13 years is a lot of laps around the sun!
The whole world had changed since the.
How any people here Really have.?

I don’t have a dog in this fight - clearly you're all insane - so I’ll stick my foot in the hornets’ nest and offer my detached perspective & summary since I’m starting to lose track of what everybody’s arguing about.

I’ll be upfront and say that I’ve enjoyed and valued Chocobeastie’s articulations for many years now, although I certainly don’t agree with everything he says or take his word as revealed truth.

Before my summary, I’d like to identify two participants in this discussion who could most benefit from a revision to their rhetoric:

SnozzleBerry – you come across as very smug and snotty, and seem to harbor a personal antipathy to Choco. This distracts from and undermines your arguments, and vaporizes any semblance of objectivity, in the eyes of a neutral observer. Consider converting the contemptuousness to an aristocratic aloofness warmed with levity - just some minor tailoring but the suit looks a million times better.

Acacaya – you’re probably a fun person to hang with in real life, but your lucidity and sensibility are, shall we say, inconsistent. You often veer into outright gibberish, and aren’t doing Choco any favors. Put down the pipe and try reading your post out loud first; if it doesn’t carry the the crisp tones of mature, sober reason then it’s back to the editing room!
wattle4lyfe cuzzy cuz! come at me ozbro zzzzz zz wattle wat wat ding dong durr

Everyone else managed to remain within the boundaries of civilized discourse; pat on the back.

So here’s a summary according to my understanding of the situation. Please feel free to correct any inaccuracies or errors.

First, here are two points that I hope everybody can agree on:

1) Regardless of whether or not Chocobeastie can appropriately be considered as the “inventor” of Changa, he certainly was a prominent, and plausibly the foremost, disseminator and popularizer of Changa.

2) Chocobeastie, by his own admission, did NOT originate the concept of a DMT/MAOI smoking blend which emulates the pharmacodynamics of Ayahuasca. Others had already figured that out both in contemporary times, and also hundreds or thousands of years ago.

So Chocobeastie’s claim is ultimately that he refined and congealed the basic, raw concept into something more fleshed-out and tangible, with a specific emphasis on the presence of admixture plants in accordance with a vegetalismo ethos as opposed to a scientific-materialist ethos. And subsequently promulgated this developed package with missionary zeal, infusing it with momentum and purpose.

Thus my own conclusion is that Chocobeastie did not originate the mere fact of what would come to be known as Changa, but did essentially ‘invent’ Changa as a MEME which went VIRAL. Therefore, Chocobeastie designating himself “the inventor of Changa” is not going to give me an apoplectic stroke, although the reality is not that cut-and-dry and could give people the wrong impression if they took it at face-value. It is a semantic dispute, and one’s individual disposition and personal opinion of Chocobeastie will determine whether they find his characterization to be reasonable or deceptive.

Those who incline towards the latter may find the terms “Innovator” and “Pioneer” to be more acceptable than “Inventor”. Or they may simply disdain to extend any such laurels to Chocobeastie for personal reasons, which is a separate issue entirely.

I appreciate a few of your points, blue lunar light. However, I think that bringing DMT to the broader populace is precisely what much of the agitation is about. It was seen in the late sixties and early seventies with the psychedelic movement then, and to a much smaller degree, we've seen it with salvia divinorum in recent years. "Spreading" is repeatedly counseled against, here on the Nexus; it makes damage-control an insurmountable task, not to mention making intervention by governmental authorities, inevitable.

Additionaly, I'd like to reassert the claims I made in the other thread on this topic. The fellow who had the changa at the '94 gathering was there with a group whose facilitator (focalizer in rainbow-speak) was Australian, if that sheds any light.

I'll also corroberate nen's assertion of changa (SP?) being a traditional insufflated snuff of the Shipibo and other peoples, which contains dried caapi etc. During my first visit to the village of San Francisco (near Yarina Cocha, Peru) to spend several weeks with Martin Munoz in the winter of '99/'2000, changa (sounds like this word, though I'm uncertain of common spelling) was one of a menagerie of plant products brought around by curandero's of the area who had heard of the curious gringos drinking ayahuasca.

This last assertion was not a brain fart from nen that I latched onto. It may be too arcane to confirm with a typical internet search (I did spent some hours looking) but is likely documented by some "authority" on the subject of Shipibo culture. I have little free time now, but will eventually return to Peru and gather data on this myself if it hasn't been well documented already.

And lastly, chocobeastie, I'm not part of any cabal that is out to defame you. I just have some vivid memories from treasured parts of my life that don't jive 100% with what you're saying. I did spend some time fending off some character-bashing, in that other thread, if you recall. Though, I would be prepared for the day when that Wikipedia page has a "changa disambiguation" at the top.

That makes sense, roninsina. Thank you for the additional context.

I think you both generally pretty well summed it up.
Thank you for this.

I would really be interested about what roninsina can find about the origin of the sound "Changa" from the original culture.

But I can also well believe that the ChocolateBeast got this name from an Aya experience. Basically getting the "original word" from another plane.

I personally just find it very superfluous of ChocoBeastie to have this fixation to be famously known as the "inventor".
But this is just MHO.

IMHO it's a little bit like this (to go again with cars ).
Someone once invented the car (although it wasn't yet called like that, it was called "motorized horse carriage" ). Others built them and quite some people used them. Then comes someone who gives the name "car" to a special car he developed, which is biogas-fuelled. Everybody liked the word "car" much better, also because it has been promoted a lot by this person, which also made cars in general more known to people.
But instead of using the word "car" just for this special type of car which is biogas-fuelled, which was the original intention, people use it as a name for every car.
So who now invented the "car"???

I implied as much in the other thread. It fits my world view reasonably well, though I would say: "a different sub-set within the same fractal", rather than, "another plane".

Anyway, chocobeastie, I would gladly drink some vine with you if we ever were to meet FWIW

Blue Lunar Night,

Thanks for the sanest contribution yet!

So I can only say I had never come across of people mixing extracted DMT, ayahuasca and herbs together in one blend. And I had never heard of anyone smoking DMT and an MAOI before. And I never said was omniscient, I’m just saying that is what I knew at the time. Like I keep saying, everyone thought that when I first brought out the ayahuasca vine joints with DMT sprinkled on them, that this was rather novel.

And I can’t say for sure that nobody else had smoked Ayahuasca, DMT and a blend of different herbs before. Of course I can’t. I’m not saying for sure I was the first person to do that. But in general history works that the person who invents something, believes in it enough to go public with it, and makes a patent for it. I can understand that other people may be reticent to go public with something that involves a schedule 1 compound But I can tell you there was nobody else in that line, and if there was I would have tried to push them in front of me!

This is the thing, we cannot call the Entheogen Review writer the inventor of Changa or Gracie and Zarvov the inventor of Changa. They didn’t develop it into its current definition and they didn’t define what it was in the first place as a cultural phenomena.

People tell me they google “who invented changa” as they want to know! Considering I named it, and developed its modern use, I think that term is fair enough.

What do you think is a better word for me to use? Is progenator a better word? What about Originator? I am definitely its father. Uncle would imply there was another father obviously

In my book I just say “I developed and dubbed the DMT smoking blend known as ‘changa’ (which I pronounce as chang-ah) in 2003-2004.”

I actually don’t use the term inventor of changa very often, its on my amazon page and a bio page or two for events where they ask for a pity bio. As an aside, I’ve only given 2 talks about Changa actually out of many talks, one just recently. I don’t market my book “Articulations” by saying this, nor will you find that statement on my “about me” page on my web site. I don’t define myself and my capabilities in any way shape or form by this, BUT I can tell you that other people do! I find it quite funny actually.

Regarding Ott, actually, I have a friend who gave Ott changa as well as I, and unbeknownst to him, we are friends. Ott claimed it was new to him when the friend gave it to him!

Come January 2006 (as I recall it was) Ott would have been exposed to DMT all over the world, crystal DMT was nothing new to him. He wrote ayahuasca analogues in 1994 for example and would have had better access to ayahuasca in Mexico and in the states than in Australia.

Regardless, do I really, really care about this? I know what is true and what happened. Despite what Nen says, there is a lot of ill will toward me (not quite conspiracy), and many appear to want to have an interest in downplaying any of my efforts. I find it quite pathetic really.

What happened in a sense is that I was the Leary in the scene, who believed that DMT should be available to more people than it was. I saw Nen and others as self appointed keepers of the knowledge. They didn’t seem to want it to escape, I also think it freaked them out. I didn’t learn anything from them (despite what they say), I figured it all out myself.

That being said, I can totally sympthasise with the writer writes here in the ER who would appear to be Jim Dekorne, who came up with the Phalaris 5-Me0 and MAOI blend.

“SMOKABLE DMT FROM PLANTS

“It is with mixed feelings that I have chosen to publish the following article. Just as the Bolshevik revolution took place within the context of the First World War, the psychedelic revolution seems about to re-explode within the context of the War on Drugs. What you are about to read constitutes a tactical nuclear explosion in that war.

Although the consequences of this are unpredictable, human survival now demands that we stop pacing ourselves according to the limitations of the weakest among us. The nature of our culture almost mandates that this information will be abused, but that must not prevent me from communicating with my intended audience.”

Greetings from Palenque!

Thankyou blue lunar night

From blue self existing night.

On cosmic moon
Kind 55
Blue electric eagle.

EVA MAYA HUNAB KU
EVA MAYA E MA HO

IN LA KESH

"Popularizer" is about the best I think you could hope to reach for with any level of authenticity, and even that's questionable. "The Thomas Edison of Changa" would be apt.


Where is this "everyone" who is willing to step forward and confirm your claims? So far all I've seen is your own personal unsubstantiated claims vs a whole host of published evidence that unequivocally demonstrates this technology was developed long before you (by your own admission) were aware of any of this stuff.

Your definitions keep shifting, your dates keep shifting, your claims keep shifting.

Now changa is DMT sprinkled on caapi joints, but now changa is an infusion into vine because without the guidance of the vine it's not changa because rue doesn't count, but now it's only changa if it contains other herbs and meets certain ratios, but now it's not really changa because it has other alkaloids in it, but every acacia is a unique spirit because it does have different alkaloids in it.... I'm sure I missed a few of the shifting definitions of changa.

You developed changa around 2000 right? But you guys were turning Ott onto it the late 90's? But “I developed and dubbed the DMT smoking blend known as ‘changa’ (which I pronounce as chang-ah) in 2003-2004.” But there is not hide nor hair of the mention of changa on the interwebs prior to 2006, and even then it's brought up by Dorge, with you only piping in later on the subject, ironically about how it's only relegated to small circles of use and won't be making headlines (even though you were apparently the "Tim Leary" of it and deserve credit for bringing it to the masses). Your changa guide wasn't posted to the Nexus till 2011, despite another stickied thread offering up the intricacies of this technology to this community back in 2009 and minding the date of the first mention of it hitting these boards way back in 2007.

So you "invented" this technology back in say 2003, you introduced it to "everyone" and set out to be Tim Leary of changa. Then 3 years later you post about it being contained to tightly relegated circles. Then I'm sketchy on the details here, but sometime leading up to 2010/2011 you get this material marketed in headshops and popularized at BOOM and generally on the global festival circuit. Then in 2010/2011 it suddenly becomes incredibly important that everyone know you "invented" changa, and ever since you've steadfastly made a point of trying to make sure everyone credits you as the inventer from posting here, to writing articles, to making sure Graham put it in his book, to going as far as publishing it to Wikipedia, all citing yourself as the only reference without even a single corroborator to step up and say "yep, I was there and seent it, this is the first dood who had the changa."

It's a bit of a curious story when you look at the details, don't ya think?

You obviously want some recognition for your part in this whole changa thing, so I will concede the credit you deserve. By all accounts you are the fellow who is responsible for the fact that every year since about 2010/2011 every wook at the festival wants to sell me some "changa" that they got from some dood that they aren't really sure what's in it, but it's DMT bro and nah it's totally cool to take with this molly. So yeah, thanks for your legacy.

This thread is utterly ridiculous. Who cares who started what? I got people into Lemon Balm, but i'm not gonna sit there and think i'm so important because i told people about Lemon Balm. If i created the concept of Changa, i wouldn't give a crap, it exists, that's all that matters.

Well, they don't post here bro! And have no interest in doing I would suggest. Like I said, I will provide substantiated claims in time. Is it important? Not that important to me, but I'm happy enough to do it to silence my ditractors and put an end to this hullaboo.



I just think you are not reading me right. It might be a cultural thing....

I never said that ayahusca joints sprinkled with DMT was Changa! That is just something I started doing in 2003, as well as infusing DMT into combinations of herbs then too!



I didn't say that obviously, I just think it works better with vine.



I'm not stuck on any definition like you say I am. I am not shifting the goalposts, just not maintaining any goalposts.

So when Changa came to the nexus is when people started adding extracted harmalas from Syrian Rue. When a little bit of Ayahuasca vine straight up will do the job. Dorge was the one who brought forward the 10x ayahuasca extract as I told him about a friend who did this and he decided it was too heavy! Dorge eventually agreed with me that straight up ayahuasca vine is best and all you really need, but I can appreciate why people may the harmala heavy changa.

Even with straight up ayahuasca vine, you can sometimes you get 20-40 minute experiences, it just depends on the strength your vine. I find even 2x ayahuasca vine too strong, too heavy, too in the body, I get a funny headache from it.

I can understand how nexus people can think Changa = DMT + Herbs + Harmalas. Nobody, including me, is telling people what changa is or is not. I can only say what changa was for me when I came up with it, and what most people on the internet or in any written material say changa is today!

All I can say is how I originally designed Changa, and that was with 25% DMT, with ayahuasca, mullein, peppermint, passionflower and blue lotus. I still think these are the best herbs to use!



2003-2004 as stated repreatedly.



2006 as I previously stated.



Yeah!!!! Why didn't anyone answer his question?

Did you actually read the thread! Perhaps we in the community in Australia were all seriously concerned about "The Americans" getting their hands on this, and those Americans have a pesky drug war and we didn't want to get involved in THAT!

And the best way to proceed in a war sometimes isn't by blowing up the big bomb right away! It is by stealth and slow release!



Your words bro, not mine. I just wanted to be as intelligent as I could about parenting this thing.



Graham's book covers this is in more detail...



Well! I certainly didn't force Graham's hand, he came to me about this matter and did his own research on the matter talking to all the relevant people (including Nen!)

I have never got anyone to credit me as the inventor of changa. It wasn't incredibly important to me that everyone know. For many years, I was pretty much anonymous.

Around 2010-2011, I had written this article and it was time to release it. I felt that the info about changa was out of control. Dorge bless him has said some things not quite right... and there was a lot of not clear information out there about changa. People encouraged me to come forward.

Prevoiusly, I had somehow thought by letting it be, it would "come right" and people would figure out the right way for themselves. I didn't want to interfere, believe it or not. I didn't actually take ownership of this thing and guide it like I could of, I really let it go to do its own thing, and in many cases, people have got it wrong, like in Brasil today, where most people don't even use ayahuasca or any harmalas in changa, its often just a blend of herbs!



This is a quote from my book "Articulations":

"Very early on, I could see how changa would be mixed up with all the different kinds of compounds and drugs that people take, and that some people would simply see changa as another escapist drug. I also saw that it could not be held back from the world stage and that while it would fall into the hands of those who would not truly respect or understand its power and value, it would also fall on respectful and fertile ground, where it would have the most incredible results and naturally inspire people to use it in very respectful and creative circumstances."

I appreciate the feedback and perspective. For what it's worth, I've never claimed to be objective, simply that I don't have a stake in the game regarding the "inventor"...if such a person can even be said to have existed in any meaningful sense. I have nothing to gain by demonstrating that chocobeastie is not the "inventor" of the concept of changa (by the definitions he has employed at various times), and nothing to lose should all of the apparently credible evidence cited thus far turn out to be erroneous owing to some rend in the fabric of space-time or whatnot. My position is not one of objectivity, but of opposition to claims that are questionably motivated and clearly contradicted by numerous primary documents and historical accounts.

That said, as my intention was to make a compelling case as to why there is significant evidence that chocobeastie's assertions lack merit, your point regarding tailoring is well made and one that I have needed reminding of before (and will likely need again) and will do my best to take to heart.

With that said, I think dreamer042's assertion that popularizer (fervent marketer?) begins to get at the actual role played by chocobeastie and underscores why so many take issue with his approach/claims, as was further elaborated by roninsina's reply to you.

Again, thanks for holding up that mirror, I appreciate it

I think "so many" people take issue with my claims because they are very much ego centred people. They don't want to give me credit for whatever reason. (And btw, nobody has ever told me to my face they don't think I'm the inventor of changa, so its only on here that I have ever heard of these "so many" people)

Perhaps that would mean something bigger to them that they don't want to give to me, because for whatever reason they don't like the cut of my jib or what I am saying in general about DMT not being DMT or the beings being autonomous or any number of things. And they use this word Changa themslves and changa may have changed their lives, why would they want to give an inch to this fucking guy who you disagree with in about 84% of what he says?

This reminds me a little bit of Craig Wright's claim to be the inventor of Bitcoin. I honestly don't know, but interestingly he backed down and hasn't provided further evidence. It was too much for him. Was he the inventor of Bitcoin? He did actually provide some compelling evidence at some point to high profile bitcoin people who believed him. You can look it up if you are intersted in it. I think people want the inventor Satoshi Nakamoto to be some ultra savvy ninja Japanese hacker, not some pudgy, rather uncouth Australian software developer.

It is strange, in Australia I know of one guy who still calls it "smoke mix!" He apparently doesn't want to call it changa, presumably because that would be giving some sort of power to me. This was really common in the early days. It is only when people heard that people overseas called it changa that they begrudingly relented to use the name changa (it took years), it doesn't help perhaps that the name sounds very aussie to people!

We have a thing called the cultural cringe in Australia, which means that anything that comes out of Australia must not be as good as something that comes from overseas. But maybe we have a human cringe too, if you are a real living person, people don't want to give you credit, all their credit is largely given to dead people! Who can't talk or be anything like human anymore! Marcus Aurelius has a good quote on this, but I can't find it right now.

Oh and just remember that Hofmman invented LSD accidentally and that Shulgin didn't invent MDMA, he rediscovered it.

I wish you all well.

Actually, i think it is those seeking recognition for something they may or may not have created that are ego centered. Someone who isn't ego centered would just appreciate that the idea is out there and smile. I mean i understand if you'd wanna be credited/recognized for it, but it's really not a big deal imo/from my perspective.

Only the most ego-centric person would actually believe that he himself is genuine and the reason why people react to him in such a way is that 'everyone else' is a bunch of self-centered crooks that are out to get him. It's like the archetypal paranoid tyrant.

Anyone reading this thread for the first time, unbiased with no chips in the matter, can clearly see the idea that one man invented the ayahuasca smoking blend, that no one had ever had the idea before, that no one had ever experimented, is completely absurd. If it wasn't self-evident enough there has been plenty of indication posted in this thread of the contrary. Whether it be decades or thousands of years in the past. Its not very revolutionary in terms of creative thought... Its putting 2 and 2 together..

The only thing novel I see here is the name 'changa', that name took very well. If people are willing to give you credit for coining that term, then congratulations to you. I cannot see why you would be grasping for anything more. Unless its for ulterior motives, like your pocketbook ambitions, which I seriously hope not.

I'm telling you right now you are not the inventor of changa, this technology existed way before you and was actively being developed as an open source technology well before you decided to step in and try to Edison some kind of imaginary patent on it.

^ agreed MindIlusion (and dreamer042)

smoke and mirrors, and narcissism is what i see going on here..i would have happily dropped out of the thread a while back, except chocobeastie you keep making quite unfounded claims in your attempts to re-write history..and put up smoke-screens to keep dodging the arguments..if you keep stoking the fire, however, the smoke lifts..


this is completely delusional...delusions of grandeur...and again your twisted cabal-like claims..and who are these 'others'? i doubt you will find a single person in the Australian entheogenic world, except a few of your cult of personality brainwashed sidekicks, who would agree with this statement...dmt had already become very well known, and plenty of people were accessing it..this is even covered in Graham St. John's book which you refer to so often, and ER in the 90s..there were already problems with people decimating wild, and in cases endangered, trees..and people already had smoking mixtures, for years...the problem people had with you (such as echoed by the person who posted on what happened with Ott before) was that you were trying to create a larger commercial market than the resources you were using could withstand...the first i heard of modern changa was that 1) you had put a name to something already being done, and were marketing it to teenagers at dance parties; and 2) there was massive damage to, actually killing of entire large old trees, by you to supply this market, which you justified at the time as a means to an end, and that you were making a lot of money from this..this is what people told me, is what people (the so-called 'self -appointed keepers of knowledge' ) got annoyed at you about, as at the time there were not any developed sustainable plantings, alternatives etc..people mainly used syrian rue in smoking mixes as caapi was not as available at the time..
people bring someone like Ott to talk publicly and you think this is people not wanting something to get out! you insult the wide number of people who did work to make dmt more publicly accessible with your own bizarre sense of self-importance, comparing yourself to Leary..!? excuse me ? dmt had already made it to national newspapers before so-called 'changa' hit the youth..

if there is any major development in the access by many to dmt, i would say it's to be found in Noman's tek, and the the people who made M. tenuiflora (hostillis) available in the states and europe..here now was a reasonably sustainable source of dmt...and the people who did, and continue to develop Phalaris are the next step ahead in trying to address this ..


what!!? it is Americans like de Korne, Ott, half of the ER contributors etc etc who brought much of this innovation to the world, including Australians...most educated Australians were concerned at both local and international assults on wild populations of plants, but the level of shared knowledge and respect between most of the 'American' and Australian entheogenic worlds has always been high...the 'pesky drug war' intervention on Australian dmt comes about pretty much after changa got sold in Happy Highs shops and to teenagers at dance parties...so that's an achievement i think you can claim...but not the mass popularisation of dmt - that's just patently ridiculous


err, no it wasn't Jim de Korne, it was a contributor to ER, which he edited...again you seem to have a strangely narrow idea of how many people then, and since, and now have experimented and contributed to things in the entheogenic world..

when you compare yourself to Hoffmann etc, you seem to be acting like you discovered a whole class of molecule...we are talking about a mode of administration here, please get a grip on it..a mode that had been tried before, just not widely marketed, and claimed as a meme franchise..



are you serious? after all that's been said..
as ShamensStamen said, this thread is utterly ridiculous..so, if i'm not personally named in attempts to frame, or manipulate history, i don't really want to continue...the thread speaks for itself

MindIlusion wrote:

^this

I'd have to say i think it's YOU, who's coming across as 'ego centred'. It's in the way you have carried yourself on this thread, that doesn't do you any favors.

I was wondering who you were, and from the 'clues' given from your book name, googled and found out. I must say i'm a little disappointed that you are behaving like this, when you already have a book out, and your own website, etc.

The other posters have said stuff about you that i wasn't aware of before. This is probably why they aren't happy with you in general. It appears that you've 'marketted Changa'? Am i correct? And also were involved in greedy activities of tearing down healthy trees to make yourself rich. Did i also read that right??

So, i ask you again, who's the 'ego-centred person', here then?

Nen,
i agree ,alot of what you said in your last post is actually very true..
but to be fair,?
but for those of us that were there and have known these people as close famillia
also know that these people were alwready making very lage amounts from that same,
micro endemic stand, and supplying large numbers of people! verry early on.
for quite somtime before outher people came along.!
the same people who were angry about all of this,
your friends and mine mate,!
lets be honest here about all of this ,and not just point fingers.
those very same people.!
i personaly went up there to see them to get some for perso,
and these so called profecional people pulled out a black garbage bag full of made up gs.
a( black garbage bag mate )
alot ,! several hundred or more,.! alot more!
so whos right and whos wrong.
once again , people shouldnt throw stones ,if they live in glass houses.!!!
and those same people just thought that they had some personal claim to those trees,???
they belong to noone,!and everyone.!

luckily, and thank the good lord that everyone there, and here have learnt there lessons along time ago.
and that stand has substantialy grown back somwhat since then.!
and we have all become better educated from all of this,!

we cant hide the truth now, and should not even try,
a fact is a fact.
hopfully everyone can learn from all our mistakes of the past.
and continue to educate everone in true susstainabillity, and respectfull harvesting methods.
just imagine how many trees have been stiped ,
just from the information that the nexus has provided to the community at large.!!!

i wont be posting again either Nen.
im sure everyone will be happy about that,!





,

Thumbs up
Im verry glad that somone brought up the harvesting issue,
as this is verry close to my heart as i do use quite large amounts of bark at times.
efficiency, anouther great point!.
not just efficiency in extractions but efficiency in the use off primary recourses,(ie bark and phylodes.)
i to am fuuuuulllyyy gutted at some peoples harvesting practices ,and for a lot of years...!!!
we have watched pristene wilderness in alot of areas turned into grave yards literaly in only a few years or so.!
the issue was brought up in australia in a seriouse way with PHLEBOPHYLA in victoria.
there is such a small population up there that people had a big impact verry early on.
not only in harvesting ,but in spreading a disese from plant to plant.
that was mid 90s,
then OBTUCIFOLIA, unlike PHLEB, there are quite large populations in some areas of nsw .
more than some people realize.!!!
but most people that starting out, just go to patches that the have heard about or have been taken to by friends who just need a hand with the work.
and those people usualy will not look for outher places verry much if they have got (a good thing going on) so to speek.
and then down the track those people might need a hand and take somone els with them that is into it or that they think they can trust.
then those people go there by themselves when they are ready and then they take someone els
and then those people take somonels ...!!!
and it just keeps goin on and on and on for years , generaly without the knowledge of the original person who found the patch in the first place.!!!
its the old saying , when your on to a good thing ,stick to it.
but this approach is devistating our trees at an alarming rate.
and now OBTUCIFOLIA has been fully striped in a large number of places.
when we first started out there was only a handfull of people literaly in australia
that had any idea of what dmt was and now18-19 years later it is still expanding exponencialy and exelerating at an alarming rate.
its fucken scary out there now to see wat has actualy been done.
but even though this is still happening there is still a light at the end of the tunnel.!

in western australia this is happening at a much faster rate than the east coast.
i saw a thread on here somwhere about harvesting goin on aroun the the avon river catchment over there .
around york and toodjay areas.
it literaly has been pretty much striped over 100 square km area .
not completly (YET) but national parks and wildlife have even got cameras in the trees on som roads and around some patches.
this might sound parranoid i know but its fucken true, iv seen them
and so has people i know.
there have been a lot ov people busted for it too.
i know of aleast 7 or 8 busts where people have been caught cooking and have been charged.!!!

KARMA IS A BITCH!!!.
DONT LET YOUR KARMA RUN OVER YOUR DOGMA.

ALL JOKING ASIDE ,IT IS A VERRY SERIOUS ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY NOW!

on a lighter note,
western australia still has huge amount of acuminadas all over the place.
nubies still just go to those aras around york and toodjay now because it is only
1 hour out of perth, relativly close considering the size of the growing range of acuminadas in wa.
they grow all the way from geraldton , 400km north of perth , all the way down to 100 ks south east of perth , and all the way out to kalgoolie 600 km east of perth and far beyond.
pretty much 1 unbroken acaia forest,
and thy have been there for hundreds of millions of years

and in that area millions of square kms there are ,
6 main sub spieces of acacia acuminada ,
and up to 64 genetic varients and cross pollinations.!!!

WOW yes most people have no idea how many trees there are really are out there.
so there is no fucken excuse for stripping tree at all ever for any fucken reason.
there are 10s of thousands of fallen over trees and broken branches every ware.
you only have to pick the braches of the ground and still fresh enough to use ,
no wories..

and besides that ,
the phylodes have a higher content in them anyway for most of the year,
so you only need to take literaly a handfull of each tree,!!!
and as acuminada is the highest yealding dmt acacis in australia .
all you need in one kg of dried phylodes at 1.2-1.4% to get 10 to 14 grams.
more than enough for everyone if havested susstainably.

anyway ill post again soon.
goin to the beach for a surf.

susstainabillity is the only way to go forwarsd for us.

PEACE OUT

OM MANI PADME HUNG