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

Who knows, as long as arrangements have not been made already what's the
harm in saving them?


"shannie" wrote in message
...
: 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
:
:

In article , "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.

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article , "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.

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.

--
Malcolm

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.

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?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , 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


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.

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. See my other
postings re water and rainfall. What would happen to your rainwater once
the houses and roads are put in and that water, which at present falls
on the land, is directed into the sewers? :-)

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

On 25 Apr 2003 07:29:28 GMT, (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.
~
~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?
~

Well to be optimistic, you ought to see the wild primroses here in the
Chilterns right now. Beautiful. In my town most people have wild ones
as they just seed everywhere. I have to be careful with lawn
weedkillers - I tend to use a trowel these days as often the seedlings
are primroses. I move them into the borders, as do most folk. There is
a bank in the adjoining road which I really must photograph, it's so
covered in flowers, both the yellow and the pink forms.

As for the rescuing bit, 3 years ago I rescued a tiny cowslip from a
patch of ground at work which was about to be run over (literally) by
a skip lorry. I didn't make myself terribly popular running behind it
and digging the plant up rapidly! It's now in my rock garden, a
massive plant with at least 10 flower stalks on at the moment, rather
than compost in a bit of scrubby land.


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove nospam from replies, thanks!

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/species/Plants/p5_1.htm#vas

--
David Hill
Abacus Nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"shannie" wrote in message ...
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.

There is more than a little irony there, but you are correct. The 1981
Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it illegal to uproot any wild plant
without the landowners permission. Prosecutions are rare but the
example I recall did in fact involve primroses.

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

Yes that's fine. It would be just as if you bought them at a nursery.
Getting plants to grow successfully in wild locations is complicated.
Ecology is very complicated. There is a paper in the scientific
journal Nature this week that talks about the bugs in the soil
affecting which plants grow in a wild system but since there are
primroses there all ready it should work.

--
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

In article ,
(Neil Jones) writes:
|
| 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.
|
| Yes that's fine. It would be just as if you bought them at a nursery.
| Getting plants to grow successfully in wild locations is complicated.
| Ecology is very complicated. There is a paper in the scientific
| journal Nature this week that talks about the bugs in the soil
| affecting which plants grow in a wild system but since there are
| primroses there all ready it should work.

No, it WOULDN'T be just as good buying them at a nursery! Encouraging
that practice is ecologically irresponsible - which is one of the
reasons that obscene Act is so harmful.

By naturalising nursery-grown plants, you are effectively importing
an inbred and alien strain of plant to the area, thus harming the
wild stock. Even when nurseries offer "wild strains", they are
rarely the ones that are local to the particular area and are often
a SINGLE wild strain. The effect of this is to reduce or eliminate
the genes that have developed in the local variations.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
(Neil Jones) writes:
|
| 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.
|
| Yes that's fine. It would be just as if you bought them at a nursery.
| Getting plants to grow successfully in wild locations is complicated.
| Ecology is very complicated. There is a paper in the scientific
| journal Nature this week that talks about the bugs in the soil
| affecting which plants grow in a wild system but since there are
| primroses there all ready it should work.

No, it WOULDN'T be just as good buying them at a nursery! Encouraging
that practice is ecologically irresponsible - which is one of the
reasons that obscene Act is so harmful.

If you buy native plants at a nursery which have been raised in a
nursery not dug up from the wild, and which your are going to plant in
your own garden, that is no more ecologically harmful than growing alien
species in your garden.

By naturalising nursery-grown plants, you are effectively importing
an inbred and alien strain of plant to the area, thus harming the
wild stock.

That is very true, but Jane wasn't suggesting that. She was talking
about planting in her garden, where it don't matter as much.

But I agree with you, it is not a good idea to sow wild flower seeds
from other sources into the wild.
--
Kay Easton

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

In article ,
Kay Easton writes:
|
| No, it WOULDN'T be just as good buying them at a nursery! Encouraging
| that practice is ecologically irresponsible - which is one of the
| reasons that obscene Act is so harmful.
|
| If you buy native plants at a nursery which have been raised in a
| nursery not dug up from the wild, and which your are going to plant in
| your own garden, that is no more ecologically harmful than growing alien
| species in your garden.

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 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.

| By naturalising nursery-grown plants, you are effectively importing
| an inbred and alien strain of plant to the area, thus harming the
| wild stock.
|
| That is very true, but Jane wasn't suggesting that. She was talking
| about planting in her garden, where it don't matter as much.

Hmm. "inside and outside in my own ditches"? It could mean either.

| But I agree with you, it is not a good idea to sow wild flower seeds
| from other sources into the wild.

Yes, precisely.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
(Neil Jones) writes:
|
| 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.
|
| Yes that's fine. It would be just as if you bought them at a nursery.
| Getting plants to grow successfully in wild locations is complicated.
| Ecology is very complicated. There is a paper in the scientific
| journal Nature this week that talks about the bugs in the soil
| affecting which plants grow in a wild system but since there are
| primroses there all ready it should work.

No, it WOULDN'T be just as good buying them at a nursery! Encouraging
that practice is ecologically irresponsible - which is one of the
reasons that obscene Act is so harmful.

By naturalising nursery-grown plants, you are effectively importing
an inbred and alien strain of plant to the area, thus harming the
wild stock. Even when nurseries offer "wild strains", they are
rarely the ones that are local to the particular area and are often
a SINGLE wild strain. The effect of this is to reduce or eliminate
the genes that have developed in the local variations.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I take your point. I'm not sure that nursery-grown plants are inbred
though.
To be inbred in the genetic sense the population size has to be quite
small
for quite a period.

--
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

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

In article ,
Neil Jones writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| How would you suggest this was done?

The trigger was raiders with diggers who were removing bluebell
carpets. Because there was no crime, the police couldn't arrest
(or even stop) the offenders, even when called in. That could
easily have been solved by giving the police powers to demand
names and addresses and that trespassers leave when called in by
the landowner and when actual damage was being done, and with
powers of arrest when the offerenders would not cooperate.

[ Note the difference from the equally infamous CJPOA. ]

The protection of rare plants (and animals) should be done on an
individual basis, with far more carrot and far less stick for
landowners. But, regrettably, the digging up of certain species
would have to be a crime and would have to be done by Statutary
Instrument.

| 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.

Quite.

| 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.

I can relate to that. Unfortunately, the government has managed to
eliminate not merely conceptualisers by even honest scientists from
almost all positions of influence within it. If all countries get
the governments they deserve, what did we do that was so evil?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.