In article , Druss wrote:

So with 60 odd million people and gawd knows how many houses, how many
Bluebells should we allow people to dig up, purely for domestic reasons.

Given the way that bluebells propagate, and the proportion of those
that will get their hands dirty, as many as they like. No serious
damage is caused by such activity.

Sorry, but the law was really introduced to prevent the comercial
explotation of wild resources, which was rife in the past. Whole areas of
woodland were dug up and every trace of the bulbs were removed, and thus
they never ever recovered.

You are, I am afraid, one of the Great Gullible British Public, and
have swallowed the bullshit put out by those skilled at being
Economical With The Truth.

Yes, there were such abuses. Yes, something needed to be done. But
there were MANY ways of dealing with the abuses without creating the
harmful effects. However, the hidden agenda was precisely to use the
excuse of conservation to introduce another property right, just as
the excuse of terrorism is used to reduce other rights.

Also, you are wrong about the failure to recover in the case of
bluebells and ramsons. It just isn't feasible to clean a woodland
that thoroughly - the ONLY way to eliminate them is to destroy the
habitat or introduce an even more aggressive competitor.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.