UKTC Archive

Re: Fungi and tree growth - more important than weather.

Subject: Re: Fungi and tree growth - more important than weather.
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Jan 17 2022 20:44:09
S**t happens.

WT

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 7:55 AM <
grumpy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

Thanks Jerry

It gives me the impression that someone has this idealistic idea of the
law - as some sort of magic that if fungi are including in the list that
suddenly they will be "protected". We know how difficult it is for the law
to protect large beings including elephants, rhinos, birds of prey and
trees to be protected by the law.  Inclusion of fungi possibly conjures up
the disturbance of mushrooms, but how do you protect a fungus on a building
site that is present throughout the soil?

If it's a matter for education, it looks interesting but why stop there -
why not all living kingdoms and then people will be properly educated?

If people think decay organisms need to be protected then surely we need
to include earthworms and all other soil fauna? No? What about bacteria?

And if you think viruses are a form of life, how about including them? Or
will they look after themselves? Possibly not many people in the public
will want that will they? Almost as popular as preserving Boris!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 17 January 2022 14:13
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Fungi and tree growth - more important than weather.

The move to bring in the 3rd F started in Chile and was very much an
international effort, not about UK law at all, albeit from what you say,
that needs to be reformed/updated. But the introduction of 'Funga' was to
generally raise the awareness of the critical importance of fungi by
equating them with the widely used general terms Flora and Fauna.
See this, from
https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03449441:

"/Species conservation on a global scale commonly refers to living
macroscopic organisms as Fauna and Flora, with the total omission of fungi
or any microscopic organisms. Nevertheless, countries like Chile have taken
pioneering steps towards an ecosystem view of nature through the
incorporation of kingdom //Fungi//in public policy (República de Chile
2010: Par. 4, Arts. 37–38). This has given the country effective protection
of plants, animals, and fungi, but other countries’
legislation mentions only Fauna and Flora and sometimes microorganisms, or
refers to “wildlife” — which to many equates to vertebrates. By the
omission of fungi, these organisms so critical to the maintenance of
healthy ecosystem processes, are unrecognized and unrepresented.The
international acceptance of the recognition of the macroscopic organisms of
Earth as Fauna, Flora, and Funga paves the way for substantial changes in
educational and agricultural policies, amongst others. This will facilitate
the incorporation of mycology in matters of national interest, such as
conservation, habitat protection, species protection, and education./"

(By rights I daresay they should add Protista - but I suspect that would
only confuse your average Juan and Juanita.) (Besides, it doesn't start
with an 'f')



On 17/01/2022 12:52, grumpy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
wrote:
Jon- The term 'funga' is not claimed as a 'kingdom' any more than
flora and fauna are. The woman on the program gave a presentation in
the arb. Association fungus symposium a few months ago. It's all about
getting fungi included in legislation which has previously been
limited to protecting 'flora and fauna';


Jerry

I haven't had a chance to listen/watch any programmes but you may be
interested to know that whilst Science may have moved on, the law has not:
it is not restricted to flora and fauna but does appear to use all
embracing terms animals and plants.

My copy of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 8 lists
"Plants which are protected". These include a section on Non Vascular
Plants, 5 of which are fungi (including the oak polypore) and around 29 are
lichens.

Whilst s.13 defines  what is prohibited (pick, uproot, destroy and
selling/advertising the sale) and this looks more plant than fungus
focused, the reality of how law as a tool works has to be taken into
account. If the fungus is well and truly inbedded in substrate it seems
unlikely that someone picking a toadstool could be prosecuted for
destroying a fungus. Picking yes and selling/advertising yes.

So why aren't more fungal species on the list? The JNCC is responsible
for updating the list (s.24(1), every 5 years apparently). It's up to them
as to what is on the list. The law does not prevent the list getting
longer. Perhaps politicians might but we don't know that.

Jon







--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk