Penny Frazier, a wild crops farm-producer, asks these questions of blog readers:
1) Of the forest plans you know, do they have sections about special forest products?
2) Have forest plans every been challenged on the basis that they are not managing for multiple use? (By not allowing certain uses)
3) Has there ever been litigation about permits or activities around special forest products?
Our Forest plan is fairly mute on special forest products. It allows for Native Americans to take and use traditional plants. The plan has a goal to “provide fuelwood, post, pole. Chirtmas tree, and other non-sawtimber, miscellaneous forest products to help meet public demand, while contributing to the attainment of timberland and other resource goals and objectives.” It also has the guideline of ” in cases where plant collection permits are issued, digging and removing whole plants should be discouraged in favor of collecting seeds or cuttings.”
I don’t know of any challenges or litigation. The biggest special products issues we’ve had was the flood of morel mushroom pickers and buyers that came in after large fires.
> Once the tree reaches maturity, though, it slows its consumption of carbon.
December 2012 National Geographic just refuted this for giant Sequoias; the article said many other species have never actually been checked. It’s asserted as a reason for logging old growth. Hm, how could the industry get this wrong?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/sequoias/quammen-text
I think maybe you meant this comment for the previous (or next) post. Good point though.
thanks, my mistake; reposted that where I meant it to go.