|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45669 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Northern_Lad
Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 14210 Location: Somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Northern_Lad
Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 14210 Location: Somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45669 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
Northern_Lad
Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 14210 Location: Somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 05 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
I missed that, but it makes sense as an idea.
The problem with conserving woodlands is that suppose you've got a great native woodland; what can you do to give it economic value? You can protect it with legislation, you can make it a SSSI, you can make it a conservation area, but by far the best way of protecting a site is to give it economic worth.
If you can get a sustainable harvest from a woodland, you're better positioned to protect it.
Now, people will pay a LOT for mushrooms, which always makes me laugh (I mean, why pay for something you could spend four hours in the rain, ankle deep in mud gathering for free?). And that means that if you're running a forestry plantation you can link up with someone else who can harvest mushrooms and other wild crops, giving you a cut. This can be taken a step further, and you can farm extra crops in the woodlands (for a great example, see:https://www.oregonwhitetruffles.com/index.html).
So the kind of scheme mentioned here makes great sense from both a conservation and economic perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
|