worst enemy of those rare accacias. this is what happend at mt. buffalo with the big fires...

Mt Buffalo is a bit more complex. The historical frequency of fires on Mt Buffalo is actually only every 50-75 years per location. And by their very nature they are usually high intensity. The problem for A.phlebophylla was that most phlebo patches had not had a decent fire for around or over 50 years due to a policy of fire suppression in the area. These ecological system were at the very end of their cycle and things were not going well.

and as said often before, phyllodes and twigs will give you a karma free harvest!

This was not quite the case in Mt Buffalo, but yes, in general you are very right. With phlebo the least damaging way was to collect fallen leaves, but even this appeared to cause problems due to fungus transfer on shoes. By the time this becomes an issue again in 50 years I think everyone would have forgotten about it again.

[Rev]

At least 2 commercially viable species of acacias are masspropagated and mass planted as part of revegatation efforts

i would hope that anyone contemplating any profiteering venture would do so as a plantation or from these replantings as natural stands are far too valuable to pillage like that

im not opposed to manaagemnet by a party. In fact foresters who understand the needs of the plant and harvest sensibly and limited to the capabilities of the forest and not to market pressures are the forests best human allies

My sensibilities would leave me inclined to taking a while tree rather than its parts

a complete surgical removal of senescent and fallen individuals

ideally the twigs and wood could be cut up and carefully tucked into the underbrush to keep that carbon in cycle

simply damaging a living tree sets in motion a cascade of opportunitsic pathogens that mat threaten the surrounding healthy trees.

harvesting seed is a good idea to put back in the same place. preferably scarified and sown in the rainy season

[wandjina]

I agree with most of the above, and am glad to hear some harvesters are being responsible (a kick up the clacker for those who aren't and well know it)...but no one has mentioned the importance of Acacia roots and N.

Acacias fix N from the atmosphere, and 'store' it in root nodules (bacterial/plant symbiosis). As we are all well aware, many aussie soils are low in nutrients (esp N and P), and the N released when the root nodules decompose is crucial to ecological succession in some ecosystems. Sure, the seed load in surrounding soil will be able to access more light, water etc when a partciular tree is removed, but the removal of a mature tree and its roots means that some of the trees that may otherwise have thrived may not survive. There may not be enough N for certain sp who 'depend' on the 'natural' death of acacias at a certain point in their development, or too much light at a crucial stage of development etc etc. Its not just about acacias, but other species too. Everything is interconnected as we well know.

I've heard some individuals 'market' acacia extract based on it being derived from root...which suggests roots are being removed deliberately and systematically. Beyond seeds and the leaving behind of phyllodes etc, leaving the rhizosphere alone (as much as possible) is vital IMO. What goes on in this region (google rhizosphere) is extremely important.

I think we are underestimating the impact of harvesting, especially in regards to roots.

[AndyAmine.]

I haddnt heard of Acacia roots being harvested before.. sounds like a lot of extra work.

Whats the % in the roots/rootbark V's the bark?

[wandjina]

thanks 4 pointing that out Andy....I should have specified rootbark (which would necessitate the removal of roots)

[darkstar]

Really don’t you think that the damaged cased by a small minority of “vandals and reckless harvesters” is minor compared to many other environmental issues?

And there is that feedback control mechanism already mentioned, that it is illegal and therefore lack of low profile harvesting should thetically lead to punishments.

I do know someone (no, not a coy way of not incriminating myself) who does do the said vandalism, with little remorse or consideration. Which I find strange as this individual is one of the louder proclaimers of injustices by government businesses ect..

But hey, humans are the most hypocritical creatures in existence.

[Rev]

Wandjina in answer to the acacia root issue

yes all valid points however its likely to be not having that much of an effect due to

1. redundancy

theres many other species of acacia much more common than these in the same habitat

other N fixers include Casaurina and freliving cyanobacteria and azobacter

2. Low amount of harvesting in comparison to total population volume and distribution

Bothe obtusifolia and maidenii are VERY widespread species and not uncommon at all

3. Root bark is a bitch to get out - of any species

most 'root bark' would be the underground stem portion and the stump laterals but not much of them

the majority of the laterals, the nodulated feeder rots would be left intact

i hear part processing is oft done in situ as well and the bulk - the wood - would be left in the forest

Edited December 14, 2005 by Rev

[folias]

I think the words "vandals and reckless harvesters" is a bit harsh... I would only know a few people who do this/have done this (reading this you would think every man and his dog was having a go!), and overall they are pretty conscious people... the word vandal implies aggressive destructiveness for its twisted sake with no outcome.... but we're dealing with the spirit molecule here... with the potential to effect great transformation.

I'm surprised there is this view, "there is gold in them trees!" I am aware of at least one person who has begun harvesting a couple of trees in order to make some cash, and discovered that for the most part, he struggled to even give it away (a lot of people are very scared of DMT!) ... I am aware of one person doing this for years and years, one of the few people continually doing this and there certainly was never a huge nor constant demand for his product whatsoever! maybe it is different for these mysterious, perhaps unscrupoulous money motivated people!

Most people I know who do this are hobbyists who give a lot away to their friends and sell a little bit, or if they are very "lucky", a decent chunk every now and then, often very cheaply. Most of these people also grow many different plants including acacias....

I am sure there are some people out there doing this I am sure who are insensitive to the fact that they are dealing with distinct living entities here... most of it is due to really not knowing any better... (at least in a couple of people I have met!) Most people have no idea about how to relate to the plant kingdom... but I think you would find a few tryptamine harvesters out there would be some of the most attuned to the plant kingdom people you could ever hope to meet!

From an ecological perspective, humans out there seeking tryptamines to fuel an opening of minds... in scale is so minute compared to old growth logging and mechanical deforrestation still occuring in Australia and most parts of the world and is potentially very beneficial to an awakening of humanity, rather than the mindless destruction for cheap and abundant amounts of timber....

Personally, I feel it is acceptable to cut down a tree with respect, understanding, that is "on its way out" (i.e. beginning to rot or just fall over, which is very common in older specimens).... getting trees that have fallen down is obviously preferable (I am sure storms claim many more acacias each year than tryptamine harvesters!).... pruning brances is an IDEAL scenario, but probably not a very practical one in the majority of circumstances (i.e. the trees branches are often many metres overhead and many trees don't even have branches per se!) .... stripping a little bit off the sides of the trees could result in a very small amount of material compared to the relatively large amount of damage to trees...

I personally, think that as a mature acacia lets loose so many seeds over its life, artificial human propogation may not be the answer here... There are a few people out there, who spend time propogating acacias and growing them in the right places... but fark, the best thing one could do is to set fire to a whole region! Anyone going up to Mt Buffallo after the fires could see, these trees NEEDED a fire to actually spark the growth of the seeds bank stored in the soil.

And of course there are many other species out there which have yet to be released to the general community by the relevant researchers, which are probably better tryptamine sources than obtusifolia.... and I would guess some of these species have high yields of tryptamines in their phyllodes.... which means people wouldn't have to cut down trees if they knew about them!

(Also, the more the value of the trees such as obtusifolia is realised, the more people will grow them, and seek to propogate them... a LOT of people in the world are still growing Maidenii, which as far as I can tell, is a bit of red herring with most strains being tryptameaningless )

And, Obtusifolias for one thing, are quite prevelant in many parts of Australia... most of these places I would say would be inaccessable to harvesters without helicopters!

The ONLY real sustainable way of harvesting in the future, would be to establish large tree farms, however such endeavours requires a fair amount of time, money, knowledge, labour and land. (Although I am aware it has been done, with almost all of the tryptamines being given away!)

Maybe we could all be in a position to benefit from these approaches in the future.... but barriers to such this occuring in any decent sized scale, largely remain the illegality of the tryptamines, lack of public knowledge and information about how to successfully utilise the tryptamines and lack of world demand.

Julian.

[Benzito]

There is some very good debate here guys, and I would have to say that I have been concerned about the spice available, at times, and how it was harvested.

Would introducing active Acacia species into bushland, that currently has none of said species, be a bad thing?

I would have thought so?

I generally go by the rule of: if wind, birds, or optimal growing conditions move it there: you can let it grow. (barring introduced species of course)

But I think there are too many humans on the earth these days for spreading seed, we can probably take ourselves out of the equation. We were probably a valuable seed-spreading species of animal thousands and thousands of years ago, but I think that our 'globalised' society is too dangerous for us to be spreading seeds. The consequences could be disasterous. (Think Opuntia, Prickly Pear, in Australia a few decades ago)

Maybe I'm being too cautious, but introducing one plant can alot of the time, mean the elimination of others.

[Amulte]

Ive never killed a tree. i have harvested various herbs till the plant is stripped, but as a rule of thumb for every 1 i destory i plant 3 of what i killed where i killed it. i plant 3 so 2 will live and 1 can die if nature intends it.

i believe in making offerings to the tree before one violates it. like nutrient or tobacco (ive read that trees like tobacco). and then you dont strip it bare. you leave enough there so it can reflorish. like a small purning.i dont see the destruction of the whole tree a nessesity.

[Torsten]

Benzito, please keep in mind that most weeds are agricultural weeds rather than environmental weeds. LIke Datura, poppies, pokeweed etc, these are all weeds that only grow in disturbed areas. In fact, most agricultural plants are the worst weeds of them all. There are very few weeds that actually cause environmental damage. These range from aquatic weeds that choke waterways, to vines that kill rainforests, but you will find that no one is really interested in them anyway. 10 years ago when I got myself in a spot of trouble with quarantine they gave me this long lecture about 'preserving the australian way of life'. The mentioned aromatic weeds that taint milk, burr seeds that ruin wool, toxic plants that kill cattle, but when I asked about what they know about weeds impacting on rainforest they could not tell me ANYTHING. This has changed a little over the years as rainforest is now regarded as a resource due to eco-tourism, but it still features right at the bottom of the list of priorities for AQIS.

I am against introducing anything to natural bushland as even plants from other provenances close by could upset the delicate ecosystem. But introducing things to farmland and other disturbed sites is another matter. I would rather see a wattle from 500km away introduced to a paddock than having nothing at all.

[Rev]

i agree wholeheartedly

[wandjina]

hmm, yeah...so maybe acacia harvesting isn't having much effect, especially with reference to prevalence/distribution and N fixation. However, I would still argue that there could be unforeseen consequences to wild harvesting, perhaps especially in 'pristine' areas.

Rev, you have rightly pointed out that other plants and free-living microbes fix atmospheric N, however the symbiotic association between plants and other organisms can be extraordinarily specific.

For instance, michorrhizal 'relationships' between some sp. of Eucalypt and fungi can involve two distinct species that cannot survive independantly. The fungus needs the tree and visa versa. Put another way, many sp. of native michorrizal fungi can survive only with one particular species of tree/plant...they do not/can not 'symbiose' with any other.

I'm not as familiar with bacteria-plant symbiosis, but as far as i know the situation is similar. That is, perhaps one needs to think beyond genus to species (or even beyond, i.e. subspecies...taxonomy, arrrgggh):

what species of bacteria 'x' symbioses with Acacia 'y'? It may well be that there are specific bacterium associated with A.ob, another for A.comp... or even more specific down to 'regional genotypes' etc.

These distinct and specific relationships could thus have distinct and specific effects on the rhizospere, and hence on micro/macro-biological diversity, soil chemistry/structure etc, and myriad ecological processes of varying magnitudes.

That said...the overall effect may well be small...but I dont think this means it should be ignored, even if roots aren't being removed. Ecological succession occurs over decades, centuries, millenia. Maybe this is just a 'drop in the bucket', but maybe it isn't. I'd still argue its worthy of consideration nonetheless. Who knows what the long-term consequences will be?

Especially when I know for a fact that some areas have been much more heavily harvested than indicated by many of the figures listed above.

From an ecological perspective, humans out there seeking tryptamines to fuel an opening of minds... in scale is so minute compared to old growth logging and mechanical deforrestation still occuring in Australia and most parts of the world and is potentially very beneficial to an awakening of humanity, rather than the mindless destruction for cheap and abundant amounts of timber....

Julian, I think you make some very convincing arguments, but still, in principle, I cannot agree with taking an entire tree and not giving anything back, even if, relative to conventional logging practices, it is done on a small scale and with good intention. Something valuable (and I dont mean economically) is still being removed from an ecosystem that we neither cultivated nor cared for.

As Amulte said, perhaps some 'nourishment', even an offering of sorts. I've heard/read/seen this done on many occassions...from when an animal is hunted and eaten, or a plant 'harvested'.

t just seems to me there's alot of taking going on, but not much 'remuneration'.

I heard of a guy who lugs out water and leaves offerings of tobacco. The difficulty of carrying the 10L of water is his way of showing respect and gratitude, of putting something back...even if it is just 'in principle'.

[folias]

A couple of friends of mine found this area near an area of great toxicity, where potentially huge amounts of poisons were being leached into the eco-system due to industrial activities...

They found an area near there with a whole bunch of acacias growing on the land, seemingly in response to the toxicity...it was the like the trees were cleaning it up somehow... with giant tubers... it seems that fires must go through the area quite regularly and mow down the trees, but leave the tubers!

After an hour or so of harvesting the tubers, a being appeared to them, some kind of beast in the etheric, which they both experienced and talked to, it seemed like this beast was a keeper of the land, maybe some kind of spirit the aboriginals were in contact with... the beast seemed disturbed and angry with my two friends and told them to leave right away. They said, wait on, and explained what they were doing and how valuable it was what they were doing and how they were happy to have found this way of harvesting material without killing trees...just pulling out tubers and suckers which they said were covering almost every inch of soil!

The beast/spirit seemed to take note, but still demanded they leave... so they left right away.

Six months later they came back to the same area... and only 6 months or so had passed in the spring and winter months...but the whole place had literally gone off! Even more suckers were growing and the tubers seemed to be twice as big! They had brought an offering of tobacco to the being (who had a name I can't recall) and he seemed happy with that and also they felt his approval into what he was doing... perhaps there was a connection being forged to the human world via these activities?

They said it was like the area had literally discovered that there was something going on here, a reason for this growth and had responded in an immense way... over an hour they would have harvested about 5 times as much material as they had the first time they were there!

To me this is an example of a co-creative and communicative way of being with nature... personally, I think the best thing we can give is ourselves and our sensitive and aware nature... this brings up question of what does nature/the environment really wants from us in general! What could we do that would really help... and I think we have got to help ourselves first before we can intelligently assess what we can do for the land! And actually be sensitive and aware to actually do something for that... certainly giving thanks with an offering could be useful, but it also could become tokenesque and structured over time... and people then may not actually have real gratitude and thanks in their heart - for the gift, to humanity, which in this case is immense.

(a link sent to me recently!

http://www.gogratitude.com/masterkey)

There are lots of ways that people are doing things... the indigenous people take what they need from the land with gratitude... and live OFF the land who is bountiful and provides all they need! Western man has strayed from that way obviously.... it seems to me as a species we are only just learning to discover the nature of the intelligence in nature! The acacias are really helping in the world scheme in that mission... and I would say is probably one of natures most powerful catalysers to human beings and I do think the trees are a gift to all of us at this present time... how we proceed to utilise this gift is up to us all collectively I think...

I have been concerned about these issues... but am aware that it is not my right to tell other people how to do things... especially, when people are really sensitive about doing this already... and most people seem to do it in great secrecy amid all kinds of personal pressures and forces, thoughts and feelings...

But I would say to anyone who is harvesting acacias, be aware of your attitude, are you aware there is a sentient being there? Are you able to discern an individuality and life force to that sentiant being? Are you sensitive to the life force of this being? Are you able to communicate it and understand its life force and how it lives within its environment?

If not, I would say you could be in way over your head and should rethink working with the trees (I am aware of a high burnout rate in this area!), and resulting material coming out of your activities may be more detrimental than beneficial.

Julian.

[Rev]

Rev, you have rightly pointed out that other plants and free-living microbes fix atmospheric N, however the symbiotic association between plants and other organisms can be extraordinarily specific.

in theory i accept you may be right but i do ask for examples with the fungi

In my understanding there is not nearly as much specificity as you imply with mycorhizas

VAM fungi specifically seem to inhabit an area and over time even as the vegetation changes they do not. They are broadly adapted to many genera and stay put - until landslide, flooding or cultivation interupt them

they sporulate but dont spread far from the origin

ECM fungi which include the basidiomyscetes and ascomycetes we often see as mushrooms are also usually broad based yet alot more mobile.

some are amenable to culture but many are not (yet) however they do tend to to be found across wide ranges and have several hosts

There are several strains of rhizobium bacteria and yes these fall into groups of classification which suit different species.

one thing to remmeber though is that bacteria are not nearly as fixed as eukaryotic cells. they swap and change DNA and mutate regularly - for example teh differences between the 'species' Bacillus anthracis and bacillus thuringiensis and ba cillus cereus are almost the same organisms. in theory one cold turn into a close representation of the other if they picked up each others genes

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Biopestici...ons-Cummins.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...7&dopt=Citation

thats going to be a common theme in bacteria

so yes your concerns do have some weight butthe situation is a fair bit more complex because bacterai fungi are true survivors - plants and animals come and go but these blighters stay the distance

Edited December 21, 2005 by Rev

[jasemateau]

all this dicussion about acacias is very interesting, the only qoute or question to the subject i have is.

is the target substance somewhat easy to extract?

or would one need a basic to moderate knowledge of chems to get the substance.

if it was easy then there is concern.

and if how much raw material would equate to an experience?

[Rev]

it isnt hard but i dont think this makes it worrisome

the drug itself remains the best protection for the plant

its the kind of susbtance thats relatively and practically unsaleable

i mean literallly often it cant be given away!

its just such a powerful thing and not always pleasant but most often confronting. I can think of 20 other ways id rather try if i wanted a good time

it is mindblowing but an aversion develops to it quickly

i think those who keepo with it must need to tie it into some bigger framework in their lives

most people find it too confronting even those with extensive experience with hallucinogens

i dont go near it anymore. Id go aya again in the right time and place but im well over smoking

if you gave it to someone wanting to get high youd prob scare the shit out of them and theyd never touch it again, and theyd tell their friends as well.

maybe thered be an international bark market that migh threaten the populations but somoene selling crystal is going to be faced with the dificuty of maintaining customers id think

[folias]

The hip and groovy propoganda is that DMT is hip and groovy and every man and his dog is into it... and I think perhaps a lot of the "psy trance" or related hip and groovy people would like to be into it in theory, but a lot of it is just ego I think. (ever met people who have showed you their 7 different types of DMT?!)

For some, DMT remains "The Brief History of Time" of drugs... and many just seem to keep it safely stored on the shelf in case they feel they want to do it someday.

Those that do it at a reasonable dose, are often truly blasted and have no desire to go back.... even though it may have entirely changed their lives more than anything ever has!

And you have those who like to make friends with it over time...

There are enthusiasts of course.... who have made it part of their "lifestyle" and even "scene"...but not that many! It's not something many people keep reaching back for or see a need to keep doing it. Once you get the message, you have got the message and there isn't much more growth to be found there!

I know quite a few people who have smoked DMT 100 + times, who just get turned back "at the gates" in a little bit of menacing way... as if to say, "haven't you got the message?" "what are you doing back here?"

I think in the crystal form it has a limited but extremely powerful applicability... I haven't really gone in deep for about three years... strong ayahuasca takes me much deeper into the human domain... ands contains elements of the smoked DMT experience anyway if it is strong!

Julian.

[Rev]

... strong ayahuasca takes me much deeper into the human domain...

i really think i know what you mean on all accounts

smoked crystal DMT as you imply is an icebreaker, and not something to be missed

but for healing and mainatenance of health aya is a much more applicable

i have felt an 'earthing' effect from the vine that keeps it real, keeps it relevant to helping your everyday life and personal developmant as a human not just as and intelligent entity