"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

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.

No, that simply isn't true. I've seen a patch of woodland in the town I grew
up in completely stripped of bluebells by people digging them up for their
gardens. They didn't even fill in the holes.

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.

I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't seriously
post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.

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.

No, I don't accept that at all. Once you reduce the population of a plant
like bluebell to a point where there are only a few left in an area, they're
much more likely to be wiled out by carelessness than if you've got a decent
population. One or two can be trodden on or uprooted accidentally; a whole
bluebell wood cannot.