Jump to content

Recommended Posts

well spotted, bawdy-nan.


The writer doesn't name the deli, I suppose for the newspaper's 'legal reasons'.


A lovely hardy herb garden plant called Garlic Chives is really worth growing. It flowers late in the summer.


http://www.floralencounters.com/graphics/Seeds/garlic_chives_whole.jpg


Tastes milder than wild or clove garlic and its perennial leaves are perfect for adding to salads, omelettes, hummus etc.

I asked the author if he'd approached the deli in question (I know which it is as I walked past the sign in may thinking it was a bit cheeky to sell it) but he said he'd only heard about it and not seen evidence. Mild twitter searching led me to their own proud posting about their wares, with pic.


I can't imagine they'd have sold or advertised it in the way they did if they'd known it was "theft". Probably would have been helpful for someone to have talked to them about it.

I have seen a lot of people in the mornings picking Elderflowers along surrey canal walk, peckham, as I cycle through early in the morning. It seems the new craze. It's gone from not seeing anyone to seeing large groups snapping and branches and breaking of the flowers willy nilly. When a fad like this catches on and people do it in large numbers it can cause a lot of ecological damage to local wildlife, as well as damaging the plants themselves, those flowers are food for pollinating insects ( remember the bee and butterfly population is in sharp decline ) and also the berries are an important source of food for birds and other wild life in the winter. Us humans have a lot of food at hand here in the uk, and do not need to pillage the countryside as well. I can understand people wanting to try their hand at foraging after all the press it has been getting and getting a feel of being connected with nature, but when it becomes a national fad it can do more harm then good.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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


>

> I can't imagine they'd have sold or advertised it

> in the way they did if they'd known it was

> "theft". Probably would have been helpful for

> someone to have talked to them about it.


XXXXXX


It's not too late?


I'm appalled by the contents of that article. How extremely selfish can people be? Even if it wasn't a nature reserve, don't they think twice before wrecking an area of wild plants?

OK, let's get problem solving.

Would be heartbroken if Woods had to be locked, security cameras installed, and footpaths closed to prevent this kind of pillage.


A new & welcome enthusiasm has been swept in by TV programmes like Springwatch, and Fergly-Wergly, and now it needs to promote better attitudes. Learning to respect the natural world is crucial for people to live and work more ethically, and for coming generations.


The National Curriculum has been allowed to squeeze this topic out to the edges. High % of people have grown up blind to the harm being done all around in industrialised farming and local council green space work. When everywhere we see flail machines, strimmers and chainsaws smashing the verges & hedgerows all at wrong times of year and for the wrong reasons, how is that different to spoiling the canalside eldertrees by wrenching off all the flowers?


Another problem about foraging is set to worsen in the recession.

It's likely wild garlic plants were taken by people thinking 'money' regularly supplying restaurants and posh greengrocers.

Fungi are getting picked from Epping Forest more than ever before,

and plenty of wild-caught venison enters the moonlight economy as well. A bit of lucrative poaching is just as logical to some people as it ever was, but there'll be new desperation and ruthlessness when folk have to tighten their belts.


I wish that the Sydenham Woods Warden didn't have to worry about the wild garlic and other flora & fauna in his care. It feels like a greedy, hurtful crime to take these things here, in the middle of a great urban environment, where only small pockets of wildlife keep hold.


But all over SW England the garlic grows alongside rivers by the acre, where HF-W is living and writing from. So one perspective on this: is the general abundance or otherwise of a species part of the debate?

I see he mentions fungi- that's interesting since some years ago I went of a 'fungus foray' which had been organised by the London Wildlife Trust in Sydenham Hill Wood and we were encourage to pick the stuff and eat it! Presumably they don't do this anymore

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I see he mentions fungi- that's interesting since

> some years ago I went of a 'fungus foray' which

> had been organised by the London Wildlife Trust in

> Sydenham Hill Wood and we were encourage to pick

> the stuff and eat it! Presumably they don't do

> this anymore


I used to volunteer for LWT and although they did organise autumn fungus forays they never in my memory encouraged people to pick mushrooms for food. The leader of the walk would pick an example of the better known mushrooms and hand them around (and yes even nibble if known to be safe) - however it was always always stressed that picking the mushrooms was NOT on the agenda.

If anyone is interested there was a good comment posted here http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/22367623 a few months ago.

Sorry - that link does not take you to the exact bit - here's the salient paragraph:


"People need to know that there might be specific rules or by-laws against picking wildflowers in publically accessible woods. In other words if people are seen collecting Ramsons by those who manage the woodland, they could get in trouble for breaching rules or by-laws....In many publically accessible woods picking wildflowers is strictly forbidden."


So, would it be better if Wild Garlic was grown in kitchen gardens? Its seeds could be collected, but getting colonies to increase in size takes many decades, hence their association with old woodland.

Taking the green top part off bulbs reduces strength for next year, the one big leaf needs to harness sunlight and build up for the flower phase. Hence the 'design is wrong' for cutting regularly.

It's certainly in the same location as the Great North Wood, but I can't identify any part of Sydenham Wood that qualifies as "ancient woodland".


I hope I'm proved wrong.


Technical details here:


http://www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech_aw.htm


John K


.

I generally agree with the article about not foraging important woodland species, but not sure about this comparison: "It?s no more acceptable than grabbing a duck from your local park and turning it into confit de canard."


I'm not sure there's anything wrong with (humanely) catching and eating a wild mallard, a species which is not remotely endangered. It's not illegal as far as I know. The more exotic types of duck that could be seen to "belong" to a park are definitely off the menu, though.

Don't anyone bother with a stringy old mallard. Leave'em be. They are part of lakeside life cycles and we do have plenty of other places to get our food.


Pigeons and rabbits, people would be welcome to forage those everywhere across the country and town, but cognescenti wait for the right moment, i.e. respectful.


The best time to get a pigeon is just a day before it flies the nest (while its still called a squab) and the time for rabbits is when they are quite young and not very fast.


I wouldn't be wanting to eat them because of the amount of agrichemical trash in their diets.

They are traditionally domestic animals though, popularised through capacity to breed prolifically and docile enough to accept humans raising them for the pot.

I think this is a good and timely article. Lots of people seem to think it's OK to pick wild plants for food, but it's not. Often it is done without any regard for sustainable growth or awareness of the impact it might have on an ecosystem. When you think about the sheer volume of people living around the Sydenham Hill wood area, it would very quickly lose a lot of its diverse and precious plant life if anyone could just go in and pick whatever they fancied.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> It's certainly in the same location as the Great

> North Wood, but I can't identify any part of

> Sydenham Wood that qualifies as "ancient

> woodland".

>

> I hope I'm proved wrong.


If you follow the instructions in the link you gave, both Dulwich Woods and Sydenham Hill Wood get a nice gold-coloured border on the map when Ancient Woodland is ticked (zoom in to the right bit of the map, tick 'Habitats and Species' on the left, then 'Habitats' then 'Woodland' then 'Ancient Woodland'). Which strongly suggests that the woods in question aren't just 'ancient woodland' in the literal and obvious sense, but also in the bureaucratic sense.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...