Commercial Morel 

Harvesters and Buyers 

in Western Montana: An 

Exploratory Study of the 

2001 Harvesting Season

Rebecca J. McLain, Erika Mark McFarlane, and Susan J. Alexander

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-643 

July 2005
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-

W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or 

call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Rebecca J. McLain is a policy analyst, Institute for Culture and Ecology, P.O. 

Box 6688, Portland, OR 97228-6688; Erika Mark McFarlane was a research 

associate, Institute for Culture and Ecology. She is now a private consultant; 

Susan J. Alexander is a regional economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-2618.

This work was performed under PNW JVA 11261955-283 and RFQ 00-6033. All 

photos taken by Erika Mark McFarlane.

Cover photo: Extensive wildfires in the Bitterroot Valley during summer 

2000 created excellent conditions for an abundant morel crop in summer 2001. 

Several thousand pickers worked the “burns” from May through July. Andrew 

Mark, depicted in this photo, picked morels to offset transportation and living 

expenses associated with assisting Erika Mark McFarlane in this research.
Abstract

McLain, Rebecca J.; McFarlane, Erika Mark; Alexander, Susan J. 2005. 

Commercial morel harvesters and buyers in western Montana: an exploratory 

study of the 2001 harvesting season. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-643. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 38 p.

This exploratory study examined aspects of the social organization of the commercial wild morel industry in western Montana during 2001. We talked with 

18 key informants (7 buyers and 11 pickers) and observed social interactions at 

one buying station near the Kootenai National Forest and three buying stations 

near the Bitterroot National Forest. The key informant and observational data 

permitted us to construct a picture of social interactions at field buying stations, 

buyer strategies for attracting pickers, changes in prices over the course of a 

season, and the ways in which various participants in the wild morel harvest 

construct their livelihoods. In the discussion, we contrast our findings with the 

results of a recently published study on nontimber forest product harvesters in 

the Eastern United States. We end the report with a discussion of management 

implications for managers and scientists. 

Keywords: Nontimber forest products, special forest products, livelihood 

strategies, wild mushrooms.
Contents

 1 Introduction

 4 Study Description and Methods

 6 Social and Ecological Context

 6 Bitterroot National Forest

 7 Kootenai National Forest

 8 Recent Economic Changes in the Study Areas

 11 Morel Ecology

 13 Study Results

 13 Scope of the Commercial Morel Harvest in 2001

 15 Field Buying Stations: Social Interactions and Operator Strategies

 23 Strategies Buyers Use to Attract Pickers to Their Buying Stations

 26 Changes in Supply and Prices

 27 Degree of Involvement in the Industry and Livelihood Strategies

 30 Discussion

 30 Time Investment Patterns

 31 Livelihood Strategies

 31 Competition and Collaboration

 32 Buying Stations as Learning Centers

 32 Contrasts With Floral Greens Gatherers

 33 Implications for Managers and Scientists

 34 Acknowledgments

 34 Metric Equivalents

 35 Literature Cited
1

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Introduction

An unusually dry spring in 2000 set the stage for a series of wildfires that burned 

more than a million acres of national forest land in the northern Rockies during 

the summer (USDA FS 2001). Wildfires covering more than 1,000 acres took 

place in 17 national forests in Idaho and Montana (USDA FS 2001). Three national 

forests—the Payette, Salmon-Challis, and Bitterroot—experienced exceptionally 

large fires covering 150,000 acres or more (USDA FS 2001). Six forests—Boise, 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Custer, Helena, Kootenai, and Lolo—each had fires that 

burned between 25,000 and 50,000 acres (USDA FS 2001).

In the Western United States, morel mushrooms (Morchella spp.) frequently 

fruit abundantly in the year immediately following a fire in coniferous forests (Pilz 

et al. 2004). With burns covering more than a million acres (see fig. 1), forest managers in the Northern Region (Region 1) anticipated the presence of a large morel 

crop in western Montana during summer 2001. To prepare the national forests in 

Idaho and Montana for the upcoming morel season, the special forest products 

coordinator for Region 1 organized a workshop and a series of email conversations 

for region and forest employees beginning in fall 2000. During the workshop and 

email discussions, staff from the regional office and forests articulated the following concerns regarding the upcoming morel season: 

• Potential for conflict between local pickers and visiting pickers.

• Potential negative effects of mushroom harvesting activities and associated 

camping on threatened and endangered species.

• Concern that commercial harvesters would occupy the majority of the 

forests’ undeveloped campsites at the expense of recreational forest users. 

• Concerns about ensuring picker safety and protecting the Forest Service 

from liability for pickers injured by falling snags.

• Hesitancy to implement an overly rigid enforcement program, given the 

low economic returns for most pickers and high rates of unemployment in 

some areas, particularly the Kootenai National Forest.

Besides the concerns listed above, participants in the discussions indicated that 

lack of information about the social aspects of the wild morel industry hindered 

the ability of the USDA Forest Service to manage morels. Participants noted that 

they understood little about how morel buyers operate, who participates as pickers 

and buyers, or how wild morel markets work. Consequently, forest managers had 

difficulty projecting how policies they put into place would affect the commercial 

wild morel industry.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

Figure 1—Although fires burned throughout much of western Montana during summer 2000, the 

Bitterroot Valley experienced the most intense and extensive fires of the season. Burns differed in 

severity, ranging from very intense crown fires such as the one that passed through the forest stand 

depicted in this photo, to low-intensity fires that consumed only ground cover. 
3

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Thus, the purpose of this exploratory study was to provide forest managers and 

scientists with an understanding of the following social aspects of commercial wild 

mushroom harvesting in western Montana:

• Ways in which wild mushroom buyers and pickers participate in the 

harvest.

• How the wild morel harvest fits within the overall livelihood strategies 

of pickers and buyers.

The data-gathering portion of this study took place between September 2000 

and September 2001. The research focused on wild morel harvesting activities and 

policies on the Bitterroot and Kootenai National Forests (fig. 2). 

Figure 2—Kootenai and Bitterroot field sites visited during summer 2001. 

Yaak

Troy

Libby

Kootenai National Forest

Missoula

Darby

Bitterroot National Forest

Helena

0 100

Miles

50

C A N A D A

M O N T A N A

W Y O M I N G

I D A H O Hamilton
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

Study Description and Methods

With information gleaned from Forest Service employees and mushroom pickers 

and buyers, the research team selected sites in the Kootenai and Bitterroot National 

Forests. Both the Kootenai and Bitterroot had experienced major burns on a regular basis since the mid-1980s. Additionally, the Kootenai and Bitterroot had large 

concentrations of harvesters and pickers in nearby towns, such as Libby and Darby, 

making it possible for the field researcher to easily establish several contacts in one 

locality on each forest. 

Discussions were conducted with key informants among pickers, buyers, and 

Forest Service employees at the field sites. The field researcher talked with 4 groups 

of buyers (3 in the Bitterroot Valley and 1 in Libby), 11 harvesters (7 in the Bitterroot Valley and 4 in Libby), and 10 USDA Forest Service employees. The harvesters 

included eight Caucasians, one Cambodian, one Laotian, and one Latino. The four 

buying groups consisted of three all-Caucasian groups and one group composed of 

two Caucasians and one Southeast Asian. The field researcher asked key informants 

to provide information about harvester and buyer characteristics, morel markets, 

views on regulations, and morel habitat and productivity.

The field researcher recorded notes of conversations with key informants by 

hand, using Emerson et al. (1995) as a guide for note-taking format. She opted not 

to tape the conversations because of the noisy conditions in which many of the 

interactions took place (often near busy highways), and thus the likelihood of difficulty in transcribing the conversations. The field researcher also kept a daily record 

of observations about the buying stations and social interactions taking place in and 

around the stations throughout the field study. 

The discussions with pickers and buyers took place during 4-day visits to each 

site the first 2 weeks of June—during the fifth week of the morel season in the 

Kootenai Valley and the third week of the season in the Bitterroot Valley. Following 

Bernard (1994), the data were grouped into four broad topics: market conditions, 

livelihood strategies, policy issues, and morel ecology. Region 1 managers had 

indicated that these were issues that they knew little about (from the perspective of 

pickers and buyers), and believed that it would be useful for management purposes 

to have more information on them. The data on market conditions and livelihood 

are presented here. 

On the basis of work done by McLain (2000), Emery (1998), and Love et al. 

1998), the following characteristics were used to distinguish livelihood strategies 

of the informants: place of residence relative to harvest location (an indicator of 

mobility), length of time in the industry, proportion of the year spent working in 

the industry, and access to other sources of income. In addition, previous studies 
5

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

of NTFP harvesters in the Pacific Northwest suggested that differences might exist 

between pickers and buyers of different ethnic backgrounds (Hansis 1998, Love et 

al. 1998, Lynch and McLain 2003, Richards and Creasy 1996). Matrices of these 

characteristics for the harvesters and buyers (tables 1, 2, and 3) were used to construct the textual description of livelihood strategies. 

Table 1—Examples of buyer livelihood strategies in western Montana, 2001

 Main Ethnic Lives in Years as Months per

Buyer residence group field site buyer year buying Other income sources or subsistence activities

B1 Montana Caucasian Yes 14 ~7–8 Roofing, matsutake buying, *mushroom picking,

 *beargrass harvesting

B3a Oregon Caucasian No 5 ~7–8 Field buying station coordinator for matsutake

 harvest, mushroom processing and packing, 

 (fishing)

B3b Oregon Caucasian No 5 ~7–8 Field buying station coordinator for matsutake

 Caucasian No 10 harvest, mushroom processing and packing,

 (fishing)

B2a Oregon Caucasian No 3 12 Mushroom packing, fall and winter mushroom 

 buying

B2b Oregon Caucasian No 10 12 Fall and winter mushroom buying

B2c California Southeast No 4 12 Translating, fall and winter mushroom buying

 Asian

B4 Montana Caucasian Yes 14 ~7–8 Collecting antlers for making dream catchers, 

 jewelry, and lamps, matsutake buying, 

 huckleberry picking and buying, (hunting)

* = past occupation, ( ) = subsistence activity

Table 2—Examples of picker livelihood strategies in the Kootenai Valley, 2001

 Ethnic Lives in Years Full-time Other income sources or 

Picker Residence group field site picking morels picker? subsistence activities

K1 Montana Caucasian Yes 3+ No Seed collector, *Forest Service employee

 20 years, *logger 12 years

K2 Oregon Caucasian No 8+ No Matsutake picker, landscape laborer, 

 ski area employee*

K3 Montana Caucasian Yes Several years No Gold panning, huckleberry picking

K4 Montana Caucasian Yes First year No Huckleberry picking, gold panning, making 

 jewelry and knife handles from antlers, 

 Navy veteran with disability payments, 

 *postal worker, (fishing, hunting) 

* = past occupation, ( ) = subsistence activity
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

Given the exploratory nature of this study, the research findings are limited 

in depth and scope. Three limitations of the study warrant specific mention. First, 

although an effort was made to select key informants from the four major ethnic 

groups active in the harvest (Caucasian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Latino), the 

sample nonetheless drew disproportionately from the Caucasian picker population. 

The reasons for this include the difficulty for an outsider to gain sufficient trust 

with pickers of cultures different from her own during such a short period, as well 

as linguistic barriers. A second limitation of the study is that the observational 

data, such as prices and pounds purchased per day, are limited to a small portion 

of a much longer season. Third, the study does not address differences in the social 

characteristics of the Montana morel industry across seasons.

Social and Ecological Context

The Kootenai and Bitterroot National Forests are located in the far western 

corners of Montana, with the Kootenai occupying the northwestern corner and 

the Bitterroot situated roughly 200 miles south in the southwestern corner (see 

fig. 2). A portion of the Bitterroot National Forest also extends into Idaho. 

Bitterroot National Forest

The Bitterroot National Forest surrounds the Bitterroot Valley, a long wide valley 

in western Montana. The Bitterroot Valley stretches 83 miles from the city of Missoula at its north end, to the small town of Sula near its southern tip. The Bitterroot 

Table 3—Examples of picker livelihood strategies in the Bitterroot Valley, 2001

 Ethnic Lives in Years Full-time Other income sources or 

Picker Residence group field site picking morels picker? subsistence activities

B1 Oregon Caucasian No <1 (several years— No Woodworking [lamps from juniper wood], 

 matsutake) matsutake picking, *logging

B2 Oregon Caucasian No <1 (several years— No Military veteran with disability payments, 

 matsutake) matsutake picking, *logger—25 years

B3 Oregon Caucasian No 2 No Professional guitar player, bolete picking, 

 (hunting and fishing)

B4 Oregon Latino No 7+ No Cone collecting, fall and winter mushroom picking, *forest firefighter

B5 Oregon Cambodian No 9 No Salal and beargrass harvesting, fall 

 mushroom picking, *furniture seller/

 fabric cutter

B6 California Laotian No 2 (several years— Yes Matsutake picking

 matsutake)

B7 Oregon Caucasian Yes 5+ No Construction, fall mushroom picking

* = past occupation, ( ) = subsistence activity
7

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Range forms the valley’s western border; the Sapphire Range bounds the valley to 

the east. The valley floor is 3,200 feet above sea level, with the mountains around it 

7,000 to 10,000 feet in elevation (USDA FS Bitterroot National Forest, n.d.).

Habitat types within the forest’s boundaries include grasslands and forest 

stands composed primarily of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Loud.) 

in the drier, lower elevations (USDA FS Bitterroot National Forest, n.d.). Mixed coniferous forests dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), and western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) are common in mid-elevations (USDA FS Bitterroot National Forest, 

n.d.). The high-elevation alpine forests are composed mostly of Engelmann spruce 

(Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) 

Nutt.), subalpine larch (Larix lyallii Parl.), and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis

Engelm.) (USDA FS Bitterroot National Forest, n.d.). 

Annual precipitation averages 12 to 15 inches in the Bitterroot Valley, and 40 to 

80 inches in the surrounding mountains (Montana Natural Heritage Program 1998). 

In the mountains, much of the precipitation falls in the form of snow. The winters 

are cold and snowy with an average low in January of 17.8 °F (Montana Department of Labor and Industries 2004). The summers are hot and dry with an average 

high of 82.8 °F (Montana Department of Labor and Industry 2004). Most of the 

Bitterroot National Forest lies within Ravalli County, Montana, which covers 2,394 

square miles (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2003). The county had a population of 36,070 in 2000, with a population density of 15.1 inhabitants per square mile 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Most of Ravalli County’s inhabitants live in the Bitterroot Valley. Incorporated towns adjacent to the Bitterroot National Forest include 

Florence, Hamilton, Stevensville, Corvallis, Darby, Sula, and West Fork. Hamilton, 

which has a population of 3,705 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), serves as the valley’s 

major trading center and is also the county seat. The unemployment rate for Ravalli 

County was 4.6 percent in 2000, equal to the state average (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). The median household income was $31,992, and the per capita income was 

$17,935 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Kootenai National Forest

Located roughly 200 miles north of the Bitteroot Valley, the Kootenai National 

Forest surrounds the Kootenai and Thompson River valleys in the far northwestern 

corner of Montana. Both valleys are long and narrow, with little land flat enough for 

farming or ranching. The Kootenai Valley area is the lowest point in Montana, with 

elevations ranging from 1,820 feet on the valley floor to 8,700 feet in the surrounding mountain ranges (Lincoln County Emergency Management Agency 2003). Four 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

mountain ranges—the Purcell, Cabinet, Coeur d’Alene, and Salish—lie within 

the boundaries of the forest.

Unlike the Bitterroot National Forest, which has large areas of grassland and 

scrublands, the Kootenai National Forest is nearly entirely composed of forest 

land. Habitat types include mixed-conifer stands with Douglas-fir and western 

hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) the dominant overstory species at 

low and mid-elevations (2,000 to 5,000 feet); small areas of ponderosa pine with 

western larch on drier locations at low and mid-elevations; stands dominated by 

western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) and hemlock in moist areas, 

and subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce stands at higher elevations (USDA FS 

Kootenai National Forest 1987). Large stands of dense lodgepole pine exist in 

some watersheds (USDA FS Kootenai National Forest 1987). 

Average annual precipitation in the Kootenai ranges from 30 inches in the 

lower elevations to more than 60 inches in the Cabinet Range (Lincoln County 

Emergency Management Agency 2003). Much of the precipitation in the higher 

elevations falls in the form of snow. The winters are wet, but mild compared to 

other parts of Montana. The summers are typically warm and dry. The average 

low temperature in January in the town of Libby is 15.5 °F, and the high is 31.5 

°F (Lincoln County Emergency Management Agency 2003). In July, the warmest month of the year, the average high is 87.8 °F and the average low is 46.1 °F 

(Lincoln County Emergency Management Agency 2003). 

The Kootenai National Forest is situated primarily within Lincoln and Sanders Counties. Major settlements near the forest’s boundaries include Eureka, 

Libby, and Troy. Lincoln County encompasses 3,613 square miles and had a 

population of 18,835 in 2000, with a population density of 5.2 persons per square 

mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Libby, with a population of 2,800, is the Lincoln 

County seat and the county’s political and economic center (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). Economically, Lincoln County is one of the poorest counties in Montana. 

The unemployment rate in 2000 was 11.3 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), 

nearly twice as high as the state average and the rate in the Bitterroot Valley. The 

median household income in 2000 was $26,754, and the per capita income in 

Lincoln County was $13,923 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Both figures are significantly lower than those for the state and the Bitterroot Valley. 

Recent Economic Changes in the Study Areas

From the 1950s to the late 1980s, timber harvesting constituted the dominant land 

management activity on both national forests, providing many local residents 

with jobs in the forest fiber industry (Russell and Adams-Russell 2004, Swanson 
9

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

2001). Since the 1980s, however, timber harvesting and processing activities have 

declined, resulting in the closure of local wood processing facilities and extensive 

layoffs of mill and woods workers (Russell and Adams-Russell 2004, Swanson 

2001). These changes have affected communities in the Kootenai Valley much more 

severely than the communities in the Bitterroot Valley. 

The difference in how the two areas have adjusted to economic restructuration 

is most likely due to several factors, including differences in land ownership patterns, remoteness, and climate. Private smallholders occupy a much larger percentage of the land area (24 percent) in Ravalli County relative to Lincoln County (8 

percent) (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2003). Settlements in the Kootenai 

Valley are also much further removed from major population centers, transportation routes, health care facilities, high-paying job opportunities, and institutions of 

higher education than the towns in the Bitterroot Valley. 

The Forest Service’s emphasis on managing the Western United States’ national 

forests primarily for timber production between the late 1940s and the late 1980s 

masked the role of those forests as sources of a wide variety of nontimber forest 

products, such as huckleberries, moss, floral greens, seed cones, medicinal plants, 

and wild edible mushrooms (Antypas et al. 2002). Although typically less remunerative than much of the work associated with the wood products industry, nontimber 

forest product harvesting, processing, and buying provided rural and urban people 

alike with access to income-generating opportunities that occasionally supported 

an entire livelihood, but more often served as important sources of supplemental 

income, particularly during economic downturns (Emery 1998, 2002; Emery et al. 

2002; Lynch and McLain 2003). 

Until the late 1970s, national forests developed and enforced few regulations 

governing public access to many nontimber forest products (Antypas et al. 2002). 

Individual ranger districts, however, had the discretion to develop rules restricting 

access to nontimber forest products (Lynch and McLain 2003, McLain 2000, Parks 

and Schmitt 1997). Many ranger districts opted to focus on regulating wood products, such as firewood, posts and poles, boughs, and Christmas trees, which ranger 

districts could manage by using funds generated from the sale of timber under the 

reforestation provisions of the Knutsen-Vandenberg Act of 1930. Few, if any, ranger 

districts in the Western United States regulated wild mushrooms before the 1980s 

(McLain 2000).

Beginning in the 1980s, domestic and international consumer demand for wild 

edible mushrooms from the Western United States gradually increased (Alexander 

et al. 2002). The subsequent rise in the number of people seeking to harvest wild 

mushrooms on western national forests prompted the Forest Service to develop 

Few, if any, ranger 

districts in the Western 

United States regulated 

wild mushrooms before 

the 1980s. 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

rules to regulate access to wild mushrooms and limit the areas where commercial 

harvesters could camp (McLain 2000, Parks and Schmitt 1997). The Pacific Northwest Region, which encompasses the states of Oregon and Washington, took the 

lead in developing rules that enabled the agency to begin tracking wild mushroom 

harvesting activities and to put into place mechanisms for controlling the flow of 

pickers within picking areas (McLain 2000). 

In a survey of wild-mushroom buyers conducted in 1992, economists Schlosser 

and Blatner (1995) identified more than 10 species harvested commercially in the 

states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Four types—morels (Morchella spp.), 

boletes (primarily Boletus edulis), chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.), and American 

matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare)—composed the majority of both the volume 

and the value of the wild mushrooms harvested by the buyers included in the survey 

(Schlosser and Blatner 1995). Schlosser and Blatner estimated the economic contribution of wild mushroom markets to the regional economy of Washington, Oregon, 

and Idaho at $41.1 million in 1992 (Schlosser and Blatner 1995). 

Commercial wild mushroom species fruit less consistently in the northern 

Rockies than in Washington and Oregon. However, over the past 20 years, pickers 

have learned they can often find large quantities of morels in the northern Rockies in years following major forest fires. As long as commercial demand for morels 

remains strong, the occurrence of large forest fires in the forests of the northern 

Rockies is likely to draw pickers to Montana and Idaho during the months of June 

and July. 

The northern Rockies constitute just one potential set of the many geographically dispersed sites available to mushroom pickers in the Western United States 

and Canada. Commercial pickers can pick morels from 6 to 8 months during a year, 

depending on the season and their willingness to move from one fruiting site to 

the next. Pickers following the morel circuit typically begin harvesting in northern 

California and southwestern Oregon in late February to early March. As the air and 

soil temperatures rise and the snow in the mountains begins to melt, usually between mid-March to mid-May, circuit pickers move north and east to morel grounds 

located along the east side of the Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon. 

Depending on the season, and the location of large fires in the previous years, 

around mid to late May circuit pickers shift to the mountains of eastern Oregon and 

southern Oregon and to low-elevation harvest sites in Idaho and Montana. A few 

pickers follow the circuit up into Canada and Alaska during July and August. 

Others remain in the Rockies, Cascades, and the northern Sierras, moving upward 

in elevation as the summer advances. Although gray morels can fruit as late as 

Commercial pickers 

can pick morels from 

6 to 8 months during 

a year, depending on 

the season and their 

willingness to move 

from one fruiting site 

to the next.
11

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

October in parts of the northern Rockies,1 most circuit pickers start picking matsutake or chanterelles in Canada, Oregon, or Washington by mid-September. 

Many ethnic groups participate in the morel harvest, including Native Americans and immigrants and native-born Americans of European, Laotian, Khmer, 

Mien, Hmong, Vietnamese, Mexican, and Central American descent. Undocumented workers from Mexico and Central America also participate in the harvest. 

The relative percentage of different ethnic groups is difficult to estimate. 

However, an analysis of 1994 permit data from national forests in eastern Oregon 

indicated that 51.3 percent of the pickers obtaining permits had Southeast Asian 

surnames, 44.2 percent had Euro-American surnames, and 4.5 percent had Latino 

surnames (Parks and Schmitt 1997). The same data indicated that 73 percent of the 

pickers who had obtained permits came from other locations, and only 27 percent 

lived near the harvesting location (Parks and Schmitt 1997).

Morel Ecology

To understand the social organization of the wild mushroom industry in the northern Rockies, it is helpful to know a bit about morel ecology. Several species of 

morels occur in the intermountain West. True morels, which belong to the genus 

Morchella, are easy to distinguish from other mushrooms, but taxonomists have 

had difficulty identifying and naming species within the genus. In addition, scientific classification schemes differ from harvester classification schemes. The two 

major types of morels identified during this study fell into the harvester categories 

of burn morels and gray morels, both of which fruit in greatest abundance the 

spring or summer following a forest fire. Other morel varieties include those that 

are not necessarily associated with fires, including the varieties harvesters categorize as naturals and blondes. Naturals and blondes tend to grow in mixed-conifer 

forests with relatively open canopies or in meadows and small clearcuts. All four 

types of morels tend to be associated with soil disturbance and dying or damaged 

trees (table 4).

Morels fruit in a variety of environments, including areas that have been disturbed by fires, insect infestations, and logging operations. In the Western United 

1 Gray morels fruit into early October in parts of Montana. The lead author first heard of 

such fruitings during 1998 while working as a mushroom buyer in Sisters, Oregon. In 

spring 1998, several circuit pickers who harvested at Sisters stated that they had picked 

gray morels in Montana and Idaho into October the previous year (i.e., fall 1997). Larry 

Evans, a wild mushroom buyer and an active member in the Western Montana Mycological 

Association for many years, reported in an email to the lead author dated March 11, 2005, 

that he found gray morels on September 29, 2001, on the Moose Fire near Glacier National 

Park. He notes in the email: “Morels found Sept 29 were in a variety of sizes and ages, suggesting that later fruitings might be developing right up to the snow.”
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

States, morel crops are often abundant in burned areas in the year immediately following a forest fire. Although recent studies suggest that morels can be mycorrhizal 

(Buscot 1992, 1993; Buscot and Kottke 1990; Dahlstrom et al. 2000), mycologists 

have until recently classified them as saprobes, which acquire nutrients by breaking 

down decayed organic matter (Ower 1982). Understanding the distinction between 

saprobic and mycorrhizal life strategies is critical to establishing appropriate management regimes (Pilz et al. 1999). From the picker perspective, the difference in 

life strategies is also important, as how morels obtain nutrients affects their distribution in space and time. 

Mycologists agree that at least two distinct morel groups exist: dark morels (the 

Elata clade) and yellow morels (the Esculenta clade) (Pilz et al. 2004). Mycologists 

have identified 13 potential species of yellow morels and 9 potential species of dark 

morels in North America (Pilz et al. 2004). Data from morel samples gathered in 

1995 from sites in northeastern Oregon suggest the likely presence of at least five 

distinct morel species: a natural black morel (found in unburned areas), three forms 

of burn morels (pink, green, and gray), and a blond morel (a light- colored type) 

(Pilz et al. 2004). The scientists who conducted the study, however, note that morphologically the pink and green morels, which likely correspond to the harvester 

category of “burn” morel, are indistinguishable from each other (Pilz et al. 2004). 

Table 4—Commercial classification of morel varieties in western Montana, 2001

Commercial 

classification Description 

Burn morels Burn, or fire, morels have a dark, almost black color, cylindrical 

 shape, solid wall construction, and small exterior ridges on the 

 caps. Burn morels sold commercially are often much smaller in 

 size than the naturals, blondes, and grays. 

Naturals Naturals, also called conicas and blacks, are lighter brown in color 

 than the burn morels, conical in shape, have deep exterior ridges, 

 and thin double-walled construction. They tend to be less uniform 

 in shape, are more likely to have worms, and hold up less well in 

 storage and transport than burn morels.

Blondes Blondes, also called golds, golden morels, yellows, and whites, have 

 the more cylindrical shape and deep ridges of the naturals, but are 

 beige to golden in color, and much denser than naturals.

Grays Grays are a late-season burn morel, gray and brownish gray on 

 the heads, becoming lighter with increasing size. Stems range from 

 dark gray to whitish and, similar to the heads, also become lighter 

 with increasing size. Heads have irregularly patterned pits. Pits are 

 smaller and more firmly compressed in young individuals. A coating 

 of small hairs covers the surface of young heads, becoming less 

 noticeable, on older specimens. The gray morels are hollow and 

 particularly thick and robust because of their double wall.

Source: Adapted from McLain 2000: 155.

Morel crops are often 

abundant in burned 

areas in the year 

immediately following 

a forest fire.
13

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Mushroom ecology is extremely difficult to monitor from season to season, 

particularly for species such as Morchella spp., which may never fruit in the same 

area twice. Even slight variations in temperature or precipitation can alter fruiting 

site and abundance (Weber 1997). The wildfires that promote morel flushes the 

following spring or summer create ideal habitat for commercial harvesting. It is 

likely that morels respond favorably to the organic acid neutralization that fires 

provide (Apfelbaum et al. 1984). Fire may also create an environment suitable for 

morel fruiting by reducing concentrations of substances that inhibit fungal growth 

(Duchesne and Weber 1993) and by removing litter that may inhibit ascocarp formation (Apfelbaum 1984). 

Information from commercial harvesters and buyers indicates that beyond the 

first year following a fire, productivity declines rapidly for at least some species of 

postfire morels. The intensity of fire, extent of tree mortality, weather, season, and 

degree of soil disturbance all affect morel growth. Elevation, slope, aspect, forest 

vegetation composition, and snow patterns also greatly affect morel fruiting. In 

the dry inland montane forests of the Pacific Northwest, morels fruit in spring and 

summer after the snow has melted when humid weather persists (Pilz et al. 1999). 

Although we know that morel spores are released from dry, mature morels, 

scientists do not yet know how the spores colonize. Pilz et al. (1999) suggested that 

spores may persist for a long time in the soil, fruiting when conditions become suitable. Alternatively, Pilz et al. (1999) suggested that spore loads remain in the atmosphere, colonizing an area annually. If morel colonization does depend on annual 

spore dispersal, taking large portions of individuals could potentially cause future 

fruiting to decline. However, without knowing how a colony becomes established, 

how morels breed, how genetically diverse they are, and more about population dynamics, it is difficult to suggest management regimes for morels (Pilz et al. 1999). 

Morels occur on the landscape in discontinuous concentrations, known by pickers as “patches,” which typically fruit in a series of flushes (McLain 2000). Although it is difficult to predict exactly which patches will fruit and when a flush will 

start, pickers and buyers who have worked an area for many years possess highly 

detailed mental maps of patch locations and a highly developed understanding for 

the combination of climatic, soil moisture, and vegetation conditions that indicate 

that patches in a given area are likely to begin or continue fruiting (McLain 2000).

Study Results 

Scope of the Commercial Morel Harvest in 2001 

Seven national forests in Region 1—Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Clearwater, 

Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo—issued mushroom permits during 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

spring and summer 2001. Commercial pickers had to obtain forest-specific permits 

for each of the national forests. For example, a permit issued by the Bitterroot could 

not be used for picking wild mushrooms on the Lolo or Kootenai. The national 

forests offered 7-day, 14-day, 30-day, and seasonal permits for commercial harvesting, at a cost of $20, $40, $60, and $100, respectively (DeWolf 2001). The national 

forests also offered pickers the option of obtaining a personal-use permit if they 

wished to harvest only small quantities of mushrooms (1 to 3 gallons, depending on 

the forest) for their own use or for noncash exchange. The forests issued personaluse permits free of charge (DeWolf 2001).

The permit data for the 2001 season provide an estimate of how many pickers may have participated in the harvest (table 5). The seven forests issued 3,642 

commercial and 3,750 personal-use mushroom permits between May and August 

2001, a total of 7,392 permits (DeWolf 2001). This figure represents only a rough 

approximation of the number of pickers partly because some pickers obtain several 

less-expensive short-term permits rather than one seasonal permit. McLain’s (2000) 

study of wild morel pickers in central Oregon also suggests that some pickers obtain 

multiple short-term permits. Consequently, the number of pickers obtaining permits 

likely was somewhat lower than the number of permits issued. Second, it is also 

possible that a picker obtained both a commercial permit and a personal-use permit 

during the season. Third, it is likely that some pickers obtained permits for several 

forests. 

Table 5—Morel permit activity in the Northern Region, May–August 

2001

Number of commercial permits issued

National Forest May June July August Total

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 0 125 247 71 443

Bitterroot 322 997 57 22 1,398

Idaho Panhandle 0 0 0 0 0

Clearwater 0 0 18 - 18

Custer 0 0 0 0 0

Flathead 0 0 0 0 0

Gallatin 0 0 0 0 0

Helena 0 27 4 0 31

Kootenai 229 437 65 4 735

Lewis and Clark 0 0 0 1 1

Lolo 824 150 28 14 1,016

Nez Perce 0 0 0 0 0

 Northern Region total 1,375 1,736 419 112 3,642

Source: DeWolf 2001.
15

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Offsetting the tendency of the permit tracking system to overestimate the 

number of pickers is the likelihood that many pickers harvested mushrooms without 

obtaining permits. A reasonable estimate of the number of commercial pickers is 

thus likely somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000. The authors’ cumulative experience of more than 30 years of participating in wild mushroom harvesting indicates 

that many personal-use pickers do not obtain permits. The number of personal-use 

pickers was thus probably at least 3,750 (the number of personal-use permits issued 

by Region 1 forests) and likely much more.

In addition to providing a rough idea of the number of pickers harvesting in the 

region during 2001, the permit data also offer some indication of the spatial and 

temporal distribution pattern of pickers over the season. Table 5 shows the Lolo 

National Forest issued the most permits in May. In June, however, the Bitterroot 

National Forest issued far more permits than either the Lolo or the Kootenai. In 

July, all three forests experienced a sharp decline in the number of permits purchased. However, demand for permits remained higher on the Kootenai and Bitterroot than on the Lolo. At the same time, the number of permits requested from the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (located to the south and east of the Bitterroot Valley) nearly doubled from June. The demand for permits declined further on 

all four forests in August, and no one requested permits in September. 

Assuming that many of the pickers harvested on multiple sites, the picture of 

the 2001 harvest depicted by the permit statistics is as follows: Pickers started 

harvesting on the Lolo and Kootenai in May, both of which had a large percentage of burns at elevations lower than those on the Bitterroot. In June as the higher 

elevation burns on the Bitterroot and Kootenai began to produce morels, pickers 

on the Lolo moved into those areas. In July, a few hundred pickers working on 

Lolo, Kootenai, and Bitterroot moved east into the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest. Of these, perhaps 25 percent remained in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge area 

through August before heading home, in Montana or elsewhere, or west to pick fall 

mushrooms. The Kootenai National Forest’s special forest products coordinator 

indicated that a few harvesters continued to harvest gray morels until late August. 

Field Buying Stations: Social Interactions and 

Operator Strategies

During early June 2001, 10 wild mushroom buying stations operated in or near the 

town of Darby adjacent to the Bitterroot National Forest (fig. 3). The actual number 

of buying stations, however, was likely much greater. The field researcher talked 

with operators of three stations, including two stations run by Caucasian buyers and 

one station managed by a team of two Caucasian and one Southeast Asian buyers. 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

The special forest products coordinator for the Kootenai National Forest reported having had contact with 20 buyers in the Kootenai area. Owing to the distance 

between stations, the field researcher could talk with and observe only one buyer 

working near the Kootenai National Forest, a Caucasian woman who also coordinated buying at two other stations in the Kootenai Valley. Individuals working for 

at least two other companies also had set up buying stations at the time of the field 

work. In the following description, names of pickers and buyers have been coded to 

protect their anonymity.

Buying station 1—

B1 operated his station in Darby with limited help from others. He also did the 

work of refrigerating, drying, and shipping the mushrooms he bought as well as the 

mushrooms that his satellite buyer (buying station 3) purchased. B1 obtained funds 

for buying from the same company that financed buying station 4 in the Kootenai. 

He shipped fresh morels to the parent company’s processing and distributing center 

in Seattle, Washington, and the dried morels to his company’s facilities in Portland, 

Oregon. 

B1 had worked as a wild mushroom buyer for 10 years. His station consisted 

of an enclosed rental building next to the main highway through the Bitterroot 

Figure 3—During the 2001 season, most morel buyers in western Montana set up temporary 

buying stations near settlements close to the major picking sites in the Bitterroot, Lolo, and 

Kootenai National Forests. Hand-painted signs, such as the one depicted here, inform pickers 

that a buyer is operating in the area. 
17

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Valley about a mile south of Darby and a 10-minute drive from his home. He and 

his wife started in the business as pickers during the late 1980s at a time when B1 

was making a living as a roofer in the Bitterroot Valley. Beginning in 1990, they 

began buying morels in spring and summer, and then picked and graded matsutake 

mushrooms in central Oregon during fall. Over time, B1 became involved in the 

mushroom business nearly year-round, purchasing morels in spring and summer, 

and matsutake in fall. B1 commented that although he enjoyed making a living in 

the mushroom industry, at times he has considered shifting into work that is more 

stable.

B1 bought morels from pickers of all ethnic backgrounds. He noted that many 

pickers returned year after year to sell their morels exclusively to him. Some of the 

regular pickers stayed with his family while in the Darby area. As indicated by the 

following field note excerpt, B1 not only welcomed Southeast Asian pickers to his 

station but also had traveled and worked with groups of Southeast Asians in the 

past. 

B1 has also gone beargrass hunting with Asian friends when he was in 

financial debt (7 years ago). The work was very difficult—the grass cut into 

their hands and the work was labor intensive—BUT it saved them in a time 

of need and they are thankful to their friends—one couple in particular 

who showed them how to do the work [Field notes from observations of 

buying station 1].

In June 2001, B1’s station had a warm and friendly atmosphere where many 

pickers congregated and conversed well into the night. He offered refreshments 

and drinks to all pickers, as well as price incentives to a few pickers based on the 

quality and quantity of mushrooms they harvested. With the exception of the few 

pickers to whom he openly paid a higher price, his prices stayed fairly consistent. 

B1 reported purchasing about 1,000 pounds per day during the first 2 weeks in 

June (table 6). He noted that this amount is relatively small when compared to the 

estimates of 5,000 to 7,000 pounds per day that buyers in the Lolo National Forest 

were reportedly bringing in at the same time.

Buying station 2—

The buyers running the second buying station in Darby adopted a very different approach from B1. They had set up their buying station off the highway at a spot about 

a mile south of B1’s station, which the landowner let them occupy free of charge. 

They initially set up their buying station in Eureka, near the Kootenai National 

Forest, but shifted to Darby when the first flush of morels came on in the Bitterroot 

Valley. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

Three women—B2a, B2b, and B2c—ran the station. B2a and B2b lived in a 

town near Eugene, Oregon; B2c lived in a town in northern California. All three 

women at buying station two stated that they were full-time mushroom buyers, traveling the wild mushroom circuits in the Western United States. They bought and 

picked all types of mushrooms, beginning with morels in California in early spring 

followed by morels in Oregon, Montana, and Idaho in late spring and early summer. They then would go to Canada in August to buy matsutakes, moving down to 

central and southern Oregon when the matsutake harvest began in those locations. 

During January and February they bought winter mushrooms, such as chanterelles 

(Cantharellus spp.), lobsters (Hypomyces lactifluorum), yellowfoot (Cantharellus 

infundibuliformis), chicken of the woods (Laetiporus suplhureus), fried chicken 

(Lyophyllum decastes) and boletes (Boletus spp.) in southwestern Oregon.

B2a started out in the mushroom business as a packer. She later became a buyer 

and had been buying wild mushrooms year-round for 3 years at the time of the field 

work. B2b had bought mushrooms for the previous 10 years. B2c had bought and 

picked wild mushrooms for 4 years. 

In addition to buying mushrooms, B2c also worked seasonally as a translator 

on contract with the Forest Service to help agency managers communicate with 

Laotian and Cambodian pickers. B2c started working as a translator in the late 

1990s, when a national forest in the Pacific Northwest hired her as part of an effort 

to decrease tensions between pickers and Forest Service employees. The summer 

of 2001 was the first year that the Forest Service had hired her to work during the 

morel season and in Montana. 

Unlike B1, who bought out of the same location every day, B2a, B2b, and B2c 

stated that they rarely set up their station in the same place twice. In deciding where 

to set up their station for the night, they look for the area with the busiest harvester 

traffic. Their station consisted of several collapsible tables, several plastic mushroom baskets, as well as scales. They neither refrigerated nor dried their own morels, activities that took place at their buying company’s field headquarters whose 

Table 6—Examples of buyer morel purchases 

and drying in western Montana, 2001

 Estimated number of 

Buying pounds purchased per Dries own

station day in early June 2001 morels

1 1,000 Yes

2 3,000 No

3 800 No

4 3,000 No
19

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

location they were unwilling to divulge. They did not offer refreshments, 

and although they paid some pickers higher prices, they did not do so openly. 

During the time the field researcher observed buying station 2, nearly all the 

pickers frequenting the station were Southeast Asians. The presence of a Southeast 

Asian buyer, who also worked as a translator for the Forest Service, appeared to 

play a role in the ability of buying station 2 to attract Southeast Asian customers 

as described in field notes:

[Buying station 3] does not have nearly as many customers as the buyers 

next door to them [i.e., buying station 2] have. Since B2c is a translator and 

speaks many different Asian languages, harvesters who pull into the driveway (that both buyers are set up in) B2c often approaches first, speaking 

their language and winning their business.

The three women running buying station 2 stated that they purchased an 

average of 3,000 pounds per day, considerably more morels than the other two 

buying stations the field researcher visited in Darby at the same point in the 2001 

season. They ran an extremely fast-paced, somewhat impersonal business, buying 

the greatest volume in the least amount of time. The prices they offered pickers 

were consistently lower than the prices other nearby buying stations offered. For 

example, when nearby buying stations offered $3.25 or $3.50 per pound for field 

run morels, the operators of buying station 2 offered only $3.00 per pound.2

Buying station 3—

B3a and B3b, a couple from Oregon, operated a buying station that exemplified yet 

a third approach to morel buying in the Bitterroot Valley during the 2001 season. 

Before 2001, the couple had bought morels as independent buyers for several years. 

This was the first season that they worked as field buyers for B1. They contracted to 

give B1 a percentage of their earnings in exchange for use of his refrigerated storage 

2 The study data do not permit us to determine precisely why buy station 2 was able to 

capture a greater volume of mushrooms despite offering a slightly lower price than the 

neighboring buy stations 1 and 3. However, based on one co-author’s experience as a wild 

mushroom field buyer, two possible explanations include (1) If one buy station is noticeably 

faster than a neighboring buy station at purchasing mushrooms, pickers will sometimes opt 

to sell their product at a slightly lower price to the faster buyer. As buy station 2 had three 

buyers, compared to one at buy station 1 and two at buy station 3, it is probable that pickers 

going through buy station 2 would have had less of a wait. (2) Buyers vary in the degree to 

which they impose quality control standards on pickers. A picker may be willing to accept 

a slightly lower price from a buyer who she thinks will do an easier “grade.” In this way, 

the picker may end up making the same or slightly more than she might have if she had sold 

to a buyer imposing stricter grade standards. In addition, some Southeast Asian pickers 

may have felt obliged to sell their morels to buying station 2 as they had benefited from the 

services of the translator who served as one of the three buyers for the station. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

area and drying equipment as well as his expertise. Relative newcomers to 

the field of morel buying, they bought many fewer pounds per day (an average 

of 800 pounds) than the three other buyers. Their relationship with B1 was that 

of co-equals: they worked for B1 during the morel season, and B1 worked for 

them during the matsutake season in Oregon. 

B3a and B3b observed that they make most of their money during the 

matsutake season, when they coordinate the operations of several field buying 

stations near Crescent Lake, Oregon. Although relatively inexperienced in the 

morel industry, they had considerable experience in the wild mushroom industry, 

having worked as buyers and field coordinators in the matsutake business for 10 

years. They ran the station as a family operation, with their son and B3a’s father 

assisting with weighing, sorting, and packing morels.

B3a and B3b had set up their station very close to buying station 2, perhaps 

as a way to encourage some of the pickers frequenting the women’s station to sell 

to them instead. They purchased from pickers of a variety of ethnic groups. Like 

B1, they offered refreshments to all comers, and openly paid certain pickers higher 

prices. Although their station was a less solidly constructed structure than B1’s, it 

was more elaborately constructed than buying station 2. Their buying stand resembled a seasonal farm stand, with an awning to protect the buyers and pickers from 

the sun and rain. 

B3a and B3b noted that their goal as buyers was to get as many pickers as they 

could into their station and to then offer the picker a good enough deal that he or 

she would sell to them. They were less concerned with the number of pounds they 

purchased each day than were the other buyers. The field researcher noted a strong 

sense of competition between the operators of buying station 2 and buying station 

3, which purchased mushrooms for rival companies. Unlike B1, B2a, B2b, and B2c, 

who stated that they intended to remain in the morel buying business, B3a and B3b 

expressed ambivalence about their long-term future in the morel industry. They 

noted that they considered matsutake buying their main enterprise and morels as 

a secondary undertaking. The following field note observation about B3a and B3b 

illustrates the couple’s approach to their involvement in the morel industry:

This is the fourth night of selling and the 1,000 pounds they bought tonight 

is the best that they have done yet. They are happy with this and tell me that 

this is really a side business and they are not competing for the big money.

During the times of the year when they are not buying morels or matsutake, 

B3a and B3b stated that they spent their time fishing and traveling. They observed 
21

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

that they liked the seasonality of the work, which gives them an opportunity to 

engage in other activities besides work. 

Buying station 4—

B4, who grew up working in the wild mushroom industry, ran a very different operation from the three buying stations described in the Bitterroot. B4’s father became 

a wild mushroom buyer in the 1980s, at a time when the wild mushroom industry in 

the Western United States was starting to expand. As a child, B4 traveled with her 

father as he followed the wild mushroom circuits. She noted that, having grown up 

in the industry, she never considered doing anything else. 

Although a resident of Libby, B4 stayed in town only long enough to buy during the peak morel season. B4 coordinated three buying stations: one near the town 

of Libby, another near the town of Troy, and the third in the Yaak Valley, north of 

Troy. She operated one of the stations herself—the station near Libby—with the 

help of a buying partner. She obtained buying funds to run the three stations from 

a large company based in Portland, Oregon. B4’s station was located along the 

main highway through the Kootenai Valley. However, she stated that she changed 

its location during the season depending on where most pickers were concentrated. 

Sometimes she “tailgated,” meeting pickers along the road as they came out of the 

woods, thus saving them a trip into town. 

B4 worked for the same company as B1, the operator of buying station 1 in 

the Bitterroot Valley. However, her station more closely resembled buying station 

2, in that it consisted of a foldout table or two, some mushroom baskets and a scale 

set up outside a gas station. She offered no refreshments to pickers. Although she 

occasionally paid some pickers higher prices, she did not do so openly. 

The gas station manager provided B4 with access to refrigerated storage for 

the morels she bought. She shipped the fresh market morels to Seattle, where her 

parent company then distributed them to customers in the domestic or international 

market. B4 sent dried morels to their parent company’s processing and distribution 

facility in Portland. However, unlike B1, her counterpart for the company in the 

Bitterroot Valley, B4 was too busy to dry morels purchased through the three 

stations she coordinates. She thus contracted out the drying operations under 

the conditions described in the following excerpt from the field notes:

B4 hires people to dry mushrooms for them [herself and her buying partners] because they are too busy to buy as well as dry. So, they cart their 

fresh mushrooms down to the drying machines each night and split the 

price. In other words, B4 gets 50 cents and the people who work the dryers 

get 50 cents per pound.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

In sharp contrast to B1, whose station was frequented by pickers of many ethnic 

backgrounds, B4’s picker clientele consisted almost exclusively of local Caucasian 

pickers. According to B4, the mobile Southeast Asian and Hispanic pickers harvesting in the area sold their mushrooms to a station in town operated by a field buyer 

working for a different company. 

During the early part of the 2001 season, B4 brought in roughly 3,000 pounds 

of morels per day from the three buying stations she coordinated, an average of 

1,000 pounds per day per station. Her average daily purchase per station was thus 

comparable to the amounts B1 purchased in Darby at the same point in the season. 

B4 noted, however, that any time she bought over 500 pounds per night, in her view 

it was a good night (fig. 4). 

Figure 4—In the woods, most pickers carry 5-gallon plastic buckets for transporting morels. At the 

end of thse day, pickers transfer their harvest to a standard-sized plastic basket, which buyers also 

use for shipping. Each basket holds 15 to 20 pounds of morels. During the early part of the 2001 

season, the eight baskets of morels depicted here likely would have had a total value of about $360.

In a followup phone conversation at the end of the season, B4 estimated that her 

three stations had purchased $300,000 worth of morels from a predominantly local 

group of morel pickers. Of this, she paid out more than half ($154,000) between 

May 5th and June 5th. She reported purchasing 60,000 pounds of morels from the 

three stations near the Kootenai National Forest between the beginning of May and 

the end of July 2001. 
23

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

3 The study data do not permit us to assess why two of the buyers openly engage in bonusing, whereas the other two engaged much more discreetly in bonusing. However, bonusing 

appeared to be particularly effective when the picker felt he was getting a special deal. Because bonusing was not offered to every customer, keeping it discreet was likely intended 

to reduce conflict among pickers and between pickers and buyers.

4 The study data do not permit us to evaluate picker response to differential bonusing.

Unlike the operators of the Darby buying stations who intended to buy morels 

all summer, B4 shifted into picking and buying huckleberries (Vaccinium L. spp.) 

once they ripened. However, like the three buying groups in Darby, she planned to 

spend September and October buying matsutake mushrooms in central Oregon.

Strategies Buyers Use to Attract Pickers to Their Buying Stations

The buyers described above used a variety of strategies to encourage pickers to sell 

their morels to them. Key strategies included the use of bonuses and grading systems, providing gifts to regular clients, serving refreshments to all pickers, creating 

space for pickers to socialize with each other and the buyers, serving as a liaison 

between pickers and the Forest Service, positioning stations strategically to entice 

pickers frequenting other buying stations, and sacrificing part or all of the buying 

commission to increase the price paid to the picker. 

Bonusing—

All four buying groups practiced “bonusing,” i.e., offering some pickers a higher 

price than that advertised openly by the station. Two of the buyers engaged quite 

openly in bonusing, whereas the other two only provided bonuses discreetly.3

Buyers varied the prices they paid pickers depending on how well they knew the 

picker, whether the picker had a history of selling to them regularly, the quality of 

product a picker typically brought into the station, and the amounts that a picker 

brought in on a regular basis.4

Grading—

Some buyers used a grading system, in which they offered higher prices for certain types of morels, as a means to encourage pickers to bring in certain varieties 

of morels or higher quality products. In early June, most buyers in Darby were still 

buying unsorted morels, known as “field run.” However, B3b was offering higher 

prices for gray morels, thus encouraging pickers to sort their grays from their other 

morels. In addition to acquiring more gray morels by using this tactic, he also 

hoped to entice pickers wishing to get the higher price for grays to also sell their 

other morels to him.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

Refreshments and gifts—

Operators of two of the buying stations, B1 and B3a and B3b in Darby, offered 

refreshments, such as sodas, beer, or hot coffee, to attract pickers. Additionally B1 

also offered small material incentives, such as cases of soda, to encourage picker 

loyalty. All the stations in the Bitterroot differed from the station in Libby in that 

they catered to a variety of people—outsiders as well as locals.

Socializing space—

As the key point of contact between pickers and buyers, every buying station serves 

to some extent as a space in which pickers socialize with the buyer, and potentially 

with other pickers. Some buyers, however, set their stations up in ways that actively 

encourage extensive socializing among pickers. Conversations at buying stations 

covered a wide range of topics, but often centered on comparisons of how much 

pickers had picked that day, areas that pickers intended to check out the following 

day, speculations about where the next flush or hotspot would be, and stories 

of picking experiences during previous years. 

Of the four buying stations included in this study, B1’s illustrated best the 

concept of buying stations as points of social interaction. The circle of pickers who 

hung out at his station talking late into the night functioned as a mechanism for 

attracting other pickers, many of whom wished to find out what was happening 

around the forest or share stories of their day’s events. As indicated by field notes 

of buying station 1, B1’s policy of offering refreshments to all comers served to 

encourage pickers to hang around his station: “The mood at the buying station is 

spirited and warm: There is lots of hot coffee and sodas in a cooler for pickers to 

help themselves to.”

Access to Forest Service information and translating services—

During the 2001 season, B2c’s work as a translator for the Forest Service gave buying station 2 a potential advantage over the other stations. The Forest Service provided B2c access to maps of areas affected by fires in 2000, as well as updates on 

where the various camps and groups were situated throughout the forest. B2c thus 

could provide pickers with maps and information that other buyers could not obtain 

so readily. B2c also served the Asian pickers by helping them to communicate with 

Forest Service employees. The following excerpts from the field notes indicate that 

some pickers and buyers considered B2c’s dual role a conflict of interest: 

There have been several people commenting on the fact that many Asians 

feel obliged to sell to B2c, thinking that they owe her some loyalty for 

helping them set up their camps, etc. Many people feel that the FS hiring a 

A buying station 

serves as a space in 

which pickers socialize 

with the buyer, and 

potentially with other 

pickers.
25

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

buyer to help with pickers creates a conflict of interest and that it is not right 

that B2c gets paid to promote her own buying.

Without additional data, it remains unclear whether B2c’s position as a translator affected whether Southeast Asian pickers sold their morels at buying station 2. 

Strategic positioning of buying stations—

B3a and B3b’s operation illustrated another tactic buyers use to attract pickers—the 

placement of a buying station very close to a station with a reputation for attracting 

a large number of pickers. The buyers moving in adjacent to a station already operating hope that pickers impatient with waiting for their turn to sell their morels will 

opt instead to sell to the buyer with fewer customers. 

Trading commissions for volume—

In 2001, the standard commission for a buyer was $0.50 for every pound of morels 

purchased. Sometimes a buyer, such as B2b operating buying station 2, sacrificed 

a portion of her commission to increase the price she paid to pickers when her boss 

would not let her raise the price to the level of competitors. This strategy enabled 

the buyer to bring in more volume. Although using this strategy meant that B2b 

made less per pound, the extra volume brought in resulted in her earning the same 

or more money per night than if the commission had been lower and the volume 

less.

Changes in Supply and Prices

Six groups of buyers, one mushroom drier contractor based near the southern end of 

the Kootenai Valley, and two harvesters contributed information about the changes 

that take place in the morel market over a season. According to the buyers, most of 

a buyer’s daily purchase early in the season goes to supply fresh-market customers. 

As the quantity of morels increases, the fresh market becomes saturated and many 

buyers shift into buying morels primarily for the drier market. Later in the season, 

when the supply of morels tapers off and gray morels begin to fruit, buyers shift 

again into buying for the fresh market. 

The pickers and buyers commented that prices paid to pickers typically fluctuate greatly over the course of a season, and at times, over the course of a week or 

an evening. The price for fresh morels from Montana began at around $8 to $10 per 

pound at the start of the 2001 morel season in early May, but dropped to less than 

$4.50 a pound after about 2 weeks as the supply of morels became more plentiful. 

In early June, the buyers paid between $2.75 and $3.25 for field run morels. Owing 

to the freshness of the mushrooms coming in to the stations, none of the buyers at 

the field sites had established different prices for driers and fresh market morels at 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

the time of the fieldwork. Followup calls with a mushroom drier and the operator 

of buying station 2 in September 2001 indicated that the price for field run morels 

stayed at $2.75 and above through the summer.

The key informants commented that morel prices in 2001 were significantly 

higher than during the previous 5 years. They also observed that the morels harvested in Montana compete in a global market supplied with morels from many 

countries including China, India, Turkey, Canada, and Russia. Key informants reported that Europe constituted the biggest market for their product, although some 

morels were also sold domestically. The key informants identified moisture content 

as an important variable affecting prices, with buyers offering lower prices for morels that had started to dry out or that had absorbed large quantities of water. 

Buyers and pickers noted that the types of morels available also differ over the 

season, with different kinds of morels commanding different prices. For example, 

gray morels fruit more abundantly late in the season in higher elevation areas. The 

high-elevation, late-season gray morels hold up better in transport and command 

a higher price on the fresh retail market than other morel varieties harvested in 

western Montana. Consequently, as indicated in the field note excerpt below, toward 

the end of the morel season, buyers pay a higher price for fresh-market-quality gray 

morels relative to other morel varieties: 

So far in the season, grays are not being sorted from conicas—but once 

there are more, buyers will start sorting and grays will be sold for more 

money. Grays are heavier, have choice flavor and they are generally favored.

The four buyers constantly adjusted prices, making nightly, or even more 

frequent, calls to their parent companies or field managers to find out what prices 

they should offer. During the 7 days the field researcher observed buying stations 

at the two field sites, prices quoted by buyers for field run morels (i.e., unsorted by 

quality) varied from $3 per pound (June 10th at buying station 2) to $4.25 per pound 

(June 8th at buying station 1). Field buyers have limited control over the prices they 

can offer. As indicated by the field note observation below, fluctuating prices, as 

well as price differences among adjacent buyers, can place the field buyers in a difficult position with respect to pickers:

Today (June 8) the price is $3.25 and that is down from yesterday’s $4.25. 

B1 is embarrassed to tell his customers how poor the price is. Everyone is 

disappointed with the low price—especially B1, but his boss won’t let him 

budge.
27

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

The relatively high price for morels at the buying station, combined with a large 

morel crop, led some buyers who normally bought all season to stop their buying 

activities earlier than usual as storage space in brokerage operations became scarce. 

One buyer noted that 2001 was the first year that he had encountered difficulties in 

locating brokers willing to buy dried morels. The oversupply of dried morels relative to market demand was reflected in the price, which buyers reported was about 

$30 per pound (wholesale, dry weight) in June 2001 compared to $50 to $70 per 

pound (wholesale, dry weight) in 2000.

Degree of Involvement in the Industry and Livelihood Strategies

Buyers—

The seven individuals who made up the four buying groups shared in common a 

long history and near full-time involvement in the wild mushroom industry (table 

1). The buyers had an average of nearly 9 years of experience each, ranging from 3 

years to 14 years. In each buying group, at least one individual had 10 or more years 

of experience in the wild mushroom business. 

Although two of the buyers had stations located in towns they called “home,” 

all seven individuals spent several months each year away from home to buy wild 

mushrooms. Nonetheless, the buyers differed in their mobility strategy with some 

(B1, B3a, B3b, and B4) limiting their participation to the morel and matsutake 

harvests, primarily in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, whereas others (B2a, B2b, and 

B2c) followed a year-long mushroom circuit encompassing a range of mushroom 

species and bioregions, including northern California, all of Oregon, parts of British 

Columbia and Washington, and the northern Rockies. 

Mushroom buying constituted the primary income-generating activity of all 

seven individuals in the four buying groups. Only two of the buyers (B1 and B4) 

supplemented their buying income through other activities. B1 and B4 were also 

the only buyers who mentioned gathering or buying other nontimber forest products 

as important in their lives: B4 gathered and sold huckleberries and B1 spent one 

season harvesting beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.). In addition, B4 

collected antlers to make into jewelry, lamps, and dream catchers for sale.

Pickers—

The field researcher obtained information from four pickers, all Caucasian men, at 

the field site in the Kootenai (table 2). Three of the pickers lived nearby, and one, a 

friend of the woman running buying station 4, lived in western Oregon. Of the four 

pickers, only one, a local resident, had never picked mushrooms before. The other 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

three pickers had all picked mushrooms commercially for several years, and two of 

the four pickers picked mushrooms other than morels (matsutake and coral) for sale. 

All four pickers participated in other income-generating activities. Activities listed 

included landscaping, seed collecting, huckleberry picking, gold panning, and jewelry making. In addition, two of the four pickers, both locals, received retirement 

income. Of the four pickers, three (all locals) gathered nontimber forest products 

other than mushrooms to supplement their incomes. 

The seven pickers in Darby were all men, but ethnically more diverse than the 

pickers in the Kootenai; they were four Caucasians, one Cambodian, one Laotian, 

and one Latino (table 3). None of the pickers lived in Montana (table 3). Six of the 

seven pickers came from Oregon, and one came from northern California (fig. 5). 

Figure 5—Many morel pickers working the burns in Montana during 2001 come from Oregon, 

California, and Washington. Most establish camps near burns with abundant morel fruitings. 

Pickers often construct large temporary structures by using plastic tarps and locally gathered 

poles to protect their tents and gear from the rain and wind. 

All seven harvested fall mushrooms commercially, and five of the seven got started 

in the mushroom industry by picking matsutake in Oregon. All seven pickers had 

picked mushrooms commercially in previous years, although 2001 was the first 

year that two of the pickers had picked morels. Only one picker said he received 

retirement or disability payments. However, five of the other pickers participated in 
29

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

income-generating activities outside the mushroom industry. Their other occupations included woodworking, cone collecting, floral greens collecting, professional 

music, and construction. Two of the seven pickers also harvested nontimber forest 

products other than mushrooms.

Livelihood choices—

Many people involved with the commercial wild morel industry are willing to give 

up some degree of certainty in their work life in exchange for being able to make 

money doing work that they enjoy and spending time in the outdoors. The following 

quotes and field note excerpts illustrate this way of viewing wild mushroom work: 

The difficulty of the mushroom harvesting industry is that there is never 

any guarantee that you will get mushrooms. And some years are just plain 

bad for making money, but you have to love what you are doing... . (Buyer 

from Station 1).

Some days are great and others are crappy but that is the tradeoff for being 

able to spend your days outside, working for subsistence, picking enough to 

buy gas to get home (Picker K2).

They like the seasonality of the work, and the fact that they can enjoy other 

aspects of life. Some years are great (one year they built a home with the 

money they made buying) and other years are poor, but they still enjoy what 

they do (Operators of buying station 3). 

[Picker B6] is happy with the lifestyle that he leads, picking mushrooms...

He says that the work is “100 percent harsh” and that he works extremely 

hard for sometimes as little as two or three pounds of mushrooms. He will 

buy his permit by the week as opposed to an all-season pass. The cost of 

gas and food add up, he says, and sometimes at the end of the day, he has 

only saved up $30. But, the work has its benefits—among them no boss; 

when you are tired you can sit down (Picker B6).

[For Picker B5] the best part of his lifestyle is the freedom that picking 

provides. He, like others, expressed how difficult it is to work in the woods, 

though. The most difficult part of gathering is the heavy physical labor and 

working in foul weather—in cold and snow (Picker B5). 

Although most of the pickers and buyers we talked with expressed satisfaction with their work, as indicated by the following field note excerpt, not everyone 

would remain in the wild mushroom world if they had better choices:
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

In [buying station 3], there are two Lao people from Portland who brought 

in about 100 lbs of morels. They pick matsutakes as well. One of the men 

says that he would like to quit but that he can’t because he would not be 

able to find any other job with his limited skills and mastery of the English 

language. Also, he is afraid that he will be discriminated against because of 

his age (around 50 something). 

Discussion

Four important patterns emerged from the data: (1) significant differences in the 

time that various participants invested in the wild mushroom world, (2) a high degree of similarity within the picker population included in this study and important 

differences between the picker and buyer populations regarding livelihood strategies, (3) the existence of both competition and collaboration among and between 

pickers and buyers, and (4) the role of the buying station as a center for learning in 

the commercial mushroom world. 

Time Investment Patterns 

Most of the pickers we talked with had invested several years or more of their lives 

in learning how to pick wild mushrooms. We encountered three pickers for whom 

the 2001 season was their first year picking morels, three who had picked morels 

for several years, and five who had picked morels for 5 years or more. However, of 

those for whom 2001 was their first exposure to commercial morel picking, two had 

previous experience picking matsutake in Oregon. Although the sample was small, 

a tentative conclusion is that many of the pickers in Montana in 2001 had substantial previous experience in the wild mushroom industry. The buyers tended to have 

even longer histories of involvement in the mushroom business than the pickers. 

The buyer with the least amount of experience in the industry had worked 3 years 

in the business, and four of the seven buyers had worked 10 years or more in the 

industry. 

The long experience of the pickers we talked with contrasts sharply with 

Richards and Creasy’s findings in their study of matsutake pickers in the Siskiyou 

Mountains of Oregon and California during 1993 and 1994, which showed the mean 

number of years pickers had been involved in harvesting was 1.66 (Richards and 

Creasy 1996). Because most of the pickers we talked with in Montana also participated in the matsutake harvest, it may be that, over time, fewer newcomers are 

entering the wild mushroom business. The Richards and Creasy study, which took 

place in 1993-94, was conducted relatively soon after commercial wild mushroom 

Most of the pickers had 

invested several years 

or more of their lives 

in learning how to pick 

wild mushrooms.
31

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

harvesting intensified in the late 1980s. One would thus expect to find more experienced pickers working in the wild mushroom industry by the early 2000s. Alternatively, less-experienced pickers could be less willing to travel to distant areas to 

pick. High levels of work satisfaction may also help explain why some pickers and 

buyers remain in the business for years, and sometimes, decades. For other pickers, particularly immigrants who arrived in the United States as adults, viable work 

options may be limited by their lack of English language skills or marketable job 

skills.

Livelihood Strategies

Our study suggests that wild morel pickers typically construct their livelihoods 

around at least two, and often more, income-generating activities. For some people, 

picking is a means to supplement fixed-income payments, such as disability or 

retirement pay. Others, however, rely primarily upon income from picking. These 

pickers typically participate in both the spring and fall mushroom seasons, and 

likely spend from 6 to 10 months of the year harvesting mushrooms. They then fill 

in the gaps between seasons with other activities, such as gathering other nontimber 

forest products, gold panning, or doing construction work. 

For all practical purposes, buyers make their living from buying, selling, or 

processing wild mushrooms; only two of the seven supplement their incomes 

through other income-generating activities during seasonal gaps. This behavior 

contrasted sharply with the pickers we talked with, all of whom either engaged in 

other income-earning activities or receive disability or retirement pay. One possible 

explanation for this difference is that buyers, particularly those in the matsutake 

business, make sufficiently more money than pickers that they can afford to not 

work during some parts of the year. An alternative explanation is that buyers are 

more likely to follow the full mushroom circuit than are pickers. 

Another difference in livelihood strategies between the buyers and pickers 

who took part in this study is that, as a group, the pickers were more likely than 

the buyers to earn money through participating in other nontimber forest products 

industries, such as floral greens or seed collection. One likely explanation is that the 

barriers to entry into other NTFP markets are greater for buyers than for pickers. 

To compete effectively in any given NTFP market (i.e., floral greens, wild mushrooms, medicinal plants, resins, oils, etc.), a buyer has to know how that product 

moves through a particular market, how the prices fluctuate, to whom to market 

products of different qualities, how to conserve the product to minimize spoilage, 

who the key players in the market are, and who can be trusted and who cannot. As 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

with any social system, it takes time for a buyer to learn the culture and to develop 

relationships of trust of the market(s) she operates within. In contrast to buyers, 

most pickers intersect only with the edges of the NTFP markets they are involved 

with—they typically sell their product to a field buyer who then takes on the task 

and risks of moving the product further along the commodity chain. 

Competition and Collaboration

Another theme emerging from this exploratory study is a picture of the wild mushroom industry as simultaneously very competitive, with many points of tension 

and conflict, yet also very collaborative and a place where many reciprocal exchanges take place. B3a and B3b, for example, had established a mutually beneficial arrangement with B1: he helped them make money on his home turf in the 

Bitterroot, while they helped him make money on their home turf in the Oregon 

Cascades. Similar reciprocal forms of assistance also take place between buyers 

and pickers as exemplified by the Southeast Asian group that taught B1 how to 

pick beargrass at a time when he badly needed money, and by B1’s willingness to 

share his home with them while they worked in the Bitterroot region. At the same 

time, tensions among buyers abound, particularly in the case of buying stations, 

such as buying stations 2 and 3, which are situated very close together. In hiring 

a buyer to work as a translator with Southeast Asian pickers, the Forest Service 

inadvertently contributed to the tensions among buyers. Whether true or not, the 

other buyers believed that B2c’s position as a translator placed her in a position 

where she had access to materials and information of use to pickers that they did 

not have. In consequence, some of the buyers attributed the ability of buying station 2’s operators to attract pickers despite their low prices to feelings of indebtedness on the part of pickers for the services B2c provided them. 

Buying Stations as Learning Centers

The study supported Love et al. (1998) and McLain’s (2000) conclusion that buying stations function as important centers for participants in the commercial wild 

mushroom world to produce and share knowledge of wild mushroom ecology, 

market conditions and behaviors, regulatory conditions, and a host of other important topics that influence their lives. However, it was also apparent from the data 

that some buying stations functioned better as learning centers than others. B1, for 

example, structured his station in a way that encouraged pickers to hang out, giving them an opportunity to learn from others as well as share information of their 

own. Similarly, the presence of a multilingual buyer at buying station 2, gave the 

station an edge as a learning center for Southeast Asian pickers. 
33

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

5 Hansis does not provide a breakdown for all ethnic groups for wild mushroom permits for 

1993 and 1994. However, he notes that in 1994, 88 percent of the commercial wild mushroom permits issued went to people with Southeast Asian surnames (Hansis 1998). 

Contrasts With Floral Greens Gatherers 

The study revealed interesting differences and similarities between patterns in the 

organization of the wild morel mushroom world in western Montana relative to 

those identified by social scientists working with floral greens gatherers (Emery 

et al. 2002, Hansis 1998, Lynch and McLain 2003). The harvesters included in the 

Emery et al. (2002) study of NTFP gathering in the Eastern United States tended to 

rely upon the harvesting of greens and medicinal plants as an economic cushion in 

hard times or to supplement their incomes in good times rather than as their primary 

source of income. In contrast, most of the morel pickers included in this exploratory 

study relied upon the harvesting of wild edible mushrooms as an important source 

of income, with other income-generating occupations being much less central to 

their lives. 

The Montana morel harvesting population also exhibited a much different 

ethnic composition than the floral greens harvesting populations on both the west 

and east coasts. Hansis’ (1998) analysis of beargrass permits issued on the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest for 1993 and 1994 indicated that Latinos obtained roughly 

31 percent of beargrass permits issued in 1993 and 52 percent of beargrass permits 

in 1994.5 Lynch and McLain’s (2003) study of the floral greens industry in western 

Washington indicated that by 2002, Latinos constituted the majority of commercial 

floral greens harvesters on the Olympic Peninsula. Similarly, in a study of galax 

(Galax Sims) harvesters working in the Appalachians, Emery et al. (2002: 9) noted 

that, “the people who gather galax appear to be shifting from dominantly AngloAmericans to dominantly Latino immigrants.” In contrast, according to the buyers 

and Forest Service employees included in this study, Southeast Asians of various 

ethnic backgrounds likely constituted the majority of wild morel pickers in western 

Montana in 2001. Latinos also harvest morels (McLain 2000), but thus far have yet 

to become as numerous (or as visible) in the mushroom industry as they have in the 

floral greens industry in west coast forests. 

Implications for Managers and Scientists

This study has several important implications for managers and scientists. 

First, the study illustrates the diversity of strategies that commercial pickers 

and buyers deploy to derive livelihoods that include participating in wild morel 

harvests. Pickers ranged from people who participated on a limited and occasional 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

basis to those who engaged year after year in the harvests. When developing 

wild morel management policies and regulations, managers thus need to take into 

account this diversity and recognize that their policies will affect various pickers 

differently, depending on the extent to which wild morels are a critical aspect of 

their economic livelihood.

Second, the study suggests that buying stations are important sites for learning. 

Additionally, information in the wild mushroom world, as in any other social realm, 

is power. As a result, forest managers need to recognize that sharing knowledge 

selectively, whether intentionally or not, affects the ability of different pickers and 

buyers to compete effectively in wild mushroom markets. For example, all other 

things being equal, pickers and buyers with ready access to information regarding 

the location and intensity of burns will likely make more money than the pickers 

and buyers who do not have access to such information or who have to make 

substantial extra efforts to obtain information. The tensions this study identified 

between the operators of the buying stations in the Bitterroot Valley indicate that 

by providing maps and information regarding fruiting locations to a translator who 

also worked as a buyer, the Forest Service inadvertently enabled one buying station 

to have a competitive advantage over other stations. Managers sharing knowledge 

of value to pickers and buyers thus might wish to structure their outreach measures 

so that the information is likely to reach a broad range of buying station operators 

and pickers.

Third, the study reveals both similarities and differences among wild morel 

harvesters in Montana and nontimber forest products gatherers in the Eastern 

United States. As the Forest Service seeks to develop and implement more robust 

nontimber forest products programs in response to the mandate of recent national 

legislation on forest botanical products, scientists and managers might consider 

implementing a series of ethnographic case studies of different kinds of harvesters in different parts of the United States. Such case studies would provide the data 

needed to encourage the development of locally appropriate policies that would 

address both concerns about ecological protection and concerns about maintaining 

sustainable rural livelihoods based in part upon gathering activities.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Stacy DeWolf, Steve Shelley, Rob McFarlane, and Andrew Mark 

for help in the field, as well as Eric Jones for his input on early drafts. We also 

thank the Forest Service employees, buyers, and pickers who shared their insights 

and time with the study team. 

Buying stations are 

important sites for 

learning.
35

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet .3048 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers

Pounds .454 Kilograms

Gallons 3.78 Liters

Literature Cited

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.F.; Blatner, K.A. 2002. Nontimber forest product 

commerce. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

115–150.

Antypas, A.; McLain, R.J.; Gilden, J.; Dyson, G. 2002. Federal nontimber forest 

products policy and management. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press: 347–374.

Apfelbaum, S.E.; Haney, A.; Dole, R.E. 1984. Ascocarp formation by Morchella 

angusticepts after wildfire. The Michigan Botanist. 23: 99–102. 

Bernard, H.R. 1994. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and 

quantitative approaches. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 585 p.

Buscot, F. 1992. Mycorrhizal succession and morel biology. In: Read, D.J.; Lewis, 

D.H.; Fitter, A.H.; Alexander, I.J., eds. Mycorrhizas in ecosystems. Wallingford, 

United Kingdom: CAB International: 220–224.

Buscot, F. 1993. Synthesis of two types of association between Morchella 

esculenta and Picea abies under controlled culture conditions. Journal of 

Plant Physiology. 141(1): 12–17.

Buscot, F.; Kottke, I. 1990. The association of Morchella rotunda Boudier with 

roots of Picea abies Karst. New Phytologist. 116: 425–430.

Dahlstrom, J.L.; Smith, J.E.; Weber, N.S. 2000. Mycorrhiza-like interaction by 

Morchella with species of the Pinaceae in pure culture synthesis. Mycorrhiza. 

9: 279–285.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

DeWolf, S. 2001. Updated Region 1 figures for mushroom permits. 

sdewolf@fs.fed.us. (13 September 2001).

Duchesne, L.C.; Weber, N. 1993. High incidence of the edible morel 

Morchella conica in a Jack Pine, Pinus banksiona, following prescribed 

burning. Canadian Field Naturalist. 107(1): 114-116.

Emerson, R.M.; Fretz, R.I.; Shaw, L.L. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 254 p.

Emery, M. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: non-timber forest products in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 291 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Emery, M. 2002. Historical overview of nontimber forest product uses in the 

northeastern United States. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press: 3–25.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M.R.B. 2002. Special 

forest products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-GTR-306. Burlington, VT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: non-timber forest products in the 

Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 26(1): 67–86.

Lincoln County Emergency Management Agency. 2003. Draft Lincoln 

County Montana pre-disaster mitigation plan. Prepared by Hydrometrics, Inc. 

and Arrowhead Engineering. Libby, MT. http://www.lincolncountymt.us/

EMA/03%20Pre-Disaster%20Mitigation%201st%20draft%2012-2-03.htm. (30 

September 2004).

Love, T.; Jones, E.T.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate rainforest: wild 

mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula biosphere reserve. Ambio Special 

Report. 9: 16–25. 

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R.J. 2003. Access, labor, and wild floral greens 

management in western Washington’s forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 61 p.

McLain, R.J. 2000. Controlling the forest understory: wild mushroom politics in 

central Oregon. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 331 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
37

Commercial Morel Harvesters and Buyers in Western Montana: An Exploratory Study of the 2001 Harvesting Season

Montana Department of Labor and Industry. 2004. County profiles: Ravalli 

County. http://rad.dli.state.mt.us/county/ravalli. (30 September).

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 1998. Montana stewardship database. 

Annual average precipitation layer. Obtained from the Montana Natural 

Resource Information System, Montana Digital Atlas, http://nris.mt.gov/mapper. 

(September 30, 2004).

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Montana stewardship database. Land 

ownership layer. Obtained from the Montana Natural Resource Information 

System, Montana Digital Atlas, http://nris.mt.gov/mapper. (September 30, 2004).

Ower, R. 1982. Notes on the development of morel ascocarp: Morchella esculenta. 

Mycologia. 74: 142–144.

Parks, C.G.; Schmitt, C.L. 1997. Wild edible mushrooms in the Blue Mountains: 

resource and issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-393. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

22 p.

Pilz, D.; Smith, J.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Alexander, S.; Molina, R.; Luoma, D. 

1999. Mushrooms and timber: managing commercial harvesting in the Oregon 

Cascades. Journal of Forestry. 97(3): 4–11.

Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S.; Carter, M.C.; Parks, C.G.; Molina, R. 2004. Productivity 

and diversity of morel mushrooms in healthy, burned and insect-damaged forests 

of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 198: 367–386. 

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, resource values, and ecosystem 

management: matsutake mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion. Society 

and Natural Resources. 9: 359–374.

Russell, J.C.; Adams-Russell, P.A. 2004. Social assessment: Kootenai National 

Forest, update 2003. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. 318 p. http://www.fs.fed.

us/r1/kootenai/projects/planning/documents/soc_asses. (30 September). 

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho: a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 93(3): 31–36.

Swanson, L. 2001. The Bitterroot Valley of western Montana: area economic 

profile. Missoula, MT: O’Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West, 

University of Montana. 47 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/bitterroot.html. 

(30 September 2004).
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-643

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html. 

American FactFinder. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. Toward 

restoration and recovery: an assessment of the 2000 fire season in the 

Intermountain and Northern Regions. Chapter II: working with people and 

communities. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 40 p. www.fs.fed.us/r1/nfp/old/assessment. (14 September 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bitterroot National Forest. 

[N.d.]. Forest overview. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/forest/overview_index.

htm. (29 September 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. 

1987. Kootenai National Forest Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Volume 2. Chapter III: affected environment. [Place of publication unknown]. 

93 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/kootenai/projects/planning/documents/forest_

plan/87_plan/sdocs/feis_2_ch3.pdf. (30 September 2004).

Weber, N.S. 1997. A morel hunter’s companion. Holt, MI: Thunder Bay Press. 

209 p.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300