Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| It's legal with the landowner's permission and until recently without.
| One of the unspeakable legislation changes of recent years has been
| to make wild plants effectively property, in the same way that wild
| animals were by that Norman land reiver.
|
| Don't don't get caught by some offensively bureaucratic dog in the
| manger.
|
| Given the scale of physical removal of primroses in many areas in
| England in the last 20 or more years, making them rare where they were
| once plentiful, it would seem to me quite reasonable to legislate to
| protect what is left.

It would be, if that were what had been done. It hasn't. The law
is designed to PERMIT most of the sort of damage that has seriously
damaged primrose populations, while removing traditional rights from
the public. It did close one abuse, but one that could have been
much more easily closed in other ways, without the harmful effects.

How would you suggest this was done?

I'm not saying you're wrong. As a piece of conservation legislation that
part of the
1981 act is pretty useless. I once came across a violent, near
illiterate, landowner
who was pointlessly destryong a site full of rare plants. Because I
opposed him in the planning process he would never have given me
permission to rescue the plants he was destroying. It does nothing to
stop aggro-vandalism (grin). In this particular case this guy's business
failed (as an sensible person could see it would) but the damage was
done.

The only use I have found for this legislation is to quote against
people hysterically wound up about plant toxicity who then go around
ripping out wild flowers in the mistaken belief they are doing good.

Exactly like the enclosures and game laws, and it could well have
comparable effects on the environment in the long term.

As every ECOLOGIST has pointed out, the problem with the reduction
of things like primroses has NOT been their removal by the public
for private use. But what does science have to do with the laws
and government of this country?

Nick. The problem is that most people don't have a grasp of scientific
thinking.
From what I have seen from your postings you, like me, are what
psychologists call
"conceptualisers". Unfortunately we are in the minority in the general
population.
However in the ranks of scientists, good computer engineers and
successful business leaders we are the
majority.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve