"Nick Maclaren" wrote
sacha writes:
|
| You mean you know of people having a worse reaction to ragwort
pollen than
| to contact with Giant Hogweed? ...

That's what I heard. I believe that the reaction is much rarer,
but even more life threatening. If someone has it, the only
solution is to move to somewhere it doesn't grow. I cannot
swear that the information was true, but it seemed reliable.

I know lots of people who handle giant hogweed with no problems
(I am one), incidentally.
Regards, Nick Maclaren,

I never do this usually, but 'me too!'

Jenny

in article , Kay Easton at
wrote on 6/12/02 5:33 pm:

In article , MC Emily
writes
"Michael Berridge" wrote

It is a notifiable weed and it is illegal to allow it to set seed.

As is Ragwort but no one seems to know that around here - especially the
Council!!

It's an 'injurious weed' under the 1959 Weeds Act and landowners have a
duty to stop it spreading, but does that mean it is 'notifiable'? - ie,
do you have a legal duty to tell someone about it if you have it?

I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that it was
notifiable. But I was thinking of the roadsides and hedges on e.g. the A38.
They're controlled by the Council as to mowing, tree trimming etc. but there
are still quite large patchees of ragwort here and there. OTOH, I'd hate to
see too many sprays used, if any, because we have the most fabulous displays
of primroses here in springtime!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk

in article , Sue Rogers at
wrote on 6/12/02 6:14 pm:

In article ,
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
sacha wrote:

However, it (ragwort) won't do
the harm to humans (AFAIK) that Giant Hogweed will.


Ragwort contains poisons which damage the liver of grazing animals who
eat it. Eating a lot in one go causes acute liver failure, eating a
little over a long time causes chronic liver failure.

Commonest way of animals ingesting ragwort is through hay made from
fields containing ragwort. Ragwort has a bitter taste when alive so
animals avoid it unless starving. When dead it loses that bitter taste.

You often see hay advertised as "ragwort-free".

The advice to horse owners is to "wear gloves" when removing ragwort to
stop the toxins being absorbed through our skin - liver failure maybe?

snip
Could be. It's said to be absorbed slowly into the liver and that by the
time any effects are observed, it's too late for the cattle involved. If a
human was perpetually pulling it up over a long period, I suppose it *could*
have that effect, or it could be that the reference you read is what Nick is
thinking of - the effects of the plant or its pollen on the skin.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk

In article ,
sacha wrote:

Could be. It's said to be absorbed slowly into the liver and that by the
time any effects are observed, it's too late for the cattle involved. If a
human was perpetually pulling it up over a long period, I suppose it *could*
have that effect, or it could be that the reference you read is what Nick is
thinking of - the effects of the plant or its pollen on the skin.

You absorb things much faster through the lungs. But I can't remember
the references, and currently don't have access to a proper literature
search (as there is a new mechanism and I haven't re-registered).

It certainly isn't a common problem, or else it would be on the Web.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

sacha wrote in
:

It's an 'injurious weed' under the 1959 Weeds Act and landowners have
a duty to stop it spreading, but does that mean it is 'notifiable'? -
ie, do you have a legal duty to tell someone about it if you have it?

I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that it was
notifiable. But I was thinking of the roadsides and hedges on e.g.
the A38. They're controlled by the Council as to mowing, tree trimming
etc. but there are still quite large patchees of ragwort here and
there. OTOH, I'd hate to see too many sprays used, if any, because we
have the most fabulous displays of primroses here in springtime!

It's one of those things that only seems to be taken seriously in Devon.

Cornwall doesn't seem spend anything much on getting rid of it, and neither
does the horse-owner to whom the field opposite me belongs :-(((

Victoria (another hogweed-resistant type)

In article , sacha
writes
I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that it was
notifiable.

It is - along with Japanese Knotweed - there is info about it on the
defra site.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

In article ,
(Kay Easton) wrote:

It's an 'injurious weed' under the 1959 Weeds Act and landowners have
a duty to stop it spreading, but does that mean it is 'notifiable'?

I believe there's a distinction between agricultural land and other
sorts.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

In article , Jane Ransom
writes
In article , sacha
writes
I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that it was
notifiable.

It is - along with Japanese Knotweed - there is info about it on the
defra site.

yes, but it doesn't say it's notifiable, does it? Ragwort is controlled
under the 1959 Weeds act, and the DEFRA site says quite specifically
that this doesn't cover weeds growing on a particular plot of land, only
spreading to adjacent land. You don't have to tell anyone if you've got
it.

Giant Hogweed and Japanese Knotweed aren't covered under this Act - they
come under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, and it's an offence to
let them spread into the wild.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

in article , Kay Easton at
wrote on 7/12/02 3:23 pm:

In article , Jane Ransom
writes
In article , sacha
writes
I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that it was
notifiable.

It is - along with Japanese Knotweed - there is info about it on the
defra site.

yes, but it doesn't say it's notifiable, does it? Ragwort is controlled
under the 1959 Weeds act, and the DEFRA site says quite specifically
that this doesn't cover weeds growing on a particular plot of land, only
spreading to adjacent land. You don't have to tell anyone if you've got
it.

Giant Hogweed and Japanese Knotweed aren't covered under this Act - they
come under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, and it's an offence to
let them spread into the wild.

From the DEFRA site (The Weeds Act is dated 1959):
Which weeds are covered by the Weeds Act?

2. There are five injurious weeds covered by the provisions of the Weeds
Act. These a
- Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare)
- Creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense)
- Curled dock (Rumex crispus)
- Broad leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius)
- Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea)

How can I identify these weeds?

3. DEFRA has published a colour leaflet (Ref PB 4192) to help with the
identification of the weeds covered by the Weeds Act. This is available from
DEFRA Publications. A copy is also available here.

What about weeds not covered by the Weeds Act?

4. Under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it can be an
offence to plant or grow certain specified plants in the wild (see Schedule
9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981), including Giant Hogweed and
Japanese Knotweed. Problems involving these plants can be referred to the
local authority for the area where those weeds are growing as some local
authorities have bye-laws controlling these plants. There is no statutory
requirement for landowners to remove these plants from their property.

Who is responsible for controlling harmful weeds?

5. Primary responsibility for weeds control rests with the occupier of the
land on which the weeds are growing. However, under the Weeds Act 1959,
DEFRA can take action where there is a risk of the five specifed weeds
spreading from neighbouring land.

and

What action will DEFRA take?

10. RDS will normally ask whether the affected land is farmland or is being
used for the keeping of horses as part of a diversified farm business. Where
it is, a complaint form will be sent to you asking for exact details of the
problem. Where we consider the complaint is valid, a field officer from the
Rural Payments Agency will visit the land to make an assessment. He/she will
then report back to RDS.

11. RDS will then write to the occupier of the land asking them to take
action to remove the weeds. A second field officer visit may be carried out
at a later date to ensure that this has been done. In nearly every case,
this is usually sufficient to resolve the matter satisfactorily. However, if
the occupier does not take the required action, a RDS technical officer will
visit to press the case more strongly and to consider whether enforcement
action is appropriate. In the case of persistent offenders, consideration
will be given to using the formal powers available under the Weeds Act.

What formal powers exist under the Weeds Act?

12. The Act does not make it illegal to have the 5 specified weeds growing
on individual plots of land. It is primarily concerned with the control of
injurious weeds and preventing the seeds spreading to adjacent land.

13. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs may serve a notice on an occupier of land on which one of the five
specified weeds is growing. This notice requires the occupier to take action
to prevent the weeds from spreading. The Act permits DEFRA officials to
enter land to inspect whether an enforcement notice has been complied with.
If an occupier unreasonably fails to comply with the notice he or she may be
found guilty of an offence, and on conviction, liable to a fine. The Act
also contains powers, which enable the Secretary of State to take action to
arrange for the weeds to be cleared and for the cost of doing so to be
recovered from the occupier of the land. Action can be taken through the
Courts to recover these sums where appropriate.

Will DEFRA investigate the spread of weeds to land used solely for grazing
horses or ponies?

14. DEFRA will only investigate the spread of weeds to land used for grazing
horses or ponies where such land is being used for the keeping of horses as
part of a diversified farm business. It will not investigate the spread of
weeds to other land used for grazing horses or ponies.

Why does DEFRA not investigate the spread of weeds to any land?

15. DEFRA does not have the resources to investigate all weeds complaints
and will not normally investigate weeds spreading to land used solely to
graze horses and ponies kept for recreation and leisure. In this situation
the best way forward is for the complainant to discuss the problem with the
occupier or owner of the infested land. It may be possible for both parties
to work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Ultimately, however, if
this is not possible, an occupier of land affected by the spread of weeds
may need to consider the possibility of taking civil action through the
courts.

What about allotments and private gardens?

16. Again, DEFRA does not investigate the spread of weeds to land such as
allotments and gardens. As for grazing land for horses and ponies, an
approach should be made to the occupier or owner of the infested land.
Similarly, if this does not resolve the problem, the occupier of the
affected land may wish to consider whether to instigate legal proceedings.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk

Now this is what I call an interesting thread. Very informative. I had not
heard of the 1959 weed act before, but I shall certainly be keeping my eyes
open in future.

Steve R




HaaRoy scribbled:

how come this plant is so bad for your skin ?
i read it causes bad skin complaints.

Dear all

just to say rue can give some people bad blisters if the sap gets on the
skin in sunshine. When it happened to me, the GP showed me a handbook for
army medics; it had giant hogweed and rue on the longish list of Plants You
Shouldn't Let Your Chaps Camp Among, along with photos demonstrating the
resulting blisters on military torsos and biceps.

I still grow lots of rue, and avoid the problem OK by taking the cuttings on
a cloudy day (and of course having a wash before the sun comes out again!)

Marion Doran
NE Essex

In article ,
"Marion Doran" writes:
|
| just to say rue can give some people bad blisters if the sap gets on the
| skin in sunshine. When it happened to me, the GP showed me a handbook for
| army medics; it had giant hogweed and rue on the longish list of Plants You
| Shouldn't Let Your Chaps Camp Among, along with photos demonstrating the
| resulting blisters on military torsos and biceps.
|
| I still grow lots of rue, and avoid the problem OK by taking the cuttings on
| a cloudy day (and of course having a wash before the sun comes out again!)

Ditto all of the sumachs (including Cotinus coggygria), periwinkles,
hops (though the juicy+abrasive window is short) and many others.
Yes, it is a longish list - and that's just the one for Europe!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

sacha wrote:

Hello sacha

[Ragwort]

s I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that
s it was notifiable.

You're right, it is. Thought to be fair, I don't know anyone who's
been prosecuted for allowing it to grow.

s But I was thinking of the roadsides and
s hedges on e.g. the A38. They're controlled by the Council as
s to mowing, tree trimming etc. but there are still quite
s large patchees of ragwort here and there.

Teignbridge seems to have the policy of "We'll ignore it until someone
complains". But when they're told they generally send a couple of
chaps out within a few days. I imagine it would be pretty costly for
them to keep on top of it completely.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/

"Simon Avery" wrote in message
...
sacha wrote:

Hello sacha

[Ragwort]

s I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that
s it was notifiable.

You're right, it is. Thought to be fair, I don't know anyone who's
been prosecuted for allowing it to grow.

s But I was thinking of the roadsides and
s hedges on e.g. the A38. They're controlled by the Council as
s to mowing, tree trimming etc. but there are still quite
s large patchees of ragwort here and there.

Teignbridge seems to have the policy of "We'll ignore it until someone
complains". But when they're told they generally send a couple of
chaps out within a few days. I imagine it would be pretty costly for
them to keep on top of it completely.


Different authorities seem to give roadside ragwort a different degree of
priority. On some journeys I take, you can guess where authority boundaries
probably are, by a sudden change in the abundance of ragwort in the verges.

In article , Simon Avery SPAM.B.GONEdigdilem@s
ofthome.net writes
sacha wrote:

Hello sacha

[Ragwort]

s I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that
s it was notifiable.

You're right, it is. Thought to be fair, I don't know anyone who's
been prosecuted for allowing it to grow.

What do you mean by 'notifiable'? Usually this means that if you find it
on your land you have to notify if to the authorities. I have found
legislation saying it is an offence to allow it to escape on to someone
else's ground, but I haven't found anything anywhere that says you have
to notify someone if you find it. Can you give me a reference?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/