New Forest fungi picking ban: Forestry Commission vs Forager's Association

[Geoff Dann]

The Forestry Commission has just banned all fungi foraging in the New Forest. The Forager's Assocation has responded with a press release urging them to reconsider, claiming it is not based on scientific evidence. Here's my take on the science, stripped of the mythology and vested interests:

http://www.geoffdann.co.uk/?p=1711

With the main mushroom season just around the corner, the long-running battle between foragers and conservationists has just gone into overdrive. This time it is serious: the Forestry Commission has banned all fungi foraging in the New Forest National Park.


I can’t say I’m surprised. The New Forest has increasingly become a victim of its own reputation as something of a Mecca for fungi foragers. It has been attracting pickers, both commercial and personal, from much further afield, and in recent years it has become harder and harder to find any fungi. However, the situation is quite complicated and many of the claims currently flying around both the mainstream media and the internet need to be examined quite carefully.


What has actually happened? According to numerous reports in the mainstream media (for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rest-commercial-pickers-broke-rule-taken.html), the Forestry Commission has now prohibited all picking of fungi on its land in the New Forest. The reasons given are that commercial pickers are flouting a 1.5kg per person per day rule, picking up to 50kg. The simplest solution to this problem, they say, is to ban all picking. The decision was taken, the FC has said, to protect both future populations of fungi and populations of insects whose grubs (“maggots”) feed on the fruit bodies.


In response to this ban, an organisation called “The Forager’s Association”, which describes itself as “An international professional foragers association, promoting sustainability and ecological stewardship through teaching and harvesting wild plands and fungi for used as food, drink and medicine” has issued a press release (see: http://www.foragers-association.org.uk/). I should disclose at this point that I am not a member of this organisation, but that I do know several of its members.


The contents of this press release are worth a close look if we want to get down to the truth underlying these issues. The press release is titled:

“Leading foraging educators claim New Forest fungi picking ban is will undermine future fungi growth”



Not only is the Forager’s Association claiming that fungi picking does no harm to future populations but that it actually helps the populations to grow. This is quite some claim, and I’ll examine it in detail below.



...continues...

 

[baggins]

A really interesting and balanced article Geoff.
It is a shame that the FC have seen fit to implement this ban but, having seen the effects of commercial foraging, i can understand their concern.
Again, it is the small time forager that this really effects.
Does anybody know if the FC are going to be implementing any studies of this complete ban to monitor the effects over a couple of seasons?

 

[Geoff Dann]

New blog post: Why the New Forest fungi foraging ban is wrong, even if the conservationists are right. http://www.geoffdann.co.uk/?p=1731

This is a long post (2000+ words). The short version is that nobody is asking the Forestry Commission or the conservationists the right questions. Maybe foraging does indeed have a negative impact on the population of a few species of fungi and insects (we don't know - the science has not been done). The question nobody is asking is whether, if this is true, the ecological damage would be serious enough to warrant banning such an overwhelmingly positive pastime. Does the reduction in the numbers of a few beetles and flies really matter all that much? If so, why?

 

[Klenchblaize]

So how do you differentiate between a fully paid-up mycelium-friendly Forager and everyone else who might wish to harvest fungi in the New Forest? 

I'm pretty sure the FC aren't in a position to employ a unit of Mushroom Police who's brief would be to check Foraging Licences, fungi quantity, type and the frequency of harvesting by a given individual. 
‎
There's just too many people on this overcrowded Island interested in being in the woods and enjoying what it has to offer for the FC to have done anything other than impose a blanket ban.   Even if policing it will be a significant challenge.  ‎

K‎

 

[ammo]

Will follow this closely. Thanks for posting.

 

[Robson Valley]

Have been some picking bans here, too. Matsutake (pine) mushrooms are running maybe $37.00/lb.
The mushroom fruiting bodies are just under the surface of the "duff", the floor of needles, in our pine forests.

The harvest consists of a great deal of searching = wholesale disturbance of the forest floor ecology.
I'll bet that's an issue in the New Forest as well.

No matter how many mushrooms you harvest, the forest soils remain alive with the mycelium = you can't get rid of that very easily.
Picking apples in no way kills the tree.

 

[baggins]

We're off on a fungi survey with some guys from Kew gardens next weekend. Be interesting to hear their take on the issue. These are Mycologists not foragers, but the same law will still apply to them i'm sure.

 

[Geoff Dann]

So how do you differentiate between a fully paid-up mycelium-friendly Forager and everyone else who might wish to harvest fungi in the New Forest?

I'm pretty sure the FC aren't in a position to employ a unit of Mushroom Police who's brief would be to check Foraging Licences, fungi quantity, type and the frequency of harvesting by a given individual.
‎
There's just too many people on this overcrowded Island interested in being in the woods and enjoying what it has to offer for the FC to have done anything other than impose a blanket ban. Even if policing it will be a significant challenge. ‎

K‎

You think fungi foraging should be completely prohibited everywhere in the UK??

 

[Old Bones]

But the New Forest is a hot spot for this sort of thing - the restaurants of Bournemouth alone must consume a fair amount. If some people were taking one or two for personal use, that would be sustainable, but even if the number of mushrooms is not hit by constant foraging (there are some studies that support this), there must be trampling, etc. Its another example of the tragedy of the commons - if its free, it often ends up as free-for-all.

Hopefully they can restrict areas on a rotating basis, and possibly lift restrictions after more research. As for flies and other insects, they are major pollinators, as well as being a source of food for other species, etc. We might not instantly notice if a species suffers because their primary food source, etc has been foraged away, but there will be an impact. I totally agree about the need for more research, but I understand the FC's dilemma - if they do nothing there might not be anything left to study. So their caution is understandable.

 

[Geoff Dann]

But the New Forest is a hot spot for this sort of thing - the restaurants of Bournemouth alone must consume a fair amount. If some people were taking one or two for personal use, that would be sustainable, but even if the number of mushrooms is not hit by constant foraging (there are some studies that support this), there must be trampling, etc. Its another example of the tragedy of the commons - if its free, it often ends up as free-for-all.

Which studies support this?

Hopefully they can restrict areas on a rotating basis, and possibly lift restrictions after more research.

That might be part of a solution.

As for flies and other insects, they are major pollinators,

Not these ones - or at least I don't think so, and will doubt it unless somebody proves otherwise.

as well as being a source of food for other species, etc. We might not instantly notice if a species suffers because their primary food source, etc has been foraged away, but there will be an impact. I totally agree about the need for more research, but I understand the FC's dilemma - if they do nothing there might not be anything left to study. So their caution is understandable.

I do understand that the FC have been put in a difficult position. But I don't think their response is proportional to the real problem.

 

[Old Bones]

A very quick search found this study - http://www.conservationevidence.com/individual-study/230 , and perhaps there are others. So its not perhaps the taking of the fungi in itself thats the issue, as far as the fungi is concerned, but possibly wider impacts. Hopefully more research will help, since I think similar problems have arisen in US forests, etc (there is a chapter in a Michael Pollan book about commercial fungi gatherers and the sharp elbows they seem to have! - BTW - he has a film http://fantasticfungi.com/tag/michael-pollan/

As for which insects are pollinators, I have no idea, but I'm sure they still serve some purpose within the forest. Perhaps the best thing to do is a bigger study and identify the actual problem, and then work on measures which work for all parties. We can all agree the FC have been put in a difficult position.

 

[mrcharly]

I'm not sure the FC had any choice in this. If they suspect over-taking of fungi might lead to extinction of some species from the area, then they *have* to implement a temp ban until the research is done. That ban will inconvenience a very small proprtion of the people who live in or visit the new forest.

To wait until after extinction would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted

 

[Geoff Dann]

I'm not sure the FC had any choice in this. If they suspect over-taking of fungi might lead to extinction of some species from the area, then they *have* to implement a temp ban until the research is done.

The research isn't going to be done, and they absolutely have a choice. Nobody is suggesting this could lead to the extinction of the species concerned from the area. They are too common.

 

[havocsdad]

I live and work in the forest , for years now hordes and I do mean hordes of gangs of people turn up and decimate the funghi, they have one knowledgable person in a central place , gangs turn up pick everything and then the "expert" picks the edible ones and dumps the non .
Mrs T was notorious for this and despite legal action she still employed gangs to harvest the forest
rightly or wrongly the FC have no choice

 

[Leshy]

I'll get my popcorn...
😶

 

[Robson Valley]

The vegetative, living part of these fungi are the acres and acres of mycelium in the ground. When sufficient nutrients from decomposition have been obtained,
the mycelium reorganizes at various points and creates a reproductive structure that we call a muchroom.
You all know that structure is destined to die. Picking mushrooms is no big deal, happens all the time commercially. Just keep feeding the mycelium.

I'm of the mind that your FC is much more concerned with the general level of environmental "insult" to the entire landscape.
That sort of wholesale abrasion, trampelling hords of people everywhere, will do damage, just simple soil compaction >> a visible trail shows clearly.

 

[Macaroon]

I was thinking on the issues raised in this thread over the past few mornings, whilst out harvesting Fugi, and there's something I can't get clear in my mind........If the wholesale picking of the fruiting bodies does not have any effect on the well being and longevity of the Mycelium, why does the organism produce these fruiting bodies? What purpose does it serve in evolutionary terms?

I'd always thought that it was designed to propagate the Fungi further afield, that the spores would be dispersed and a new and seperate one would establish itself elsewhere; is that not the case? How would they otherwise spread to pastures new, so to speak, and is that not a safety mechanism to ensure it's survival in the case, for example, of the original habitat being damaged or destroyed by any sort of disaster?

I don't seek to take sides in the original question, as I do and always have harvested a few different species and see no harm in it............But.......................................

 

[Geoff Dann]

I was thinking on the issues raised in this thread over the past few mornings, whilst out harvesting Fugi, and there's something I can't get clear in my mind........If the wholesale picking of the fruiting bodies does not have any effect on the well being and longevity of the Mycelium, why does the organism produce these fruiting bodies? What purpose does it serve in evolutionary terms?

They are how it reproduces. They are the equivalent of a temporary gonad - a temporary testicle or ovary.

I'd always thought that it was designed to propagate the Fungi further afield, that the spores would be dispersed and a new and seperate one would establish itself elsewhere; is that not the case?

Yes that is the case.

How would they otherwise spread to pastures new, so to speak, and is that not a safety mechanism to ensure it's survival in the case, for example, of the original habitat being damaged or destroyed by any sort of disaster?

Not just a safety mechanism. Fungal mycelia don't live forever - they usually run out of nutrients and die. Plus fungi sexually reproduce - the spores are the equivalent of sperm/eggs and need to find a mate before they can produce a new adult mycelium.

The key question is how much effect taking fruit bodies has on the ability of fungi to reproduce. No scientific research has been done but think about it like this: the amount of spores in the air vastly exceeds the available habitat. The vast majority either land in the wrong place or fail in competition with other spores after landing in the right place. Now imagine we remove half of all fruit bodies. So there will be half the number of spores in the air. But there would still be vastly more spores than available new habitat, so nothing would have changed. If this is correct (and it does seem very likely) then only taking ALL fruit bodies, or almost all of them, would make much difference in most cases. The key limiting factor isn't the capacity of the mycelia to produce spores but available habitat.

 

[Macaroon]

That's great, thanks for clearing that up, Geoff, and for doing it so succinctly

 

[Geoff Dann]

The Forestry Commission have just admitted (on Radio 4 "You and yours") that this "ban" is unenforcable. It is "voluntary". Anyone can ignore it and there is nothing the FC can do about it.