Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 12:08 PM
Anthony E Anson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:
In article , Anthony E Anson
writes
The message
from "Essjay001" contains these words:
Stephen Howard wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2003 21:38:38 +0100, Jon wrote:

Does anyone have any advice on wild garlic? It grows profusely here,
but I don't know if I can do anything worthwhile with it. Can the


Top-post reply rearranged

And as wild flowers surely they are protected.


I don't think they are. Not all wild flowers are protected.

They are - it is an offence to take any plant without permission of the
landowner, and I can't offhand think of any bit of the UK, apart from
perhaps below the high tide mark, that isn't owned by *someone*


I don't remember anyone mentioning stealing them.

--
Tony
Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi
  #17   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 12:32 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
| "Kay Easton" wrote in message
| ...
|
| And as wild flowers surely they are protected.
|
| I don't think they are. Not all wild flowers are protected.
|
| They are - it is an offence to take any plant without permission of the
| landowner, and I can't offhand think of any bit of the UK, apart from
| perhaps below the high tide mark, that isn't owned by *someone*
|
| Depends on where you mean. A lot of land owned by the crown has public
| access, and anything you can get to from said access is considered fair
| game. Otherwise kids picking blackberries would be illegal, picking
| mushrooms, etc, would be illegal!

The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.

That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.

| It's more important to know what you're picking and how to avoid damaging
| what's there, IMHO.

Yes, definitely. But that is thinking ecologically, and not legally.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #18   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 01:08 PM
Colin Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.

That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.


And that's fair enough, when you think about it. The last thing we want is
people wanering about diggint things up from the wild... I wonder if that
would apply to truffles?

| It's more important to know what you're picking and how to avoid

damaging
| what's there, IMHO.

Yes, definitely. But that is thinking ecologically, and not legally.


Sorry. Bad habit of mine, that is


  #19   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 01:08 PM
Anthony E Anson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

The message
from "Colin Davidson" contains these words:
"Anthony E Anson" wrote in message
...


. Been trying to lay my hands on some ransomes for yonks, Jon -
could you save me some seeds when they're ready, please?


I bought seeds from Nickys Nursery last year. Irritatingly enough I couldn't
get the blighters to germinate.


I got some seeds from plants at a place where I used to work. They all
seemed to germinate, and were doing fine until a night visit from a roe
deer...

I think, like primroses and primulas the seed may need sowing
immediately on ripening.

--
Tony
Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi
  #20   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 01:08 PM
Colin Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

Nor will removing a domestic quantity of bulbs. The law is an
extension of the enclosure acts and game laws, and has little to
do with conservation.

Certainly looks that way, regrettably.


Yes and no. In not allowing people to uproot wild plants we prevent people
doing unneccessary damage. I can think of stands of wild strawberries I've
seen that have been decimated by people digging them up, presumably to take
home for their gardens. But then there are patches of horseradish that seem
to go on forever that wouldn't suffer in the least from some uprooting. It'd
be awfully hard to have a balanced law allowing uprooting of plants in some
scenarios but not others.




  #21   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 01:56 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
| "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
| relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
| laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.
|
| That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
| comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.
|
| And that's fair enough, when you think about it. The last thing we want is
| people wanering about diggint things up from the wild... I wonder if that
| would apply to truffles?

But when you think about it a bit more deeply, it is a very BAD
idea. It would apply to truffles if the lawyers regarded them
as plants. The following are major disadvantages:

1) The law is phrased in such a way as to create property
rights that did not exist previously. Yes, the landowner can
assign and sell the permission, just as for game. This is yet
another theft of rights from the public, like the game laws and
enclosures.

2) The law does nothing to help protect plants against the
real abusers. There are many ways in which it can be bypassed,
from slipping the landowner some cash (which is legal) to many
effective illegal methods.

3) It prevents people from stocking their property with local
strains of trees and shrubs, thus reducing biodiversity, and even
threatening the very plants the law is claimed to protect! Think
bluebells for an example, and see Rackham.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #22   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 03:20 PM
Colin Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

But when you think about it a bit more deeply, it is a very BAD
idea. It would apply to truffles if the lawyers regarded them
as plants. The following are major disadvantages:

1) The law is phrased in such a way as to create property
rights that did not exist previously. Yes, the landowner can
assign and sell the permission, just as for game. This is yet
another theft of rights from the public, like the game laws and
enclosures.


Should the public have the right to uproot a wild plant from someone elses
land? Taking a part of the plant in such a way as to not kill it is one
thing. Removing it and putting it somewhere else is another.

2) The law does nothing to help protect plants against the
real abusers. There are many ways in which it can be bypassed,
from slipping the landowner some cash (which is legal) to many
effective illegal methods.


True enough. The landowner does still have the right to allow someone to dig
up roots. Or he can do it himself. And were I to choose to dig up some
horseradish roots from the wild I'm sure I'd get away with it. Were I to dig
up some wild strawberries and take them home for my garden I'd get away with
it. I choose not to, though. But does the fact that I would get away with it
mean that it should be legal?

3) It prevents people from stocking their property with local
strains of trees and shrubs, thus reducing biodiversity, and even
threatening the very plants the law is claimed to protect! Think
bluebells for an example, and see Rackham.


A fair point; but do we want people raiding their local woods for wild
bluebells?


  #23   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 03:20 PM
Colin Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


"Anthony E Anson" wrote in message
...

I got some seeds from plants at a place where I used to work. They all
seemed to germinate, and were doing fine until a night visit from a roe
deer...

I think, like primroses and primulas the seed may need sowing
immediately on ripening.


Mebbe. All of the rest of the seeds but one variety (red welsh onions) I've
had from the same company have been fine. Onions, garlic and their ilk
aren't easiest to grow this way, I suppose. I'll look out for fresh seed and
try that some time.


  #24   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 04:20 PM
Druss
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen Howard wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2003 17:33:28 +0000 (UTC), "Essjay001"
wrote:

And as wild flowers surely they are protected.

As part of the Wildlife & Country Act ( blah, blah, etc. ) they'd at
least be protected from being dug up without the permission of the
landowner.


It is illegal to do so. Whether that counts as protection is a
very different matter.

The act further specifies a number of rare plants that may not be
picked etc. Ramsons aren't on that list.
Picking the leaves won't worry the Ramsons too much - I've seen whole
stands get obliterated under a tractor's wheel, and yet they're back
the next year as pungent as ever.


Nor will removing a domestic quantity of bulbs. The law is an
extension of the enclosure acts and game laws, and has little to
do with conservation.


So with 60 odd million people and gawd knows how many houses, how many
Bluebells should we allow people to dig up, purely for domestic reasons.
Sorry, but the law was really introduced to prevent the comercial
explotation of wild resources, which was rife in the past. Whole areas of
woodland were dug up and every trace of the bulbs were removed, and thus
they never ever recovered.
Duncan



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.



  #25   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 04:20 PM
Druss
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
| "Kay Easton" wrote in message
| ...
|
| And as wild flowers surely they are protected.
|
| I don't think they are. Not all wild flowers are protected.
|
| They are - it is an offence to take any plant without permission of

the
| landowner, and I can't offhand think of any bit of the UK, apart from
| perhaps below the high tide mark, that isn't owned by *someone*
|
| Depends on where you mean. A lot of land owned by the crown has public
| access, and anything you can get to from said access is considered fair
| game. Otherwise kids picking blackberries would be illegal, picking
| mushrooms, etc, would be illegal!

The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.

That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.


I thought this also applied to seeds, and thus would apply to fruit. Always
makes me laugh when I see so many "cooking outdoors" style programs on TV, I
enjoy them but think everytime he picks something to eat and films it he's
racking up an awful lot of evidence for the prosecution.
Duncan


| It's more important to know what you're picking and how to avoid

damaging
| what's there, IMHO.

Yes, definitely. But that is thinking ecologically, and not legally.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.





  #26   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 05:32 PM
Anthony E Anson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

The message
from "Colin Davidson" contains these words:

Yes, definitely. But that is thinking ecologically, and not legally.


Sorry. Bad habit of mine, that is


Ah, but everyone has their agenda - and it's not difficult to spot Nick's...

--
Tony
Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi
  #27   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 05:32 PM
Anthony E Anson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

The message
from "Colin Davidson" contains these words:

Yes and no. In not allowing people to uproot wild plants we prevent people
doing unneccessary damage. I can think of stands of wild strawberries I've
seen that have been decimated by people digging them up, presumably to take
home for their gardens. But then there are patches of horseradish that seem
to go on forever that wouldn't suffer in the least from some uprooting. It'd
be awfully hard to have a balanced law allowing uprooting of plants in some
scenarios but not others.


I eye these horseradish forests with deep suspicion. I *KNOW* that some
of them I pass regularly have been sprayed...

--
Tony
Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi
  #28   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 06:08 PM
Sue & Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic


Duncan wrote in message
..

Nor will removing a domestic quantity of bulbs. The law is an
extension of the enclosure acts and game laws, and has little to
do with conservation.


So with 60 odd million people and gawd knows how many houses, how many
Bluebells should we allow people to dig up, purely for domestic reasons.
Sorry, but the law was really introduced to prevent the comercial
explotation of wild resources, which was rife in the past. Whole areas of
woodland were dug up and every trace of the bulbs were removed, and thus
they never ever recovered.


Having walked in a few Surrey bluebell woods recently I can assure you there
are few places without the signs of hybridisation, indeed some stands seem
almost entirely hybrids.
So what's better, some "English" bluebells dug up for gardens, or imported
strains/species imported for gardens which then cross with ours and change
our Bluebell woods for ever.
(The hybrids seem lighter blue and are much more robust, standing up
straight as they do with flowers all around, our's hang their heads to one
side, the side with all the flowers.)
The sight of the carpets of Ramsons and Bluebells in the woods near the
source of the River Arun, near Dunsfold, are superb at this time and we
heard our first Cuckoo of the year out that way yesterday.

Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.



  #29   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 06:20 PM
Kay Easton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

In article , Colin Davidson
writes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.

That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.


And that's fair enough, when you think about it. The last thing we want is
people wanering about diggint things up from the wild... I wonder if that
would apply to truffles?


They're fruit bodies, aren't they, rather than the entire 'plant'?

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm
  #30   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2003, 06:20 PM
Kay Easton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wild Garlic

In article , Druss
writes
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
| "Kay Easton" wrote in message
| ...
|
| And as wild flowers surely they are protected.
|
| I don't think they are. Not all wild flowers are protected.
|
| They are - it is an offence to take any plant without permission of

the
| landowner, and I can't offhand think of any bit of the UK, apart from
| perhaps below the high tide mark, that isn't owned by *someone*
|
| Depends on where you mean. A lot of land owned by the crown has public
| access, and anything you can get to from said access is considered fair
| game. Otherwise kids picking blackberries would be illegal, picking
| mushrooms, etc, would be illegal!

The same is true of those things on private land. It is one of the
relics of Roman law, as passed on by the 'Anglo-Saxons'. The game
laws are a legacy of the Norman banditry.

That infamous Countryside Act made the DIGGING UP of all plants
comparable to the taking of game, rather than the picking of fruit.


I thought this also applied to seeds, and thus would apply to fruit. Always
makes me laugh when I see so many "cooking outdoors" style programs on TV, I
enjoy them but think everytime he picks something to eat and films it he's
racking up an awful lot of evidence for the prosecution.


No, you can pick flowers and fruits of plants that aren't on the highly
protected list.

See http://www.naturenet.net/law/wcagen.html#plants
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garlic - garlic.jpg Ann Garden Photos 2 03-04-2008 12:31 PM
Supplier of Wild Garlic wanted ??? gray bale United Kingdom 2 20-06-2003 09:20 PM
Wild Garlic and back to bluebells non-scripta Hussein M. United Kingdom 2 09-05-2003 07:46 PM
Wild garlic Chris Hogg United Kingdom 0 30-03-2003 03:33 AM
wild garlic/onion. Terry Lynton United Kingdom 2 17-11-2002 03:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017