"stealing" from nature? legalities?

[ladylola]

The key word in Thermo's post is "wild". A culitivated field of wheat is obviously not wild but a forest may look to be wild but may actually be a farmed crop and any removal could be deemed theft.
Common land used to be land that users had certain rights to although many of the uses have fallen into disuse. Depending on the particular plot of land people had the right to graze animals, gather firewood etc but as thermo points out it's pretty much a question of quanities, you could graze cows but not harvest grass lands for hay and the like . Similiary you could collect firewood , fallen branches bushes etc but not cut down large trees.
Apart from species that are protected by law I really don't think there's a problem providing that you are not spoiling the countryside or damaging property, I love wild mushrooms, bilberries , nettles and the like and if it's growing on pasture land then just ask the landowner most don't mind at all in my experience.

 

[Donkmeister]

All property is theft, man!

It quickly becomes an interesting sociological debate.

The biggest question is "Why does this particular legal system have an interest in what I am doing, and why does it take precedence over my own thoughts and actions?".

Ownership of large chunks of land in this country comes down to a lineage from people who were friends of William "The Conqueror" of Normandy (Normandy, NOT France, and not a Frenchman, I always feel obliged to point out!).

So, invent a time machine, go back 1000 years and ask him "Why can't I have a few twigs out of your mate's great-great... great-grandson's thousand acre plot?"

 

[Lincsbodger]

All property is theft, man!

It quickly becomes an interesting sociological debate.

The biggest question is "Why does this particular legal system have an interest in what I am doing, and why does it take precedence over my own thoughts and actions?".

Ownership of large chunks of land in this country comes down to a lineage from people who were friends of William "The Conqueror" of Normandy (Normandy, NOT France, and not a Frenchman, I always feel obliged to point out!).

So, invent a time machine, go back 1000 years and ask him "Why can't I have a few twigs out of your mate's great-great... great-grandson's thousand acre plot?"

which is why your 4th paragraph shows why your first line is not true. In 1000 Ad the way property was transferred was by fighting for it, mainly. So the original claimers of land didnt steal it of anyone, and the people who subsequently seized it were simply doing it the way society worked at the time - conquest.

Its like murder. Murder was not illegal in Viking society, in fact it was a perfectly legitimate way to settle a dispute.

In fact, my ancestors came over in 1066, and i can trace my line back through Frankish nobility to Dagobert, the last Merovingian King, around 600 AD

 

[Donkmeister]

which is why your 4th paragraph shows why your first line is not true. In 1000 Ad the way property was transferred was by fighting for it, mainly. So the original claimers of land didnt steal it of anyone, and the people who subsequently seized it were simply doing it the way society worked at the time - conquest.

"All property is theft, man" is a facetious jab at various movements who disagree with the established system. To say property is theft is, for me, a paradox as to say "this is my property" is, to me, to say that it is legitimately acquired and therefore cannot have been acquired through theft.

In my later paragraph however, I was not saying land was stolen, nor was I saying it was not conquered. I was simply saying that many of the "big" landowners in this country can trace their good fortune back to an ancestor who found themselves in the good graces of a certain Billy T Conqueror.

My point is that someone saying something does not necessarily make it true, no matter how many people say it. If 60 million people say "Donkmeister should not be allowed to possess that stick" and 1 person says "I should be allowed to possess this stick", then why should sheer scale of numbers mean that I am not allowed to possess this stick?

For instance, assuming you own a house with a freehold, the law of the land says that I can't come into your garden and take your twigs unless you give me permission. Even if they overhang my garden I have to at least offer them back to you no matter how many times you've told me "I hate all this bl**dy wood growing out of the ground in my garden, I wish someone would take all my twigs!". But why does the law of the land usurp the law of Donkmeister that states "Donkmeister shall take bits of wood from wherever he fancies"?

At the end of it all, legal systems whether national, supranational or subnational, are all very arbitrary by nature and come down to 2 things:

1) Who got the most people to agree with what they said
2) Who had the greatest ability to convert disagreement into agreement (whether it be through forceful, democratic or other means)

 

[Donkmeister]

Its like murder. Murder was not illegal in Viking society, in fact it was a perfectly legitimate way to settle a dispute.

Still is, in many societies. We say it's wrong. Are we right?

In fact, my ancestors came over in 1066, and i can trace my line back through Frankish nobility to Dagobert, the last Merovingian King, around 600 AD

Bl**dy foreigners, coming over here, taking all our good woad... Why don't you go back to Austrasia with all the other Merovingians?

 

[ColJack]

what about taking driftwood from the beach? or even burning it on the beach?

 

[Steve]

What about daffodils? I've seen a few kids come into my shop clutching tens of daff stems they just cut from th roadside, I always thought this was illegal?

 

[forestboy]

You might guess from my name that I work in forestry ( the oily petrol chainsaw side, not the sitting behind a desk side). Here is the legal position:

1. All land is owned by someone, the trees on the land are owned by the landowner, unless they've been sold to someone else as standing/fallen timber, which is rare but sometimes happens. Point is - it all belongs to someone, even if it is dead and has fallen down and is rotting.

2. 'Fallen wood' still belongs to the landowner - take it = theft. Even deadwood has its uses, we deliberately leave it where it lands as it helps diversity - animal and plant. There's nothing like a conifer plantation to acid sterilise a hillside for years to come.

3. Standing timber belongs to the landowner - cut it down and you break a dozen laws : Criminal damage, aggravated tresspass, going equipped, cutting without a felling licence (anything over 8cm at chest height is legally a tree, and the FC will have you!), and a host of environmental protection laws (cut down a tree with an active birds nest and you are real bother).

4. You are also leaving yourself open to a major private prosecution headache - e.g. if the land owner has chosen that tree as a seed tree to maintain a long term continuous cover system then you might mess up a 40 year rotation plan and a big capital investment.

5. With some few exceptions, you need a felling licence to take down a tree.

6. Big hardwoods are often a 2 century+ investment and worth a lot of money.

No harm in asking to pick up dead stuff lying around, but you've got to ask.

Driftwood - no idea what the law says on that.

 

[Lincsbodger]

You might guess from my name that I work in forestry ( the oily petrol chainsaw side, not the sitting behind a desk side). Here is the legal position:

1. All land is owned by someone, the trees on the land are owned by the landowner, unless they've been sold to someone else as standing/fallen timber, which is rare but sometimes happens. Point is - it all belongs to someone, even if it is dead and has fallen down and is rotting.

2. 'Fallen wood' still belongs to the landowner - take it = theft. Even deadwood has its uses, we deliberately leave it where it lands as it helps diversity - animal and plant. There's nothing like a conifer plantation to acid sterilise a hillside for years to come.

3. Standing timber belongs to the landowner - cut it down and you break a dozen laws : Criminal damage, aggravated trespass, going equipped, cutting without a felling licence (anything over 8cm at chest height is legally a tree, and the FC will have you!), and a host of environmental protection laws (cut down a tree with an active birds nest and you are real bother).

4. You are also leaving yourself open to a major private prosecution headache - e.g. if the land owner has chosen that tree as a seed tree to maintain a long term continuous cover system then you might mess up a 40 year rotation plan and a big capital investment.

5. With some few exceptions, you need a felling licence to take down a tree.

6. Big hardwoods are often a 2 century+ investment and worth a lot of money.

No harm in asking to pick up dead stuff lying around, but you've got to ask.

Driftwood - no idea what the law says on that.

Very useful info.

Yes, can i just make somethign clear, i love trees, the bigger and older the better. but i also need little ones to shove on the wood burner. i have a large garden and ive planted it up with trees and in effect recreated a woodland clearing, its very nice in summer - ive planted Cherry, Ash, Willow, Eucalyptus, Plane and Oak.

Across from where I live theres 300+ trees, the majority of which have been there 150+ years (we know this for a fact). A major developer wanted to clear it all and build, so they started chopping them down surreptitiously in ones and twos, even though they all have tree protection orders on. We think the local Tree Officer was taking bungs or something. Anyhoo we kicked up a stink in the local paper, embarrassed the local authority, and it stopped, and the developer got fined £1000 per tree for taking down several Beech trees, and these things were massive, like a metre at the base and straight up into the clouds (exaggeration!). But they were still quids in, the value of the trees must have been £3000 each just for the timber.

Apart from that £1000 does not replace a 150 year old beech. You replace it with another beech and then wait 150 years, in effect when its gone its gone.

The Tree Officer got sacked in the end, he would condemn any tree if the brown paper packet was thick enough, We proved it by getting another tree surgeon to look at the trees that had been felled.

SO i will only take saplings up to about 6 inches, they log up nicely, or stuff that been felled because its diseased. I also object to the invasion of pines, cedars and spruces, and other non indigenous softwood trees, especially the ubiquitous bloody Leylandii, every one of those needs chopping and burning.

 

[ColJack]

how about then if I roll and already fallen tree into a river still inside the owners property ( so not removing it from the property myself.. ), follow it to the sea and wait for it to wash back up on shore... can I have it then?

 

[Thermo]

anything between low and high water tide can be taken, (gets a bit complicated with salvage stuff.)

 

[ColJack]

so if it washes too far up the beach I can't have it?

how about if I push a beach hut down to the low tide mark? can I have that then?

 

[Thermo]

havent you got a job interview to get ready for? stop asking silly questions

 

[ladylola]

I always thought that the land between high and low tides was crown property

 

[Norcon]

Thats theft Lincbodger for which you desreve the full weight of the law to punish you.
People like you are parasites!

I assumed he was joking.... if not, then i agree... you're a crim... and bragging about it is even worse!!

It didn't seem to me as though he was joking.
Especially considering his previous post and now he has went strangely quiet.
Anyway I sincerly hope he gets caught.