"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


And I have seen whole areas denuded of those by habitat destruction,
with the probable loss of the local variants. Is it not worth trying
to prevent that?



Of course it is. I'm not convinced that you're going to achieve that by
allowing people to take plants from the wild; it's all about balancing the
benefit against the risk, and I've seen enough damage done to make me think
that the risk is greater than the benefit.



You are being forgetful. The excuse for the Act was conservation
grounds. If that had been a genuine reason, the law would have been
changed to address the main abuses and not to do other things as well.



You really believe that the act was there as a conservation tool, and not
just a dumping ground for ideas to satisfy government spokesmen who could
say 'something is being done'?



Then you should be supporting me in regarding that Act as anathema!
Its faults include precisely those of applying SINGLE-SIDED absolute
rules.



That doesn't follow from my statement at all. Single sided? I've come across
land owners ruining habitats, but I've not come across one who uprooted a
wild plant en masse to plant elsewhere. Habitat protection is a different
(but very worthwhile) issue.



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

Perhaps I have less faith that making wild plants comparable to game
in legal status is going to help landowners and others make responsible
decisions than you do.



As I say, I'm not convinced that the typical landowner even considers such
things.


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

I didn't say that it would. I said that the Act as it was passed is
goint to make them worse.



For reasons stated, I'm not at all convinced by that assertion.