Authors RANDY MOLINA is a research botanist, MICHAEL AMARANTHUS is a research 

ecologist, and MICHAEL CASTELLANO is a research forester, USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; THOMAS O'DELL is a research associate, 

Department of Botany, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; DANIEL 

LUOMA is a research associate, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR 97331; and KENELM RUSSELL is a State pathologist, 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Health, Olympia, WA 

98504-7048. 
Biology, Ecology, and Social Aspects of Wild 

Edible Mushrooms in the Forests of the Pacific 

Northwest: A Preface to Managing Commercial 

Harvest

Randy Molina 

Thomas O'Dell 

Daniel Luoma 

Michael Amaranthus 

Michael Castellano 

Kenelm Russell 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Portland, OR 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-309 

February 1993
Molina, Randy; O'Dell, Thomas; Luoma, Daniel; Amaranthus, Michael; 

Castellano, Michael; Russell, Kenelm. 1993. Biology, ecology, and social 

aspects of wild edible mushrooms in the forests of the Pacific Northwest: a 

preface to managing commercial harvest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-309. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 42 p. 

The commercial harvest of edible forest fungi has mushroomed into a multimillion 

dollar industry with several thousand tons harvested annually. The development of 

this special forest product industry has raised considerable controversy about how this 

resource should be managed, especially on public lands. Concerns center around 

destruction of forest habitat by repeated entry and harvest, gradual loss of the 

mushroom resource by potential overharvest, conflict between recreational users and 

commercial harvesters, and regulation and monitoring of future harvests. A key to

wisely managing the edible mushroom resource is common understanding among 

resource managers, the mushroom industry, and the concerned public about the 

biology of these unique forest organisms, their ecological importance in forest ecosystems, and effects of forest disturbance on their survival. The primary objectives of 

this overview paper are to provide information on the biology of forest fungi, describe 

the major edible fungi harvested in the Pacific Northwest, integrate a perspective on 

the social aspects of the mushroom harvest issue, summarize the development of the 

commercial mushroom industry, and suggest research and monitoring protocols for 

developing management guidelines. 

Keywords: Fungi, mushrooms, mycorrhizae, monitoring, forest ecology, 

forest management, special forest products, recreation. 

Abstract 
 1 Introduction 

 2 Forest Mycology 

4 Mycorrhizal Fungi 

 9 Major Edible Fungi in the Pacific Northwest 

10 Boletus edulis

11 Cantharellus cibarius and C. subalbidus

13 Craterellus cornucopioides

14 Hericium abietis

15 Hydnum repandum

16 Lepiota rhacodes

17 Morchella esculenta

18 Picoa carthusiana

19 Sparassis crispa

20 Tricholoma magnivelare

21 Tuber gibbosum

22 Recreational, Social, and Folk Aspects of Fungi 

22 Attitudes Towards Fungi 

22 Interactions With Fungi 

26 Resource Conflicts 

27 Resolving Conflicts 

27 Commercial Aspects of the Wild Mushroom Industry 

27 Historical Development 

28 Production in 1989-90 

30 Picking for Supplemental Income 

30 Forest Land Ownership Patterns in Washington and Oregon 

30 Landowner Regulation of Wild Mushrooms 

31 Wild Edible Mushroom Task Group 

31 Washington State's Wild Mushroom Harvesting Act 

31 Basic Requirements of the Act 

32 Washington State Regulations 

32 Government Regulations Elsewhere 

Contents 
33 Monitoring Wild Edible Fungi 

34 Detection 

35 Evaluation 

36 Research 

37 Conclusions 

37 Acknowledgments 

38 Metric to English Conversion Table 

38 Literature Cited 

41 Appendix 1 

42 Appendix 2 
Introduction Production forestry typically emphasizes timber and timber products. At a recent 

regional symposium on special forest products, however, a wealth of commodities 

ranging from berries and seeds to floral greenery and shrubs was discussed and 

evaluated for regional economic value and inclusion in forest management schemes. 

Notable among these products were the highly prized, edible forest mushrooms, 

namely the chanterelles, morels, and American matsutake. Declining timber revenue 

in rural communities in the Pacific Northwest has increased the importance of income 

from nontimber products such as mushrooms. 

Commercialization and development of new forest products has heightened public 

concerns about use and abuse of forest resources. The commercial harvest of 

mushrooms is no exception, and considerable controversy surrounds the proper 

management of this resource, especially on public lands. Concerns center around 

destruction of forest habitat by repeated entry and harvest, gradual loss of the 

mushroom resource by overharvest, conflict between recreational users and 

commercial harvesters, and regulation and monitoring of future harvests. The 

mushroom industry is frustrated by regulations and permit systems that differ among 

administrative units. The private timber industry worries about trespass and liability 

problems on their lands and how much Federal land will be closed to timber harvest 

to protect the mushroom resource. The State of Washington implemented licensing 

requirements for wild mushroom buyers and dealers in 1989. Other States will likely 

follow suit. California, for example, recently stopped all mushroom harvesting, including recreational picking, in many State parks to control habitat disturbance. 

National Forests throughout Washington, Oregon, and California are developing 

management guidelines for mushroom harvest and monitoring the resource for 

sustained productivity. 

A key to wisely managing the edible mushroom resource is a common understanding 

among resource managers, the mushroom industry, and the concerned public about 

the biology of these unique forest organisms, their ecological importance in forest 

ecosystems, and effects of forest disturbance on their survival. Equally important is 

recognizing that much remains to be learned about the productivity of valuable 

mushrooms, the effects of mushroom harvesting and forest management practices on 

future productivity, and the socioeconomic aspects of this new industry. Careful 

examination of what we do not know will guide research and monitoring programs 

that promote sound management decisions. The primary aim of this overview paper is 

to facilitate information sharing as an initial step in developing management 

strategies. 

This paper is divided into five sections so that users with different backgrounds and 

information needs can readily access material on forest mushrooms and their harvest: 

• "Forest Mycology" introduces mycology and emphasizes the biology and ecology 

of fungi in forest ecosystems. 

• "Major Edible Fungi in the Pacific Northwest" describes the major edible fungi 

harvested in the Pacific Northwest. It is not intended as a field guide for identifying forest mushrooms but to introduce managers to them. Comprehensive field 

guides for Pacific Northwest mushrooms are listed in appendix 1. 

• "Recreational, Social, and Folk Aspects of Fungi" integrates a perspective on the 

folk use and social aspects of mushrooms with the mushroom harvest issue. 
• "Commercial Aspects of the Wild Mushroom Industry" summarizes the development of commercial mushroom harvest over the last decade and current 

regulations in place or being considered. 

• "Monitoring Wild Edible Fungi" discusses concerns of those who must manage 

this resource and suggests research and monitoring protocols for developing 

management guidelines. 

Most edible fungus species belong to groups generally referred to as mushrooms and 

cup-fungi. This section provides some basic information about the placement of 

mushroom and cup-fungi in the fungus kingdom, their life cycles, and ecosystem 

function. (See Carroll and Wicklow 1992, Kendrick 1992, and Moore-Landecker 

1990 for greater detail on the biology of fungi.) 

Mushrooms are the reproductive structures (fruiting bodies) of organisms that 

otherwise live as microscopic threads of cells in various substrates such as soil, 

wood, or living tissues of associated plants1

. The threadlike cells (hyphae) in mass 

are referred to as the mycelium. Fruiting bodies are produced from the mycelium to 

carry out sexual reproduction-the formation and release of spores. Picking a 

mushroom-removing the fruiting body from the mycelium-is analogous to picking 

an apple from a tree. 

The life cycle of a typical mushroom is shown in figure 1. The gills or pores of a 

mature mushroom actively discharge spores, which are dispersed by the wind. 

Under suitable conditions, the spores germinate and begin to grow. For many 

species, hyphae of the germinating spores fuse to establish the adult mycelial 

stage. Ectomycorrhizal fungi must form their symbiosis with plant roots to 

develop the mycelial stage in the soil, and spores of many ectomycorrhizal fungi 

must be stimulated by host plant roots to germinate. The mycelium grows through 

the soil and enlarges; when environmental conditions are appropriate, the sexual 

stage is initiated, forming mushroom primordia or buttons. The mushroom 

primordia then expand into the mature mushroom in which the final sexual process 

takes place that produces the spores. 

Though many thousands of mushroom and cup-fungus species form conspicuous 

(macroscopic) fruiting bodies, these species represent only a small fraction (<1 

percent) of the fungal kingdom. Macrofungi, as they often are called, produce fruiting 

bodies that are readily apparent to the unaided eye. Macrofungi often have a stalk to 

elevate the cap (which contains the spore-bearing surface, the hymenium) into the air 

(fig. 1). Spores allow fungi to disperse and survive until conditions are right for 

germination and establishing a new colony. They also may serve to insert new ganetic 

diversity into established colonies. This general structure differs a great deal among 

species of macrofungi, with capless and stalkless forms at the extremes. Truffle fungi 

represent another variation in form. The stalk has been lost and the cap or cup has 

evolved to form small, potatolike fruiting bodies in the soil. Animals ranging from 

worms and insects to squirrels and deer disperse truffles by eating them; the spores 

pass through the digestive tract unharmed (Maser and others 1978). 

1

 For the reader's convenience, defined terms are printed in bold type at first mention. 

Forest Mycology 

2 
Figure 1-Anatomy and life cycle of a typical mushroom, showing many anatomical features 

that are used to characterize and identify mushrooms. Many species develop only a few of 

these features, and some groups have different anatomy; for example, pores rather than gills 

house the spores of the boletes. 

The macrofungi of commercial importance belong to the classes Basidiomycetes 

and Ascomycetes, the most highly evolved groups in the fungus kingdom. These 

two groups are distinguished by differences in the cells that give rise to the sexual 

spores. Basidiomycetes include most of the mushrooms and have spores borne on 

the outside of mother cells (basidia). Ascomycetes include the cup-fungi and bear 

spores within mother cells (asci). 

Macrofungi generally are classified as pathogens, saprobes, and mutualists, although 

gradations exist among these categories. Pathogens attack and often kill living tissues 

and may kill the host organism. Some of the more familiar parasitic fungi are conks 

such as Heterobasidion annosum and the recreationally picked, edible "honey 

mushroom," Armillaria ostoyae. Both species also are capable saprobes, so we find 

them on both live and dead hosts. 

A true saprobe lives only on dead organic matter such as heartwood of standing trees, 

woody debris, or fallen leaves; for example, Fomitopsis pinicola (red belt fungus) and 

Sparassis crispa (cauliflower mushroom) use dead heartwood. These saprobes may so 

structurally weaken a tree that it breaks in a wind storm. Many small- to 

medium-sized saprobes decompose the organic layers of the forest floor: stems, 

branches, and leaves. The genera Aleuria, Clitocybe, Collybia, Marasmius, 

Morchella, Mycena, Naemataloma, Phoiiota, and Scutellinia represent some of the 

variety of saprobes. Some, such as certain species of cup-fungi and Psilocybe, occur 

only on animal dung. 

3
Disease and decay typically are considered as killing valuable trees and causing 

economic damage, but pathogens and saprobes are important components of healthy, 

productive forest ecosystems. When scattered trees are killed in a dense forest, for 

example, the resulting small openings enhance forest habitat diversity. Fungi 

specializing in decay of tops of trees create habitat for animals that nest in cavities. 

Saprobes are major players in the complex biological processing machinery of the 

decomposition cycle. Without decay fungi to recycle organic material, plant remains 

would accumulate on the forest floor, thereby reducing soil fertility, yielding a 

stagnant, nonproductive habitat, and presenting a dangerous buildup of fuels. 

In addition to their function as decomposers, fungi are critical links in the complex 

food web of forest ecosystems. Fungi interact with many soil organisms, including 

bacteria, other fungi, nematodes, microarthropods, and insects. They serve as prey to 

and predators of organisms in these groups (Coleman and others 1984, Elliot and 

others 1980, Ingham and others 1985). A large portion of the total forest ecosystem 

biomass resides in the living fungi, which rapidly die and recycle their nutrients to the 

soil (Fogel 1980). This great fungal component not only recycles nutrients but also 

captures significant amounts of forest nutrients, which reduces leaching loss from the 

system. The extensive mycelial webs also function in aggregating soil particles and 

organic matter, thereby providing soil pore space for movement of air and water. Loss 

of such critical soil structure leads to a decline in ecosystem productivity (Molina and 

Amaranthus 1991, Perry and others 1987). 

The third major group of fungi, the mutuatists, live in intimate association with 

plants and interact in various ways that, in this instance, benefit both partners, 

hence, mutuatistic symbiosis. Among macrofungi, the predominant mutualistic 

symbiosis in forests takes place with plant roots producing structures called 

mycorrhizae. Because mycorrhizal fungi directly enhance tree survival and growth 

and produce many of the choice, edible wild mushrooms, we discuss this topic in 

detail. 

Mycorrhiza literally translates as "fungus-root" and defines the common association of 

specialized soil fungi with the tiny feeder roots of many forest trees and shrubs. 

Mycorrhizal associations represent one of the more widespread forms of mutualistic 

symbioses in terrestrial ecosystems. Indeed, the plant-fungus associations have 

coevolved over the millennia such that each partner depends on the other for survival. 

The mycorrhizal fungus basically serves as an extension of the plant root system, 

exploring soil far beyond the reach of the roots and transporting water and nutrients to 

the roots. The uptake of phosphorus and nitrogen are especially critical functions of 

mycorrhizal fungi, which can release bound forms of these nutrients otherwise 

unavailable to the roots. In return, the plant is the primary energy source for the 

fungus, providing simple sugars and vitamins produced in photosynthesis and 

transported to the roots and then the fungus. Mycorrhizal fungi are less capable of 

decomposing complex carbon molecules from organic debris than are saprobes. This 

dependency of fungi on their hosts for growth and survival is critical to mushroom 

production by mycorrhizal fungi. When trees are harvested, these mycorrhizal fungi 

die and do not return to produce mushrooms anti! the new forest is well established; 

many of the valuable edible mycorrhizal fungi reappear in abundance only after the 

new forest is 20 or more years old. 

Mycorrhizal Fungi 

4 
Figure 2-Pine ectomycorrhizae. 

Figure 3-Douglas-fir ectomycorrhizae. 

Of the several classes of mycorrhizae, only ectomycorrhizae produce edible mushrooms. Figures 2-4 illustrate ectomycorrhizae produced by different fungus-host combinations. Note the variation in pattern and extent of branching. Many ectomycorrhizal 

fungi produce plant growth-promoting hormones (auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, and 

ethylene) that stimulate the branching of feeder roots, thereby increasing the absorptive capacity of the root system and the contact zone between root and fungus tissue. 

In addition to branching patterns, two key features characterize the structure of 

ectomycorrhizae. The fungus forms a sheath or mantle of fungal tissue around the 

feeder root (fig. 5). The mantle serves as a storage tissue for nutrients received from 

mycelium in the soil and physically protects the fine roots from some pathogens and 

desiccation. The fungus also penetrates between the cortical cells of the root to form a 

network of fungus tissue called the Hartig net (fig. 5). Nutrient exchange occurs 

within this extensive, intimate contact zone: sugars and vitamins move into the fungus, 

and water and nutrients move into the plant. 

5
Figure 4-Pine ectomycorrhizae showing extensive fungal growth into 

the soil. 

Figure 5-Cross section of a Douglas-fir ectomycorrhiza showing 

the fungal colonization on the root surface (mantle) and growth 

between the cortical cells (Hartig net). 

The primary benefit to the host comes by way of the extensive growth of the fungus 

from the mantle into the soil. The microscopic diameter and proliferation of the 

hyphae allow hosts to receive nutrients from volumes of soil hundreds or thousands of 

times greater than they could from roots alone (see fig. 4). Mycelial colonization of 

the soil differs among the ectomycorrhizal fungi; some may grow only a few centimeters into the soil and others can grow several meters from the ectomycorrhiza. 

Some fungi produce dense, hyphal mats that strongly bind the soil and organic matter. 

If the mycelium is white or brightly colored, these extensive mats may be readily 

visible when a bit of the upper organic layer is removed. Other fungi produce 

colorless or dark mycelia that are more difficult to see with the unaided eye, but their 

growth into the soil is likewise extensive. This proliferation of fungus mycelium 

represents the body of the fungus. Within this network, the sexual processes take 

6 
place and mushrooms and truffles are formed. Disruption of these mycelia by forest 

disturbance or mushroom harvest and its effects on future mushroom production are 

key considerations when management guidelines are developed for forest mushroom 

production. 

Ectomycorrhizal hosts in the Pacific Northwest are chiefly trees in the families 

Pinaceae, Fagaceae, Betulaceae, Salicaceae, and a few Ericaceae. Table 1 lists the 

major Pacific Northwest genera and species within these families along with their 

common names. This diversity of ectomycorrhizal hosts in our region supports a great 

diversity of ectomycorrhizal fungi, making the Pacific Northwest one of the more 

species-rich regions in the world. 

Thousands of fungus species in our region are ectomycorrhizal; Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) alone associates with nearly 2,000 species 

(Trappe 1977). Some of the common and widespread genera of ectomycorrhizal 

fungi in the Pacific Northwest are listed in table 2. Well-known edible species occur 

in the genera Cantharellus (chanterelles), Boletus (boletes), Lactarius (milky caps), 

Tricholoma (matsutake), Hydnum (tooth fungi), and Ramaria (coral fungi). Another 

large and diverse group of less well-known ectomycorrhizal fungi are the truffles 

(table 2), which produce fruiting bodies beneath the duff or soil surface. Only a few 

species, most commonly the Oregon white truffle (Tuber gibbosum), are harvested 

and eaten by knowledgeable collectors. Like the mushroom fungi, the truffles are 

diverse in the Pacific Northwest and are an important food source for many forest 

mammals, especially squirrels, voles, chipmunks, and other small creatures. These 

mammals are major prey for such predators as the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis). Thus, truffles are important in the complex food web of forest 

ecosystems. 

Ectomycorrhizal fungi differ in their ability to associate with different host species. 

Some fungus species are restricted to specific genera. For example, the Oregon white 

truffle associates only with Douglas-fir. Many fungi occur only with pines or oaks. 

Others have broad host ranges as indicated by their widespread occurrence 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Those with broad host ranges and wide ecological 

tolerance (that is, not restricted by specific habitats) are often the most commonly 

collected fungi. Among the important edible mushrooms, Cantharellus cibarius is a 

good example of this group. 

Some fungi may be able to form ectomycorrhizae with a wide range of hosts but are 

limited in distribution by habitat requirements. The Northwest matsutake (Tricholoma 

magnivelare), for example, forms ectomycorrhizae with many tree species throughout 

the forests of the Pacific Northwest; however, this fungus seems most abundant in 

pine forests along the coast and in the Cascade Range. Similarly, the king bolete 

(Boletus edulis) has a broad host range (Molina and Trappe 1982), but it is scattered 

in distribution and often abundant only locally. 

The habitat requirements of these ectomycorrhizal fungi and their interactions with 

particular plant species are poorly understood. Some fungi are more abundant in 

certain age classes of forests. As plant-species composition changes during forest 

succession, the fungus communities similarly undergo change. This fungus succession is in response to changes in tree composition, tree age, and soil qualities, such as 

accumulation of organic matter. The ecological requirements of mycorrhizal fungi, 

particularly their relation to forest community succession and disturbance events, 

represent large knowledge gaps needing research attention. 

7
Table 1-Major ectomycorrhizal host genera and species in the Pacific 

Northwest 

Family Genus Species Common name

Pinaceae Abies amabilis Pacific silver fir 

 concolor white fir 

 grandis grand fir 

 lasiocarpa subalpine fir 

 procera noble fir 

Larix lyalli subalpine larch 

 occidentalis western larch 

Picea engelmannii Engelmann spruce 

 sitchensis Sitka spruce 

Pinus albicaulus white bark pine 

 attenuata knobcone pine 

 contorta lodgepole/shore pine 

 jeffreyi Jeffrey pine 

 lambertiana sugar pine 

 monticola western white pine 

 ponderosa ponderosa pine 

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 

Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock 

 mertensiana mountain hemlock 

Betulaceae Alnus incana mountain alder 

 rhombifolia white alder 

 rubra red alder 

 sinuata Sitka alder 

Betula papyrifera paper birch 

Corylus cornuta hazel 

Ericaceae Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone 

Arctostaphylos columbiana bristly manzanita 

 nevadensis kinnikinnick 

 patula greenleaf manzanita 

 uva-ursi kinnikinnick 

Fagaceae Castanopsis chrysophylla chinquapin 

Lithocarpus densiflonus tanoak 

Quercus crysolepis canyon live oak 

 kellogii California black oak 

 garryana Oregon white oak 

Salicaceae Populus tremuloides aspen 

 trichocarpa poplar 

Salix many species willows 

8 
Table 2-Major genera of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the Pacific Northwest

Epigeous (mushrooms and puffballs) Hypogeous (truffles and false truffles) 

Genus

Amanita 

Amanitopsis 

Astraeus 

Boletus 

Fuscoboletinus 

L eccinum 

Phylloporus 

Suillus 

Xerocomus 

Cantharellus 

Craterellus 

Clavaria 

Ramaria 

Cortinarius 

Descolea 

Hebeloma 

Inocybe 

Rozites 

Geastrum 

Gomphidius 

Hydnum 

Hygrocybe 

Hygrophorus 

Paxillus 

Pisolithus 

Clitopilus 

Rhodophyllus 

Lactanus 

Russula 

Scleroderma 

Corticium 

Thelephora 

Catathelasma 

Laccaria 

Tricholoma 

Family

Amanitaceae 

Astraecaceae 

Boletaceae 

Cantharellaceae 

Clavariaceae 

Cortinariaceae 

Geastraceae 

Gomphidiaceae 

Hydnaceae 

Hygrophoraceae 

Paxillaceae 

Pisolithaceae 

Rhodophyllaceae 

Russulaceae 

Sclerodermataceae 

Thelephoraceae 

Tricholomataceae 

Genus

Alpova 

Gastroboletus 

Rhizopogon 

Truncocolumella 

Destuntzia 

Hymenogaster 

Thaxterogaster 

Elaphomyces 

Endogone 

Radiigera 

Genabea 

Brauniellula 

Barssia 

Balsamia 

Hydnotrya 

Picoa 

Hysterangium 

Leucogaster 

Leucophleps 

Melanogaster 

Geopora 

Arcangeliella 

Elasmomyces 

Gymnomyces 

Macowamtes 

Martellia 

Zelleromyces 

Gautieria 

Chamonixia 

Tuber 

Family

Boletaceae 

Cortinariaceae 

Elaphomycetaceae 

Endogonaceae

Geastraceae 

Geneaceae 

Gomphidiaceae

Helvellaceae

Hysterangiaceae 

Leucogastraceae

Melanogastraceae 

Pyronemataceae

Russulaceae 

Strobilomycetaceae 

Tuberaceae 

Evaluating edible fungi is similar to appreciating wild flowers; everyone has personal 

favorites. In this section, the "best" edible mushrooms found in this region have been 

selected from a great variety of edible species. We present 12 highly regarded, widely 

distributed edible fungi that are relatively easy to recognize and often sought commercially. The biology and ecology of each fungus are unique. Some are saprophyte that 

decay organic matter, others are mycorrhizal. Species abundance varies locally. The brief 

descriptions are intended simply as an introduction to the type of information necessary for 

studying these organisms and managing their habitats. We present a representative 

photograph with each description, but the reader must recognize that individuals in each 

species differ and that field specimens may differ from the picture. This manual is not 

intended to be used for identifying fungi. Mushroom identification takes training and 

experience. Even with comprehensive field guides, caution is necessary because 

look-alikes may sometimes confound the novice. Every year, misidentification leads to 

poisonings. The best advice is still, "When in doubt, throw it out." 

Major Edible 

Fungi in the 

Pacific Northwest 

9
Boletus edulisBull.: Fr. 

(fig. 6) 

Common name: King bolete 

or cep 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: The king 

bolete has a thick, bulbous 

stalk and the cap is covered 

with a netlike (reticulate) 

pattern of raised vein are pale 

brown to d reddish brown on 

th surface. On the underside of 

the cap, spore-bearing tissues 

are composed of hollow tubes 

Figure 6-King bolete or cep, Boletus edulis. 

joined together side by side, forming a spongy, pore-filled surface, as opposed to the 

gills or folded tissue of other mushrooms. Pores that are white when young and that 

do not bruise blue further distinguish this highly prized mushroom from other boletes. 

Range and habitat: This species is found in Temperate Zone forests throughout the 

Northern Hemisphere. It fruits from the soil and is found scattered or in groups. At 

low elevations in our region, the main fruiting occurs in fall, though spring fruitings 

sometimes are encountered. At higher elevations, late spring and summer fruitings 

also can be expected. Boletus edulis forms mycorrhizae with a broad range of 

hardwood and conifer species. In our region, conifer species seem to be the most 

common associates. 

Look-alikes: Because of its spongy spore-bearing tissues, the king bolete is not 

readily confused with mushrooms other than similar boletes. Common boletes in 

our region with reticulate stalks include B. calopus and B. coniferarum. These two 

species taste bitter and bruise blue on injury. Blue-staining or red-pored boletes 

may be poisonous. 

Technical literature: 

Craske, J.D.; Reuter, F.H. 1965. The nitrogenous constituents of the dehydrated 

mushroom, Boletus edulis, and their relation to flavor. Journal of Science, Food 

and Agriculture. 11: 243-250. 

Froidevaux, L.; Amiet, R. 1975. Ectendomycorrhizas of Pinus mugo and Boletus 

edulis ssp. edulis, and Pinus cembra and Suillus variegatus obtained in pure 

culture. European Journal of Forest Pathology. 5: 57-61. 

Kallio, P.; Heikkila, H. 1978. The boletes of Finland. 1. Genus Boletus. Karstenia. 

18: 1-19. 

Snell, W.H.; Singer, R.; Dick, E.A. 1959. Notes on boletes XI. Mycologia. 51: 564-577. 

Thiers, H.D. 1975. California mushrooms: a field guide to the boletes. New 

York: Hafner Press. 261 p. 

10 
Cantharellus cibarius Fr.

(fig. 7) and C. subalbidus 

Smith & Morse (fig. 8) 

Common names: Golden 

chanterelle and white 

chanterelle 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: 

Chanterelles are trumpet 

shaped with considerable 

variation in the thickness and 

taper of the stem. The golden 

chanterelle is yellow to yellow 

orange; the white chanterelle 

is off-white and bruises 

yellow orange. The spore 

bearing surface is veinlike 

with folds and ridges, as 

opposed to the gills of typical 

mushrooms. The flesh is firm 

and fibrous with a mild fruity 

aroma that is often likened to 

apricots. 

Range and habitat: 

Cantharellus cibarius is 

widespread in North 

Temperate Zone woodlands, 

and C. subalbidus is restricted 

to Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. Both may 

occur singly but often occur in 

clusters on the forest floor. 

Figure 7-Golden chanterelle, Cantharellus cibarius.

Figure 8-White chanterelle, Cantharellus subalbidus.

Golden chanterelles are found in conifer and hardwood forests, but white chanterelles 

are confined to conifer woods. Both fruit most commonly in late summer and fall; 

timing depends on rainfall. Chanterelles are mycorrhizal. 

Look-alikes: Gomphus floccosus (scaly chanterelle), a mushroom that can cause 

gastrointestinal distress, has been mistaken for the golden chanterelle but can be 

distinguished by its hollow, vaselike cap that is rather scaly and dark red orange. At 

first glance, some gilled mushrooms such as Chroogomphus tomentosus (wooly pine 

spike), Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca (false chanterelle), or Clitocybe species may 

masquerade as chanterelles. Close examination shows that their spore-bearing surfaces 

have thin, deep, sharp-edged gills well differentiated from the flesh of the stem and 

cap. The edible lobster mushroom (Russula spp. parasitized by Hypomyces 

lactifluorum) is deep orange red, with coarse ribbing on the underside of the cap. 

11
Technical literature: 

Danell, E.; Fries, N. 1990. Methods for isolation of Cantharellus species, and 

the synthesis of ectomycorrhizae with Picea abies. Mycotaxon. 38: 141-148. 

Fries, N. 1979. Germination of spores of Cantharellus cibarius. 

Mycologia. 71: 216-219. 

Itavaara, M.; Willberg, H. 1988. Establishment of Cantharellus cibarius 

culture collection in Finland. Karstenia. 28: 34. 

Moore, L.M.; Jansen, A.E.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1989. Pure culture synthesis 

of ectomycorrhizas with Cantharellus cibarius. Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 

38: 273-278. 

Schouten, S.P.; Warndrager, M.H. 1979. Problems in obtaining pure cultures of 

Cantharellus cibarius. Mushroom Science. 10: 885-890. 

Straatsma, G.; Bruinsma, B. 1986. Carboxylated metabolic intermediates 

as nutritional factors in vegetative growth of the mycorrhizal 

mushroom Cantharellus cibarius Fr. Journal of Plant Physiology. 125: 

377-381. 

Straatsma, G.; Konings, R.N.H.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1985. A strain collection of 

the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius obtained by germination of 

spores and culture of fruitbody and tissue. Transactions of the British 

Mycological Society. 85: 689-697. 

Straatsma, G.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D. 1986. Growth requirements of mycelial 

cultures of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Transactions 

of the British Mycological Society. 87: 135-141. 

Straatsma, G.; van Griensven, L.J.L.D.; Bruinsma, J. 1986. Root influence on in 

vitro growth of hyphae of the mycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibraius 

replaced by carbon dioxide. Physiologia Plantarum. 67: 521-528. 
Craterellus cornucopioides

Pers. (fig. 9) 

Common name: Horn of 

plenty 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: The horn 

of plenty is a hollow, trumpetto funnel-shaped mushroom 

that usually occurs with many 

"horns" arising from a 

common base. When moist, 

they are very dark brown 

(appearing black in the dim 

light of fog-shrouded woods) 

but become brown to gray 

Figure 9-Horn of plenty, Craterellus cornucopioides.

brown in dry weather. The flesh is thin and fibrous, but brittle, with a roughened 

upper surface and a smooth to slightly wrinkled spore-bearing lower (outer) surface. 

Range and habitat : Craterellus cornucoploides is widely distributed but uncommon, 

being found with conifers, hardwoods, and in mixed woods. The mushrooms occur 

singly or, more commonly, in groups on the forest floor. On the west coast, it fruits 

from late fall in the north and, towards the south, appears through winter and early 

spring. Craterellus may form mycorrhizae with hardwoods or conifers. 

Look-alikes: Very few fungi outside the genus Craterellus could be confused with the 

horn of plenty; the dark, funnel-shaped mushrooms are distinctive. Polyozellus 

multiplex (blue chanterelle, edible) occurs in similar groups from a common base, but 

the mushrooms are spoon to fan shaped (not hollow) and dark blue to gray violet. 

Technical literature: 

Bigelow, H.E. 1978. The cantharelloid fungi of New England and adjacent areas. 

Mycologia. 70: 707-756. 

Corner, E.J.H. 1966. A monograph of cantharelloid fungi. Annals of 

Botany Memoirs No. 2. London: Oxford University Press. 255 p. 

Smith, A.H. 1968. The Cantharellaceae of Michigan. The Michigan 

Botanist. 7: 143-483. 

13
Hericium abietis (Weir ex

Hubert) K. Harrison (fig. 10) 

Common name: Coral tooth 

mushroom 

Edibility: Good 

Field description: This white 

fungus develops a massive, 

compactly branched form, with 

spiny teeth hanging like groups 

of icicles around the tips of the 

branches. The branches arise 

from a tough, thick, broad 

base. The fruiting bodies have 

the striking appearance of a 

miniature waterfall frozen in a 

cascade of ice. 

Figure 10-Coral tooth mushroom, Hericium abietis. 

Range and habitat: Hericium abietis is restricted to western North America from

northern California to southeast Alaska. It grows saprophytically on fallen or standing 

dead conifers, especially Abies spp. 

Look-alikes: Hericium americanum (American coral tooth, formerly H. coralloides) 

looks very similar but is found on hardwoods in eastern North America. Hericium 

coralloides (comb hericium, formerly H. ramosum) is more open and spreading with 

teeth all along the branches. The comb hericium is widespread on broad-leaf trees 

and is common on poplars in our area. Hericium erinaceus (hedgehog mushroom) is 

a simple mass of long teeth hanging from a cushionlike base. It fruits from the 

exposed heartwood of damaged but still living hardwoods, especially oak. 

Technical literature:

Ginns, J. 1984. Hericium coralloides N. Amer. Auct. (= H. americanum sp. 

nov.) and the European H. alpestre and H. coralloides. Mycotaxon. 20: 

39-43. 

Harrison, K.A. 1973. The genus Hericium in North America. The Michigan 

Botanist. 12: 177-194. 

Hallenberg, N. 1983. Hericium coralloides and H. alpestre in Europe. 

Mycotaxon. 18: 181-189. 

14 
Hydnum repandum L.: Fr.

(fig. 11) 

Common name: Spreadinghedgehog mushroom 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: This 

mushroom is distinguished 

by brittle spines on the 

underside of the cap that 

function in place of gills 

as the spore-bearing

Figure I 9-Spreading-hedgehog mushroom, Hydnum repandum. 

The cap is 5 to 10 centimeters wide and usually some bright shade of pale orange to 

salmon, occasionally darker reddish brown. The often off-center stem is somewhat 

lighter than the cap and about as tall as the cap is wide. The flesh is firm but brittle. 

Range and habitat: Widely distributed in woods of all types. Hydnum repandum

fruits in fall through late spring on the west coast, starting north and finishing south. 

Hydum is presumed (but unconfirmed) to be mycorrhizal. 

Look-alikes: Hydnum umbilicatum (a good edible) is closely related but is smaller 

and somewhat trumpet shaped with a deeply indented cap. Many other mushrooms 

have spines or teeth as the spore-bearing surface, but others are either much tougher 

(leathery to almost woody) as in the genera Hydnellum and Phellodon or, if fleshy, 

are dark colored, scaly, or large (Sarcodon). The few that are edible are of inferior 

quality. 

Technical literature 

Harrison, K.A.; Grund, D.W. 1987. Preliminary keys to the terrestrial 

stipitate hydnums of North America. Mycotaxon. 28: 419-426. 

Mass Geesteranus, R.A. 1975. Die terrestrischen Stachelpilze Europas. 

Amsterdam-London: North Holland Publ. Co. 123 p. 

15
Lepiota rhacodes (Vitt.) Quel. (fig. 12)

Common name: Shaggy parasol 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: This stately mushroom can 

be nearly 30 centimeters tall with a cap 40 centimeters wide. In young individuals, the cap is 

smooth, reddish brown, and drawn close to the 

stem. As the cap expands up and away from the 

stem, the outer skin breaks into coarse, patchy 

scales separated by shaggy white flesh. The 

smooth stem is white when young and becomes 

light brown; an ample ring is present. Cuts or 

bruises to the cap and stem cause the flesh to 

stain yellow orange then become salmon red to 

brown. The spore print is white (a spore print is 

formed when a cap is allowed overnight to drop 

its spores onto paper). 

Range and habitat: This widely distributed 

Figure 12-Shaggy parasol, Lepiota rhacodes.

in meadows, gardens, lawns, compost, ant hills, or disturbed places. Usually it 

occurs in groups or "fairy rings" that can be up to 30 meters in diameter. The 

shaggy parasol fruits in fall through early winter on the west coast. 

Look-alikes: Chiorophyllum molybdites (green-spored parasol) is similar but tends to 

fruit in summer on lawns. It can cause severe gastrointestinal upset and is best 

differentiated by the medium to light gray green spore print. The green-spored parasol 

has not been reported from the Pacific Northwest or northern California. Another 

similar, but fortunately edible, mushroom, Lepiota americana (American parasol) is 

rarely seen on the west coast. One of the authors (Luoma) found it at the H. J. 

Andrews Experimental Forest growing among organic debris after record-setting July 

rains. It seems to be adapted to the humid eastern summers. The American parasol has 

finer scales on the cap and a wine-red-staining, inflated stem that narrows abruptly 

towards the top. Lepiota procera (parasol mushroom-edible) is another close relative. 

The parasol mushroom has a taller and thinner stem in proportion to the size of the cap 

and does not stain orange or red when cut. More common in the Eastern United States, 

it has been reported from the Southwest but is not known from the Pacific Northwest. 

Many small Lepiota species are poisonous. 

Technical literature: 

Smith, H.V.; Weber, N.S. 1987. Observations on Lepiofa americana and some 

related species. Contributions to the University of Michigan Herbarium. 16: 

211-221. 

16 
Morchella esculenta Fr. (fig. 13)

Common name: Edible morel 

Edibility: Choice (with caution) 

Field description: Morchella esculenta

exemplifies a typical morel. Morels have been 

likened to a pine cone perched on a stem. The 

fertile cap (pine-cone portion) is honeycombed 

with pits and ridges. The cap and stem are 

hollow, and the cap arises continuously from 

the stem. Stem color ranges from white to 

pallid brown. Colors of the cap range from pale 

yellow browns through tan and brown to gray 

brown. The pits are typically the same color or 

darker than the ridges. 

Morchella esculenta represents the white morel 

group that includes M. crassipes and M. 

deliciosa. Determination of the number of 

distinct species and their proper names is a 

current topic of study. The same is true for the 

black morel group that includes M. angusticeps, 

M. elata, and M. conica. Black morels are like 

Figure 13--Morel, Morchella esculenta.

white morels in general appearance but tend to have ridges that are darker than the pits. 

All morels are edible, but people must exercise caution the first time they eat them; some 

people may react adversely, especially when morels are consumed with alcohol. Never eat 

morels raw. 

Range and Habitat: Fruiting in early spring, morels are widely distributed in a variety of 

habitats including forested and nonforested areas. In the West, black morels can be 

abundant in burned areas. White morels are more common in the East. Morels are 

saprophytes. 

Look-alikes: Verpa bohemica (early morel) has a cap composed of very wrinkled to nearly 

smooth tissue that is attached at the top of the stem and hangs down like a skirt. Some 

experts recommend that the early morel not be eaten because a fairly large proportion of 

the human population is sensitive to it. False morels (Gyromitra species) and elfin saddles 

(Helvella species) are irregularly convoluted to brainlike and lack the distinctive pitted and 

ridged pine-cone cap of the true morels. These two genera are also best avoided because 

they contain many poisonous species. The few edible species need to be treated with 

caution. 

Technical literature: 

Andary, C.; Privat, G.; Bourrier, M.-J. 1985. Variations of monomethylhydrazine 

content in Gyromitra esculenta. Mycologia. 77: 259-264. 

Apfelbaum, S.I.; Haney, A.; Dole, R.E. 1984. Ascocarp formation by Morchella

angusticeps after wildfire. The Michigan Botanist.23: 99-102. 

Dissing, H. 1972. Specific and generic delimitation in the Helvellaceae. Persoonia. 6: 

425-432. 

Harmaja, H. 1986. Studies on the Pezizales. Karstenia. 26: 41-48. 

17
Schmidt, E.L. 1983. Spore germination of and carbohydrate colonization by Morchella 

esculenta at different soil temperatures. Mycologia. 75: 870-875. 

Tylutki, E.E. 1979. Mushrooms of Idaho and the Pacific Northwest-Discomycetes. 

Moscow, ID: The University Press of Idaho. 133 p. 

Weber, N.S. 1988. A morel hunter's companion. Lansing, MI: Two Peninsula Press. 

Picoa carthusiana Tulasne &

Tulasne (fig. 14) 

Common name: Black picoa 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: The firm, 

potato-shaped fruiting body is 

produced underground and is 

usually round to slightly 

irregular. It can be up to 8 

centimeters in diameter. The 

exterior is minutely warty and 

dark brown to black. The interior 

spore-bearing tissue is solid and 

composed of fertile, dark-colored 

Figure 14-Black picoa, Picoa carthusiana.

aroma is pleasant and reminiscent of pineapple.

Range and habitat: Picoa carthusiana abounds in Douglas-fir forests, though it was 

first discovered in Western Europe. It usually fruits in winter, December through 

March, wherever Douglas-fir occurs in Oregon, Washington, northern California, 

and British Columbia. Picoa carthusiana forms mycorrhizae with Douglas-fir in the 

Northwest and is reported to associate with a variety of trees and shrubs in Europe. 

Look-alikes: Other dark-colored truffles in the Northwest, such as Genea gardneri, 

are not solid inside. The interior composed of dark-colored pockets within pale 

surrounding tissue and the black, minutely waited exterior generally distinguish 

Picoa carthusiana. At least two Picoa species new to science from the Western 

United States have a smooth brown exterior. 

Technical literature:

Gilkey, H.M. 1916. A revision of the Tuberales of California. University of 

California Publications in Botany. 6: 275-356. 

Gilkey, H.M. 1939. Tuberales of North America. Oregon State Monographs. 1: 1-63. 

Gilkey, H.M. 1954. Tuberales. North American Flora. Series 2, Pt. 1: 1-36. 

Marin, A.B.; Libbey, L.M.; Morgan, M.E. 1984. Truffles: on the scent of 

buried treasure. Mcllvainea. 6: 34-38. 

Marin, A.B.; McDaniel, M.R. 1987. An examination of hedonic response to 

Tuber gibbosum and three other native Oregon truffles. Journal of Food 

Science. 52:1305-1307. 18 
Sparassis crispa Wulf.: Fr. (fig. 15)

Common name: Cauliflower mushroom

Edibility: Choice

Field description: In the Pacific 

Northwest, the fruiting body is 

commonly massive (10 kilograms or 

more) and is composed of flattened, 

ribbonlike or leaflike, compact 

branches arising from a common base. 

This mushroom was long known in the 

West as S. radicata, so named for the 

characteristic deeply "rooting" base. 

Arora (1986) likens its appearance to 

that of a sea sponge, and Smith (1975) 

describes it as "resembling a cluster of 

egg noodles." Figure 15-Cauliflower mushroom, Sparassis crispa.

western North America, particularly from northern California through southern 

British Columbia. It is usually found in the fall at the base of mature conifer trees 

in which it causes a brown rot of the heartwood. 

Look-alikes: No other species looks like this fungus except S. spathulata, an 

equally edible species of Eastern U.S. hardwood forests. 

Technical literature: 

Burdsall, H.H., Jr.; Miller, O.K., Jr. 1988. Type studies and 

nomenclatural considerations in the genus Sparassis. Mycotaxon. 31: 

199-206. 

Burdsall, H.H., Jr.; Miller, O.K., Jr. 1988. Neotypification of Sparassis

crispa. Mycotaxon. 31: 591-593. 

19
Tricholoma magnivelare

(Peck) Redhead (fig. 16) 

Common name: Matsutake, 

pine mushroom, or white 

matsutake 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: 

Matsutake is a robust mushroom that is first white but soon 

develops pale brown to 

yellow-brown stains. The stout 

stem is solid, tough, and 

fibrous. It is smooth above and 

scaly below the thick, sheathing 

ring that

flares out in young specimens. The cap edge develops from a cottony and inrolled form 

to one that hangs down, with a distinctive vertical aspect at maturity. The magnificent 

aroma is spicy-aromatic, similar to a sweet cinnamon odor. The spore print is white. 

Range and habitat: Tricholoma magnivelare is widespread in North America but 

most abundant in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. It forms mycorrhizae 

with a broad range of hosts, but commercial harvest is concentrated in Pinus contorta

forests. Fruiting typically begins soon after the advent of the fall rainy season and 

progresses from north to south. 

Look-alikes: White matsutake has been known as Armillaria ponderosa, but botanical 

nomenclatural rules dictate the current Latin name. It has several imitators in our 

region; all but the first mentioned lack the distinctive aroma. Tricholoma caligata is 

most similar and may have a cinnamon odor, but the scales of the cap and stem are 

darker brown than in T. magnivelare. Tricholoma zelleri has orange-yellow to 

orange-brown tones and an unpleasant smell. Hygrophorus subalpinus (edible) is 

white with similar stature, but is found in the spring soon after snow melt. 

Catathalasma species also are robust and tough but are gray brown with gifts running 

part way down the stem. Tricholoma matsutake is the "true" pine mushroom of eastern 

Asia. 

Technical literature: 

Kinugawa, K.; Goto, T. 1978. Preliminary survey on the "matsutake" (Armillaria 

ponderosa) of North America. Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan. 19: 

91-101. 

Ogawa, M. 1979. Microbial ecology of "shiro" in Tricholoma matsutake and its 

allied species. IX. Tricholoma ponderosum in Pseudotsuga menziesii-Tsuga

heterophylla and Pinus contorta forests. Transactions of the Mycological Society 

of Japan. 20: 370-382. 

Redhead, S.A. 1984. Mycological observations, 13-14: on Hypsizygus and 

Tricholoma. Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan. 25: 1-9. 

Figure 16-Matsutake, pine mushroom, or white matusutake, Tricholoma

magnivelare.

20 
Tuber gibbosum Gilkey 

(fig. 17) 

Common name: Oregon 

white truffle 

Edibility: Choice 

Field description: The 

potato-shaped fruiting body is 

produced underground and is 

usually round to irregularly knobby 

and firm. It can be up to 7 

centimeters in diameter. The 

exterior lacks hairs or warts and is 

whitish when young, becoming 

pale brown or bruising reddish 

brown. 

The interior spore-bearing tissue is marbled shades of white when young, becoming 

brown to dark brown with white veins when mature. The aroma is characteristically 

strong and garlicky or cheesy to pungent metallic with age. 

Range and habitat: The Oregon white truffle occurs from northern California to 

British Columbia west of the Cascades. It is found singly, or more commonly in 

groups, exclusively under Douglas-fir, with which it forms mycorrhizae. The 

main fruiting season is late fall through early spring. 

Look-alikes: Many Tuber species overlap in distribution. The smooth, pale 

reddish-brown exterior and the pungent, garlicky odor usually serve to distinguish 

T. gibbosum. 

Technical literature: 

Gilkey, H.M. 1916. A revision of the Tuberales of California. University of 

California Publications in Botany. 6: 275-356. 

Gilkey, H.M. 1939. Tuberales of North America. Oregon State Monographs. 1: 1-63. 

Gilkey, H.M. 1954. Tuberales. North American Flora. Series 2, Pt. 1: 1-36. 

Marin, A.B.; Libbey, L.M.; Morgan, M.E. 1984. Truffles: on the scent of 

buried treasure. Mcllvainea. 6: 34-38. 

Marin, A.B.; McDaniel, M.R. 1987. An examination of hedonic response to 

Tuber gibbosum and three other native Oregon truffles. Journal of Food 

Science. 52: 1305-1307. 

Figure 17-Oregon white truffle, Tuber gibossum.

21
Humans have interacted with fungi throughout history: some of the oldest known 

religious artifacts are stones carved in the shape of mushrooms. Almost everyone has 

an opinion about mushrooms. Some people fear mushroom poisoning or the aura of 

death and decay associated with them. Others are enthusiastic almost to the point of 

mania; a recent cookbook produced by the San Francisco mushroom society reflects 

this attitude in its title, "Wild About Mushrooms." Wasson and Wasson (1957) coined 

the terms "mycophilic" for those who esteem fungi (myco- mushroom + philelover) 

and "mycophobic" for those who dislike them. 

Some people unreasonably fear and loathe fungi. Literary allusions to fungi are often 

deathly with overtones of evil and decay. Their weird shapes and colors and their 

rapid appearance and disappearance (compared to green plants) have led fungi to be 

associated with magic and deviltry. 

Why do some people fear mushrooms and others delight in them? Some of these 

attitudes have a cultural basis; for example, many people of Asia and continental 

Europe are fond of fungi, but people of the United Kingdom often abhor them. 

Although exceptions to these preferences toward fungi do occur, Americans of 

British origin are often mycophobic, whereas many with roots in continental Europe 

learn from their parents and grandparents to love mushrooms. Preferences also are 

evident in which mushrooms people choose: matsutake is most eagerly sought by 

Asians, and Europeans often prefer boletes, chanterelles, or morels. 

Mushrooms need not be feared any more than wild plants. Some plants are deadly if 

eaten, others cause various degrees of illness, and some are delicious. So it is with 

fungi. When you gather wild berries, you do not pick randomly and then decide which 

to eat. Similarly with mushrooms, you learn to recognize a few favorite species (like 

chanterelles or morels) and treat the others with respectful caution. No mushroom is 

so poisonous that touching it is hazardous (unlike poison oak, for example). 

At the other end of the spectrum are those whose fascination with fungi becomes 

almost obsessive. They may sing praises of the most humble of mushrooms and 

devote endless hours pursuing fungi. Some mycophiles devote their lives to studying 

fungi (mycologists) or collect such treasures as mushroom stamps (mycophilatelists), 

books, or artwork. Another attitude toward fungi is indifference. So what? Why 

should anyone care about fungi, pro or con? With the growing controversy about the 

fungal resource on public lands, however, more people are becoming concerned with 

the fungi as a land management issue. Recognition of the importance of fungi is 

growing in fields ranging from forestry to medicine. 

Different attitudes among people about fungi translate into different actions. Some 

people kick or trample mushrooms in the mistaken belief that they are eliminating a 

fungal "pest." To illustrate the widespread ignorance of fungal biology in America, 

consider the nuclear physicist who thought he would rid his oak tree of a fungal 

parasite by knocking the mushrooms off the tree trunk. The simplest understanding 

of fungal biology-that mushrooms are the fruit of a more extensive, longer lived 

organism-shows that killing an apple tree by picking all of the apples would be as 

likely! 

Recreational, Social, 

and Folk Aspects of 

Fungi 

Attitudes Toward Fungi

Interactions With 

Fungi 

22 
Another, more informed attitude towards fungi is tolerance. The casual observer 

may notice mushrooms and may even see enough beauty in them to refrain 

from destroying them, though they may not care to pick them. Because finding 

mushrooms is a learned skill, individuals sometimes become interested enough 

to study mushroom identification. 

Passions about fungi rise in those who actively collect them, whether for the 

dinner table, sale, or scientific study. Most people who pick mushrooms do so 

because they like to eat them. But there are other unique and unusual uses of 

fungi, such as painting on large, woody conks or close-up photography and 

painting of mushrooms in natural settings. Dried mushrooms are used in floral 

arrangements in Europe. Some mushrooms are prized as sources of natural dyes 

for wool and other fibers. Ink and paper can be made from fungi (Rice 1991). 

These are mostly home uses, but the products are becoming popular in gift shops 

and at mushroom shows. 

Mushroom hunting is often a family activity. The location of a favorite patch is as 

jealously guarded as a good fishing hole. Mushroom picking easily can be 

combined with other outdoor recreation. For this reason and because of public 

interest in nature studies, mushroom hunting is gaining popularity. 

Commercial harvest of wild fungi is also growing. The past 10 years have 

witnessed a tremendous increase in mushroom picking on forest lands throughout 

the Pacific Northwest. Four species, Boletus edulis, Cantharellus cibarius, 

Morchella esculenta, and Tricholoma magnivelare, account for most commercial 

harvest. These species, sold or exported fresh or shipped in brine for canning, are 

exclusively for culinary use. They can bring significant income: on a good day of 

picking matsutake, a picker might earn hundreds of dollars. Good days may be 

interspersed with many days of little or no success, however. 

Fungi have a long history of medicinal use. A few species were included in the 

European and Native American pharmacopoeia; many more were and are used in 

traditional Asian medicine. Native Americans used puffball spores on wounds to 

reduce inflammation and infection. Polyporus officianalis, as the name suggests, 

was "officially" recognized by medieval apothecaries. The Asian fungal 

pharmacopoeia includes hundreds of species used for tonics, as aphrodisiacs, and 

in preparations where they are combined with various plants. 

This history of medicinal fungi prompts the question, What use does modern 

medical science make of fungi? So far, very little. Western medicine is just 

beginning to experiment with potentially beneficial mushrooms (of course, many 

antibiotics were derived from microscopic molds). Evidence is accumulating that 

some species of mushrooms contain powerful stimulants of the immune system. 

In many experiments, extracts of some mushrooms have caused shrinkage of 

experimentally induced tumors in mice or elevated white blood cell count of 

human patients. Because immune-related disorders, such as HIV and many 

cancers, are among the most costly and difficult to treat of diseases, medicinal use 

of mushrooms may well increase. 

23
Although some species show great promise, fungi are no panacea. In fact, an 

extract of one of the most well-known, traditionally used mushrooms 

(Ganoderma lucidum, or ling-chih) caused tumors to grow faster when 

injected into mice. Much more research is needed in this area; unfortunately, 

our mycophobic culture is slow to perceive the great potential value of fungi. 

See Jong and Donovick (1989) for a detailed review. 

Some forest fungi can aid forest regeneration. To improve seedling 

growth and survival, ectomycorrhizal fungi can be introduced to forest 

nurseries as spores during irrigation. Rhizopogon parksii, a trufflelike 

fungus, is collected on a small scale and sold to nurseries for inoculum. 

Mushrooms can be used to make a wide variety of colorful dyes. Fresh or 

dried mushrooms of certain species can be simmered in water and used to 

dye silk, cotton, wool, and other fibers. Mineral salts, called mordants, 

often are added to the dye bath to help fix the dye to the fiber. Different 

combinations of fungi and mordants yield an amazing range of colors. 

Mushroom dyes are slower to fade than most vegetable dyes. Another 

unique aspect of mushroom dyes is the diversity of colors obtained from a 

single species with different mordants. Dermocybe phoenicea, for example, 

produces red, blue, purple, and gray depending on the mordant used. By 

premordanting fiber with several mordants, multiple colors can be obtained 

from a single dye bath. For more information on dyeing with fungi, see 

Rice and Beebee (1980). 

The potential for fungi as forest products has barely been explored. New 

uses will be discovered, and the variety of commercially important species 

will increase. This increase may exacerbate the growing conflicts between 

different groups of users of fungi, particularly between those who want to 

harvest forest fungi commercially and those who make other uses of the 

forest. 

Amateur mycologists are among the most vocal users of fungi. They typically 

start out to learn which mushrooms are safe to eat and move on to learn all 

they can about fungi. Oregon and Washington have 18 amateur mushroom 

societies (appendix 2). These societies go on group forays, sponsor 

mushroom shows, and produce educational publications. Although many 

mushroom enthusiasts are not affiliated with any organization, those who are 

exert important effects on regulating the industry. Recent regulations passed 

in Washington State were partly due to the efforts of amateurs. The Oregon 

Mycological Society is working with the Mount Hood National Forest to 

investigate the effects of picking on subsequent chanterelle harvests. 

Amateurs contribute significantly to the science of mycology. For example, 

members of the North American Truffling Society (based in Corvallis, 

Oregon) have discovered many truffle species previously unknown to 

science. 

Professional mycologists are keenly interested users of the fungal resource. In 

fact, regulation of mushroom collecting is imposing logistical constraints on 

their work. In the past, professional mycologists have tended to collect fungi 

whenever, wherever, and however they chose, except in National Parks. 

Today collecting of fungi for any purpose is prohibited in many State parks in 

California and Washington, and most National Forests in Oregon and 

Washington are requiring permits of some sort even for scientists. 

24 
Another group of mushroom enthusiasts are those who seek them for religious or 

recreational purposes. The roots for these practices are in the religious ceremonies of 

Siberians, Mezoamericans, and others. Modern use grew dramatically during the 

"psychedelic" era of the 1960s and 1970s. The principal fungi used are species of 

Amanita, Stropharia and Psilocybe, some of which occur on National Forests. This use 

of wild fungi is both regular and illicit. 

Yet another interaction of people with fungi is to be poisoned by them. Perhaps the most 

frequent cause of mushroom "poisoning" is spoilage. Some enthusiasts will eat 

mushrooms that are too old for safe consumption, perhaps because they expect 

mushrooms to be slimy and do not recognize the incipient rot. Some fungi, including the 

popular edible morels, can persist in the wild for a long time without changing 

appearance, but contamination by spoilage organisms may increase during this time. A 

second frequent cause of poisoning is an individual's idiosyncratic response. Just as some 

people are allergic to particular foods, others react to mushrooms. Often people can eat 

many kinds of mushrooms, but certain species upset their stomachs. Third are the truly 

toxic fungi, which produce symptoms ranging from gastrointestinal upset to lingering and 

painful death. Luckily, few mushroom species are seriously poisonous and many are too 

small to tempt the picker. Some deadly Amanita species are large and superficially 

resemble Volvariella species, which are widely consumed in Asia. This similarity has led 

to several tragic poisonings when recent immigrants have assumed that their knowledge 

from elsewhere could serve them equally well here. Some small but deadly mushrooms 

superficially resemble some Psilocybe species. People are sometimes fatally poisoned 

from misidentification of psychoactive fungi. 

Health concerns are an important regulatory issue and have received considerable attention 

in Europe. For example, the French mushroom markets are closely regulated and inspected 

by certified mushroom inspectors. It was only after multiple poisonings that these 

regulations were developed. The sole purpose of the market is for selling mushrooms. 

Mushrooms must be displayed one layer thick in special boxes and intact with all their 

parts to allow for positive identification and inspection. Common and Latin names must be 

on the boxes. Access to the market is carefully controlled and sellers must live within the 

local area serviced by the market. No market regulation of wild mushrooms exists in the 

Northwest, although regulations seem likely soon, preferably before a poisoning by 

purchased mushrooms stimulates legislative action. Spoilage is another issue that needs 

addressing. Ensuring high quality of their products is obviously in the interest of those 

marketing wild fungi, so regulating freshness by law may not be as important as ensuring 

proper identification of wild-harvested fungi. 

People hunt mushrooms to share in nature's bounty, to admire the beauty and diversity 

of life, to make money or beautiful and useful objects, and to learn about how nature 

works. These values are similar to those that motivate people to hunt, fish, harvest 

timber, or collect plants. Just as conflicts over appropriate uses led to regulated 

management of other commercial and recreational activities, mushroom collecting will 

undergo increased regulation. 

25
Much of the following discussion of resource conflicts deals with widespread current 

perceptions rather than hard evidence. Accurate or not, perceived conflicts raise fears 

that management schemes must address; for example, overpicking of mushrooms is 

commonly feared to cause a decrease in future abundance. No data currently support 

or refute this concern, so it is still valid and a candidate topic for research. If people 

have picked chanterelles in the same place for years, that they become upset when 

"their" patch is picked by others or the forest is clearcut is hardly surprising, whether 

they are collecting for home, commercial, or scientific purposes. 

Just as fishing grounds are sometimes disputed, conflicts occasionally arise over 

access to productive mushroom grounds. Although newspapers have recently 

reported armed confrontations in the woods, knowledgeable sources claim that these 

reports are exaggerated. With increasing demands on a limited resource, such 

conflicts are likely to grow and must be addressed in regulating mushroom harvest. 

National Forests have adopted various regulations including exclusive harvest rights 

obtained by competitive bidding, similar to timber sale auctions. Other public lands, 

such as California State parks, are becoming completely off limits to any mushroom 

collecting. 

Whether scientist, amateur, or commercial harvester, most collectors of fungi do not 

own the land where they gather fungi, and landowners may not be compensated. 

Therefore, mushroom collecting without permission raises the issue of theft from 

public lands or private property. Additionally, landowners have valid concerns about 

liability for injury or poisonings resulting from mushroom collecting on their land. 

Other conflicts arise between mushroom pickers and people using forest land for 

other purposes. Possible conflicting uses include harvest of other forest products, 

such as timber, and some recreational activities. Two concerns are typically raised 

about logging. First is the disappointment experienced by the mushroom hunter 

returning to a favorite patch only to discover a fresh clearcut. Second is the concern 

that timber harvest may damage the fungi. This concern is valid; ectomycorrhizal 

fungi stop fruiting when a forest is clearcut, but for how long is not known. Some 

popular fungi, morels for example, abound after disturbance (including clearcutting 

and broadcast burning). Some thrive in young forests. Other species may require 

habitat provided only by old-growth forests. Effects of logging on fungi is an area of 

research needing immediate attention. Apparent declines in mushroom harvest in 

Europe have occurred over the past few decades, but to what extent these declines 

result from intensive forest management, pollution (Arnolds 1991), overharvest, or 

other causes is uncertain. 

Conflicts with recreational users of the forest occur when they feel that harvest of 

fungi is an inappropriate activity for a recreation area or that it harms the forest. 

This type of concern extends from heavily used county and State parks to National 

Parks and Wilderness Areas. Wilderness Areas are primarily recreational areas, and 

commercial harvest is prohibited; activities such as fishing, hunting, and berry 

collecting are allowed, however. 

Resource Conflicts

26 
27

The conflicts we have identified will not go away by themselves: creative solutions 

must be sought. The need for sound information on which to base management 

decisions is urgent. The major categories of required information are both socioeconomic and biological. Socioeconomic questions include: 

• Who is collecting fungi? In what quantities? 

• Which species? From what areas? 

• What are the collectors needs and expectations? (For example, are they earning 

significant income from harvesting wild fungi?) 

• How does the income of local pickers and the influx of nonlocal pickers affect the 

economy of a community? 

• What is the value of mushrooms versus other resources on a given unit of land? 

Biological questions include: 

• What amounts of which species of fungi are produced on public lands? 

• What amounts can be harvested on a sustained yield basis? 

• How does forest management affect the different species of fungi? 

• Can edible wild mushroom harvest be enhanced by forest management? 

• Which species, if any, are in danger of local or regional depletion? 

• Can accurate methods be developed to determine local or regional fungal 

diversity? 

• What strategies will best maintain fungal biodiversity? 

Rational management cannot proceed without answers to these and other questions. In the 

meantime, regulations are being adopted arbitrarily. Different forests have different 

regulations, which creates confusion for commercial and amateur pickers alike. It is not 

unusual for pickers to begin in northern California and range beyond the Canadian border 

in a 15-day period in search of profitable flushes of certain mushroom species. Regulation 

of fungal harvests should be considered in the context of other "special forest products." 

Standardizing regulations among regions is important. But we may need to tailor 

regulations to local conditions, because local variation in environmental conditions affect 

fungal populations differently. 

Gathering fungi from Pacific Northwest forests is evolving from a subsistence, 

recreational, or educational activity to a multimillion-dollar industry. This evolution is 

being accompanied by concerns for sustaining fungi as a natural resource and the 

development and enforcement of regulations. We will briefly recount the history of the 

wild mushroom harvest, then consider the current harvest and regulations. 

Four stages characterize the evolution of mushroom harvesting. Each stage adds a new 

group of users, with different motives for collecting fungi. 

• Native Americans used fungi in their hunting and gathering. This use is poorly 

documented in the United States, but it has received attention in South America 

(Fildalgo and Prance 1976). 

Resolving Conflicts 

Commercial 

Aspects of the 

Wild Mushroom 

Industry

Historical Development 
• Immigrants from Europe and Asia brought traditions of collecting and eating a 

wide variety of forest fungi. For many decades, mushroom gathering was 

practiced by relatively few people with an ethnic background for it (that is, recent 

immigrants from continental Europe and Asia) or scientific curiosity. 

• Interest in fungi exploded with increased desire for wild foods and with the 

rediscovery that some species are hallucinogenic (Wasson 1957). By the 1970s, 

amateur mushroom societies were overwhelmed by the influx of new members, 

and pastures were frequented by "magic-mushroom" seekers. 

• In the early 1980s, commercial harvest of wild mushrooms began in earnest. All that a 

knowledgeable entrepreneur needed to make a seasonal income from fungi was 

transportation and a market. Markets were largely restricted to produce retailers and 

restaurants, either local and or in metropolitan regions of the Eastern United States or 

California. 

The next evolution of the industry was the development of foreign markets. This 

development was accompanied by the appearance of mushroom buyers close to 

harvest areas and dealers who air-freighted fresh mushrooms or packed them in brine 

for canning by foreign purchasers. 

Two characteristics distinguish the wild mushroom industry from other forest 

resource-based industries. One is the lack of compensation to owners of land from 

which the resource is harvested: it is largely an industry based on "theft." The other 

unique feature is lack of regulation: the wild mushroom industry is to a great extent 

unregulated, unreported, and untaxed. Most pickers are paid in cash, with little incentive 

for anyone in the chain to report income to the State or Federal revenue services. 

The failure to compensate landowners and the lack of regulation, along with concerns over 

possible resource depletion, are driving the current phase of evolution. This phase includes 

attempts to monitor the harvest, provide compensation (at least for some lands such as 

National Forests and State lands), and regulate how much is harvested by various users. 

Harvest figures for forest mushrooms are difficult to obtain because no crop statistics and 

regulatory harvesting laws existed, until recently. In 1989, Washington State passed the 

first law in the United States, requiring licensing for mushroom buyers and dealers and 

annual harvest reporting for all commercial wild mushrooms. 

The first report by the Washington State Department of Agriculture and the 

Washington Agricultural Statistics Service became available in October 1990 

(Washington State Department of Agriculture 1990). Mushroom production numbers 

from these reports should be interpreted with caution because of the newness of the 

law. Considerable improvement was noted in the 1990 crop report, and with time, 

production numbers should reflect the actual market. The Washington harvest reports 

for 1989 and 1990 are estimated to represent about 10 and 20 percent, respectively, 

of the actual crop. 

Production in 

1989-90 

28 
Table 3-Total pounds and dollars collected from wild mushroom harvesting in 

Washington, 1989-90 

1989 1990 

Fungus species Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

Tricholoma magnivalare 2,600 35,075 106,327 602,530 

Boletus edulus 4,060 24,315 15,799 122,655 

Cantherellus spp. 248,850 586,355 277,530 437,922 

Hydnum repandum 0 0 5,615 9,376 

Hericium sp. 37 108 122 212 

Lactarius deliciosus 0 0 100 151 

Polyozellus multiplex 0 0 937 1,406 

Laetiporus sulphureus 5 15 75,836 88,087 

Sparassis radicata 2,145 6,366 10,999 16,549 

Pleurocybella porrigens 1 3 0 0 

Other 0 0 79 20

 Total 257,700 652,247 493,344 1,278,910 

The production of wild mushrooms in Washington increased in 1990 compared to 1989 

(table 3). In 1989, 20 licensed buyers and 4 licensed processors (dealers) reported 

buying 257,700 pounds (117 136 kg) of wild mushrooms with a wholesale value of 

$652,247 or $2.53 per pound. The 1990 report showed almost double the pounds 

harvested (493,344 lb [224 227 kg]) with a value of $1,278,910 or $2.59 per pound. The 

increase is partly reflected by the fact that as legitimate mushroom buyers and dealers 

learned about the law, they purchased the required license. The average price per 

pound, however, differed little from one year to the next. 

The 1989 report showed that the bulk of the "reported" crop came from just two 

counties. Grays Harbor and Mason counties accounted for 50 and 47 percent of the 

crop, respectively. Chanterelles accounted for 97 percent of the crop (248,850 lb [113 

114 kg] valued at $586,355). The average wholesale price for the chanterelles was 

$2.36 per pound. The next most popular species was Boletus edulis with 4,060 pounds 

harvested, with an average price of $5.99 per pound. The most valuable species was 

Tricholoma magnivalare or matsutake, with 2,600 pounds harvested at an average price 

of $13.99 per pound. In contrast, the 1990 report showed a much wider production 

distribution over most western Washington counties. Mason and Grays Harbor counties 

are still production leaders, but other counties made notable gains. Unfortunately, 1990 

data did not provide detail on species prices per pound. Only averages for all species 

can be calculated. Table 4 summarizes the harvest by counties for the two years. 

The 1989 Washington report also showed that processors (dealers) handled about 39,000 

pounds of morels. In contrast, the estimated 1987 Oregon morel production was worth 

about $2.6 million, about the same as that State's annual blueberry crop, or half of its 

strawberry crop. In 1988, British Columbia exported about 500 tons of matsutake to 

Japan with an estimated value of about US$9 to 10 million. None of the 1989 buyers or 

dealers reported exporting any mushrooms to either Germany or Japan (Washington 

State Department of Agriculture 1990). When seasonal weather is good for forest 

mushroom production, markets can boom, which affects local rural economies. 

29
Table 4-Total pounds and dollars collected from wild mushroom 

harvesting in various counties of Washington, 1989-90 

1989 1990 

County Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

Clallam 0 0 41,256 94,017 

Clallam (west) 0 0 9,754 12,633 

Cow litz 700 1, 610 10, 227 12, 424 

Grays Harbor 108,270 281,715 54,122 495,127 

Jefferson 2,750 6,325 800 1,074 

Klickitat 0 0 39,572 151,043 

Kitsap 250 310 0 0 

Lewis 1,270 3,160 101,157 101,984 

Mason 138,465 344,086 152,071 303,850 

Pacific 1,195 3,126 6,043 9,997 

Pierce 0 0 937 1,406 

Snohomish 1,250 3,750 27,056 33,441 

Thurston 3,550 8,165 48,780 54,646 

Yakima 0 0 1,288 3,918

Total 257,700 652,247 493,344 1,278,910

Picking and selling wild edible mushrooms provides supplemental seasonal income 

for many. Washington is estimated to have from 700 to 900 commercial mushroom 

pickers earning from a few dollars to $3000-5000 in a good season. One advantage 

of mushroom harvesting is that a picker with a car and reasonable woods lore can 

become an independent businessperson. The influx in the 1970s and 1980s of 

Southeast Asians brought an increase in pickers to the region. They found the 

abundant Pacific Northwest mushrooms similar to those in their homeland, and it 

was only natural to market them. They could pick and sell mushrooms without 

fluency in English-a distinct advantage to newcomers to the United States. Others 

make part of their annual income by moving from one seasonal woods crop to the 

next (Acker 1986). 

Washington and Oregon have different forest land ownership patterns. Oregon has 

more Federal and much less State land than does Washington. Nearly two-thirds (62 

percent) of Oregon forest land is in some kind of public ownership. Washington has 

about 30,000 small private forest landowners (more than 10 acres) which, when 

combined with the large industrial forest landowners, accounts for about half of the 

forest land. Oregon's 25,000 similar small forest landowners plus the large industrial 

forest landowners, account for about 37 percent of the forest land. 

Traditionally, both public and private forest landowners have generally ignored 

wild mushroom harvesting on their lands. The emergence of commercial mushroom picking as a relatively new industry has attracted the attention of forest

Picking for 

Supplemental Income 

Forest Land 

Ownership Patterns 

in Washington and 

Oregon 

Landowner 

Regulation of Wild 

Mushrooms 

Private landowners wishing to sell their wild mushroom resource can use sale procedures similar to those being developed by government agencies. The procedures 

for selling wild mushrooms are new, and as markets develop and land managers 

gain experience, these procedures will become fairly standardized. 

30 
Wild Edible 

Mushroom Task 

Group 

In October 1985, at the urging of several Washington mycological societies, 

Commissioner of Public Lands Brian Boyle convened the Wild Edible Mushroom 

Task Group. Representatives came from State and Federal government, industrial and 

small private forest landowners, the wild mushroom industry, and mycological 

societies. An early task was a white paper detailing issues on commercial harvesting 

of wild edible mushrooms (Acker 1986). 

After 16 months of meetings and discussion, the task group focused on three major 

points: to promote mushroom farming as a cottage industry using primarily 

nonmycorrhizal mushrooms; to plan research on ecology, habitat, and production 

of nonmycorrhizal mushrooms; and to investigate ways to regulate and sustain the 

resource. 

Recommendations of the task group were implemented in a variety of events. 

Seminars on growing mushrooms for market were held in western Washington in 

1987-88. A baseline study of chanterelle growth and fruiting was begun by the 

Oregon Mycological Society (Portland) in the nearby, restricted-access Bull Run 

Watershed. A report was completed that details research needed for determining the 

effect of commercial wild mushroom harvesting on the resource (Russell 1987). 

The "Special Forest Products Workshop" held in Portland in February 1990 and the 

"Biology and Management of Wild Edible Mushrooms in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems Workshop" in Springfield, Oregon, in October 1991 brought concerned 

mushroom resource managers and users together to develop working relations. 

Gradually, consensus began to shape into legislation for regulating the wild mushroom resource in Washington. Two wild-mushroom-harvesting bills (one adopting 

harvest limits and seasons on Department of Natural Resources lands, and one 

amending the existing specialized forest products law to include mushrooms) failed 

passage by the 1986 legislature. A new tack was taken emphasizing education, and 

the 1988 legislature gave nearly unanimous passage to a mushroom harvesting law 

requiring licensing and reporting of data as described. This law took effect in January 

1989 and was amended in 1990 to improve definitions. The Washington State 

Department of Agriculture administers the act. 

A variety of groups are involved in the commercial mushroom industry. Mushroom 

harvesters pick wild mushrooms for sale or as employees of a mushroom buyer or 

dealer. Mushroom buyers buy wild mushrooms from harvesters for eventual resale, 

often at roadside or other buying stations. Mushroom dealers purchase and handle 

wild mushrooms in any manner whatsoever for eventual resale, either wholesale or 

retail. Under this definition, restaurants purchasing wild mushrooms from buyers and 

serving them are considered dealers. Restaurants buying mushrooms directly from 

harvesters could qualify for the lower priced buyer license. 

The law requires annual licensing of persons who buy and process wild mushrooms 

for market. Buyer and dealer licenses are $75 and $375 per year, respectively; harvesters (pickers) are exempt (Revised Code of Washington 1989). 

Mushroom buyers must send a prescribed form to the Washington State Department of 

Agriculture each month that includes the site of purchase; amount by weight of each 

species obtained; approximate location of harvest site; date of purchase; price paid to 

harvester; and name, address, and license number of dealer to whom mushrooms are 

sold. Other information also may be required. Dealers must complete a similar form 

when obtaining wild mushrooms from sources other than licensed buyers. 

Washington State's 

Wild Mushroom 

Harvesting Act 

Basic Requirements 

of the Act 

31
.r 

By December 31, dealers shall send to the Department of Agriculture a prescribed 

form that includes, for each variety of mushroom, the quantity by weight sold 

within Washington, within the United States, and to individual foreign countries; 

and other information as might be required. 

The Washington State Department of Agriculture publishes annual harvest totals in 

conjunction with U.S. Department of Agriculture crop reporting statistics, as well as 

a description of where processed wild mushrooms were sent. This law should prove 

invaluable in tracking the often mysterious path of wild mushrooms through the 

marketplace. Accumulation of statistics will help attract attention to the research 

needs for this special forest resource. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources may not legally give away any 

resource with marketable value. Resources include things like gravel, sand, timber, 

and edible mushrooms; all resources must be sold at fair market price. Currently, 

the department may sell wild mushrooms by leasing a tract of land to an individual 

or company at a bid price. Security for protecting the resource is to be provided by 

the leaseholder. A direct purchase system similar to that of two National Forests is 

planned but has not been implemented. 

The Washington Department of Wildlife manages numerous tracts of wildlife habitat, 

lands. The department allows recreational mushroom picking for persons with hunting 

or conservation licenses but does not allow commercial harvesting on these lands. The 

Washington Parks and Recreation Commission, National Park Service, and National 

Forest Wilderness Areas also allow recreational picking but not commercial 

harvesting. The hunting and conservation licensing requirements do not apply. 

Several other States were surveyed to determine whether they had laws regarding 

wild mushroom harvesting. Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and 

Wisconsin responded that they had none. Wisconsin has a law for wild ginseng 

(Panax quinquefolia L.) that requires harvesters and dealers to have $5 and $100 

annual licenses, respectively. Texas reported in an official letter that mushrooms 

more than 6 feet tall or 3 feet in diameter could not be harvested. Washington is the 

only state or province in North America known to have a law for commercial 

harvesting of wild mushrooms. Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and possibly a few 

other European countries have various kinds of regulations that enact regional 

closures or limits on mushroom harvesting. 

The USDA Forest Service has been the Pacific Northwest leader in developing fee 

systems for selling the wild mushroom resource to commercial harvesters. Several 

systems are either in development or have been implemented. Some industrial forest 

landowners are allowing mushroom harvesting without a fee to create "good will." 

Others find it uneconomical to pursue. Patrolling or other means to prevent trespassing and mushroom theft is costly but could be combined with other security 

functions. 

Washington State 

Regulations 

Government 

Regulations Elsewhere 

32 
How to determine the type and cost of a wild mushroom permit is difficult. Should 

wild mushrooms be sold by land area or by the pound? By bid or permit? Low-cost 

methods that seem to be evolving are over-the-counter permits that either pay the 

landowner for a specified amount of mushrooms or are good for a certain period; 

for example, the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in southeastern 

Washington and northeastern Oregon sell 3-day commercial harvesting permits for 

$10 and 30-day permits for $50. Personal use permits are free and have a picking 

limit of 5 gallons. Mushroom buyers using Federal land as a purchasing station are 

required to have a $100 annual permit and a free industrial camping permit. While 

on Federal land, these buyers may purchase mushrooms only from pickers with 

valid Federal harvesting permits. 

The Olympic National Forest in Washington allows up to two annual permits for 

50 pounds of mushrooms for family or individual personal use. This free permit 

is available by phone or mail from Ranger District offices. A 3-day commercial 

mushroom-harvesting permit allows harvest of 100 pounds at an appraised price 

of around $0.20 per pound, which may fluctuate. Commercial permits must be 

picked up at a District office. An accepted mushroom identification guidebook 

must be carried with the permit. 

The days have ended when the forest may be viewed only as trees and trees only as 

timber. The soil and water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and wildlife, and the 

beauty that is the forest must be integral parts of the resource manager's thinking and 

actions. 

-Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1976 

Could Senator Humphrey's view include mushrooms as well? Certainly, fungi are an 

integral component of the forest ecosystem, and the public is increasingly concerned 

over forest management. Since the days of Senator Humphrey, the scope and intensity of public interest have expanded from the simple "timber only" days to now 

include many special forest products such as mushrooms. As a consequence of 

increased public interest, monitoring has grown in importance. Monitoring of 

National Forest system land management and use is required by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), NFMA regulations, National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), NEPA regulations, the Endangered Species Act, and many other laws. 

Similar laws are in effect for Washington's forest lands (for example, the State 

Environmental Policy Act, SEPA). The extent of monitoring and the kind of 

documentation required are not specifically identified for the mushroom resource. 

Washington has completed a forest resource plan for the next decade, and special 

forest products, including mushrooms, are covered. Likewise, National Forests in the 

Pacific Northwest have completed their first set of Forest plans mandated by the 

National Forest Management Act. These Forest plans specify Forest activities, outputs, 

and effects for the upcoming decade. Essential to each Forest plan was the 

development of a monitoring and evaluation plan to ensure that the environmental 

effects of forest management are acceptable. None of these plans includes monitoring 

populations of wild edible fungi on National Forests, however. Monitoring is needed to 

determine the carrying capacity of the land, to balance competing uses, and to ensure 

that management practices do not deplete the mushroom resource. 

Monitoring Wild 

Edible Fungi 

33
Monitoring can be defined as the repeated recording or sampling of similar information for comparison to a reference. The monitoring purpose determines what 

information is collected and what comparisons are made. Monitoring disturbance 

from mushroom harvest can be as simple as observing or photographing a site before 

and after picking; it can be as complex as a regional experiment designed to 

investigate the effects of an array of forest practices on the abundance and diversity 

of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Two critical features must be maintained regardless of how 

simple or complex a monitoring project is required: first, observations must be 

repeated; and second, the observations must be compared to an established reference. 

Three kinds of monitoring are suggested for wild, edible forest fungi. 

Detection is the most fundamental kind of monitoring because it develops a benchmark for future comparisons. Its purpose is to document the current production of 

edible fungi and variability with space and time. Baseline information is necessary to 

determine mushroom abundance and assess with time whether production is 

declining. Many detection questions need answering. How many commercial edible 

mushrooms are produced in the Pacific Northwest? How many are harvested? By 

whom? How much variation occurs from year to year? How is the variation related to 

forest composition, age, and condition over a wide area? Poorly documented 

historical rates of production, ephemeral fruiting, and natural variation with climate 

confound assessment of production. The following approach is suggested to develop 

baseline evaluation monitoring for the mushroom resource. This undertaking can be 

accomplished only with open communication and cooperation from a wide array of 

forest owners, managers, scientists, mushroom pickers, buyers, and dealers. 

Detection monitoring approaches should tie into existing databases. On Federal 

lands, existing ecology plots and managed stand surveys already have detailed 

information on species composition, plant association, forest structure, productivity, 

and soil. These existing surveys cover a wide variety of environments, forest ages, 

and conditions and are well referenced for locating in the field. A stratified sampling 

of these plots could be used for monitoring edible fungi. Mushrooms of commercial 

value, such as the chanterelle, matsutake, and morels, could be sampled at these 

sites. 

Because mushroom fruiting occurs over a relatively short period, varies from year to 

year, and differs with mushroom species, determining when to sample is a great 

challenge. The onset of fall rains is the strongest determinant for the beginning of the 

mushroom season, so detection monitoring should be correlated with rainfall. 

Probably the best indication of commercial mushroom fruiting is the presence of 

pickers and buyers. Their presence could initiate the field surrey of selected ecology 

and managed-stand plots. Sampling could be repeated throughout the fruiting period 

to assess total production. Mushroom locations, species, numbers, and weights should 

be recorded. Scientists could train local forest crews on inventory methods and 

mushroom identification. Selected sites could be visited in successive years to 

determine annual variation. Plant associations, species composition and age, soils, 

and aspects can be compared to determine optimum conditions for mushroom 

fruiting. The monitoring personnel need to work with pickers, buyers, and dealers to 

estimate total production within an area. 

Detection 

34 
Detection monitoring will require establishing "control areas" where mushroom harvest is restricted. Maintaining controls may be difficult in many forest areas where 

access cannot be limited. Detection monitoring may have to be done in management 

areas or special mushroom study areas where picking is not allowed. Coordination 

with administration and law enforcement personnel will be essential to maintain the 

integrity of these study sites. 

Evaluation monitoring, the second kind of monitoring, is triggered by results of 

detection monitoring. If detection monitoring indicates declining mushroom harvest, 

additional evaluation monitoring is necessary to determine the extent and cause of the 

effect. For evaluation, additional data can specify causes such as harvest rate, 

disturbance type, or change in habitat. Evaluation monitoring can also include studies 

that evaluate strategies for continued production of edible mushrooms. 

The declining yield of edible mushrooms in European forests in recent decades has 

generated great concern and increased interest in evaluation monitoring. These 

declines may be at least partially explained by the general decline of these forests 

because of atmospheric pollution. A demonstrated decline in mycorrhizal colonization 

has sometimes resulted from increasing sulfur dioxide concentration (Anderson and 

Rygiewicz 1991). Allocation of carbon from plants to mycorrhizal fungi also can be 

decreased by high concentrations of ozone (Matson 1984). 

Because mycorrhizal fungi are most active in the upper soil and humus layers, they are 

sensitive to increases in soil temperature, soil compaction, and erosion that can 

accompany forest harvest. The intensity of light reaching the soil surface influences 

soil temperature. These factors in turn affect the composition of the mycorrhizal fungi 

on the site (Luoma 1989, Luoma and others 1991); for example, evaluation monitoring 

indicates that large increases in surface soil temperature can negatively affect the 

growth of mycorrhizae (Meijer 1970). Bowen (1980) observed a 90-percent decline in 

mycelial growth when soils were compacted from bulk densities of 1.20 grams/cubic 

centimeter to 1.60 grams/cubic centimeter. 

But mushroom production does not necessarily decline with disturbance. The effect 

likely depends on the type and intensity of disturbance. Morels, for example, often 

fruit profusely after fire. Matsutake mushrooms may prefer open understory conditions maintained by understory burns. Chanterelles often fruit abundantly in partialcut areas with numerous skid trails (personal observations, Amaranthus and Luoma). 

Timber stand improvement practices also may influence fruiting body production. 

Fertilization, however, has had variable effects on mushroom production, increasing 

the occurrence of some species and decreasing many others (Garbaye and LeTacon 

1982, Menge and Grand 1978, Ohenoja 1978). 

Effects of mushroom and truffle harvest on yield have received little study. The 

limited data for mushrooms in the Pacific Northwest indicate no conclusive evidence 

of reduced yield as a consequence of picking. Annual variation in mushroom abundance often shows a clear correlation with precipitation and temperature (Eveling 

and others 1990, Tominga 1975). Carefully designed evaluation monitoring is 

required because mushroom species differ in their fruiting response to changing 

environmental conditions, which compounds the difficulty of making generalizations 

about the effects of human activities. 

Evaluation 

35
Controversy has focused on the detrimental effects of commercial harvest on wild 

edible mushroom yields and forest health, yet little evaluation monitoring exists to 

document adverse effects in the Pacific Northwest. Basic misunderstandings about 

the nature of mushrooms often has resulted in concern over harvest. Under the 

proper conditions, the mycelium of a particular species can produce annual crops of 

mushrooms, similar to an apple tree producing annual crops of apples. Many 

factors, including duff removal, mushroom picking before spore maturation, soil 

compaction, grazing, fire suppression, and forest harvest, may affect fruiting-body 

production. Evaluation monitoring can help forest managers assess the effects of 

these activities. 

Truffles are somewhat different. In Europe, they are found by trained dogs with 

negligible disturbance to the soil. In the Pacific Northwest, they have been harvested by raking the forest floor. Disturbance to soil and fine roots of host trees 

can be drastic. At one site, raking an area 2 years in a row appeared to virtually 

eliminate truffle production in the third year (Trappe 1990). 

Research monitoring is the third and most detailed kind of monitoring. It is intended 

to provide detailed information on forest ecosystems at intensive research sites and 

where continuing, long-term studies are in place. Such studies would investigate the 

role of fungi in ecosystem processes and require intensive and specific research design 

and interaction with other studies over the long term. What role do the fungi play in 

forest recovery, stability, and productivity? Are soil processes such as nutrient cycling 

affected by mushroom harvest? A great opportunity to include research monitoring for 

wild, edible fungi exists within other long-term studies such as the Long-Term 

Ecological Research program funded by the National Science Foundation and 

Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity program of the Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service. 

The forests of the Pacific Northwest are created and maintained by disturbance 

events. Hence, disturbing the forest to remove commodities such as wild edible 

mushrooms does not necessarily conflict with maintaining forest resources. After 

natural disturbance such as fire, biological remnants of the previous forest remain 

and provide the basis for the recovery (Amaranthus and others 1990, Hansen and 

others 1991). These remnants, called "biological legacies," include large live trees 

and a wealth of dead standing and fallen trees that provide continuing habitat for 

mycorrhizal fungi (Amaranthus and others 1989). Research is needed to determine 

how these biological legacies may be influencing mushroom production over time. 

Research has shown that mycorrhizal fungi, such as chanterelles, matsutake, and 

boletes, depend on living trees for photosynthate to fuel their activities. But research 

has not identified those factors that initiate fruiting body production and how they 

may vary in time and space and with changes in the physical and biotic environment. 

Research also is lacking on the role of edible mycorrhizal fungi in maintaining forest 

health and productivity or plant responses to unpredictable or varying environments. 

Research 

36 
Diversity in an ecosystem provides resilience in times of stress, as is particularly true 

of the soil fungi with their strong response to microenvironmental changes. Different 

mycorrhizal fungi have different "specialties": some are most active in the cool, wet 

periods; others are adapted to warm, dry times. Succession of mycorrhizal fungi in 

the forest environment goes on over the course of a year, many years, or decades. In a 

changing environment, forest productivity may rely on a succession of mycorrhizal 

fungi for uptake of nutrients and water. The occurrence and fruiting of edible fungi 

may depend on attainment of these conditions. Research monitoring is necessary to 

understand these relations. 

The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other stewards of the land are 

charged with maintaining forest productivity for current and future generations. The 

sustained production of wild edible mushrooms can be included within the definition 

of forest productivity and must be viewed in terms of generations of human beings 

and of trees. Research monitoring of edible mushrooms should be included in other 

long-term studies of forest health and productivity. 

The yields of wild edible fungi are the product of diverse and complex interactions 

within natural systems whose relations have coevolved over millennia. Managers 

cannot consider mushroom production in isolation from the community and ecosystem to which the mushrooms are ecologically adapted. Our approach to the 

harvest of wild edible mushrooms considers plants, the soil community, the larger 

ecosystem, and human uses and needs as a coherent and dynamic partnership. The 

sustainability of the wild edible mushroom resource ultimately is understood in 

terms of patterns arising from the connections within the partnership. 

Just as the forest invests tremendous capital in the form of photosynthates to fuel the 

production of wild edible mushrooms, we must invest in the effort to understand and 

conserve this ephemeral and poorly understood resource. Monitoring is essential and 

three kinds are recommended: detection, evaluation, and research monitoring of the 

mushroom resource are necessary to assess abundance and distribution, the effects of 

management, and the role of these fungi in long-term forest health. Our biological 

research must be done in conjunction with socioeconomic questions relating to effects 

on rural communities, interactions between mushroom-user groups, and sustainability 

of a commercial industry. Sharpening our knowledge will be a good investment and is 

an essential part of maintaining continuous production of wild edible mushrooms for 

future generations. 

The excellent technical reviews by Martha Brookes and James Trappe, William 

Denison, Nancy Weber, and Joseph Ammirati are gratefully acknowledged. We thank 

Kit Skates (figs. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13) and Michael Berg (figs. 8, 10, 15, and 16) for 

generously providing many of the beautiful mushroom photographs and Gretchen 

Bracher for the line drawing and cover illustration. This report was supported by the 

PNW Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity and Ecological Framework for 

Management programs. 

Conclusions 

Acknowledgments 

37
Metric English

quantity equivalent

Hectare 2.471 acres 

Centimeter 0.3937 inch 

Meter 3.28 feet 

Gram 0.03527 ounce 

Kilogram 2.2 pounds 

Metric ton 1.102 tons 

Metric to English 

Conversion Table 

Acker, Randy. 1986. Harvesting edible wild mushrooms in Washington: an issue 

paper. Misc. publ. Forest Health, MQ-11. Olympia, WA: Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources. 44 p. 

Amaranthus, M.P.; Molina, R.; Trappe, J. 1990. Long-term productivity and the living 

soil. In: Perry, D.A.; Meurisse, R.; Thomas, B. [and others], eds. Maintaining 

long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 

36-52. 

Amaranthus, M.P.; Parrish, D.; Perry, D.A. 1989. Decaying logs as moisture 

reservoirs following drought and wildfire. In: Alexander, E., ed. Stewardship of soil, 

air, and water resources. R10-MB-77. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 10. 

Anderson, C.P.; Rygfewicz, P.T. 1991. Stress interactions and mycorrhizal plant 

response: understanding carbon allocation priorities. Environmental Pollution. 73: 

214-244. 

Arnolds, Eef. 1991. Mycologists and nature conservation. In: Hawksorth, D.L., ed. 

[City unknown], United Kingdom: C.A.B. International: 243-264. 

Bowen, G.D. 1980. Disturbance effects on fungi. In: Mikola, P., ed. Tropical mycorrhiza research. New York: Oxford University Press: 165-190. 

Carrol, G.C.; Wicklow, D.T. 1992. The fungal community: its organization and role in 

the ecosystem. New York: Marcell-Decker. 976 p. 

Coleman, D.C.; Anderson, R.V.; Cole, C.V. [and others]. 1984. Roles of protozoa and 

nematodes in nutrient cycling. In: Microbial-plant interactions. Madison, WI: Soil 

Science Society of America: 17-28. 

Elliot, E.T.; Anderson, R.V.; Coleman, D.C.; Cole, C.V. 1980. Habitable pore space 

and microbial trophic interactions. Oikos. 35: 327-335. 

Eveling, D.W.; Wilson, R.N.; Bataille, A. 1990. Environmental effects on sporocarp 

counts over fourteen years in a forest area. Mycological Research. 94: 998-1002. 

Fidalgo, O.; Prance, G.T. 1976. The ethnomycology of the Sanama Indians. 

Mycologia. 68: 201-210. 

Fogel, Robert. 1980. Mycorrhizae and nutrient cycling in natural forest ecosystems. 

New Phytologist. 86:199-212. 

Garbaye, J.; Le Tacon, F. 1982. Influence of mineral fertilization and thinning 

intensity on fruit body production of epigeous fungi in an artificial spruce stand 

(Picea excelsa Link) in north-eastern France. Acta Oecologia. 3: 153-160. 

Literature Cited 

38 
Hansen, A.; Spies, T.A.; Swanson, F.J.; Ohmann, J.L. 1991. Lessons from natural 

forests: implications for preserving biodiversity in managed stands. BioScience. 41: 

382-392. 

Ingham, R.E.; Trofymow, J.A.; Ingham, J.A.; Coleman, D.C. 1985. Interactions of 

bacteria, fungi, and their nematode grazers: effects on nutrient cycling and plant 

growth. Ecological Monographs. 55: 119-140. 

Jong, S.C.; Donovick, R. 1989. Antitumor and antiviral substances from fungi. 

Advances of Applied Microbiology. 34: 183-262. 

Kendrick, B. 1992. The fifth kingdom. 2d ed. Waterloo, ON: Mycologue Publication. 

406 p. 

Luoma, Daniel L. 1989. Biomass and community structure of sporocarps formed by 

hypogeous ectomycorrhizal fungi within selected forest habitats of the H. J. Andrews 

Experimental Forest, Oregon. Corvallis: Oregon State University. 173 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Luoma, Daniel L.; Frenkel, Robert E.; Trappe, James M. 1991. Fruiting of 

hypogeous sporocarps in Oregon Douglas-fir forests: seasonal and habitat 

variation. Mycologia. 83: 335-353. 

Maser, Chris; Trappe, James M.; Nussbaum, Ronald A. 1978. Fungal-small 

mammal interrelationships with emphasis on Oregon coniferous forests. Ecology. 59: 

799-809. 

Matson, J. 1984. Quantifying plant response to ozone: a unifying theory. Tree 

Physiology. 3: 63-91. 

Meijer, W. 1970. Temperature effects on tropical ectomycorrhizae. Malayan Forester. 

33: 204-229. 

Menge, J.A.; Grand, L.F. 1978. Effect of fertilization on production of epigeous 

basidiocarps by mycorrhizal fungi in loblolly pine plantations. Canadian Journal of 

Botany. 56: 2357-2362. 

Molina, Randy; Amaranthus, Michael. 1991. Rhizosphere biology: ecological 

linkages between soil processes, plant growth, and community dynamics. In: 

Proceedings, Management and productivity of western-montane forest soils. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. [Publisher location unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service: 51-58. 

Molina, Randy; Trappe, James M. 1982. Patterns of ectomycorrhizal host 

specificity and potential among Pacific Northwest conifers and fungi. Forest 

Science. 28: 423-458. 

Moore-Landecker, E. 1990. Fundamentals of the fungi. 3d ed. Prentice Hall. 544 p. 

Ohenoja, Ested. 1978. Mushrooms and mushroom yields in fertilized forests. Acta 

Botanica Fennica. 15: 38-46. 

Perry, D.A.; Molina, R.; Amaranthus, M.P. 1987. Mycorrhizae, mycorrhizospheres, 

and reforestation: current knowledge and research needs. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 17: 929-940. 

39
Rice, Miriam; Beebee, Dorothy. 1980. Mushrooms for color. Eureka, CA: 

Mad River Press. 145 p. 

Rice, M. 1991. Fine paper from mushrooms. Mushroom, the Journal of Wild 

Mushrooming. 34: 21-22. 

Russell, K.W. 1987. What we need to know about commercial harvesting. 

Mcllvainia. 8: 37-41. 

Tominaga, Y. 1975. Studies on the tunnel cultivation of Tricholoma matsutake. 

Bulletin of the Hiroshima Agricultural College. 5: 165-180. 

Trappe, James M. 1977. Selection of fungi for ectomycorrhizal inoculation 

in nurseries. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 15: 203-222. 

Trappe, James M. 1990. Use of truffles and false-truffles around the world. In: 

Proceedings, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Zul Tartufo; 1988 November 

24-27; Spoleto, Italy. Panetto and Petrelli, Spoleto; Gennalio, Italy: 19-30. 

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc. Endangered species Act of 1973 (as amended) 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1543. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370a 

(1982 and Supp. V 1987). 

U.S. Laws, Statues, etc.; Public Law 94-588. National Forest Management Act 

of 1976. Act of Oct. 22, 1976. 16 U.S.C. 1600 (1976). 

Washington State Department of Agriculture. 1990. Wild mushroom harvesting 

in Washington State. Misc. Publ. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department 

of Agriculture, Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. 4 p. 

Washington [State] Environmental Policy Act, R.C.W. 43.21 C. 

Wasson, R.G. 1957. Seeking the magic mushroom. Life: May 13, 1957. 

Wasson, V.P.; Wasson, R.G. 1957. Mushrooms, Russia and history. New York: 

Pantheon Books. 432 p. 

40 
Arora, David. 1986. Mushrooms demystified 2d ed. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press. 

959 p. 

Arora, David. 1991. All that the rain promises, and more. Berkeley: Ten Speed 

Press. 256 p. 

Lincoff, Gary H. 1981. The Audubon Society field guide to North 

American mushrooms. New York: A.A. Knopf, Inc. 928 p. 

McKenny, Margaret; Stuntz, Daniel E. (revised and enlarged by Ammirati, 

J.F.). 1987. The new savory wild mushroom. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press. 264 p. 

McKnight, Kent; McKnight, Vera B. 1987. A field guide to mushrooms: 

North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 429 p. 

Miller, Orson K. 1972. Mushrooms of North America. New York: E.P. 

Dutton. 368 p. 

Pacific Northwest Key Council. 1975-85. Keys to Pacific Northwest 

mushrooms. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Key Council. Write: Pacific 

Northwest Key Council, 1943 SE Locust St., Portland, OR 97214, for more 

information. 

Smith, A.H.; Smith, H.V.; Weber, N.S. 1981. How to know the 

non-gilled mushrooms, 2d ed. Dubuque, IA: William Brown. 324 p. 

Smith, Alexander H. 1975. A field guide to western mushrooms. Ann 

Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 280 p. 

Smith, Alexander H.; Smith, Helen V.; Weber, Nancy S. 1979. How to 

know the gilled mushrooms. Dubuque, IA: William Brown. 334 p. 

Smith, Alexander H.; Weber, N.S. 1980. The mushroom hunter's field guide. 

Revised. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 303 p. 

Appendix 1 

Field Guides to 

Mushroom Identification

41
Pacific Northwest mushroom clubs, compiled from the North American Mycological 

Association membership list, 1990. 

Florence Mushroom Club, Siltcoos Station, Westlake, OR 97493 

Fungus Federation of Santa Cruz, 1305 E. Cliff Dr. (Museum), Santa Cruz, CA 

 95062 

Humboldt Bay Mycological Society, P.O. Box 4419, Arcata, CA 95521-1419 

Kitsap Peninsula Mycological Society, P.O. Box 265, Bremerton, WA 98310-0054 

Lincoln County Mycological Society, 207 Hudson Loop, Toledo,OR 97391-9608 

Mendocino County Mycological Society, P.O. Box 87, Philo, CA 95466-0087 

Mount Mazama Mushroom Association, 417 Garfield St., Medford, OR 97501-4028 

Mycological Society of San Francisco, P.O. Box 11321, San Francisco, CA 

 94101-7321 

North American Truffling Society, P.O. Box 296, Corvallis, OR 97339-0296 

Northern Idaho Mycological Association, 5936 N. Mount Carrol St., Coeur d'Alene, ID 

 83814-9609 

Northwest Mushroomers Association, 831 Mason Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 

Olympic Mountain Mycological Society, P.O. Box 270, Forks, WA 98331-0720 

Oregon Coast Mycological Society, P.O. Box 1590, Florence, OR 97439-0103 

Oregon Mycological Society, 2781 SW Sherwood Dr., Portland, OR 97201-2250 

Pacific Northwest Key Council, 124 Panorama Dr., Chehalis, WA 98532-8628 

Puget Sound Mycological Society, U of WA Urban Hort. GF-15, Seattle, WA 

 98195-0001 

Snohomish County Mycological Society, P.O. Box 2822, Everett, WA 98203-0822 

South Sound Mushroom Club, 6439 32d Ave. NW, Olympia, WA 98502-9519 

Southern Idaho Mycological Association, P.O. Box 843, Boise, ID 83701-0843 

Spokane Mushroom Club, P.O. Box 2791, Spokane, WA 99220-2791 

Tacoma Mushroom Society, P.O. Box 99577, Tacoma, WA 98499-0577 

Tri Cities Mycological Society, RR 1 Box 5250, Richland, WA 99352-9765 

Vancouver Mycological Society, 403 Third St., New Westminster, BC V3L 2S1 

Wenatchee Valley Mushroom Society, 287 N. Iowa Ave., East Wenatchee, WA 

 98802-5205 

Willamette Valley Mushroom Society, 2610 E. Nob Hill St. SE, Salem, OR 

 97302-4429 

Appendix 2 

42 
Molina, Randy; O'Dell, Thomas; Luoma, Daniel; Amaranthus, Michael; Castellano, Michael; 

Russell, Kenelm. 1993. Biology, ecology, and social aspects of wild edible mushrooms in the 

forests of the Pacific Northwest: a preface to managing commercial harvest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-309. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 42 p. 

The commercial harvest of edible forest fungi has mushroomed into a multimillion dollar industry with 

several thousand tons harvested annually. The development of this special forest product industry 

has raised considerable controversy about how this resource should be managed, especially on 

public lands. Concerns center around destruction of forest habitat by repeated entry and harvest, 

gradual loss of the mushroom resource by potential overharvest, conflict between recreational users 

and commercial harvesters, and regulation and monitoring of future harvests. A key to wisely 

managing the edible mushroom resource is common understanding among resource managers, the 

mushroom industry, and the concerned public about the biology of these unique forest organisms, 

their ecological importance in forest ecosystems, and effects of forest disturbance on their survival. 

The primary objectives of this overview paper are to provide information on the biology of forest 

fungi, describe the major edible fungi harvested in the Pacific Northwest, integrate a perspective on 

the social aspects of the mushroom harvest issue, summarize the development of the commercial 

mushroom industry, and suggest research and monitoring protocols for developing management 

guidelines. 

Keywords: Fungi, mushrooms, mycorrhizae, monitoring, forest ecology, forest 

management, special forest products, recreation. 

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 is an Equal 

Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department 

programs will be given equal consideration without 

regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national 

origin. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

333 S.W. First Avenue P.O. Box 

3890 Portland, Oregon 97208-3890