In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

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.

What harmful effects?

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?

I haven't noticed any ecologist (with or without capital letters) saying
anything here about the removal of primroses by the public for private
use. My phrase "scale of physical removal" refers to the digging up of
every plant in a wood, or along a roadside bank, for commercial
purposes. Such activities are more than sufficient to make the plant
rare where once it was plentiful.

--
Malcolm

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

I haven't noticed any ecologist (with or without capital letters) saying
anything here about the removal of primroses by the public for private
use. My phrase "scale of physical removal" refers to the digging up of
every plant in a wood, or along a roadside bank, for commercial
purposes. Such activities are more than sufficient to make the plant
rare where once it was plentiful.

Is this your only source of information? It isn't mine.

You are perfectly correct that such activities are a secondary (and,
yes, it is VERY secondary) cause of making plants such as primroses
rare. But that infamous Act goes to great trouble not to stop that
practice, as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of such
activities are done by or with the permission of the landowner.

If there was any serious intent to stop despoilation, then such
commercial cropping would have been brought under the planning laws.
But that was blocked for years on the grounds that it would interfere
with landowners rights. I can't remember whether the last half-hearted
proposal to put it in went through or not, but it was phrased so as
to have minimal effect.

That ghastly Act was not designed to provide ecological protection, so
much as to introduce extra property rights by the back door, in the
same way as the Enclosure Acts and so on. There was and is NO other
reason for banning the collection of ALL plants, however common and
resistant to harm from collection, and whether for private use or not.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

That is true, but what I was railing against was the recent,
politically motivated, claims that buying from a nursery for
naturalising is ecologically good

Who has been claiming that?

and taking plants from the
wild is ecologically harmful. It can be, but the converse is
equally often true.

Generally, you are PRESERVING the UK wild primrose stocks by
using plants taken from the area around you.

Only if you can guarantee to keep them alive! If you take plants from
the wild and let them die, you are doing nothing but harm.


--
Kay Easton

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

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes
In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

I haven't noticed any ecologist (with or without capital letters) saying
anything here about the removal of primroses by the public for private
use. My phrase "scale of physical removal" refers to the digging up of
every plant in a wood, or along a roadside bank, for commercial
purposes. Such activities are more than sufficient to make the plant
rare where once it was plentiful.

Is this your only source of information?

No.

It isn't mine.

I'm sure it isn't.

You are perfectly correct that such activities are a secondary (and,
yes, it is VERY secondary) cause of making plants such as primroses
rare.

I've nowhere said anything about primary or secondary causes. However,
as you seem to think that ranking causes is important, I can say that I
regard the mass uprooting of primroses as most definitely a major
(primary if you prefer to use that word) cause of the disappearance of
the species from many sites in southern England. Perhaps your sources of
information do not extend to knowledge of such activity or of any places
where this has occurred. Mine, sadly, do.

But that infamous Act goes to great trouble not to stop that
practice, as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of such
activities are done by or with the permission of the landowner.

Why are you so bothered about the law that you call it, variously,
"infamous" and "obscene" and other completely meaningless, in the
context, epithets?

If there was any serious intent to stop despoilation, then such
commercial cropping would have been brought under the planning laws.
But that was blocked for years on the grounds that it would interfere
with landowners rights. I can't remember whether the last half-hearted
proposal to put it in went through or not, but it was phrased so as
to have minimal effect.

And now it is "half-hearted".

That ghastly Act was not designed to provide ecological protection, so
much as to introduce extra property rights by the back door, in the
same way as the Enclosure Acts and so on.

And now it is "ghastly".

Your interpretation of what the Act was "designed" to do is not one that
I recognise and nor, I have to say, would it be recognised as such by
anyone else with whom I have ever discussed it. You seem to have a
hang-up about the wildlife conservation law in this country which, while
not perfect, has nothing whatsoever to do with the introduction of
"extra property rights by the back door". That is just utter rubbish.

There was and is NO other
reason for banning the collection of ALL plants, however common and
resistant to harm from collection, and whether for private use or not.

And that is one of the more ridiculous statements that even you have
ever made on the subject :-(

--
Malcolm

In article ,
Kay Easton wrote:
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

That is true, but what I was railing against was the recent,
politically motivated, claims that buying from a nursery for
naturalising is ecologically good

Who has been claiming that?

It is a common claim, obviously by the nurseries that stand to make
money, but I have also seen it in semi-official recommendations.

On this thread, nobody has said it so far in those words, though
someone said something that predicated that statement, and was what
started me off. He said that buying from nurseries was as good as
digging up plants from a forthcoming building site. That is a
fallacy.

and taking plants from the
wild is ecologically harmful. It can be, but the converse is
equally often true.

Generally, you are PRESERVING the UK wild primrose stocks by
using plants taken from the area around you.

Only if you can guarantee to keep them alive! If you take plants from
the wild and let them die, you are doing nothing but harm.

That is not true. You do not have to GUARANTEE to keep them alive,
especially with plants like primroses. The potential gain from a
new location to establish in is so much greater than the loss of a
few plants that you merely have to have a reasonable chance. With
plants like primroses, you should think in terms of populations,
and not individual plants.

The same does not apply to all plants, of course.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Mike" wrote in message
...

These are no doubt Planning Applications which may be refused so if you
go in there now you would/could be in trouble.

What I would do is to watch the Planning Applications Notices to see if
it is granted and then do something about it.

Good point Mike, I just hope the applications go through whilst the flowers
are still in bloom so I can still find them.

On the other hand, how about opposing the application yourself if you
feel the these fields should not be built on? 'Nature being destroyed',
'Too much housing already', 'Overloading infrastructure'. I have used
this one on 2 occasions because of the sewer problems.

As much as I'd love to take that road I think my opposition would fall on
deaf ears. In the area in which I live the nearest house is two miles away
and the fields Im talking about are on the other side of the hill across
from me, I'll not even see them. Water around here is supplied from well's
we sink individually on our own lands and we use septic tanks...on the up
side we pay no charges, but on the downside we have no refuse collections
they may argue back that we need the infrastructure




Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Forthcoming reunions. H.M.S.Collingwood Association Chatham May 30th -
June 2nd
British Pacific Fleet Hayling Island Sept 5th - 8th
Castle Class Corvettes Assn. Isle of Wight. Oct 3rd - 6th.
R.N. Trafalgar Weekend Leamington Spa. Oct 10th - 13th. Plus many more

Don't don't get caught by some offensively bureaucratic dog in the
manger.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

With my luck Nick I'll be in the middle of nowhere with bucket in one hand
trowel in the other and one of those guys will pop out from behind a
hedgerow briefcase in hand!!

Shan

In message , shannie
writes
Walking among the fields today a few miles from home I came upon two
planning notices for houses on posts outside two different fields. Whilst
walking through these fields I noticed many many primroses naturalised in
the ditches. I know it's illegal to remove them, but when the diggers move
in they will be destroyed. If I aquired the owners permission would it be
legal for me to remove them and put them inside and outside in my own
ditches. My gardens are surrounded on all sides by blackberry ditches and
there are some there already low down among the ferns. I love to see these
wonderful spring flowers in the wild and hate the idea of the diggers moving
in and mowing them down.

Thanks
Shan



Have you seen what you've started ??!!

))))

If there's no apparent property or owner attached to this land, in other
words, no door to knock and ask permission, then here's what *I'd* do :

Discreetly get yer trowel & some clear plastic bags, perhaps a small
plastic bottle of water to keep them damp 'til you get home, and.......

Get Them Dug Up !!!!!

If there's that many, you won't be there long taking just a few, but you
certainly will be preserving beautiful flowers for others to admire in
your garden. No real harm will have been done. Indeed, if you were
approached by the owner, it would be an ideal time to ask if your
family, friends and neighbours could come & help themselves. He could
even, perhaps, attract good publicity in the local paper as being a
green-fingered, caring member
of the community.

About 15 years ago, when on a day trip, we noticed a magnificent
bluebell wood. It was that overrun, they were making their way into the
roadside verge. It didn't take long to dig just 5 or 6 up - they all
survived. Having planted them individually I now must have over 100 in a
comparatively small garden, and have gladly given clumps to neighbours
who also enjoy them.

For Heaven's Sake, save the plants from the Bulldozer !!

Regards to all green fingers.....

Roo.

--
Richard Roocroft

In article , shannie
writes


As much as I'd love to take that road I think my opposition would fall on
deaf ears.

Ah, but you don't 'talk' to them, you write to them :-)) ALWAYS write to
this people. A telephone conversation is not 'listened to' if the person
at the other end is 'not interested' and you will be forgotten once the
telephone is put down, unless you tell them that it is being recorded.
That works wonders :-)) (but there is a knack in doing it)

But if you write to them, especially if it is something to do with 2
departments and you copy to each other, then they have to respond.

I have a case where the Council and the Water Board 'didn't want to know
and passed the buck', until letters were sent to both, copied to both.
:-))

I have a meeting with both parties on Monday :-)))

Mike


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forthcoming reunions. H.M.S.Collingwood Association Chatham May 30th - June 2nd
British Pacific Fleet Hayling Island Sept 5th - 8th
Castle Class Corvettes Assn. Isle of Wight. Oct 3rd - 6th.
R.N. Trafalgar Weekend Leamington Spa. Oct 10th - 13th. Plus many more

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes
In article ,
Kay Easton wrote:
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

That is true, but what I was railing against was the recent,
politically motivated, claims that buying from a nursery for
naturalising is ecologically good

Who has been claiming that?

It is a common claim, obviously by the nurseries that stand to make
money, but I have also seen it in semi-official recommendations.

I wouldn't have thought the nurseries are politically motivated. I
haven't seen anyone else making the claim, whereas conservation
organisations like Plantlife are careful to stress the opposite, that
naturalising anything in the countryside is a bad idea.


Generally, you are PRESERVING the UK wild primrose stocks by
using plants taken from the area around you.

Only if you can guarantee to keep them alive! If you take plants from
the wild and let them die, you are doing nothing but harm.

That is not true. You do not have to GUARANTEE to keep them alive,
especially with plants like primroses. The potential gain from a
new location to establish in is so much greater than the loss of a
few plants that you merely have to have a reasonable chance. With
plants like primroses, you should think in terms of populations,
and not individual plants.

The same does not apply to all plants, of course.

I think we're probably in broad agreement here. For a complete novice to
dig up primroses and plant them somewhere where they have little chance
of survival is a bad idea. And for something rare, you'd need a damned
sight more than a 'reasonable chance'.

--
Kay Easton

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

"Richard Roocroft" wrote in message
...

Have you seen what you've started ??!!

))))

Oh dear

Get Them Dug Up !!!!!

I simply could not do it without permission, I've been working on my flower
and shrub garden for over 15yrs if someone just stepped in a "took" my
plants without permission I'd be fair miffed.

If there's that many, you won't be there long taking just a few, but you
certainly will be preserving beautiful flowers for others to admire in
your garden.

They grow naturally in my own hedgerows, thats where I'd like to put them
should I go ahead, not for decoration but because I think it's such a shame
to lose them to building works.


For Heaven's Sake, save the plants from the Bulldozer !!

Regards to all green fingers.....

Roo.

--
Richard Roocroft