In article , martin
writes
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:01:00 +0100, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , martin
writes
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:28:14 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
wrote:


Note the words "in the wild". Private gardens are not classed as "in
the wild".

Odd because it says quite clearly "garden" in
http://www.defra.gov.uk/paw/publications/law/5_1_7.htm

"NOTE: This offence is similar to the one relating to animals (section
14(1) though it only applies to plants on the list and not the
non-native plants generally. The latter would be impossible as
virtually every garden in the country is stocked with mainly
non-native plants"

And exactly where in that does it say that you cannot grow giant hogweed
in a private garden?

You are not allowed to grow giant hog weeds anywhere. That's the whole
point of the act.

The whole point of the act is that you are not allowed to release giant
hogweed into the wild or to allow it to get into the wild.

Or that a garden is part of 'the wild'?

Would they use "garden" in the example if it didn't apply to gardens?

That was not an example.
That was a reason why there is a specified list of limited plants
whereas the situation for animals is that no alien species should be
released into the wild.

If it applied to gardens, the Act would be written in terms of it being
an offence to 'cultivate or allow to grow giant hogweed'. Instead, it is
written in terms of planting in the wild or allowing to escape into the
wild. There would be no need to make 'allowing to escape into the wild'
an offence if there were nowhere that it could legally be grown.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm