"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

| 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'?

No and no. Obviously.

Then perhaps your perception of this (and other related) legislation is
merely differently negative to mine.

You are now playing political word games. They don't do it PERSONALLY;
they sell the rights.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Yes, land owners can indeed sell rights for
removing wild plants from their land. And I'd argue that such things could,
even should, be covered by law. Never stated otherwise. But that's rather
different to whether any general member of the public should be allowed to
do such on someone elses land; that's something that presents different
dangers to wild species.