In article , "Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| "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.

That is a cosmetic matter. In most such cases, it is ecologically
unimportant.

| 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.

You are now being Conveniently Forgetful.

The issue of the Act being abused to create property rights was raised
when it was first proposed and its flaws were pointed out in detail
when its first draft appeared (with possible solutions). Not by me,
but by MPs and others. The proponents denied that they were doing
so, made some changes ELSEWHERE in that Act, but refused to change
any of the relevant aspects.

No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
evidence of a conspiracy at work.

| 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.

Hmm. Have you tried doing that deliberately? I have. While bluebells
are not immortal, you don't kill them as easily as that.

It is also virtually impossible to reduce a bluebell carpet to only
a few plants without removing most of the topsoil - what you CAN do
is to remove the ones of flowering size, but they also spread
vegetatively.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.