AusBonsai

Hi guys,

Branching off from the customs thread here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9950

Imagine you find an old NATIVE tree - furthermore, a wild remnant - not planted by man in a completely natural setting and you have the legal permission from the landowner to collect the tree.
You are not sure of: *It's survival
*It's impact on surrounding flora
*It's impact on surrounding fauna
*The species you are collecting
*How common or uncommon the species is
*The overall impact on the surrounding environment

All you know it that you like this tree and you can take it if you want. Do you take it? How concerned are you about the environmental impact of your actions?

Joel

Without knowing how likely the tree is to survive it's relocation, I would probably not take it. I will go with 'no'.

At least one, ideally all, of the following must apply before I will take a tree:
-Previous experience should help the tree survive
-Tree is in a place where it will not live for long, or is destined for destruction
-Planted by man, or to be replaced by man
-Removal of tree will have positive, or minimal, environmental effect. (i.e. dont remove a tree thats holding a bank/water runoff. If tree is in a group, or has many saplings ready to grow up underneath, its removal will have minimal effect... etc.)
-Tree is an invasive weed (and/or not native)

(edit: random comment - I love the word 'ethicacy'. Should so be a real word. Like 'saucify' and 'tastify' )

Only if it was in my or a friends garden and it needed to be removed, id rather see a bonsai than a dead tree.

This reminds me of a topic I found once when searching the forum for bonsai and its effects on the environment:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3670&start=0

Mainly because I could not have a hight percentage of survival I would not collect.

If it is the last of a stand of trees then the chances of it surviving in the wild are probably low so If you can collect and preserve it, then that wouls be the better option for me. I would rather see a healthy bonsai than a dead stump

Ken

Joel wrote:Hi guys,

Branching off from the customs thread here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9950

Imagine you find an old NATIVE tree - furthermore, a wild remnant - not planted by man in a completely natural setting and you have the legal permission from the landowner to collect the tree.
You are not sure of: *It's survival
*It's impact on surrounding flora
*It's impact on surrounding fauna
*The species you are collecting
*How common or uncommon the species is
*The overall impact on the surrounding environment

All you know it that you like this tree and you can take it if you want. Do you take it? How concerned are you about the environmental impact of your actions?

Joel

Joel,

If it is destined to be destroyed by development...
OR
Is constantly slashed because its growing where man doesnt want it..
AND
Given timing, adequate access and most importantly the knowledge (and preferably experience) to ensure it's survival
THEN
Yes, I would collect without a qualm.

I often come across fantastic wild trees & shrubs that would be awesome to collect but don't meet my own criteria above... these are left in place.

Matt

TheNumber13 wrote:-Tree is in a place where it will not live for long, or is destined for destruction
-Planted by man, or to be replaced by man
-Tree is an invasive weed

+1 for these three ethical rules of thumb

cre8ivbonsai wrote:

TheNumber13 wrote:-Tree is in a place where it will not live for long, or is destined for destruction
-Planted by man, or to be replaced by man
-Tree is an invasive weed

+1 for these three ethical rules of thumb

+2

I have a mate on Council who will give me a heads up if any trees are to be lopped or pulled. Or like Matt said if its going to end up as land fill under a new suburb i wont hesitate as long as i know i can keep it alive.

Interesting topic, thanks for posting.
I realise that this will be a sensitive subject for many, with a black or white response...mostly black I assume (NO).
I realise that as humans we are great at justifying our actions to suit our wants or needs (and self-deception runs rife amongst many).
Having said that, I would have liked to see another option..."Yes, depending on the situation."
This most probably wasn't included because as I eluded to above, it could very well be interpreted as meaning whatever one wants it to mean.
I do however believe that in many situations there is a "grey" area...not all things are black or white.
So my ideal, if not open-ended response would be...Yes, I would collect a native species without hesitation given "cetain" circumstances.
What are those certain circumstances?...I guess you just have to trust your own judgement.
I will say that there would probably be more circumstances in which I believe you shouldn't collect a native, but certainly some circumstances where (as I said), I wouldn't hesitate...I guess you just have to trust your own moral compass and believe that it is an objective, and not a subjective one.
I am only giving my honest opinion here, so no need to attack me or twist my words to suit your point of view.
I have thought long about the issue of collecting in general and believe that I understand the arguements for and against.
I don't believe that it is a matter of life or death, or even one of supreme seriousness when compared to some of life's issuses that have the ability to really galvinise people and force them to choose a side...and that is why I state...in my opinion, there is a grey area here and that it would very much "depend" on the individual circumstances of the native in question.
Sorry if that is a general respnse, I am not meaning to sit on the fence...just what I believe.
If I really had to choose one or the other...it would be "yes" but I would base that on the above...only in certain circumstances.
Cheers, Dario.
PS. appologies if someone has already posted something to this affect...I read the topic, posted my poll selection and then wrote a response...am yet to read others responses...will do that now.

Dario wrote:I would have liked to see another option..."Yes, depending on the situation."
This most probably wasn't included because as I eluded to above, it could very well be interpreted as meaning whatever one wants it to mean.

Hi Dario,

I didn't include another option like that because as it is people will make up loop holes and justifications. I am aware that fire trails are cleared and so there is little issue there etc. People will bring up different situations that they can relate to and different reasons for justifying their wants.

Fact is, given that situation and the information that was available, there is only one ethical option. I didn't want to spend an entire day being a lawyer and foolproof my wording of the question.

I wonder what reality is though? I wouldn't hesitate to guess a lot more people would take the tree (assuming it were of great quality/aesthetics) than what is indicated here. Though it is good to see a majority of the people have indicated they have a problem with collecting this theoretical tree.

Joel

When this is happening I have no qualms at all, and in WA, it is happening a lot of late.[attachment=0]DSCN1753.JPG[/attachment

Or if it is in an area that get;s slashed by the shire on a regular basis, having a scientific licence to dig does not mean wanton collecting]

I do it less now as I have enough trees in my collection and the larger ones are more of an impediment. As age creeps up and the body is no longer capable of handling larger trees, I still look for the small ones, and allow some friends to dig in areas I have found.
As long as they are ethical and treat the area with respect, just because it is going to be raped by the machines, does not mean you are not responsible for decent behavior.

Remember some areas marked for clearing may not be done for years so do not leave eyesores around.

Also some areas of pest plants that are on private land, need permission and also the same ethics. What you take in you bring out and you fill any holes left by your digging.

It does not need to be a big hole to drown a Bobby calf.

Just my Pup

I answered 'no' to this poll mainly because I don't collect natives at all, only plants considered 'noxious weeds.' But even then, it is often not necessary to dig up an entire tree. Rather than this approach, I have instead decided to take airlayers of branches and the like that I believe have potential. That way you are not actually removing any plant, or leaving behind an unsightly mess. There is also a much greater chance of survival this way, provided your airlayering technique is sound.

James

I find it very interesting reading the responses to this thread. Personally I have no problem collecting but I do ask myself a few questions before starting and these have been eluded to by previous responses. Whether the tree will survive is always the big one and can the tree be collected straight away or in stages? whether the tree is a native or not doesn't matter to me. I know that I can provide the tree with the aftercare it needs. Certainly collecting from national parks and reserves is NOT something I do as I think a respect for these areas is paramount. But from farms, council clearings, development projects etc (with permission) why not? Commonsense always prevails.

Environmental impact? How big is the tree your digging? Usually the trees I'm looking for are twistied and tortured due to less than favourable growing conditions and certainly not big trees that provide an ecosystem for flora or fauna of the surrounding area.
If you have permission and if you tidy up and leave minimal disturbance (no big holes)and take your rubbish with you, then you've done your part.
Collected material always makes for some of the most interesting bonsai. Nature is the ultimate designer, we only try to replicate it.
Andrew

Pup wrote:
Also some areas of pest plants that are on private land, need permission and also the same ethics.

Good point Pup. Bush regenerators know not to remove all weeds at once. A large area of Lantana makes GREAT habitat for small birds.

Generally I am disappointed in the way people talk about collecting in Australia. It is true we do not collect much compared to other countries, but we have so much more diversity and therefore less of each species. In a country where all you see is pines for hundreds of square kilometres, one less isn't as much of as a problem as one unidentified plant of ours.

Honestly, I believe there is only one responsible answer to the question I have asked. And although it is so far the winning response, less than half the people voted for it. Obviously there are legitimate reasons for taking such a tree, like land clearing that has been mentioned. But given the situation pure and simple like I gave it, I don't think that should be assumed.

What makes me happy is that there are many people that are uncertain about collecting this theoretical tree, and many who would collect it but feel a little uneasy about doing so. This gives me hope I can persuade these people to do what is best for the environment. I might write up a thread sometime on the pro's and con's of collecting. This will not be a "how to" thread as my experience with collecting natives is rather limited.

Don't get me wrong, the most amazing stock I have ever seen has been on headlands. I have seen natural bonsai that are far better than anything I have ever produced. Would I want them in my collection? Of course!!!!!!!!!!! I want all of them! But there is no way I could ever justify taking one of them from the wild unless all of that criteria (and probably more) was fulfilled.

Joel

G'day Joel,

This is a very interesting and thought provoking thread.

What are your (and everyone's) thoughts on collecting a native tree from a suburban property? One that was planted by man and not endemic to the area?

Regards,
Steven