In article , Anthony E Anson writes:
| The message
| from Kay Easton contains these words:

|
| Yes, but without fruit bodies, they don't spread.
|
| Do they not? Some other fungi spread asexually - dry rot, for example.
|
| The mycelium will work its way outwards, but that's not what I meant.
| That sort of spreading is very local and comes to a halt if the pH is
| wrong, or the tree cover changes, or if they come up to a road, or
| stream.
|
| Mycelial strands when they meet sometimes join and form fruit bodies.
| These give rise to spores which are microscopic, and when released into
| the air can travel on the wind anywhere in the world. Fungal spores have
| been detected in samples taken from high in the stratosphere.
|
| The chance that one will land somewhere conducive to growth in
| conditions which encourage it are the reciprocal of astronomical, which
| is why each fruit body produces so many millions of spores.

Yes. As with most such organisms, picking enough of the fruit over
a long enough period to significantly reduce its capacity CAN be
a problem. But only when it is limited by the success rate of its
seeds or spores, and not when it is limited by available habitats.

I believe that the majority of relevant fungi are almost entirely
habitat limited in the UK.

| But what I was referring to was that the Act says you mustn't dig up
| plants, not that you mustn't pick fruit.
|
| Fungi are not plants: they occupy a completely separate phylum.


Tell that to a lawyer :-) God alone knows what the House of Lords
would decide that fungi are.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Victoria Clare writes:
|
| Eh? No, I don't! I mean time immemorial - i.e. dating back to before
| the earliest records.
|
| I disagree. Early records aren't big on natural features at all, and
| there many years of British history for which we have no written records
| at all, let alone legal documentation and process. It is pure guesswork
| to say that during that time people 'probably' did the same as what they
| did later, or even earlier.

That is "from time immemorial" - nobody can remember a time when it
was not so.

| And 'enshrined in English law for nearly 2 millennia' - are you sure
| about this? The Roman empire is well-documented, but not *that*
| well-documented, so far as I am aware?
|
| Yes, I am sure. And it is that well documented. I can't tell you
| the exact details, but one relevant term is "res nullius".
|
| So far as I was aware, that originally related to deserted, unclaimed or
| abandoned property, or the spoils of war, and the idea was that things
| belonged to the first claimant, who, thereafter, owned them. It may
| relate to wildflowers too, but I haven't yet found any original sources
| for this. I have found mention of 18th and 19th century interpretation
| of Roman law, but that is unlikely to be accurate. Can you give me more
| detail?

Take a look at the references to game. That was res nullius, quite
explicitly. The new Act is comparable to the mediaeval English game
laws.

| My understanding was that woodland would have been 'in use' and would
| belong to a community or an individual (not 'the community' which is a
| modern idea.) You might have got away with removing unimportant plants
| like bluebells, but I suspect an attempt to walk off with something of
| value like pignut would be met with a stick with nails on. And we don't
| know enough about the early medieval period to say for sure that, say,
| bluebells were *not* used for something that would cause the owner of
| the woodland to assert their ownership.

NOT ownership! That is precisely the point. It is rights to gather,
and the relevant laws were those of trespass. Yes, you are correct
that such RIGHTS tended to be owned by a community, when they were
important enough to matter. But the ITEMS were not owned until
gathered.

| There really isn't that much pre-Conquest - not unless this is new stuff
| I am not aware of?

Actually, there is a hell of a lot. You aren't thinking laterally
enough. There may not be enough to tell any of the details, but
there is enough to do a broad categorisation.

| There are letters, edicts, the odd law, histories, charters - but really
| not enough to say exactly what sort of law was actually being used day
| to day in people's lives, particularly as the country was so fragmented
| for so long. Even if you assume that South Britain stuck exactly to
| Roman law as it was c 200 AD (and that Roman law said exactly what you
| say it does) things are pretty certainly going to be different up in the
| Danelaw, for example, or in early Irish-influenced Northumbria.

That's not the point - that is why I said that the DETAILS were
unclear. The records I am referring to are descriptions of what
people were prosecuted for, the behaviour of travellers and so on.

| Unless the thinking has changed radically recently, the Carolingian
| interpretation of 'Roman law' was pretty different to that of the Roman
| Empire, and we really have no idea about 'common law' at all at that
| date - and that goes doubles for isolated Britain.

We have a pretty good idea of what was regarded as important enough
to be regarded as central authority's job to prosecute (i.e. to make
into a crime), as distinct from being left to negotiation.

| (I like Rackham's work, but I think he does have a bit of a tendency to
| say 'we have no mentions of X' and conclude something from that, when
| really the only accurate thing we can conclude is that we have no
| evidence for or against X, and that this is annoying.)

I haven't seen him make a serious mistake there. You are wrong that
you cannot make any more deductions - what you can deduce is that
ONE OF (a) it was not a major presence, (b) it was so universal as
not to be thought about or (c) it was regarded as too unimportant
to be worth mentioning. If you can rule out two of those on other
grounds, you have good evidence for the third.

| Hey, I think we are off topic...

Somewhat ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Hussein M. writes:
| On 7 May 2003 20:35:09 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
|
| A fair point; but do we want people raiding their local woods for wild
| bluebells?
|
| YES. YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!
|
| You say that you think ecologically - THEN DO SO!
|
| Nick, I quite follow your reasoning and umbrage at the legislation
| but perhaps you have too much faith in human nature.

It is precisely because I don't that I hold my views!

| Take H. non-scripta. At the very least unfavourable you would have
| well meaning (or perhaps simply appreciative) people digging up from a
| colony of pure uncontaminated non-scripta, and then putting the plants
| into a situation where in all likelihood any further sexual
| reproduction carries grave risk from the Spaniard.

That is still a slight gain. The raided colony will recover very
quickly, and you are increasing the proportion of H. non-scripta
genes in the domestic stock.

Pure H. non-scripta is almost certainly beyond hope in the long
term, and will follow the wild form of the daffodil into extinction.
The same is probably true of most local strains of primroses,
and so on.

What I would like to see is this process slowed and restricted,
rather than speeded up and expanded. Fat hope :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

It is a mistake to think of most plants as individuals - they are
part of a population. My point here was that a public right that had
existed from time immemorial, and had been enshrined in English law
for nearly two millennia, was taken away and given to the 'landowners'.
Exactly as with the Norman game laws and the Enclosures Acts.



True enough. And I entirely agree, it's better to think of plants as part of
populations than as individuals, but I've seen whole local populations of
plants wiped out by plant hunting gardeners. I've seen a small, town based
nature reserve stripped of cowslips. I've seen whole populations of
strawberries ripped out of woodlands. Is it not worth preventing that?


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?

Not necessarily, in itself. But why should the public's rights be
taken away and given to a small group of people without compensation?



That perhaps the right to move wild plants ought to be restricted for the
landowners (depending on what the plants are and what changes are planned)
is a different argument to whether anyone at all should be able to remove
plants.



I'd also argue that the public (whoever they are) have also got a right to
enjoy a rich, diverse flora. That right can be in opposition to the right to
take plants from the wild; so there's no absolute right and wrong here that
can be applied.


Furthermore, the Act is written in such a way that it will be almost
impossible to prosecute people who take plants without permission and
for gain. I can see lots of loopholes, and there was and is no attempt
to assist enforceability.



I haven't read that bit of the act, so I'll have to take your word for that.


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

YES. YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!

You say that you think ecologically - THEN DO SO!



I do so. And I don't entirely agree




For the many plants that are almost entirely endangered by habitat
loss and/or predation by deer etc., one of the best hopes of their
long-term survival and maintenance of genetic variation is for them
to be naturalised in gardens, small areas of woodland and so on.
It is probably the ONLY HOPE for the maintenance of the local strains
of such such plants.



Errm, maybe. But you need really to ensure that this is done responsibly,
and my own observations don't lead me to think that this is what happens. It
's all very well transporting native bluebells into a garden, but if they're
planted in a bed with Spanish bluebells with which they hybridise then
nothing is gained at all. Last year I saw oxslips (nationally rather rare,
of course, but as you know not so rare in these parts), in flower, suddenly
appear in a garden not far from me. Now they're looking somewhat on the dead
side.



I dunno, maybe I just have less faith in the typical gardener to make a
responsible decision than you do.


God help us, the result of this Act will be to encourage conservation
by the naturalisation of British Standard wildflower strains, with
perhaps half-a-dozen inbred ones of each species. And, of course, the
hybridisation with imported species, as the Hobdens point out.



These are, of course, important issues. I simply don't accept that allowing
people to take wild plants is going to solve them.

"Anthony E Anson" wrote in message
...

Generally with weedkiller of some sort. Just about now, or perhaps a
little later, all the horseradish leaves will turn brown and crinkly.
Then up the come again.

The Highways Department never learns. They probably don't check on the
efficacy of what they did earlier in the year. Heaven forbid that they
should have to check on what they did the year before.

I had in mind a patch where the horseradish right by the main road seems to
go brown and crinkly, as you say, but the stuff on the side roads stays
green and healthy till much later.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

Given the way that bluebells propagate, and the proportion of those
that will get their hands dirty, as many as they like. No serious
damage is caused by such activity.

No, that simply isn't true. I've seen a patch of woodland in the town I grew
up in completely stripped of bluebells by people digging them up for their
gardens. They didn't even fill in the holes.

You are, I am afraid, one of the Great Gullible British Public, and
have swallowed the bullshit put out by those skilled at being
Economical With The Truth.

Yes, there were such abuses. Yes, something needed to be done. But
there were MANY ways of dealing with the abuses without creating the
harmful effects. However, the hidden agenda was precisely to use the
excuse of conservation to introduce another property right, just as
the excuse of terrorism is used to reduce other rights.

I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't seriously
post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.

Also, you are wrong about the failure to recover in the case of
bluebells and ramsons. It just isn't feasible to clean a woodland
that thoroughly - the ONLY way to eliminate them is to destroy the
habitat or introduce an even more aggressive competitor.

No, I don't accept that at all. Once you reduce the population of a plant
like bluebell to a point where there are only a few left in an area, they're
much more likely to be wiled out by carelessness than if you've got a decent
population. One or two can be trodden on or uprooted accidentally; a whole
bluebell wood cannot.

In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| True enough. And I entirely agree, it's better to think of plants as part of
| populations than as individuals, but I've seen whole local populations of
| plants wiped out by plant hunting gardeners. I've seen a small, town based
| nature reserve stripped of cowslips. I've seen whole populations of
| strawberries ripped out of woodlands. Is it not worth preventing that?

And I have seen whole areas denuded of those by habitat destruction,
with the probable loss of the local variants. Is it not worth trying
to prevent that?

| That perhaps the right to move wild plants ought to be restricted for the
| landowners (depending on what the plants are and what changes are planned)
| is a different argument to whether anyone at all should be able to remove
| plants.

You are being forgetful. The excuse for the Act was conservation
grounds. If that had been a genuine reason, the law would have been
changed to address the main abuses and not to do other things as well.

| I'd also argue that the public (whoever they are) have also got a right to
| enjoy a rich, diverse flora. That right can be in opposition to the right to
| take plants from the wild; so there's no absolute right and wrong here that
| can be applied.

Then you should be supporting me in regarding that Act as anathema!
Its faults include precisely those of applying SINGLE-SIDED absolute
rules.

| Furthermore, the Act is written in such a way that it will be almost
| impossible to prosecute people who take plants without permission and
| for gain. I can see lots of loopholes, and there was and is no attempt
| to assist enforceability.
|
| I haven't read that bit of the act, so I'll have to take your word for that.

Much of the point is that there ISN'T such a bit ....

| I dunno, maybe I just have less faith in the typical gardener to make a
| responsible decision than you do.

Perhaps I have less faith that making wild plants comparable to game
in legal status is going to help landowners and others make responsible
decisions than you do.

| These are, of course, important issues. I simply don't accept that allowing
| people to take wild plants is going to solve them.

I didn't say that it would. I said that the Act as it was passed is
goint to make them worse.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , "Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Given the way that bluebells propagate, and the proportion of those
| that will get their hands dirty, as many as they like. No serious
| damage is caused by such activity.
|
| No, that simply isn't true. I've seen a patch of woodland in the town I grew
| up in completely stripped of bluebells by people digging them up for their
| gardens. They didn't even fill in the holes.

That is a cosmetic matter. In most such cases, it is ecologically
unimportant.

| You are, I am afraid, one of the Great Gullible British Public, and
| have swallowed the bullshit put out by those skilled at being
| Economical With The Truth.
|
| Yes, there were such abuses. Yes, something needed to be done. But
| there were MANY ways of dealing with the abuses without creating the
| harmful effects. However, the hidden agenda was precisely to use the
| excuse of conservation to introduce another property right, just as
| the excuse of terrorism is used to reduce other rights.
|
| I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't seriously
| post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.

You are now being Conveniently Forgetful.

The issue of the Act being abused to create property rights was raised
when it was first proposed and its flaws were pointed out in detail
when its first draft appeared (with possible solutions). Not by me,
but by MPs and others. The proponents denied that they were doing
so, made some changes ELSEWHERE in that Act, but refused to change
any of the relevant aspects.

No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
evidence of a conspiracy at work.

| Also, you are wrong about the failure to recover in the case of
| bluebells and ramsons. It just isn't feasible to clean a woodland
| that thoroughly - the ONLY way to eliminate them is to destroy the
| habitat or introduce an even more aggressive competitor.
|
| No, I don't accept that at all. Once you reduce the population of a plant
| like bluebell to a point where there are only a few left in an area, they're
| much more likely to be wiled out by carelessness than if you've got a decent
| population. One or two can be trodden on or uprooted accidentally; a whole
| bluebell wood cannot.

Hmm. Have you tried doing that deliberately? I have. While bluebells
are not immortal, you don't kill them as easily as that.

It is also virtually impossible to reduce a bluebell carpet to only
a few plants without removing most of the topsoil - what you CAN do
is to remove the ones of flowering size, but they also spread
vegetatively.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


And I have seen whole areas denuded of those by habitat destruction,
with the probable loss of the local variants. Is it not worth trying
to prevent that?



Of course it is. I'm not convinced that you're going to achieve that by
allowing people to take plants from the wild; it's all about balancing the
benefit against the risk, and I've seen enough damage done to make me think
that the risk is greater than the benefit.



You are being forgetful. The excuse for the Act was conservation
grounds. If that had been a genuine reason, the law would have been
changed to address the main abuses and not to do other things as well.



You really believe that the act was there as a conservation tool, and not
just a dumping ground for ideas to satisfy government spokesmen who could
say 'something is being done'?



Then you should be supporting me in regarding that Act as anathema!
Its faults include precisely those of applying SINGLE-SIDED absolute
rules.



That doesn't follow from my statement at all. Single sided? I've come across
land owners ruining habitats, but I've not come across one who uprooted a
wild plant en masse to plant elsewhere. Habitat protection is a different
(but very worthwhile) issue.



(cut)
| I dunno, maybe I just have less faith in the typical gardener to make a
| responsible decision than you do.

Perhaps I have less faith that making wild plants comparable to game
in legal status is going to help landowners and others make responsible
decisions than you do.



As I say, I'm not convinced that the typical landowner even considers such
things.


| These are, of course, important issues. I simply don't accept that
allowing
| people to take wild plants is going to solve them.

I didn't say that it would. I said that the Act as it was passed is
goint to make them worse.



For reasons stated, I'm not at all convinced by that assertion.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


| No, that simply isn't true. I've seen a patch of woodland in the town I
grew
| up in completely stripped of bluebells by people digging them up for
their
| gardens. They didn't even fill in the holes.

That is a cosmetic matter. In most such cases, it is ecologically
unimportant.



I perhaps should have pointed out that the few truly interesting forested
bits of my home town tend to be on really steep slopes; digging things up
and leaving holes does a lot of harm next time it rains. Bit it ain't just a
cosmetic matter anyway; removing plants from the context of the habitat they
're in is way more important than that.


| I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't
seriously
| post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.

You are now being Conveniently Forgetful.



No I'm not. I'm ridiculing the conspiracy theory concept.


The issue of the Act being abused to create property rights was raised
when it was first proposed and its flaws were pointed out in detail
when its first draft appeared (with possible solutions). Not by me,
but by MPs and others. The proponents denied that they were doing
so, made some changes ELSEWHERE in that Act, but refused to change
any of the relevant aspects.

No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
evidence of a conspiracy at work.



Sorry, Nick, but can I use that quote elsewhere? It strikes me that it could
be used as a defense of any conspiracy theory at all.



The act, like any other, is a flawed bunch of ideas that has passed through
the hands of two 600 member plus committees (commons and lords) plus a whole
load of other interested parties. That's how we make laws here. And as well
as generally working in an inexplicable way, it also means that a lot of
laws are passed in such a way as to be never enforceable (or only rarely
worth enforcing). That's one of the beauties of our system, when you think
about it.


| No, I don't accept that at all. Once you reduce the population of a
plant
| like bluebell to a point where there are only a few left in an area,
they're
| much more likely to be wiled out by carelessness than if you've got a
decent
| population. One or two can be trodden on or uprooted accidentally; a
whole
| bluebell wood cannot.

Hmm. Have you tried doing that deliberately? I have. While bluebells
are not immortal, you don't kill them as easily as that.



All gone from at least two sites I can think of in Gateshead (my home town,
which I keep mentioning so I thought I'd better name it).


It is also virtually impossible to reduce a bluebell carpet to only
a few plants without removing most of the topsoil - what you CAN do
is to remove the ones of flowering size, but they also spread
vegetatively.



True enough. But then the disturbance of the ground doesn't always favour
rapid recolonisation by the bluebells, and it can leave what remains awfully
vulnerable.

In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| You are being forgetful. The excuse for the Act was conservation
| grounds. If that had been a genuine reason, the law would have been
| changed to address the main abuses and not to do other things as well.
|
| You really believe that the act was there as a conservation tool, and not
| just a dumping ground for ideas to satisfy government spokesmen who could
| say 'something is being done'?

No and no. Obviously.

| Then you should be supporting me in regarding that Act as anathema!
| Its faults include precisely those of applying SINGLE-SIDED absolute
| rules.
|
| That doesn't follow from my statement at all. Single sided? I've come across
| land owners ruining habitats, but I've not come across one who uprooted a
| wild plant en masse to plant elsewhere. Habitat protection is a different
| (but very worthwhile) issue.

You are now playing political word games. They don't do it PERSONALLY;
they sell the rights.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| I perhaps should have pointed out that the few truly interesting forested
| bits of my home town tend to be on really steep slopes; digging things up
| and leaving holes does a lot of harm next time it rains. Bit it ain't just a
| cosmetic matter anyway; removing plants from the context of the habitat they
| 're in is way more important than that.

Not in the case of bluebells.

| | I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't
| seriously
| | post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.
|
| You are now being Conveniently Forgetful.
|
| No I'm not. I'm ridiculing the conspiracy theory concept.

So you are claiming that conspiracies don't exist?

| No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
| evidence of a conspiracy at work.
|
| Sorry, Nick, but can I use that quote elsewhere? It strikes me that it could
| be used as a defense of any conspiracy theory at all.

You may quote me IN CONTEXT. I have not said that about conspiracies
in general, let alone imagined ones.

Or are you calling me a liar?

| The act, like any other, is a flawed bunch of ideas that has passed through
| the hands of two 600 member plus committees (commons and lords) plus a whole
| load of other interested parties. That's how we make laws here. And as well
| as generally working in an inexplicable way, it also means that a lot of
| laws are passed in such a way as to be never enforceable (or only rarely
| worth enforcing). That's one of the beauties of our system, when you think
| about it.

You are now being naive to the point of bias. There were public
statements from pressure groups that they wanted a new property right
over plants, there were predictions IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF DRAFTING
that it would create a new property right. It did. There were
predictions that DESPITE CLAIMS THAT IT WASN'T THE INTENTION, that part
of the Act would remain unchanged, no matter what else was changed.
It did.

How much more evidence do you want? Note that I am not claiming
proof. You, apparently, are happy to base your claims about the
reasons for this Act on no evidence whatsoever.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


| I perhaps should have pointed out that the few truly interesting
forested
| bits of my home town tend to be on really steep slopes; digging things
up
| and leaving holes does a lot of harm next time it rains. Bit it ain't
just a
| cosmetic matter anyway; removing plants from the context of the habitat
they
| 're in is way more important than that.

Not in the case of bluebells.



That's just silly. Bluebells are merely part of their habitat in the same
way as any other plant species are.


| No I'm not. I'm ridiculing the conspiracy theory concept.

So you are claiming that conspiracies don't exist?



Yes. but maybe that's 'cos I'm in on it.


| No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
| evidence of a conspiracy at work.
|
| Sorry, Nick, but can I use that quote elsewhere? It strikes me that it
could
| be used as a defense of any conspiracy theory at all.

You may quote me IN CONTEXT. I have not said that about conspiracies
in general, let alone imagined ones.

Or are you calling me a liar?



Calm down, no one here is calling anyone else anything, as far as I can make
out. Unless you're accusing me of calling you a liar, in which case that
might happen soon



I simply liked the idea of using your statement above (or something like it)
as a general defence of any conspiracy theory, as it's utterly irrefutable
and in itself completely consistent. Taken out of context, therefore, it's a
complete gem of a statement.


| The act, like any other, is a flawed bunch of ideas that has passed
through
| the hands of two 600 member plus committees (commons and lords) plus a
whole
| load of other interested parties. That's how we make laws here. And as
well
| as generally working in an inexplicable way, it also means that a lot
of
| laws are passed in such a way as to be never enforceable (or only
rarely
| worth enforcing). That's one of the beauties of our system, when you
think
| about it.

You are now being naive to the point of bias.



Come off it; that's not naivety it's an acceptance of the strangeness of our
political/legal establishment in the UK. It would be naive to insist that
this isn't the case, IMHO.



There were public
statements from pressure groups that they wanted a new property right
over plants, there were predictions IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF DRAFTING
that it would create a new property right. It did. There were
predictions that DESPITE CLAIMS THAT IT WASN'T THE INTENTION, that part
of the Act would remain unchanged, no matter what else was changed.
It did.

How much more evidence do you want? Note that I am not claiming
proof. You, apparently, are happy to base your claims about the
reasons for this Act on no evidence whatsoever.



Claims? What claims? I've just pointed out a few truths about how we draft
laws in the UK, and why, strangely, flawed legislation somehow seems to work
very often.



You seem to be rather spoiling for a fight. Wassup?

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

| You really believe that the act was there as a conservation tool, and
not
| just a dumping ground for ideas to satisfy government spokesmen who
could
| say 'something is being done'?

No and no. Obviously.

Then perhaps your perception of this (and other related) legislation is
merely differently negative to mine.

You are now playing political word games. They don't do it PERSONALLY;
they sell the rights.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Yes, land owners can indeed sell rights for
removing wild plants from their land. And I'd argue that such things could,
even should, be covered by law. Never stated otherwise. But that's rather
different to whether any general member of the public should be allowed to
do such on someone elses land; that's something that presents different
dangers to wild species.

"Colin Davidson" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

snip

I dunno, maybe I just have less faith in the typical gardener to make a
responsible decision than you do.



Interesting discussion between you two, but I doubt the average citizen has
any idea what's in the WCA etc., nor has much/any fear of sanctions.
Personally, I think that education of people to appreciate why they might be
doing harm taking plants would be a better long term bet than the creation
of yet more rules and regulations. Nick, of course, might think educating
people to take plants more appropriate - I would agree that if the plants in
question are 'doomed' in their existing location, there is little to be
lost, and perhaps something to be gained, by relocating them to a more
secure location where they might thrive.