|
Wild Garlic
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 young shoots be used early in the season? Anything? It smells wonderful when you stand on it:-) Jonny |
Wild Garlic
D'you mean Ramsons - the broad leaved wild garlic with the little
sprays of white flowers? The leaves are great in salads, or chopped and used like chives in other dishes. It's a wonderful smell in the wild - in this part of Hants there's tons of 'em growing away merrily. Only problem is, once they go over they start whiffing a bit - and en-masse it's a bit of a stench. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Wild Garlic
Pick the leaves sparingly, and add them to salads, sandwiches, etc. Chop them fine and use them like chives or garlic in cooking. I've often wrapped small chickens with them (with a bit of butter), wrapped them in foil, and roasted them. Or add them to potato soup. One of the best wild foods, very versatile.
|
Wild Garlic
Stephen Howard wrote:
D'you mean Ramsons - the broad leaved wild garlic with the little sprays of white flowers? Those sound very much like what are called "Ramps" over here. In the spring, people dig them from semi-shady wooded spots and chop the little bulbs for various dishes. There are even Ramp festivals down in the Appalachian mountains of Virginia and Tennessee. A friend knows of a nice patch of them, and gave me a bagful last spring. The very few I didn't eat took hold nicely along a path to the pond. Those concerned with the social graces probably ought to eschew them. This has never been my problem! The spring-scented, Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1200' elevation. NY WO G |
Wild Garlic
And as wild flowers surely they are protected.
|
Wild Garlic
And as wild flowers surely they are protected.
I don't think they are. Not all wild flowers are protected. -- Tony Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi |
Wild Garlic
Hmmm. Been trying to lay my hands on some ransomes for yonks, Jon -
could you save me some seeds when they're ready, please? -- Tony Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi |
Wild Garlic
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. 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. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Wild Garlic
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. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Wild Garlic
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. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Wild Garlic
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* -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
Wild Garlic
| 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* That is owned by "The Crown". Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Wild Garlic
"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. |
Wild Garlic
"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! It's more important to know what you're picking and how to avoid damaging what's there, IMHO. |
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 |
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. |
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 :) |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
Wild Garlic
"Druss" wrote in message ... 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 I believe that it only applies to seed of plants listed on schedule 8 of the wildlife and countryside act (although I'm willing to be corrected). Essentially, if it's rare then don't pick it, but then that ain't rocket science. |
Wild Garlic
The message
from Kay Easton contains these words: 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'? Yes, but without fruit bodies, they don't spread. Still, there are plenty left where they grow so I suspect that no harm is done. -- Tony Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi |
Wild Garlic
In article , Anthony E Anson
writes The message from Kay Easton contains these words: 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'? Yes, but without fruit bodies, they don't spread. Do they not? Some other fungi spread asexually - dry rot, for example. But what I was referring to was that the Act says you mustn't dig up plants, not that you mustn't pick fruit. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
Wild Garlic
In article ,
Colin Davidson wrote: "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. 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. 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? Not necessarily, in itself. But why should the public's rights be taken away and given to a small group of people without compensation? 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. 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? YES. YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES, YES, YES!!!!! You say that you think ecologically - THEN DO SO! 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. 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. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Wild Garlic
In article , Druss wrote:
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Wild Garlic
On Wed, 7 May 2003 15:09:46 +0100, Anthony E Anson
wrote: 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... Nick? An ecological frame of mind too I would have thought. Huss Grow a little garden spam block - for real addy, reverse letters of second level domain. |
Wild Garlic
On Wed, 7 May 2003 15:12:21 +0100, Anthony E Anson
wrote: 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... For what? To make them grow more, or to quench them? Huss Grow a little garden spam block - for real addy, reverse letters of second level domain. |
Wild Garlic
|
Wild Garlic
In article ,
Victoria Clare wrote: (Nick Maclaren) wrote in news:b9bqlt$d74$1 : 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. OK, I agree mostly but I think that's a bit much. 'Time immemorial': no such thing! You mean 'for rather a long time'. Eh? No, I don't! I mean time immemorial - i.e. dating back to before the earliest records. 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". There is no legal tradition that can really claim continuity over that long a period, common law or no common law. I'm pretty sure that no-one has a definitive answer to 'what was the law on removal of plants from private land in early medieval Mercia' (though I'd love to know if you do!) Yes, there is. Many of them. You are almost certainly right that there is no DEFINITIVE answer, but there are some pretty good records. Certainly, enough to prove that there was no crime comparable to that introduced by that Act. I think what you mean is 'it used (so far as we know) not to be illegal' - that is not the same as saying 'it used to be a right'. I'm prepared to accept that by 2000, stuff that isn't illegal is mostly rights, but I would argue the toss over the same applying in 1000. The right to which I am referring is the immunity from arrest etc. And, yes, that was a right then as it was until recently. I can't tell you what the situation was in civil law. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Wild Garlic
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. 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. -- Tony Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter