"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

It is a mistake to think of most plants as individuals - they are
part of a population. My point here was that a public right that had
existed from time immemorial, and had been enshrined in English law
for nearly two millennia, was taken away and given to the 'landowners'.
Exactly as with the Norman game laws and the Enclosures Acts.



True enough. And I entirely agree, it's better to think of plants as part of
populations than as individuals, but I've seen whole local populations of
plants wiped out by plant hunting gardeners. I've seen a small, town based
nature reserve stripped of cowslips. I've seen whole populations of
strawberries ripped out of woodlands. Is it not worth preventing that?


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?

Not necessarily, in itself. But why should the public's rights be
taken away and given to a small group of people without compensation?



That perhaps the right to move wild plants ought to be restricted for the
landowners (depending on what the plants are and what changes are planned)
is a different argument to whether anyone at all should be able to remove
plants.



I'd also argue that the public (whoever they are) have also got a right to
enjoy a rich, diverse flora. That right can be in opposition to the right to
take plants from the wild; so there's no absolute right and wrong here that
can be applied.


Furthermore, the Act is written in such a way that it will be almost
impossible to prosecute people who take plants without permission and
for gain. I can see lots of loopholes, and there was and is no attempt
to assist enforceability.



I haven't read that bit of the act, so I'll have to take your word for that.


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

YES. YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!

You say that you think ecologically - THEN DO SO!



I do so. And I don't entirely agree




For the many plants that are almost entirely endangered by habitat
loss and/or predation by deer etc., one of the best hopes of their
long-term survival and maintenance of genetic variation is for them
to be naturalised in gardens, small areas of woodland and so on.
It is probably the ONLY HOPE for the maintenance of the local strains
of such such plants.



Errm, maybe. But you need really to ensure that this is done responsibly,
and my own observations don't lead me to think that this is what happens. It
's all very well transporting native bluebells into a garden, but if they're
planted in a bed with Spanish bluebells with which they hybridise then
nothing is gained at all. Last year I saw oxslips (nationally rather rare,
of course, but as you know not so rare in these parts), in flower, suddenly
appear in a garden not far from me. Now they're looking somewhat on the dead
side.



I dunno, maybe I just have less faith in the typical gardener to make a
responsible decision than you do.


God help us, the result of this Act will be to encourage conservation
by the naturalisation of British Standard wildflower strains, with
perhaps half-a-dozen inbred ones of each species. And, of course, the
hybridisation with imported species, as the Hobdens point out.



These are, of course, important issues. I simply don't accept that allowing
people to take wild plants is going to solve them.