|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
banana1522
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 12
|
|
|
|
 |
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 33733
Location: yes
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 15, 16 11:43 pm Post subject: |
 
|
i would be most displeased by such a measure.
actually i am displeased by such a measure.
i can see how industrial harvest of a finite resource is unsustainable but as far as trout go the rules on catch limits ,sizes etc seem to work on the waters i know well.
if i found a gill net on a small stream the owners of that net would have a big problem  that probably would not involve the law but for some folk that might be their option. those who harvest sustainably have an investment in protecting that sustainability and know what is going on far better than any paid "keeper".
if there is a problem with over harvest a licence system such as with fresh water "game" (or dinner as i think of them ) fish might work very well .
one option is to oppose the current nonsense with mass trespass ,"we all have a gram of oyster shroom, arrest us all" etc etc which might bring about a change quite quickly if a few hundred folk insist on being processed through the courts every weekend. |
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 9640
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
The trouble is that some people are not being sensible about mushroom picking so if it is banned completely then it is easier to police.
To give an example what some people would consider 'for their own use', a couple of people were seen taking large carrier bags, a total of 4 from our woods full of wild garlic (luckily just the leaves). One of our dog walkers saw them and got their registration number, and the police let them know a beady eye was being kept on them, so no further trouble.
If that had been mushrooms, they could have virtually denuded our wood. Multiply that by a good few 1000, and you see the problem the New Forest have. |
|
|
|
|
Chez
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 35904
Location: The Hive of the Uberbee, Quantock Hills, Somerset
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
Really annoying for the responsible forager ... But I understand why they've done it. I under that commercial people were going in and strippjng whole areas. |
|
|
|
|
Pilsbury
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 5645
Location: East london/Essex
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
There has been a foraging ban on Epping forest for as long as I can remember, it's the commercial foragers who are just in it for this season's money thst is the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Green Rosie
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 10498
Location: Calvados, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
I was just about to write what Chez and Mistress Rose said. In some local woods to me in France, mushroom foraging is banned on certain days of the week to allow some fungi to release their spores I assume. |
|
|
|
|
Hairyloon
Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 14923
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
Licensing would appear to be the sensible answer.
Find out if, and why they have rejected the idea before you get overexcited about it. |
|
|
|
|
Pilsbury
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 5645
Location: East london/Essex
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
It's almost impossible to enforce licencing in such a large area, If the public know some people might be licenced they will almost certianly ignore anyone they see picking and there is no where near enough rangers to catch anyone.
If no one is allowed to pick then am one seen doing so is breaking the law, no excuses or get outs. |
|
|
|
|
Hairyloon
Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 14923
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
| Pilsbury wrote: |
| If the public know some people might be licenced they will almost certianly ignore anyone they see picking... |
So don't publicise the licensing. The public would assume that anyone picking was doing it illegally and react in the same way as they would if it was.
That is only a problem if vigilantes are prevalent and lynch the pickers without asking questions. |
|
|
|
|
Pilsbury
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 5645
Location: East london/Essex
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
They don't publicise the licencing of harvesting crayfish but it's pretty well known because the people with licences tell people they are licenced to harvest and so on.
If anyone challenged a licenced picker then the picker would tell them they had the right to do what they are doing and so it would go on. |
|
|
|
|
Woo
Joined: 19 Sep 2011
Posts: 780
Location: Mayenne, Pays de Loire
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
| Green Rosie wrote: |
| I was just about to write what Chez and Mistress Rose said. In some local woods to me in France, mushroom foraging is banned on certain days of the week to allow some fungi to release their spores I assume. |
there is free foraging in our next door wood. but there is a rule that you must use a woven basket so the spores can disperse as you pass through.
it comes down to greed. if everyone took what they needed! 
I will go back to fairytale land now! |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 16 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
I wouldn't just blame commercial forages, sometimes the amounts people pick for their 'own consumption' seem a little extravagant. |
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5188
Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 16 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| I wouldn't just blame commercial forages, sometimes the amounts people pick for their 'own consumption' seem a little extravagant. |
Couldn't there be a ban on commercial foraging, and a personal consumption limit?
The limit could be a source of debate, but at least that's some guidance.
(I go all in when I find big chicken of the woods, and make it into a freezer form, so I understand I would maybe look odd with two grocery bags full of it) |
|
|
|
|
jp
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
Posts: 297
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 16 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
To me it makes no sense imposing a total ban - a knee jerk reaction. I can understand and support the desire to clamp down on commercial picking which often strips out whole areas irrespective of edibility or rarity - inedible species being dumped in the car park. Wasteful & insensitive to the forest ecosystem  . Collecting by knowledgeable people for personal consumption has being going on from time immemorial without detriment, because people care for the forest. Might as well ban blackberry picking because it's is the same principle. What needs protecting for all its worth is the forest itself - that natural environment is precious because of its comparative rarity in this country, which has the lowest forest cover of all European nations I believe (someone will correct me if I'm wrong no doubt 😉). Rant over. |
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 9640
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 16 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
The problem with allowing 'for personal consumption' is policing it. I have seen people taking carrier bags full which they will claim is for their own use, of things like wild garlic and chestnuts, but which will almost certainly end up being used commercially.
Sorry JP, but as someone who works in the countryside, I know the only way is to try to stop all picking.
I agree the New Forest is a unique habitat, and most of it isn't wooded. We have less woodland that most countries, but we also have a far higher population per unit of land, and it is probable that it has been less wooded for centuries. There is more woodland now that there has been for a couple of centuries, but keeping ancient woodland, moorland and heathland is more important than planting new. |
|
|
|
|
|
View Latest Posts