protection of fungi by law - sense or nonsense?

[mollisia]

Hallo,

I try to put this in a new thread, because it is a very important question in my eyes, and it will never be found in a thread about ID question.

I will make my comments to this later on, as I have not enough time now and this thread deserves being not too hasty ....

best regards,
Andreas

#35 (permalink) Today, 12:27 PM
mollisia
Member of the Wild Empire Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Jena - Germany
Posts: 303

Re: Another to ID please

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCantle
removal of the whole specimen (and other smaller brackets) would have been disastrous.

Hallo Nick,

for whom would that be disastrous, for the Phellinus? Do you think you harm the fungus Phellinus robustus by taking a fruitbody? I can assure you that the mycelium doesn't care at all.

I'm also the opinion, that one shouldn't harm endangered fungi without need, but to call it disastrous is in my eyes far to heavy. And it takes the eyes from the points why fungi really are endangered: The loss of habitat (in this case loss of old oaks) and not picking of fruitbodies! There have been at least two long time researches (25 and 30 years) which clearly gave the result that even picking all the fruitbodies doesn't influence the mycelium in producing them.
__________________
Mollisia


mollisia



#36 (permalink) Today, 02:08 PM
cybershot
Commander of the Wild Empire
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yateley, Hampshire
Posts: 2,330
Blog Entries: 5

Re: Another to ID please

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Andreas, especially in view of the fact that the status of our conservation programme viz-a-viz the RDL and BAP list is so shambolic that the average amateur field 'mycologist' wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about and wouldn't be able to find out what procedures to adopt even if they recognized that a species was thus annotated: Despite asking questions in several quarters I'm woefully unsure of my responsibilities in this area and would not level criticism at anyone else who supposedly transgressed. It's good that from time to time the subject is raised on these forums but still a lot of questions remain unanswered. Last year I inadvertently collected a specimen of Phellodon niger for ID purposes, but rest assured the environment in which it was found remains undisturbed ...for the time being anyway, though it is rumoured that Centre Parcs are sniffing around .

David


P.S. Phellinus robustus appears on the latest draft RDL as 'vulnerable/B' meaning it's only been recorded in 6-10 hectads since 1960.
__________________
Think twice before you speak once
fungi-of-hants-surrey-borders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


#37 (permalink) Today, 03:24 PM
NickCantle
Knight Commander of the Wild Empire
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kenninghall, Norfolk
Posts: 6,637
Blog Entries: 5


Re: Another to ID please

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mollisia
for whom would that be disastrous, for the Phellinus? Do you think you harm the fungus Phellinus robustus by taking a fruitbody? I can assure you that the mycelium doesn't care at all. I'm also the opinion, that one shouldn't harm endangered fungi without need, but to call it disastrous is in my eyes far to heavy.

Ok well I don't understand then. If Piptoporus quercinus is so rare and protected that removal of a specimen (or even a tiny piece of a specimen), results in punishment, the question would be "Why?". Why would this result in punishment if there was no consequence for the Piptoporus? If this was not the case, protected specimens would not have a picking restriction on, or is there some other reason? I can't see that there is. Seeing as this is more rare than a BAP species, and they are not for touching, then why wouldn't this one be. There must be some consequence of picking it to warrant being in trouble with NE

[NickCantle]

Good idea Andreas, and something I'm looking forward to hearing far more about. I hope you can see where my questioning lies though, and that I wasn't just trying to be 'dramatic'. I'm genuinely interested as to why fungi are protected by law. Is it the same reason that rare birds, flowers and mammals are protected by law? You can't legally pick wild flowers (or is that myth?) and you can't kill a Peregrine Falcon- is the reason that these are both illegal due to the consequence that it will have on future generations of said flower and bird? I am very curious, but curious to learn

[Andy Overall]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hallo,

I try to put this in a new thread, because it is a very important question in my eyes, and it will never be found in a thread about ID question.

I will make my comments to this later on, as I have not enough time now and this thread deserves being not too hasty ....

best regards,
Andreas

I would agree with you wholly on this Andreas. Harvesting of fungi is often scape-goated for far more serious contributors toward the decline of particular fungi, such as habitat loss via bad management, developement or pollution. However I don't support the harvesting of fungi on a commercial scale as I believe this may have an impact on insects and the diets of other animals that rely on the fruitbodies ( except Grey Squirrels). It is also an uneccessary greed in most cases (restaurant owners cashing in) and the removal of edible fungi on a large scale creates an aesthetic void in many of our commons and woodlands. Often inedible, very aesthetic species are also collected in the sweeps and then dumped in heaps near car parks etc etc. But protection by law, we have way too many silly laws in this country, I don't know about yours? to protect certain fungi by law would be another one for various reasons, yet another encroachment on civil liberties and another slither of power added to the already overweight snowball of power this government is building.

Andy

[NickCantle]

Could someone please tell me why there are fungi laws in Britain? If there is no negative impact on the species, then what is the point in drawing up a law to deter picking? I agree with you Andy re: Picking on a large scale for commercial purposes. Further to that, if there are species that are protected by law, then why are rarer species not protected?

[Lancashire Lad]

This interests me, since, as a beginner to the subject of fungi in general, it is somewhat disconcerting to discover that I may have been inadvertently breaking the law during my fungi photographing forays.

I appreciate that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but quite obviously, there needs to be clear and definitive guidance as to what would constitute such law breaking.

Having just tried to search for "definitive" legislation, I am left in doubt, as to exactly how the law stands.

Natural England's website states: -

"There are two main laws which may protect fungi:
The Theft Act 1968 which applies only in England and Wales
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and similar laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland

Under the Theft Act it is an offence

to dig up and take any plant, tree or shrub or any soil, peat, gravel etc which is part of the land, being the property of somebody. Digging up fungi could constitute theft unless you have permission.
to take the property of somebody and sell it for gain. the Act recognises the custom of taking wild fruit and flowers, including fungi, and permits such action so long as there is no personal financial gain. Collecting fungi for sale without the landowner's permission may be an offence".

"Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 it is an offence

to pick, uproot, destroy or sell, and/or collect and cut any plant listed on Schedule 8 of the Act (protected species) which includes some species of fungi
to uproot any wild plant, unless the person is authorised. As "plants" include fungi and lichens on Schedule 8, it is clear that fungi are treated as plants for the purpose of this Act. To pick fungi without uprooting them is probably legal, but see the Theft Act outline above......".


On checking the actual wording of the Theft Act 1968, it states: -
"A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. For purposes of this subsection ‘mushroom’ includes any fungus, and ‘plant’ includes any shrub or tree".

On checking schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, only the following four fungi are mentioned: -
Hedgehog Fungus - Hericium erinaceum
Oak Polypore - Buglossoporus pulvinus
Royal Bolete - Boletus regius
Sandy Stilt Puffball - Battarraea phalloides

So, these four are definitely not to be dug up, but my interpretation of the theft act is that uprooting any fungi for the purpose of photographing gills, or whatever, could, in theory, be construed as breaking the law, unless you have the permission of the land owner.

As per usual though, with English law - too many "Could's" & "May's"

Regards
Mike.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Could someone please tell me why there are fungi laws in Britain? If there is no negative impact on the species, then what is the point in drawing up a law to deter picking? I agree with you Andy re: Picking on a large scale for commercial purposes. Further to that, if there are species that are protected by law, then why are rarer species not protected?

In the UK, two main laws protect fungi:

The Theft Act 1968 (England and Wales) and The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (similar laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland exist).

Local nature reserves, National trust sites, forestry commission sites etc also have 'local' byelaws. A lot too depends if the laws apply at a given location or how the 'owner' interprets that law.

It's how or who polices such laws!

John

[flaxton]

Can someone explain why we should be concerned about the commercial collectors in this country. They have been collecting both privately and commercially in Europe for centuries with little impact on production. Here in Britain we are new to this commercialism and yet we are already supposedly having an impact on fungi in general.

Mal
Ps that is not to say I am in favour of these collectors

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

In the UK, two main laws protect fungi:

The Theft Act 1968 (England and Wales) and The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (similar laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland exist).

Local nature reserves, National trust sites, forestry commission sites etc also have 'local' byelaws. A lot too depends if the laws apply at a given location or how the 'owner' interprets that law.

It's how or who polices such laws!

John

I was aware of one of those but not the other. So when we pick mushrooms for culinary interest or laboratory study, we are essentially 'scrumping'? What I'm trying to establish is why these laws are in place, as if picking doesn't affect the future of the species, then why on earth should there be any opposition?

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

On checking schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, only the following four fungi are mentioned: -
Hedgehog Fungus - Hericium erinaceum
Oak Polypore - Buglossoporus pulvinus
Royal Bolete - Boletus regius
Sandy Stilt Puffball - Battarraea phalloides

So, these four are definitely not to be dug up, but my interpretation of the theft act is that uprooting any fungi for the purpose of photographing gills, or whatever, could, in theory, be construed as breaking the law, unless you have the permission of the land owner.

As per usual though, with English law - too many "Could's" & "May's"

Regards
Mike.

This is a good basis as to illustrate my point Take these four species that are seriously protected. As discussed recently, Phellinus robustus is considerably more rare than Piptoporus quercinus (Buglossoporus pulvinus on that list), yet the Piptoporus remains on a very short list of species that are sort of 'over protected'. So why this? If P. robustus is more rare than one of those four species, why on earth isn't it on the list. What makes these four appear on the list? If someone were to pick one of the four BAP species listed without permission, they'd be in quite some trouble if it was to be discovered, but why are they protected? If the picking of a fruiting body, even one of these four species, is harmful to the mycelium and the future of the fungus, then I would say that's fair enough- conservation is a beneficial thing and acting towards achieving a higher population of rarer species can only be a step in the right direction. However, as people have enlightened me today, if picking of specimens does not harm the organism in any way, why is the law in place at all? It seems like either someone's not telling me something or this whole episode is based on ill-logic and an unnecessary extension of power.

...and just before anyone decides to oppose what I've just said, please note that it is all a question- I've not included any fact in there, purely question.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

I was aware of one of those but not the other. So when we pick mushrooms for culinary interest or laboratory study, we are essentially 'scrumping'? What I'm trying to establish is why these laws are in place, as if picking doesn't affect the future of the species, then why on earth should there be any opposition?

Your right Nick, it's essentially Scrumping or stealing (fruit) ... On another persons land. It doesn't differentiate between fungi or apples either!