A sad site (image heavy)

[reshroomED]

It seems that Coschi did what you, and more particularly El Duderino, seem to want. i.e even though he has killed trees, he came on here and demonized that practice.

I never wanted him to demonize anything, only to stop advocating killing trees for dmt.

Yet everyone seems to be saying that if you are going to kill trees then don't talk about it...well isn't that exactly what coschi DID?

Doing something and not speaking of your actions, and condemning others for performing similar actions is not the same thing.

I've just re-read this thread from the start.

Coschi, your defended method of acquiring bark is to strip the lower trunk to the point where it kills the tree, then come back later for the remaining bark.

Is the point that you're trying to make that the trees in your original post didn't have enough bark taken from them?

How is it wrong to only injure a tree by ring-barking it, yet quite acceptable to kill one via the same method?

No-one seems to dispute that plenty of material can be gained ethically, only that doing so would take more effort.

TOO FUCKING LAZY

what is it about spice? this so called 'spirit molecule' that can cause peoples personalitys to become such pretentious,self righteous wankers suffering some twisted god complex? ive seen it 1000 times, and fuk its gross.

and ultimately they go down,,,hard.

Well put jono, I was thinking something very similar myself last night. Some seem to instantly embark on a mission-from-god and attack their crusade with all the fervour of a religious zealot.

ed

[Undergrounder]

Ummm can i throw something in here... But first, its not my intention to advocate killing trees. I hope that i can say something without having what i say turned against me or into something else. I just want to get some facts straight. If you know differently, you're welcome to correct me.

We're not talking about Californian Redwoods here, we're talking about wattles. Now i know as a fact because i've seen it personally, Acacia obtusifolia suckers from its roots. It's called coppicing. As in if you chop down a tree and strip it of its bark, then new branches will grow from the roots and the tree will regrow. Acacias have been considered for large scale wood production for this very reason, the idea being you can plant a population, cut them down and then they'll just grow straight back from the old root mass.

So you're not really killing a tree by cutting it down.

But i'm not advocating cutting down trees anyway, i don't think that's necessary - let alone ethical. My larger point is, every decade or so most bush is wiped out by fire. If you've ever seen the regrowth in an acacia area after fire, you'll find acacias literally everywhere. You can go on about dead limbs and dead fall but sooner or later every single acacia obtusifolia there is going to be 'killed' by fire, whether you were 'ethical' in your harvesting or not. And just as night follows day, every single one of those obtusifolias is going to return and probably dominate the landscape much quicker than any other understory tree in the area.

Most Aussie trees were designed to be destroyed every decade or two. When you're talking about 'sustainable' as a watermark for collecting acacia material, then with a big enough population, in a fire-prone area, i think the measure is a lot higher than most people think.

[The Dude]

I suppose if the usual lifespan is 20-25 years and a fire happens every decade or 2 then this all fits together, interesting questions raised about destruction as a form of creation, much like mushrooms growing in number through picking and spore spreading, maybe the acacia regrowth is greater after a fire destruction. Also keep in mind that fire is in many ways responsible for the regrowth. Not only the destruction but also some chemical in smoke that promotes plant growth.

Cutting down some trees, or ringbarking them to the point where they die slowly isn't the same thing as a fire and I have NFI but would think this increases chance of infection too and spreading this in the population.

I guess this is the grey zone and we are only figuring out what works for ethical harvesting and sustainability. What prompts this is the 'TOO FUCKING LAZY' element of humanity, that which inspires new inventions and discoveries to make shit easier. However while we slowly accumulate knowledge on what works, we should be patient and put in the extra effort to be extra ethical in harvesting because there is enough and it works and that is certain.

Ballzac, sorry but wtf?

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."

So you know people that promote sustainability and claim it to be a healthy attitude but you yourself say things to the contrary.

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.

Ah so we 'should' act 'ideally' according to some kind of ideals, like ethical harvesting and sustainability to make as little impact as possible, but it 'probably' doesn't matter if we make as big an impact as possible through culling trees, and it's okay for everybody to do what they want as we have no personal responsibility for the greater circuit-tree, to steal that term from E... (actually CircuiTree is also the concept name of a few upcoming trance parties in Adelaide: link)

Your post is too dichotomous for me to make any sense of it dude.

You should act with some kind of ethical code.

but probably, it makes no difference and you shouldn't really do anything.

You can't sit on the fence and agree with both sides as they are contradictory.

[Coschi]

Cutting down some trees, or ringbarking them to the point where they die slowly isn't the same thing as a fire and I have NFI but would think this increases chance of infection too and spreading this in the population.

I guess this is the grey zone and we are only figuring out what works for ethical harvesting and sustainability. What prompts this is the 'TOO FUCKING LAZY' element of humanity...

ehhhh come on dude but that's bs

death is death, is the discussion here about sustainability or 'ethical practice' ?

if we're talking sustainability then re-read undergrounder's post as he points out some real facts

if you're talking ethical practice then yes, it's well and truly agreed that ringbarking a tree is not a good way to go (yes yes i've done it so fucking write some shit and beat off to it; however i've since learnt different BAH point fucking made, enough of that one); like i've said again and again, chop it, take it all

and too fucking lazy.. ?

fyi it took me about two years of CONSTANT persuit to get to a point where i know where it is and how to get it out, laziness is not the point here. If you're saying too fucking lazy in the sense that we should plant some seeds (and mindyou risk introduction of a new species to an area that may kill existing etc.. etc..) AND WAIT 20 FUCKING YEARS then... let's be realistic

Edited January 30, 2008 by Coschi

[Undergrounder]

death is death, is the discussion here about sustainability or 'ethical practice' ?

Actually i don't really know what causes the suckering, dude might be right, you might need a quick and substantial death right down to the stump for those nodes to come to life. I have a feelings its more than just fire, as coppice crops sucker freely when you chop them down to the lower stump.

But if a slow death does it, i really don't know.

[Coschi]

Agreed that ringbarking a tree and leaving it in place likely wouldn't lead to suckers

But what i'm saying should be done is a straight cut as low as possible

the stump is left with about 20cm height on it and roots in tact while the fallen tree can be stripped (with all parts easily accessible)

The main thing i agreed with you about was the seeds -> fire -> new growth thing. I recently collected seed from a maidenii, I collected only about a hundered but from the number of open seed pods there would have been literally thousands of seeds scattered around the area; consider the amount of seeds a maidenii or similarly an obtus would scatter by the age of 20. Bring on the fires and they'd all be laughing

[ThunderIdeal]

even though suckers could maybe regrow a lot of bark fairly quickly, they're not going to lead to a big beautiful tree. i could be wrong but this style of wood production is unlikely to be used for producing anything larger than a coppice log which is about as thick as your thigh. regrowth can give a root system another shot at life but it just isn't the same as a nice straight seed grown tree. why? because in an ideal tree, every stem is firmly held in place, anchored deep into the wood. whenever you see epicormic growth on a tree (suckers, water shoots, any fresh growth coming through old wood) then the stem may potentially grow large but it isn't held in place properly and is probably going to fall on somebodies head. therefore a sucker may grow into a large tree, i dunno, but it's going to be more likely to just snap where it is attached to the roots and come down in a storm.

[Undergrounder]

even though suckers could maybe regrow a lot of bark fairly quickly, they're not going to lead to a big beautiful tree. i could be wrong but this style of wood production is unlikely to be used for producing anything larger than a coppice log which is about as thick as your thigh. regrowth can give a root system another shot at life but it just isn't the same as a nice straight seed grown tree. why? because in an ideal tree, every stem is firmly held in place, anchored deep into the wood. whenever you see epicormic growth on a tree (suckers, water shoots, any fresh growth coming through old wood) then the stem may potentially grow large but it isn't held in place properly and is probably going to fall on somebodies head. therefore a sucker may grow into a large tree, i dunno, but it's going to be more likely to just snap where it is attached to the roots and come down in a storm.

The suckering 'trees' i've seen look more like giant bushes. 3m high, lots of vertical shoots up to an an inch wide with smaller branches coming off them also reaching vertical. I read somewhere that commercial coppicing crops see an increase in wood mass after the first harvest and then 10 - 20% less every time after that until the plant becomes unviable.

acacia obtus 5 - 6 years after fire.

acacia obtus 100m away but protected from fire.

[ballzac]

You can't sit on the fence and agree with both sides as they are contradictory.

This is what I mean about people being black and white about the issue. Either it's gotta be:

"Chop down one tree and the universe will collapse. Rot in hell all you acacia murderers."

or

"Everyone go out and bulldoze acres of obtuse. Go on, it'll make you feel good."

What's wrong with holding the opinion that it's probably not going to make a huge amount of difference if trees are chopped down in small numbers, yet also being aware that people should try to tread lightly 'just in case' I am wrong? You guys are so fucking sure of yourselves.

Show us a study that has found that obtusifolia numbers are diminishing. There aren't any are there? No. You just have your opinion same as everyone else, but your obviously right, because you know better than anyone else.

[reshroomED]

Of course harvesting bark is a bit of a 'grey' issue, and if someone had gone out and felled a tree to collect some bark no-one would be the wiser (bar the person involved - and maybe wiser isn't the best word to use either).

I think the major issue was with the advertised bark-stripping for extraction (and encouragement thereof on the web), and the slow demise of the tree, rather than the death of the tree itself.

That being said, I still see no reason that felling is necessary other than laziness.

These things grow in the mountains. Get yourself some topographical maps of the area and go for a look (this means drive out into the bush - ie leave the bitumen far behind- and then go for a walk).

Pick any decent gully where they live and you'll find plenty fallen/about -to-fall from the constant erosion. Or wait 'til after a storm or flood (and I don't mean a flood in Melbourne, watch river-heights, rain, and wind in the appropriate area).

Or 'til the fire-trails are graded.

Shit, in the last six months you could have gathered literally truck-loads of bark without ever killing one tree.

I can think of half-a-dozen places off the top of my head where bush-blocks are being bought and cleared in remote areas (and not *that* remote either). A lot less than two-year's effort to achieve this.

Two trips (at the outside) to gather as much as you could want, without hurting a tree.

And doing less than this isn't lazy?

Coschi, I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting, but your replies are getting more and more inconsistent. The only mention of actual 'cutting' wood so far has been by me (and jono re pruning - to which you replied "then you'd need a ladder" or somesuch). Now (not 'a long time ago' when you changed your ways, but today) you're advocating felling.

Anyways, I've had my say, and can see no point in furthering this argument. Feel free to rebut as you will.

cheers,

ed

[Coschi]

[Mycot]

Ummm can i throw something in here... But first, its not my intention to advocate killing trees. I hope that i can say something without having what i say turned against me or into something else. I just want to get some facts straight. If you know differently, you're welcome to correct me.

We're not talking about Californian Redwoods here, we're talking about wattles. Now i know as a fact because i've seen it personally, Acacia obtusifolia suckers from its roots. It's called coppicing. As in if you chop down a tree and strip it of its bark, then new branches will grow from the roots and the tree will regrow. Acacias have been considered for large scale wood production for this very reason, the idea being you can plant a population, cut them down and then they'll just grow straight back from the old root mass.

So you're not really killing a tree by cutting it down.

But i'm not advocating cutting down trees anyway, i don't think that's necessary - let alone ethical. My larger point is, every decade or so most bush is wiped out by fire. If you've ever seen the regrowth in an acacia area after fire, you'll find acacias literally everywhere. You can go on about dead limbs and dead fall but sooner or later every single acacia obtusifolia there is going to be 'killed' by fire, whether you were 'ethical' in your harvesting or not. And just as night follows day, every single one of those obtusifolias is going to return and probably dominate the landscape much quicker than any other understory tree in the area.

Most Aussie trees were designed to be destroyed every decade or two. When you're talking about 'sustainable' as a watermark for collecting acacia material, then with a big enough population, in a fire-prone area, i think the measure is a lot higher than most people think.

Jesus Christ Undergounder, with so many people here trying very hard to preserve the integrity of the species posts like this isn't helping. I figure you don't mean such and I'm not having a go at you but read this thread from the beginning paying especial attention to post number 9 (which describes the complete elimination of obtuse from an ecosystem) and you'll see that obtuse is not the indestructible being that you make it sound and co-relates not at all with your post.

OK, down to some straight facts. We are NOT talking about "wattles" here, or "acacias" or "Most Aussie trees" but one particular species(with several possible subspecies) with its own unique needs for survival integrity.(so we could well be talking about Calif Redwoods)

Secondly while some strains/populations of obtuse display good suckering tendencies, other strains/populations of obtuse don't display this characteristic at all.(peyote is similar in pupping tendency) Once the tree is chopped down it is well and truly dead with no recovery whatsoever. So the risk of losing populations of obtuse is still very real.

On fires, while some Australian ecosystems benefit from occasional fires we should be very cautious about applying this to all Australian ecosystems as on some fire can have only a destructive effect with loss of species and diversity.

Obtuse also often grows in areas (rocky outcrops, moist gully's etc) where it is unlikely to encounter fire as part of it's natural cycle.

[Undergrounder]

Jesus Christ Undergounder, with so many people here trying very hard to preserve the integrity of the species posts like this isn't helping. I figure you don't mean such and I'm not having a go at you ... you'll see that obtuse is not the indestructible being that you make it sound and co-relates not at all with your post.

'Jesus Christ' Mycot is it possible to post something on this forum without being put down because what you say is controversial? You are having a go at me. Half of everything on this forum is newbies getting the shit kicked out of them and a whole lot of grand-standing and pretentious lecturing. If the post is unhelpful to your particular agenda i couldn't really care less.

I think the idea of selecting the facts to suit your message, which is what you're saying i should do, is deceitful. There was no message in what i had to say, i don't care if its 'unhelpful' to peace and unity and love and sweetness and light and all that is holy and good, its objective and it deserves to be included.

And on the facts, i stand by what i said, particularly that every single tree has suckered well and that all of them have been in dry-schlerophyll FIRE-PRONE ridges and hills. Not a single riparian community among them. Not to mention that Acacia obtusifolia REQUIRES fire to spread. So i'm sure even those riparian trees you're talking about are designed to deal with fire at some point in their lives.

Acacia obtusifolia has reproduced and expanded from a single introduction in the [DELETED] in native bush as a result of inadvertent introduction of seed on earth-moving equipment. Initial establishment was dependent on soil disturbance, but subsequent spread has been episodic and dependent on fire-promoted germination and establishment. There is no evidence of seed germination and establishment in the absence of fires. The next fire may lead to a dramatic increase in both the number of A. obtusifolia plants and their local distribution.

And what's with proclaiming 'the facts' if they're not facts? "Once the tree is chopped down it is well and truly dead with no recovery whatsoever" is just wrong. I can back my 'facts' up, can you?

Physical evidence of damage to Acacia populations was obvious at all four road reserves, with approximately

100% of all above-ground biomass removed by grading, and only stumps and damaged roots remaining.

Resprouts of Acacia species emerged almost immediately in September 2001 at Soldier Settlement and Pat

Gleesons roads, often with vigorous growth of basal resprouts and root suckers.

A 'discussion' like this is useless if you're not willing to be open about it.

[ballzac]

Many good points there undergrounder.

It has bothered me about this thread that a certain few with a particular view, have forced this debate into an us versus them thing. There are lots of different viewpoints being expressed in this thread, but some people are forcing anyone who doesn't agree with them, into an opposing camp. I don't see that any members here are advocating unsustainable methods of collection. The debate here is about WHAT methods are sustainable and which ones aren't. A select few have completely missed this subtle difference and are waging a textual war on those that hold opinions that differ from theirs. Some are not only advocating "selecting the facts to suit your message" as undergrounder said, but also advocating direct lying about ones opinions on the matter. As you said, "A 'discussion' like this is useless if you're not willing to be open about it". Do we want to discuss this issue and have a flexible understanding of how best to preserve these plants, or do we want to stifle differing opinions and cause a rift between people who are all really on the same side?

[ThunderIdeal]

ideally, you could follow reshroomEd's method and collect certain types of material without harming a single tree, OR, you could grow your own and harvest at will (i have no ethical dramas about harvesting a plant that i've grown heck i kill plants 38 hours a week), although not everybody has land or land in a suitable climate.

i don't want to see our bush harmed any more than it has to be, there is too much of that in general without us hippies chipping in. on the other hand though, i want spice. you can't buy the stuff. make spice, please, and see that some of it comes up to queensland.

[The Dude]

Do we want to discuss this issue and have a flexible understanding of how best to preserve these plants, or do we want to stifle differing opinions and cause a rift between people who are all really on the same side?

I would say the problem here is that although we all claim to be lovey dubey hippies with all the best intentions, does that mean we can willingly turn a blind eye to destruction, and the advocating thereof, to ease our current situation having the desire to take a much more easier and less sustainable option, but having a potential guilt trip if we are aware of it. So lets find as many factoids about it's miraculous regrowth abilities, that although surely present, matter sweet fuck all if this message is to be advocated to the masses, that could potentially destroy trees and the regrowth quicker than any new populations can establish in a permanent way. Obviously as it is now, they are robust plants full of goodies and this seems a godsend, so is this entire planet and so far we've done too good a job at killing it through short sighted taking the easy route kind of mentality.

Now I understand that we need to discuss pros and cons of each method.. and then regrowth viability etc etc... For the purposes of a fair and accurate discussion of all known aspects regarding ethical acacia harvesting. The only problem is that with all the talk of its brilliant regrowth this is saying 'go right ahead it will grow back even better!' I'm sure that to some degree this is true but all is a matter of scale and the www is massive. So even though I'd love to have a panel of well educated conservationist and ethnobotany professionals discussing to the full extent each possible method. I still disagree with uninformed guessing of future implications of mass harvest of whole trees, that seems nothing more than wishful thinking for the sake of self justifying ones own desire to take the easy option. Many people will be quick to jump on any justification they find here.

Although an open discussion is pertinent, an open discussion on such a public forum where there is often self-justification for killing entire trees is totally counterproductive in terms of promoting conservation to the masses. In some retarded instances I really wish people would self censor.... like they initially said they would. I'm in no way for stifling discussion, i just see this going in circles and nothing good can come from playing down the effects of mass culling and the eventual threat of extinction.

UG: Taking data from fire prone populations and applying to all acacias is perhaps also misguided as there are all matter of conditions specific to selected ecologies and there is no one rule that applies. The destruction that happens naturally in fire cycles and the like would in no way compare to the extent us greedy humans are capable of. We may as well agree now, with the current global weather crisis that humans often live disharmoniously with nature. Although the being destroyed in fires is something that acacias have adapted to and taken advantage of, wtf does that have to do with widespread human devestation?

BZ: We're all on the same side ideologically, although some of us oblivious to the damage simple words may cause. I can understand your passion for keeping this balanced and promoting both 'sides' cuz its not black and white and lets discuss every grey option... how about we just agree to harvest the MULTITUDE of 'scraps' and just not be lazy eh? Better Safe than Sorry. A golden new age is coming (fukn hippy talk ) and I want our planet to stock up on multidimensional space dust, so don't be so greedy just yet.

Edited February 1, 2008 by The Dude

[chilli]

...is it possible to post something on this forum without being put down because what you say is controversial? You are having a go at me. Half of everything on this forum is newbies getting the shit kicked out of them and a whole lot of grand-standing and pretentious lecturing.

All I can say is... welcome to SAB!

[The Dude]

I'd wager that people would be quicker to cut down a tree in the wild way before they kill one in their own garden. Although they could sustainably harvest from both.

I was thinking about my maidenii, it's pretty small and possibly due to underwatering it has dropped a few leaves, still boosting mindyou. And I figured cool heres some material right here, i wonder how productive this tree would be in terms of pure fallen matter. Then I thought hey, going by what everyone says I should ringbark this and wait for it to boost again!!!

hahahaha no fucking way i could do that. So just with my own personal perspective I can see a bit of a double-standard where although I 'own' a certain plant I can't bring myself to mutilate it in such a way. If I was so inclined it'd be much easier for me to pick one of the many available trees in the wild and just kill that. I mean there's so many more available right? no big loss... no Personal loss.

Anyway everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including the opinion that you're opinion is shit. In such a way consensus is built... with shared opinions, and that no doubt causes a rift into seperate 'groups' as we gravitate towards the opinions we agree with. Now considering that consensus is usually bullshit we tend to have more faith in contrary points of view, or for some other reason, the underdog or challenger point of view, that they too must be heard cuz imposing the mainstream view is oppresive, however the underdog in the hippie community is The Man in the wider community, I don't see anything wrong with intolerance of destructive ideas.

(IMHO) This is a community guided by these benevolent plant spirits, I'd say there are some healthier ideas here than the wider world. Disagreements although spoken harshly are intended with love for the planet for you and everything. Not out of fear, just from an awareness of our fuckup-the-environment tendencies... usually with the help of people playing shit down.

Lets stick to the facts but not advocate killing based on a personally skewed perception of them. In any case I'm sure for all the talk of this even less people are hassled to do the work, and those that do quickly find out the ramifications of their actions and which path to take.

Edited February 1, 2008 by The Dude

[Mycot]

Welcome to SAB Undergrounder. Don't let my post put you off in any way. Not into bashing newb's here but you did jump into what is probably the most controversial thread going here at the moment. Under the circumstances perhaps a little flak is to be expected and I've noticed that some veterans here in this thread have copped it worse. Anyway welcome.

I do understand that you are speaking from your own observation and understanding of obtuse which may be entirely accurate for obtuse in your geographical region. I dont think however that one may assume without research that these characteristics are universal for obtuse across Australia because different genotypes may display quite different characteristics.

Hence I feel the need for utmost caution as what one may get away with in one region may be quite fatal in another.

Populations of obtuse have been known to have disappeared which hardly seems possible if obtuse was the uber-hardy plant that some think.

[Vertmorpheus]

"You met a man that took a stand

about his way to use the land

You showed him his other hand

So he then tried to understand

That all good things are in demand

be they a gift, or just theft from sand

The difference is but where you stand

and how far you choose to see

This understanding started to slow

Differential embers started to glow

In time you did forget your way

what not to do, what not to say

And pretty soon might come a day

That the land will take from you

We do not mean to make a fuss

or rag out you, or such n such

Just remember why we're here

Try to teach with love, not fear

You can not teach what can not be

All action leads to change, you'll see

You cannot lead yourself to grow

or hope to remain free

if simple respect you cannot show

to you, to him, for me, the Tree."

VM

Edited February 1, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[AndyAmine.]

I would like to reask a question I posted earlier in this thread regarding the use of fallen limbs and or phyllodes.

(purely out of a general interest in the subject)

What is the 1/2 life of this material?

How long before it reaches a point where it is no longer useful for extraction?

Are the alkaloids while in the bark volitile or damaged by O2 exposure?

If you dont think this should be posted in the thread, please PM me instead however I just thought it was pertinant to this discussion;.

[ballzac]

AFAIK the alkaloids are quite stable in the bark. I don't know how long they will survive, but probably a lot longer than the bark is recognizable/IDable.

[Undergrounder]

Don't know..

Edited April 4, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Coschi]

I was just going to mention that actually, of all the times i've been out to see them, perhaps 10 (sometimes it's actually just to say hello to my friends ), i've only once seen any usable fallen amount. By usable I mean fresh and ID'able, sometimes you'll see a big branch rotting on the ground who knows wtf that could be, but literally only once i'd seen an obtus (10yo perhaps) taken out of the ground because a large tree had fallen on it

[AndyAmine.]

The idea is to find a stand of tree's then go back and check for fallen limbs after a big, preferably windy storm...