"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

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.

Should the public have the right to uproot a wild plant from someone elses
land? Taking a part of the plant in such a way as to not kill it is one
thing. Removing it and putting it somewhere else is another.

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.

True enough. The landowner does still have the right to allow someone to dig
up roots. Or he can do it himself. And were I to choose to dig up some
horseradish roots from the wild I'm sure I'd get away with it. Were I to dig
up some wild strawberries and take them home for my garden I'd get away with
it. I choose not to, though. But does the fact that I would get away with it
mean that it should be legal?

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.

A fair point; but do we want people raiding their local woods for wild
bluebells?