Originally posted by mustard seed
In my own fight to end this I developed and used on private land a system based upon Paul Staments work with fungi. I proved we could go into a clear
cut and inocculate the broadleaf stumpage from which the quickest regrowth occured with edible but destructive fungi like oyster mushroom and #ake to
not only provide jobs at a lower cost than chemical application, it would develop an income with as little as six months depending on time of
inocculation via picking permits for the timberland. This and less destruction of habitat would equal the success of chemical application and provide
a healthier ecology and faster growth via healthy soils. We were flat told there was no interest.
Make them say no again, and again, and again.
What you describe here sounds genius to me.
If I had to guess, the main obstacle would be capacity.
If they can't order hundreds of acres covered with a pen stroke,
then it will seem like too much trouble and unable to meet their needs.
That and the competitors selling the chemicals are going to use fear, uncertianty, and doubt (fud)
to keep their contracts. Saying things like, "its unproven", "if you let them in you can't trust them,"
and "what are the ecological effects of these fungi"
But that doesn't mean it's not a winning strategy, or
that all these things can't be over come.
Even picking up a single acre to help them meet their target coverage will get the foot in the door.
The key is to present oneself, and behave like a partner with a money saving solution.
When convincing an university academic to do a study on the effects, maybe then is the time
to appeal to one's sense of health and environment. But not with the companies themselves.
Remember the timber industry is still paranoid that "The Monkey Wrench Gang" is out there spiking trees.
edit on 16-5-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)