In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
| "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
| relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
| laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.
|
| That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
| comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.
|
| And that's fair enough, when you think about it. The last thing we want is
| people wanering about diggint things up from the wild... I wonder if that
| would apply to truffles?

But when you think about it a bit more deeply, it is a very BAD
idea. It would apply to truffles if the lawyers regarded them
as plants. The following are major disadvantages:

1) The law is phrased in such a way as to create property
rights that did not exist previously. Yes, the landowner can
assign and sell the permission, just as for game. This is yet
another theft of rights from the public, like the game laws and
enclosures.

2) The law does nothing to help protect plants against the
real abusers. There are many ways in which it can be bypassed,
from slipping the landowner some cash (which is legal) to many
effective illegal methods.

3) It prevents people from stocking their property with local
strains of trees and shrubs, thus reducing biodiversity, and even
threatening the very plants the law is claimed to protect! Think
bluebells for an example, and see Rackham.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.