WTF is w/feminized genetics,

[darwinsbulldog]

mate the point is that it doesn't matter how it's forced to show hermaphroditism, the different ways of doing it don't affect the plant genetically, they can only express what their genes will allow them to, so using chemicals to do induce the hormone/chemical change to make a hermie is no different from using temperature changes, light changes, or other stresses to induce the same hormone/chemical change in the plant.

the chemicals we're using may be unnatural, but the response is natural.

I know the basics of breeding i have been breeding my own seeds since i started to grow i have past on many many seeds threw the years to friends and there friends i have grown out my ow seeds for decades i know the process of breeding and selection and how a male and a female both play a key role also.

Been breeding dogs for specific hunting environments for decades also seen how the mother and father of different pure lines blend and express in the off spring so i do have some idea but i don't claim to be an expert but i sure as shit know that in nature a female cannabis plant does not turn into a male by being sprayed by chemicals.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

...i don't claim to be an expert but i sure as shit know that in nature a female cannabis plant does not turn into a male by being sprayed by chemicals.

Nor does it in an unnatural environment. Chemically forcing a female to produce male stamen is NOT changing the plant to a male. THAT is the key to all of you misunderstanding of the issue I think. *edit..also any progeny from a forced fem/fem breeding that would show male stamen have NOT been changed to a male, no how, no way, not gonna happen.
Well...there is the random mutation issue to deal with, but you are light years away from grasping that concept.
Repeat...forcing does NOT turn a female into a male, no how, no way, not gonna happen. All that is happening is a manipulation of the mechanisms that the plant already has in place.

And you may know how to put pollen on a plant. And you may know how to select for desired traits. But you obviously do not have a grasp of the basic concepts of breeding and genetics.

People are trying to help you learn the truth, Hempy...not show that you don't know shit. Some things don't need to be shown.
I suggest lots of humble pie...humble pie can be good. Try thirty days in the hole and other merriot standards.
(don't know what else to do, might as well talk music...sigh)

 

[BrianBadonde]

Proof that i did research real research on chemically changed female plants turning them to males then pollinating a female clone of its self no i have not as i believe in nature has a reason for evolution and for species to evolve as they have.

I have spoken to some one that has and i know there out come i have read many growers posts that grew the fem seeds and little if any positives to report yet were is the proof from the pro female seeds side real research or science to back there vues ? There is nothing to show me or any one in this post or any person that turning a female cannabis plant using chemicals to then pollinate an identical genetic female of its self has any real positives other than producing seeds from people that seek money for little effort that also feel breeding is well to much effort .

I have seen no research real scientific research on cannabis fem seeds full stop i have read lots scientific research that tells me the positives that sexual reproductions has over asexual reproduction.

Self-Incompatibility: Avoiding Inbreeding

# Evolution seems to favor (and be favored by) genetic variability.
# Genetic variability is promoted by outbreeding: sexual reproduction between genetically dissimilar parents.
# (Just why sexual reproduction is so popular throughout the world of living things is still a hotly-debated question, but the fact remains.


Why Choose Asexual Reproduction?

Perhaps the better question is: Why not?

After all, asexual reproduction would seem a more efficient way to reproduce. Sexual reproduction requires males but they themselves do not produce offspring.
Two general explanations for the overwhelming prevalence of sexually-reproducing species over asexual ones are:

* Perhaps sexual reproduction has kept in style because it provides a mechanism to weed out (through the recombination process of meiosis) harmful mutations that arise in the population reducing its fitness. Asexual reproduction leads to these mutations becoming homozygous and thus fully exposed to the pressures of natural selection.
* Perhaps it is the ability to adapt quickly to a changing environment that has caused sex to remain the method of choice for most living things.

Purging Harmful Mutations

Most mutations are harmful — changing a functional allele to a less or nonfunctional one.

An asexual population tends to be genetically static. Mutant alleles appear but remain forever associated with the particular alleles present in the rest of that genome. Even a beneficial mutation will be doomed to extinction if trapped along with genes that reduce the fitness of that population.

But with the genetic recombination provided by sex, new alleles can be shuffled into different combinations with all the other alleles available to the genome of that species. A beneficial mutation that first appears alongside harmful alleles can, with recombination, soon find itself in more fit genomes that will enable it to spread through a sexual population.

Rapid Adaptation to a Changing Environment


Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

Advantages of sex: slower rate of reproduction but faster evolution, lower extinction rates, fast removal of deleterious mutations and better adaptation to host-parasite arms race.


Asexual reproduction: generates genetically identical progeny, conservation of harmful mutations (but also favorable genotypes), new genotypes are generated only through mutation.




Advantages of sexual reproduction.Despite the obvious efficiencies of many forms of asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction abounds. Asexual species, for the most part, are relatively short-lived offshoots of sexual ancestors. From the nineteenth century, it has been recognized that, since there is no obvious advantage to the individuals involved, the advantages of sexual reproduction must be evolutionary. Furthermore, the advantage must be substantial; for example, producing males entails a two-fold cost, compared to dispensing with them and reproducing by parthenogenetic females. There are a large number of plausible hypotheses. To me the most convincing of these are two. The first hypothesis, and the oldest, is that sexual reproduction offers the opportunity to produce recombinant types that can make the population better able to keep up with changes in the environment. Although the subject of a great deal of work, and despite its great plausibility, the hypothesis has been very difficult to test by critical observations or experiments. Second, species with recombination can bunch harmful mutations together and eliminate several in a single "genetic death." Asexual species, can eliminate them only in the same genotype in which they occurred. If the rate of occurrence of deleterious mutations is one or more per zygote, some mechanism for eliminating them efficiently must exist. A test of this mutation load hypothesis for sexual reproduction, then, is to find whether deleterious mutation rates in general are this high--as Drosophila data argue. Unfortunately, although molecular and evolutionary studies can give information on the total mutation rate, they cannot determine what fraction are deleterious. In addition, there are short discussions of the advantages of diploidy, anisogamy, and separate sexes.

The evolutionary role of recombinational repair and sex.

We have argued that sexual reproduction arose very early in the evolution of life as a way of overcoming informational damage or loss through recombinational repair. As organisms became more complex and genome information content expanded, diploidy, at first transient, became the predominant way of coping with increased vulnerability to mutation. This allowed further genome expansion. Once such expansion had occurred, however, diploidy became essentially irreversible, since reversion to haploidy would lead to expression of accumulated deleterious recessive alleles. This expression of recessive alleles also imposes a stiff penalty on organisms that experiment with close inbreeding forms of recombinational repair. A consequence of sex is that fitness (defined as per capita rate of increase) is density dependent. At low population density, fitness declines due to increased costs of finding a mate. This fundamental constraint on population increase can inhibit evolutionary success of the best adapted species if it is small in numbers. Sexual reproduction also tends to eliminate new coadapted genotypes within a species by breaking up their coadapted gene complexes; this also contributes to the cohesion of species. In general, we think the existence of species and their characteristic cohesion and stability over time are direct consequences of sex; and sex in turn is a consequence of the need to overcome gene damage through recombinational repair while at the same time masking the deleterious effects of mutation.


Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

The maintenance of sexual reproduction is a problem in evolutionary theory because, all else being equal, asexual populations have a twofold fitness advantage over their sexual counterparts and should rapidly outnumber a sexual population because every individual has the potential to reproduce. The twofold cost of sex exists because of anisogamy or gamete dimorphism-egg-producing females make a larger contribution to the zygote compared with the small contribution made by the sperm of males, but both males and females contribute 50% of the genes. Anisogamy also generates the conditions for sexual selection, a powerful evolutionary force that does not exist in asexual populations. The continued prevalence of sexual reproduction indicates that the 'all else being equal' assumption is incorrect. Here I show that sexual selection can mitigate or even eliminate the cost of sex. If sexual selection causes deleterious mutations to be more deleterious in males than females, then deleterious mutations are maintained at lower equilibrium frequency in sexual populations relative to asexual populations. The fitness of sexual females is higher than asexuals because there is no difference in the fecundity of sexual females and asexuals of the same genotype, but the equilibrium frequency of deleterious mutations is lower in sexual populations. The results are not altered by synergistic epistasis in males.

Reality is female seeds are now every were and your telling me there a positive thing for the cannabis species well show me why they are but don't tell me there a valuable breeding tool alone that is not a positive thing for the cannabis species that is only a positive for people wanting to cash in with little effort on there part.

Hempy it would be a lot easier if you cited the quotes. I presume they are from JF Crow? or a direct copy from Trovak?

 

[resin_lung]

Nor does it in an unnatural environment. Chemically forcing a female to produce male stamen is NOT changing the plant to a male. THAT is the key to all of you misunderstanding of the issue I think. *edit..also any progeny from a forced fem/fem breeding that would show male stamen have NOT been changed to a male, no how, no way, not gonna happen.
Well...there is the random mutation issue to deal with, but you are light years away from grasping that concept.
Repeat...forcing does NOT turn a female into a male, no how, no way, not gonna happen. All that is happening is a manipulation of the mechanisms that the plant already has in place.

Clear as clear can be! Thanks

 

[Wandering Roman]

I've watched this thread roll down the road since it's beginning
It 's title had a natural draw on me as I've so often stopped by to see
what the locals are doing with feminized pollen and or arguing about.


This thread has delivered all the usual Bullshit and idiocy as I could ever ask
for without fail..


Including the names I would have naturally guessed which would appear ,spew their garbage about,,,and then continue to haunt it every other post..

Likened to a mosquito in your ear.....it just won't leave...


I also find it rather amusing that a so called breeder takes it to heart to buy a
full page ad to grandstand their stance on a subject so misunderstood.


If the consumers,,,and that's what people that can't handle making their own seedstock are,,,,,consumers.....feel that there is some evil intent on preventing them from making seeds due to getting all females ,,and it's the Breeders who are conspiring behind the scenes in some diabolical plot....


Then STFU and don't buy them.......simple as that!

If Karma wants to play on that dumb ass notion to pull these idiot sheep over to his camp
to capitalize off these dipshits ,,,then hey! you have finely tuned your marketing to cater
to animals..



I'm not interested in getting my feet stuck in the mire this thread has created.....


If you can't grasp the basics of creating your own seed stock and are constantly relying on buying them from others termed (breeders) year after year,,,then how in the bloody hell can you even take place in a conversation with regards to manipulating ethylene
in a proven parent for pollen??


You havn't a Clue!!

Feminized breeding with wisely chosen parents is as solid and exponentially rewarding a task as you will ever achieve.



Nothing better than having a few thousand feminized seeds to germ which came from champion parents....the possibilities are endless...


If you want to sift through males go ahead,,knock yourself out there champ! waste your time and resources...

Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how great you are!


Most of the idiots replying here in a negative manner towards feminized pollenation
are the same types who grow year round from clones which were selected by others
as they are too damned dumb and lazy to germ trays and trays of new genetic material.

That's how a community get's so wrapped up in garbage phenos like the chem line...
and many of the OGK....As far from stellar plants as you will get, but this is what happens
when the masses are growing cuts that were selected by some halfwit and hyped as elite!

The enthusiasts of canna should be making their own seeds and germing them to find worthy
phenos.

These same people never move the body of cannabis forward



If you can't select proper parents then yes you're going to spawn shitty results in breeding
be it undesirable phenos,hermies , disease prone plants,low thc content,this has zero to do with the practice of feminization.

I created The use /application of Colloidal Silver for enthusiasts to make their own seedstock from desired females,and additionally make abundant high quality females and phenos for the community to enjoy...


And it works superb!


If you wanna bitch about breeders offering seeds that can't be bred or pollenated due to being females and they have somehow placed a genetic chastity belt on their wares,,,then you my friend are as dumb as horse shit!

A simple batch of CS will allow a plethora of seeds from these gals in mass....



You're just too stupid to employ it or take the initiative.......



That's why you are a consumer!!!!!





PS: If you were around back in the CW days you'd already be wise enough to know not to dialog
or waste your time with Mr Hempy!! leave him alone and maybe he will run back to Shanti's pant
cuff .

 

[BrianBadonde]

hi all lots of reading to be done since i logged in and i will read threw it all to.

Tom stated this before, you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit, we are just playing with what cannabis has evolved to be able to do already, if it couldn’t do it/didn’t have the genes, we wouldn’t be here talking about this stuff.

No you cant make chicken salad out of chicken shit but you sure can turn the chicken used to make a nice chicken salad into shit a long the way before it used to make the salad that is my point mate.

Mate there is a large difference from nature to this and yes cannabis can self pollinate yes cannabis can and dose have a self preservation mechanism even if i am yet to read a research paper on how this comes about i have seen it but in no way is it any thing like spraying a female plant and chemically changing it to a male to then pollinate its self in a different clone or to be used on a different clone of a different species of cannabis.

Only advantages i can see for using such a method is for people that cant breed that would like to run a small number find a nice mum and make seeds for market well look at Spain lots are all ready doing it great advancement for this community and the cannabis species its like the Cain toads they were set free on the environment and years later are doing lots of good yes science has played such a great role model in nature.

Hempy, to me you are looking at the smaller picture, whilst I agree that the seed companies out there are ripping people off and making a quick buck and should be avoided, that we can agree on, however when breeding, one strategy is often not what is required, more so we need a multi pronged attack or plan of action more commonly refered to as a ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy), in most flowering plants theres 3 ways for reproduction, Asexually, selfing, and outcrossing. it should be remembered that Cannabis is an outcrossing species. that said there is absolutly nothing wrong with breeding asexually and usually when smaller numbers are used it is prefered. YOU can do more damage with just M/F breeding than asexually with small numbers. Please remember you need many tools to do many jobs, one does not fix all.

 

[resin_lung]

This reminds me of a friend of mine that was dating this super hot chick who lost her leg in car accident. They were crazy in love. One day out of the blue he breaks it off. He was hating it. Time goes by and I ask him... So why'd you dump that chick? He says he dumped her cause he wanted to have kids someday but not with her. CAUSE THE KID WOULD HAVE A 50/50 CHANCE OF BEING BORN WITHOUT A LEG!

I know another guy who moved his pregnant wife and family to Hawaii. CAUSE HE WANTED THIS KID TO BE HAWAIIAN!!! He and his wife have blonde hair and blue eye BTW.

EDIT both these guys suffered cause they thought they knew something about genetics and how it all worked.

 

[mule420]

Holy shit I get this I'm still try to grasp some of the terms and the $20 dollar words... And all the S1,F1, selfing, linage stuff and how it relates...

There is no sex change just a chemical one.


I'm off to the coin shop gotta pick up some silver for my CS generator I'm making...

 

[Tom Hill]

I have seen no research real scientific research

Oh, but you most certainly have. It's just that you don't understand that this is what you're looking at/eating.

Every time you take a walk on the grass, a trip to the market, feed your horse, sit down for a meal, etc, etc, etc. You have accepted this research as well as the scientific advances it has provided with an open heart, and an open mouth.

By both mechanical, and chemical means, breeders of plants very often temporarily interrupt the usual mating systems of said plants in order to yield genetic gain.

In cannabis, the technique has been utilized since the 70's, at least, and much longer with other crops.

You will not likely ever see the type of research you're looking to be spoon fed, as anybody with even the slightest understanding of genetics knows that the type of bizarre theories you are looking to be disproved just don't hold any water at all, never have, and never will.

Perhaps the most bizarre thought of all is that your answer to all of this is to introduce a terminator gene to help alleviate your unfounded paranoia. So, conventional breeding techs are out of the question, but GMO is hunky dory in your mind? Jeeze Hempy, you're really way far out there man, way.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Much respect, Wandering Roman...but I must take a slight bit of exception to what you are providing.
With respect to Karma, I find him to be a righteous individual from what I have seen. He is also a young entrepreneur and as such has the right to run his business as he sees fit.
All business' market to niche groups, save for maybe toilet paper. And I don't feel that a marketing campaign towards a niche group makes a person or their company bad.
We need to take ALL marketing with a grain of salt. And as far as marketing to the group that does not like fem seeds...well, one doesn't have to disagree with genetically factual botany to not buy or not use feminized seed stock. A person may have any number of reasons that they prefer regular seed stock, and I see nothing at all wrong with marketing to such a group.
Sure, it may be seen as a marketing campaign that actually perpetuates ignorance, but then again who are we to say that the other valid reasons for not liking fem seeds are ignorant?

As far as the root issue is concerned, IMO unless we continue to challenge the people that try to perpetuate the stupid side of this, stupid will run rampant. Being educated and having a grasp of the issue and then making a conscience decision as to what a person wants to do is fine, but to be fed bullshit and ignorance from the ignorant bullshit slingers, and using that sort of clowns information to base ones decision is simply not fair to young and impressionable growers.

 

[CFP65]

ok all that said and hopefully understood by "the antis"
can we now carry on with somekind of university in the possibilities in fem breeding
someone mentioned GA as the trigger for dwarfism.
what i cant understand here is if you deliberatly breed the "GA motor" to almost standstill
and at the same time breed in a super Ethylene motor would you not get a dwarfism expression, not caused by genedefect/mutation but by GA lack ie. Psudo-dwarfism
and would that plant not be as close to a "super female" as you could get

another question that i cant seem to get an ansver on by reading white papers.
is there any destinct chemical difference in the plants at the seedling stage
say at first leaves, like if the females would have a raised ethylene level or some other gas or chemical maby inside the tissue in opposition to the males,

maby this is a bit far off, but my idea was that one could maby spray seedlings with a ethylene or other cemical reagent that would turn say red for ethylene and blue for GA
maby some cemical that would become flourcent as a reaction to a specific cemical that could be seen trough a gasdetection camera, thous sawing a hell of alot of space and time in finding the plants for breeding

 

[BrianBadonde]

ok all that said and hopefully understood by "the antis"
can we now carry on with somekind of university in the possibilities in fem breeding
someone mentioned GA as the trigger for dwarfism.
what i cant understand here is if you deliberatly breed the "GA motor" to almost standstill
and at the same time breed in a super Ethylene motor would you not get a dwarfism expression, not caused by genedefect/mutation but by GA lack ie. Psudo-dwarfism
and would that plant not be as close to a "super female" as you could get

another question that i cant seem to get an ansver on by reading white papers.
is there any destinct chemical difference in the plants at the seedling stage
say at first leaves, like if the females would have a raised ethylene level or some other gas or chemical maby inside the tissue in opposition to the males,

maby this is a bit far off, but my idea was that one could maby spray seedlings with a ethylene or other cemical reagent that would turn say red for ethylene and blue for GA
maby some cemical that would become flourcent as a reaction to a specific cemical that could be seen trough a gasdetection camera, thous sawing a hell of alot of space and time in finding the plants for breeding

with regard to the leaves, you may find this of interest.

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=g34w528w23028768&size=largest

I will try to find the info regarding the dwarfism etc.

 

[TheGerm]

Cool, Im part of the sheep dipshit crowd. What I want to know is where are all the other sheep dipshits ? Why is it that the pro bastardized fem seed crowd are so adamantly entrenched in their views when it seems like none of you have done any research of your own. I have seen many posts from the so called ball buster pros saying that you would need a large grow with many,many plants to do proper testing and selection. I would also think this would take a good deal of time research and money.

Being from the dipshit sheep crowd with an obvious low I.Q. I do wonder and have, how many if any of these pushers of shitte have done any of the above ? With my low brain power and almost no logical faculties I can only come up with the answer of a very few or "NONE". Like I said in an earlier post, the truth is probabley some smucks saw a quick buck sprayed crap on someone else's work and then sat back and let lazy stoners send in their cash.

For those that say they dont want to waste time with males showing up and fucking with their bottom line of profit, have you ever heard of "CLONING" ? From what I have always heard you would get a stronger plant in the long run, and then you dont have to waste time with males support bullshit genetic profit pushers or loss any of your cash crop profits, because from what I have seen its not the love for the plant but the love of money.

TheGerm

 

[TheGerm]

Marketing strategy or a protest stance ?

Marketing strategy or a protest stance ?

Forgot to add, to those that felt that Karma Genetics full page add was just a reverse maketing tool, really ? If the so called market is booming with "non dipshits" running like "non sheep" to the post office to send in their hard earned dollor to those caring seed pimps for profits. I would think, even though its hard for me to do that the wise thing and money making thing would be for him to make fem seed, no ? Maybe, just maybe he has some kind of conviction and love for the plant and doesnt think they are a good thing ? Maybe it was a forum of protest, people still do things that aren't for a profit anymore dont they ?

Dont know how anyone feels about the breeder Subcool, but he also thinks fem seeds are not all for the best.

TheGerm

 

[Wandering Roman]

Sorry fellas no apology coming from me,,so don't expect one.
I simply call it like I see it!

If a pollen chucker wants to take a solid stance he'd better be ready to take the flack he's going to receive for advertising ignorance.

This hobby or endeavor in cannabis is growing faster than any market in the US and with it is coming many uneducated and searching minds,actually enthused about it.

The worst thing one can do is blindside them with Bullshit!

Form opinions or theories that are false on their premise and based on absolute philosophy rather than science.



There is one single thing that bothers me more than all of the crap surrounding this subject compiled..


That's this high and mighty tone bordering religion that feminized seed is unethical and is rendering some kind of disservice to a fucking weed...


They talk all this shit about karma and polluting the gene pool etc...
Taking this liberal hippy high road that this is cheating mother nature and the plants have a soul ...

I'd rather not deal with these types as they are lacking in actual synaptic brain activity....seriously clueless...


It's Plant,,it has no soul momma nature isn't gonna unleash her assload of Karma on you for inhibiting ethylene and creating seeds.
The genetic pool will still be intact tomorrow morning.....

This is called progress if you don't like it get the fuk out of the way and live in a cave with no electricity,as there is work to do
you have plants and trees to hug!

For those bitching again about seed makers charging more money for these beans,,,then make them your damned self and stfu!

I am all for every damned breeder and pollen chucker to make every dime they can off the masses....


They have taken the initiative to actually make the seed,,,a feat that is far from impossible,,,all the while the masses too lazy and dumb to do it themselves sit and bitch about how much they have to pay for seeds....



We are talking about producing seed from a weed people,,,,

This is about as complex as wiping your ass!







I'm done with this thread!!!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Dont know how anyone feels about the breeder Subcool, but he also thinks fem seeds are not all for the best.

First off...you already know the problem you are having. You have stated it, and I concur.

Interesting that you would throw some nasty fingers at people for not doing proper large population selections, then use subcool as a reference.
Have you actually seen the lineup of seeds that subcool offers? Do you think he has done proper selective breeding to provide top shelf worked seedlines?
Did you take math in school?

At least you recognize that you have lots to learn.
Oh, and so does subcool!

 

[Guest423]

For those that say they dont want to waste time with males showing up and fucking with their bottom line of profit, have you ever heard of "CLONING" ? From what I have always heard you would get a stronger plant in the long run

TheGerm

You shouldn't always go by what you "HEARD". Have you ever "HEARD" of Guerilla growers?

Tell me how much extra room you need and how much extra money your gonna spend keeping a bunch of big mothers alive while your cloning, and then the cloning space, and then the space and materials for them clones before they go outside compared to the 150-200 beans started in cups for a few weeks.

What would you rather have them say? "We don't grow with Feminized seeds because TheGerm says its not good and we should clone instead"?


The cool thing about Hempy is in the beginning of the thread he speaks for atleast half the people following along, but later in the thread it's just him and a couple dudes left. So in the long run alot of people learn from it, especially the way you have to pound it in there and drive it home with him

Even if you still don't like them you'd have to admit they aren't as bad as you originally thought.

 

[Tom Hill]

This is like playing chess with children who do not comprehend the word checkmate and just keep right on playing anyway, not realizing it's, just, over.

 

[darwinsbulldog]

Seen, and yes heard some of the damge thats done with these guerilla grows. Thats a good name for it to, a bunch of guerillas trashing up the forest.

gorilla??

Guerrilla - "The term means "little war" in Spanish.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare#Etymology

Gorilla - "The name was derived from the Greek word "Γόριλλαι", (Gorillai), a "tribe of hairy women"[4] described by Hanno the Navigator, a Carthaginian navigator and possible visitor (circa 480 BC) to the area that later became Sierra Leone"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

gorilla's are actually an important part of their ecosystem and have evolved over millions of years alongside all the organisms around them, which they rely on to survive, and in turn that rely on gorillas to survive.

sorry couldn't help myself TheGerm, i agree with you though that guerilla growers (myself included) need to have some/a lot of respect for the environment they grow in and need to take all the steps to assure they don't damage things unnecessarily.

darwin

 

[Raco]

sorry couldn't help myself TheGerm, i agree with you though that guerilla growers need to have some/a lot of respect for the environment they grow in and need to take all the steps to assure they don't damage things unnecessarily.

I´m a guerrilla grower too ..so WTF??