Cotoneaster horizontalis OUTLAWED!

[Picidae]

I recently bought a Cotoneaster horizontalis from an established nursery centre. (Following the winter rush on berries by various thrushes) Thinking I was serving in the best interest of wildlife in the garden, I now note that this species has been added to Sched 9 of the WCA!

It's still in a pot, but presumably after April 2010, if I planted it in the garden, it seems I'd be committing a criminal offence. I guess I'd better get it in the ground quickly!

[Jonners]

Doesn't that only apply if you were going to plant it in the wild?

[Picidae]

Yes, but its open to interpretation although my comment re: 'committing a criminal offence'' was an attempt at sensationalism and rather glib . ''Into the wild'' can mean any area open to the environment where that invasive species has a chance of spreading. With plants, this could be seen as 'causing it to spread' through seeding and berries eaten by birds.

''We would expect that where plants listed in Schedule 9 are grown in private gardens, amenity areas etc, reasonable measures will be taken to confine them to the cultivated area so as to prevent their spreading to the wider environment and beyond the landowner‟s control. It is our view that any failure to do so, which in turn results in the plant spreading to the wild, could be considered as „causing to grow in the wild‟ and as such would constitute an offence. If an individual does not have sufficient ability or the resources to manage a species so as to prevent its spreading to the wild, thereby exposing him or herself to the risk of committing an offence, he/she should seriously consider whether planting a Schedule 9 species is appropriate''

For a plant that spreads by birds eating the berries, containing it would seem rather a daft assumption unless you plucked off all the berries and got rid of them.

''whether or not planting is an offence should be judged on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the potential impacts on habitats and native flora and fauna of planting the species in question, and the existence or extent of management practices employed''

A garden can also be included as 'into the wild' with regard to the release of non native animals also.

Full explanation and list of Sched.9 species here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pet...hedule9%20.pdf


Problem species and alternatives

From the above link

''This popular garden shrub is also popular with birds who enjoy the berries and spread the seed. This can spread Cotoneasters in the wild, where they can be difficult to eradicate.

Cotoneasters provide an important reminder that even with the best intentions of gardeners, the wind, birds and other animals can help plants to ‘escape over the garden wall’. Plantlife is particularly concerned about four types of Cotoneaster: Hollyberry Cotoneaster C. bullatus, Wall Cotoneaster C. horizontalis, Small-leaved Cotoneasters C. microphyllus agg., and Himalayan Cotoneaster C. simonsii.

To be listed on Schedule 9 from April 2010. ''

[aeshna5]

Other popular plants such as Rosa rugosa have also been included. I remember many years ago at Dawlish Warren there was an increasing colony of this plant near the dunes, that a couple of guys from what I think was English Nature at the time was inspecting + said it would have to be sprayed off.

It does seem to be a pest in only a handful of sdituations for a plant so widely grown.

[Jonners]

Originally Posted by Picidae

Yes, but its open to interpretation although my comment re: 'committing a criminal offence'' was an attempt at sensationalism and rather glib . ''Into the wild'' can mean any area open to the environment where that invasive species has a chance of spreading. With plants, this could be seen as 'causing it to spread' through seeding and berries eaten by birds.

''We would expect that where plants listed in Schedule 9 are grown in private gardens, amenity areas etc, reasonable measures will be taken to confine them to the cultivated area so as to prevent their spreading to the wider environment and beyond the landowner‟s control. It is our view that any failure to do so, which in turn results in the plant spreading to the wild, could be considered as „causing to grow in the wild‟ and as such would constitute an offence. If an individual does not have sufficient ability or the resources to manage a species so as to prevent its spreading to the wild, thereby exposing him or herself to the risk of committing an offence, he/she should seriously consider whether planting a Schedule 9 species is appropriate''

For a plant that spreads by birds eating the berries, containing it would seem rather a daft assumption unless you plucked off all the berries and got rid of them.

''whether or not planting is an offence should be judged on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the potential impacts on habitats and native flora and fauna of planting the species in question, and the existence or extent of management practices employed''

A garden can also be included as 'into the wild' with regard to the release of non native animals also.

Full explanation and list of Sched.9 species here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pet...hedule9%20.pdf


Problem species and alternatives

From the above link

''This popular garden shrub is also popular with birds who enjoy the berries and spread the seed. This can spread Cotoneasters in the wild, where they can be difficult to eradicate.

Cotoneasters provide an important reminder that even with the best intentions of gardeners, the wind, birds and other animals can help plants to ‘escape over the garden wall’. Plantlife is particularly concerned about four types of Cotoneaster: Hollyberry Cotoneaster C. bullatus, Wall Cotoneaster C. horizontalis, Small-leaved Cotoneasters C. microphyllus agg., and Himalayan Cotoneaster C. simonsii.

To be listed on Schedule 9 from April 2010. ''

I see your point Pic. Presumably, the control element would be relevant for plants already in situ. But as you say, controlling avian spreading would be a bit too far really.

[Picidae]

Now Jonners, your last post wouldn't have been just an excuse to post a really excellent photo of a Waxwing would it? Making us jealous to boot!!

As for the WCA, I can't envisage there being too much of a legal risk with people planting them in gardens as you say but it does seem to be another poorly worded amendment to a very good Statute.

Aeshna, interesting re: clearing back R.rugosa from the Dawlish Warren dunes. (I've birded along there and they are pretty well covered in lots of places with various plants) - I wonder if the issue was to keep the dunes from eroding rather than any 'danger' the plant had to the ecosystem.

Any indigenous plant can be 'invasive' too and it costs money to manage large open areas where invasive plants have a tendency to 'take over'. It occurred to me that giving plants a 'non-native' or 'alien' legal status, might have economic and political aims as well as concerns for biodiversity? ie. a long term cost saving exercise to try and stop them from spreading in the first place.

[Jonners]

Originally Posted by Picidae

Now Jonners, your last post wouldn't have been just an excuse to post a really excellent photo of a Waxwing would it? Making us jealous to boot!!

.......

Any indigenous plant can be 'invasive' too and it costs money to manage large open areas where invasive plants have a tendency to 'take over'. It occurred to me that giving plants a 'non-native' or 'alien' legal status, might have economic and political aims as well as concerns for biodiversity? ie. a long term cost saving exercise to try and stop them from spreading in the first place.

Pic, I'm still getting over seeing my first ever Waxwing after only 44 years! Plus it was my only photo of Cotoneaster

As for your latter point, I think you're right. At which point does a plant become indigenous or native? Many plants appear to be widespread, growing naturally and quite wild, but are not truly native. I guess this is where Schedule 9 comes in - attempting to prevent some plants from over-running the place, or even getting to the point where they might begin to. I guess it adds definition to Section 14 which prohibits the introduction into the wild of any animal of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to, GB in a wild state, or any species of animal or plant listed in Schedule 9.

[pressld2]

I have a cotoneaster at the front of the house (it was there when we moved in). I've never seen birds eating the berries but when it's in flower it positively throbs with bees. Too many to count.

Dave P.

[citychick]

So am i correct in thinking that garden centres and nurseries will no longer be able to sell these cotoneasters? x

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by citychick

So am i correct in thinking that garden centres and nurseries will no longer be able to sell these cotoneasters? x

no - the thread title is as picidae addmitted somewhat sensationalist - section 9 is regarding planting or allowing to escape into the wild - garden centres etc will continue to sell it and you can quite legally plant it in your garden.