Luke 'Ming' Flanagan & his band of merry turf cutters

joela · 07-03-2012 7:40pm

Do you see the thing is that is the problem, they may have cut turf for 100's of years but they were having an impact and that impact has now grown out of control due mechanisation, drainage etc. Having a right to do something doesn't mean you should be allowed to continue doing it if your actions are not for the greater good and are actually impacting negatively on the general population?

If I put myself in their shoes I can hand on heart say that I would be delighted to have my house insulated and fitted out to burn wood etc. 1,500 to 2,000 is a pretty good figure in my opinion and will go a long way towards paying bills. The payment scheme is index linked and will not be stopped or reduced because EU will be involved.

Again saying compared to other forms of fuel how is that relevant to whether or not someone cuts turf on a protected site? Are you saying that TCCA et al. care about the environment and are behaving in a more sustainable manner because they don't use oil or gas?

If there were hectares and hectares of pristine raised bog don't you think they would be designated as they would then be the best representative examples of the habitats.

By the way Kippy, I mean this genuinely, thanks for discussing this with me so amicably. Normally pro-turf lobby will not see anyone else's view, believe me I have tried to discuss this with TCCA as an interested individual many times and they just don't care about anyone but themselves. I was nice to them btw

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 7:58pm

kippy wrote: »

Theres hectares of open bog all around them that have never been cut.

Kippy,
you have said this a number of times in this thread.

As I mentioned previously. These 53 SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive for the preservation of a very specific endangered priority habitat - active raised bog - that is raised bog that is actively forming. It is not a case that the SACs are there to protect peat or bog generally. That is the point that so many people keep missing in this debate. These 53 sites are the best representative example of this habitat left. There is no choice but to ensure it's continued protection otherwise, quite simply it will end up like the Dodo.

It's tough for people who happen to be in this areas, absolutely no doubt, hopefully engagement with the Government and the Commission regarding compensation and alternative arrangements will help to solve their problems, however, continued cutting turf on these sites is not an option or a reasonable stance in my opinion.

If your parents are within one of these sites, then the fact that there is loads of untouched bog around them then that's great, under the relocation element of the compensation package, the Government can arrange for their turf cutting activities to be moved to a non protected site.

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 8:02pm

joela wrote: »

@Uriel I checked the report and can't see what bogs are included that are not SAC, can you give me a bog name or page number? I have to say FIE are not skewing facts at all, in fact they are the only interested party using actual scientific and economic facts.

As far as I remember the report obviously doesn't mistakenly name undesignated bogs but it has been claimed that a number of the photographic examples of habitat destruction and peat cutting is of non-designated bogs and not of the SAC sites that they claim it to be.

The TCCA made a very big thing of this last June and in fairness to the TCCA when the Commission put the foot down following the report, the TCCA instructed their members to cease cutting (01st June agreement at the Peatlands Council). As far as I am aware no further cutting took place after that.

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 8:07pm

joela wrote: »

Again to dismiss this issue as just people being silly about nature just shows how little you know about the value of the bogs other than as a an unsustainable fuel source. Furthermore the people affected have alternatives, money yearly, other bogs where available and a scheme using the money to retrofit the house for alternative suatainable fuel sources e.g. wood and to insulate and increase the energy efficiency of the house to reduce fuel bills. Community schemes to introduce coppicing have been put forward amongst other things.

To be fair Joela, the only options available to people at the moment is the money and relocation. Retro fitting houses and the other community schemes you mention are not part of the Government's compensation offering at the moment, but have only been considered (in the background).

The argument being made by a lot of cutters is that after 15 years they have no turf and no money. I think it is reasonable argument to make, not saying I agree or disagree but a reasonable position for them to have in my opinion. Although having said that, if that is a concern, then relocation seems like a viable and satisfactory alternative.

mikom · 07-03-2012 8:25pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Retro fitting houses and the other community schemes you mention are not part of the Government's compensation offering at the moment, but have only been considered (in the background).

And with the governments track record on broken promises you can expect that one to go up in smoke.

joela · 07-03-2012 8:30pm

Uriel, you know what I think the politicking of people live Sile de Valera, Ó Cuiv, Ming Flanagan, TCCA and others has been the biggest cause of all the problems. They thought they could ignore the EU and told people there was no need to worry and they could continue as before. That is why the 15 years no compensation thing has happened.

With regard to FIE putting in photos of bogs not designated, I find that hard to believe to be honest but I guess all points should be considered.

TCCA stopped cutting only because they did a deal which allowed them to take the cut peat off the bog after that date. They cut intensively up to that date and then took the turf, basically job was done for the year anyway. Make no mistake Ming & TCCA are slippery customers and wouldn't know truth if it hit them over the head with a slean!

Max Powers · 07-03-2012 8:35pm

djpbarry wrote: »

They save thousands over what sort of time-frame? If they were out cutting turf on a regular basis, they might save thousands over their lifetime, but not without a massive amount of effort. You would need hundreds of kilos of turf per annum to make a significant impact on the average household heating bill.

A couple of thousand a year easy saved. Just think of what i have to do: filling an oil tank at least 3 times a year, added to that you might be lighting the fire for 6 months of the year, again, coal etc
As i said before, its not a massive effort, i seen these geezers do that an no messing, they would have a small trailer load done in an hour, hardly a massive effort
Yes you would need a good bit of turf to make a significant impact, sure whats a few trailer loads but the reward is very significant when you are saving thousands, not to mention selling a few bags down in the shop for €

kippy · 07-03-2012 9:01pm

joela wrote: »

Do you see the thing is that is the problem, they may have cut turf for 100's of years but they were having an impact and that impact has now grown out of control due mechanisation, drainage etc. Having a right to do something doesn't mean you should be allowed to continue doing it if your actions are not for the greater good and are actually impacting negatively on the general population?

If I put myself in their shoes I can hand on heart say that I would be delighted to have my house insulated and fitted out to burn wood etc. 1,500 to 2,000 is a pretty good figure in my opinion and will go a long way towards paying bills. The payment scheme is index linked and will not be stopped or reduced because EU will be involved.

Again saying compared to other forms of fuel how is that relevant to whether or not someone cuts turf on a protected site? Are you saying that TCCA et al. care about the environment and are behaving in a more sustainable manner because they don't use oil or gas?

If there were hectares and hectares of pristine raised bog don't you think they would be designated as they would then be the best representative examples of the habitats.

By the way Kippy, I mean this genuinely, thanks for discussing this with me so amicably. Normally pro-turf lobby will not see anyone else's view, believe me I have tried to discuss this with TCCA as an interested individual many times and they just don't care about anyone but themselves. I was nice to them btw

I am not a member of TCCA and tend not to advocate lobby/representative groups in general, as they usually have the end of the spectrum extreme view - which to be fair is what they use as a negotiating tactic. However I come from an area where people have cut turf for years, no one has died as a result of it, drainage isn't an issue and I wouldnt deem the environment to have been impacted in any overly negative way. People rely on the bogs for fuel and I don't believe the complete cessation of turf cutting on these bogs is going to improve the lives or environment of anyone who lives within 20 miles of these bogs, never mind the country as a whole, if anything it will increase the amount of pollution this part of the world is responsible for.

The EU have been involved in many schemes before, these schemes do come to an end at some point.

Again, I believe a better arrangement could be come to.

If I were in their position (and I am not) I would be very very slow to give up cutting turf under the terms currently stated.
Again, I understand their position and understand the position of those like yourself and others on this forum.

kippy · 07-03-2012 9:05pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Kippy,
you have said this a number of times in this thread.

As I mentioned previously. These 53 SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive for the preservation of a very specific endangered priority habitat - active raised bog - that is raised bog that is actively forming. It is not a case that the SACs are there to protect peat or bog generally. That is the point that so many people keep missing in this debate. These 53 sites are the best representative example of this habitat left. There is no choice but to ensure it's continued protection otherwise, quite simply it will end up like the Dodo.

It's tough for people who happen to be in this areas, absolutely no doubt, hopefully engagement with the Government and the Commission regarding compensation and alternative arrangements will help to solve their problems, however, continued cutting turf on these sites is not an option or a reasonable stance in my opinion.

If your parents are within one of these sites, then the fact that there is loads of untouched bog around them then that's great, under the relocation element of the compensation package, the Government can arrange for their turf cutting activities to be moved to a non protected site.

I've just checked there and it appears that their bogs are not within these SACS and neither are any of the bogs in the area. Mustn't be that good an example of the habitat.

Yeah, I get it - save the habitat for future generations etc. I am all for it, but I dont think these guys are getting a good deal at all and until that changes I can see their POV.

joela · 07-03-2012 9:17pm

Kippy, I guess I work in bogs on a scientific level and probably see the impacts in a slightly different way but I can assure you turf cutting, domestically, is impacting the environment. Don't get me wrong there is far more than turf cutting causing damage to the environment but the run-off into drains, streams, ground water etc is extremely problematic. The cutting into the bogs also removes their ability to function flood attenuation bodies, this actually means the increase in risk of flooding as opposed to the commonly spread myth that drain blocking on bogs will lead to flooding.

Anyway if you are interested in finding out more on my perspective the EPA Boglands report I linked to earlier is a good one looking at it environmentally, socially and economically.

kippy · 07-03-2012 9:22pm

joela wrote: »

Kippy, I guess I work in bogs on a scientific level and probably see the impacts in a slightly different way but I can assure you turf cutting, domestically, is impacting the environment. Don't get me wrong there is far more than turf cutting causing damage to the environment but the run-off into drains, streams, ground water etc is extremely problematic. The cutting into the bogs also removes their ability to function flood attenuation bodies, this actually means the increase in risk of flooding as opposed to the commonly spread myth that drain blocking on bogs will lead to flooding.

Anyway if you are interested in finding out more on my perspective the EPA Boglands report I linked to earlier is a good one looking at it environmentally, socially and economically.

Thanks Joela, I'll have a read of it when I get a chance and yes, we are looking at this from different perspectives however I can appreciate yours and you seem to be able to see it from the turf cutters standpoint.

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 10:09pm

mikom wrote: »

And with the governments track record on broken promises you can expect that one to go up in smoke.

The Government (and the Previous Government) have made no promises in respect of a retro fit scheme. The Peatlands Council is looking at the potential of this and it is in that forum that any potentially viable project will be recommended to Government

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 10:14pm

joela wrote: »

Uriel, you know what I think the politicking of people live Sile de Valera, Ó Cuiv, Ming Flanagan, TCCA and others has been the biggest cause of all the problems. They thought they could ignore the EU and told people there was no need to worry and they could continue as before. That is why the 15 years no compensation thing has happened.

With regard to FIE putting in photos of bogs not designated, I find that hard to believe to be honest but I guess all points should be considered.

TCCA stopped cutting only because they did a deal which allowed them to take the cut peat off the bog after that date. They cut intensively up to that date and then took the turf, basically job was done for the year anyway. Make no mistake Ming & TCCA are slippery customers and wouldn't know truth if it hit them over the head with a slean!

The Political system has been the primary failure in this issue. There is absolutely no doubt. The 10 year derogation was a political moved that disregarded European Law and was ill conceived to the highest degree. However, there were compensation (purchase) schemes in place during that 10 year period.

You are right in respect of the TCCA and having cut extensively prior to June 2011, however, even from a political and standpoint view it was a significant move for the TCCA at that time.

Ming and the TCCA are slippery customers.. you have my full agreement on that.

The TCCA challenged FIE on the photos issue and the received a deafening silence in from FIE which tells a lot. Both sides of this argument (like any argument) do things that are not necessarily true and proper to emphasize the "correctness" of their position.

mikom · 08-03-2012 1:51am

Hear that?....................The country drums are beating.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0307/turf.html

Great turn out tonight.
I was nearly deafened by the vuvuzelas.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 8:38am

mikom wrote: »

Hear that?....................The country drums are beating.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0307/turf.html

Great turn out tonight.
I was nearly deafened by the vuvuzelas.

What does it all mean,news reports are not giving detail and what the consequences actually are.

Whatever was decided, turf cutting cant happen in the 53 SACs

slowburner · 08-03-2012 11:11am

Have any studies been carried out which compare the environmental effects of hand won turf to the effects of machine harvesting?
Is there a case for arguing that hand winning turf should be allowed on a turbary basis? My unsupported guess is that hand cutting turf is probably an environmentally sustainable activity.
I have first hand experience of the effects from a watercourse point of view.
Rapid run-off and increased sedimentation really only began (outside BNM areas) in the '80s, when mechanised forms of extraction became more available and widespread.
Prior to this, I suspect that neither effect was a serious problem - certainly there is no evidence (from a fisheries point of view) to suggest that watercourses suffered when turf was cut by hand.
Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps not, but the sea trout population began to decline in Connemara in the late '80s (of course there are other well documented issues).

My view is that this tradition is a vital part of our heritage.
There is a unique history associated with cutting turf by hand in this country. Unique tools, unique terms and unique lore.
Somehow, I don't think that the case for this aspect of turf cutting has been adequately explored.
It's only when it's gone that its true value will be considered.
Something sticks in my craw when I think of a governing power ordering the abolition of a member state's heritage.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 11:36am

slowburner wrote: »

Have any studies been carried out which compare the environmental effects of hand won turf to the effects of machine harvesting?
Is there a case for arguing that hand winning turf should be allowed on a turbary basis? My unsupported guess is that hand cutting turf is probably an environmentally sustainable activity.
I have first hand experience of the effects from a watercourse point of view.
Rapid run-off and increased sedimentation really only began (outside BNM areas) in the '80s, when mechanised forms of extraction became more available and widespread.
Prior to this, I suspect that neither effect was a serious problem - certainly there is no evidence (from a fisheries point of view) to suggest that watercourses suffered when turf was cut by hand.
Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps not, but the sea trout population began to decline in Connemara in the late '80s (of course there are other well documented issues).

My view is that this tradition is a vital part of our heritage.
There is a unique history associated with cutting turf by hand in this country. Unique tools, unique terms and unique lore.
Somehow, I don't think that the case for this aspect of turf cutting has been adequately explored.
It's only when it's gone that its true value will be considered.
Something sticks in my craw when I think of a governing power ordering the abolition of a member state's heritage.

To be fair, a tiny amount of bogs are affected by the Habitats Directive. It is not a nationwide wipe out of a member state's culture. Turf cutting can continue in over 95% of Ireland's bogs. Let's stick with as many facts as we can here.

In his speech the other Night Ming stated that turf cutting and the use of the hopper had a far less impact on the bog than slean cutting... would love to see his scientific evidence in support of that.

slowburner · 08-03-2012 12:03pm

Uriel. wrote: »

To be fair, a tiny amount of bogs are affected by the Habitats Directive. It is not a nationwide wipe out of a member state's culture.

This is an invalid and disingenuous representation of what I said above.

Turf cutting can continue in over 95% of Ireland's bogs. Let's stick with as many facts as we can here.

OK. So can you provide support for this statement?

In his speech the other Night Ming stated that turf cutting and the use of the hopper had a far less impact on the bog than slean cutting... would love to see his scientific evidence in support of that.

Likewise - already said so.

slowburner · 08-03-2012 12:09pm

(Forgive me if I am a little off topic here, but I feel mention needs to be made of this.)

I am surprised that no mention has been made here of the effects of afforestation on bogs.
I worked on a paper on this many years ago (now lost, sadly).
The research was prompted by first hand experience of the effects of afforestation on a particular catchment in the West of Ireland.
The fishery in question was probably one of the most noted sea trout fisheries in the region but towards the end of the 1980s it had begun to suffer from the effects of coniferous forestry plantations.
From the aquatic environmental point of view, the processes of afforestation are pretty devastating.
The first step is ploughing/trenching (probably not the right terms) - apart from the obvious, immediate impact on the bog itself, this causes the deposition of massive amounts of sediment.
Sea trout and salmon depend on clean gravel for spawning.
The second step is the application of fertiliser. This stimulates abundant algal growth in the watercourses.
Again, the spawning gravels become choked.
This became so bad on one particular lake, that anglers' lines would end up covered in a green slime.
Once the algae and sediment become prevalent in the catchment, the penetration of light becomes limited - aquatic plants struggle to grow and daytime oxygen levels decrease as a consequence.
The third phase of the process is less obvious. After the initial dramatic effect of preparation and planting the plantations are fairly static until harvesting.
The impact during this period is less obvious but causes damage in a different way.
As the conifers grow, they continuously shed their needles each year and this causes an increase in the acidity of the water.
Then the crop is harvested, replanting gets under way and the whole cycle begins again.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 12:27pm

slowburner wrote: »

This is an invalid and disingenuous representation of what I said above.

See the last line of your previous post. You seem to suggest that the EU is trying to wipe out the turf cutting culture in Ireland when that is simply not the case.

OK. So can you provide support for this statement?

http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2011/12/14/4008105-whats-the-deal-with-turfcutting/print

http://www.ipcc.ie/2020cessturfcuttingsitelist.pdf

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/06/21/00169.asp

The TCCA have also stated that 139 bogs are affected in total (including NHAs - which are under review in any case). There are 1,500 bogs in Ireland.

djpbarry · 08-03-2012 1:03pm

kippy wrote: »

€500 will get you a long way in rural areas.

I think my original point is being missed here - cutting turf is hard work and you need a whole lot of turf to heat a home for a year, as the energy content is pretty low. So from an energy yield relative to labour input perspective, it's pretty inefficient. That's all I'm saying.

kippy wrote: »

It is hard to ignore the environmental impact of extracting and transporting oil and turf, that is the main reason it is far more environmentally friendly...

If the bogs re-generated at the same rate that they were being cut, then you might have a point.

Max Powers wrote: »

A couple of thousand a year easy saved. Just think of what i have to do: filling an oil tank at least 3 times a year, added to that you might be lighting the fire for 6 months of the year, again, coal etc
As i said before, its not a massive effort...

Dude, I've been turf-cutting - don't try and tell me it's not hard work.

slowburner · 08-03-2012 1:11pm

Uriel. wrote: »

See the last line of your previous post. You seem to suggest that the EU is trying to wipe out the turf cutting culture in Ireland when that is simply not the case.

Never mentioned culture - I did mention heritage, though and I'll stick with my opinion.

Irrespective of the number of bogs involved - who is to say that there are not unique aspects of heritage in the ways and means of turf cutting there?
To put it another way, has the heritage associated with turf cutting in these 139 areas of bog been assessed?
That's a big area.

If there is a loss of one single tradition because of these directives, then that loss is national, or even international.

kippy · 08-03-2012 1:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I think my original point is being missed here - cutting turf is hard work and you need a whole lot of turf to heat a home for a year, as the energy content is pretty low. So from an energy yield relative to labour input perspective, it's pretty inefficient.
That's all I'm saying.

And the money to buy oil/gas/other fuel is earned from thin air?
People need to work to get fuel. whether that work is directly to get fuel or to earn money to pay for fuel, the time take is most likely similar. At least with turn the cost of saving it hasnt increased, while you will need to work more to earn more money to pay for oil and other fuels which are only going up.
As someone stated earlier there are many people that have the time to go an save the turf. It is a saving over oil and other fuels.
Oil costs money and while it may be more efficient than turf to burn, the amount of money and manpower needed to extract/refine and transport it(which directly impact its cost) takes away a lot of those benefits over turf.
Again, of course, turf isnt ideal for power generation.

If the bogs re-generated at the same rate that they were being cut, then you might have a point.

I suspect that all the traditional turf cutting done in this country hasn't caused as much environmental damage as one major oil spill. The issue, as many have stated is the mechanisation of turf cutting and the over harvesting of turf. Generally one should only cut as much turf as they need for a year. The only way to ensure this happens is to regulate it.

Dude, I've been turf-cutting - don't try and tell me it's not hard work.

Yep, its hard work, but there is something exhilarating about it. Extracting other fuels is just as hard, if not harder work, we just pay someone else to do it.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 1:28pm

slowburner wrote: »

Never mentioned culture - I did mention heritage, though and I'll stick with my opinion.

Sorry that was a mistype on my behalf but doesn't alter my view

Irrespective of the number of bogs involved - who is to say that there are not unique aspects of heritage in the ways and means of turf cutting there?
To put it another way, has the heritage associated with turf cutting in these 139 areas of bog been assessed?
That's a big area.

If there is a loss of one single tradition because of these directives, then that loss is national, or even international.

This makes no sense. What you are saying effectively is that no Law (environmental, EU etc...) should be implemented if it affects a tradition of an individual or a group of individuals in specific areas.

The Habitats Directive means that turf cutting cannot take place in 53 Raised Bog SACs - so no turf cutting can take place. But that doesn't mean that the tradition of turf cutting in Ireland, Europe, Internationally is lost. What it does mean is that that tradition in specific geographic areas cannot continue.

Cutters can move to other areas an carry on as before. Turf Cutting Culture, Heritage and Tradition is not affected generally in Ireland by the Directive nor is it the Directive's intention to do so. It designed to protect representative samples of rare and endangered habitats where if no alteration of current practices occurs, then the habitat type will be gone like the dodo.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 1:33pm

kippy wrote: »

I suspect that all the traditional turf cutting done in this country hasn't caused as much environmental damage as one major oil spill. The issue, as many have stated is the mechanisation of turf cutting and the over harvesting of turf. Generally one should only cut as much turf as they need for a year. The only way to ensure this happens is to regulate it.

Again, the cessation of turf cutting is not to protect peat or turf generally. It is to protect a specific type of habitat. Domestic/small scale cutting is impacting that habitat quite significantly. In fact the drainage needed to allow turf cutting is having a massive negative effect on the protected bog habitat. The drying out of the bog by the drainage is causing the active raised bog areas to continue to shrink. Even if all turf cutting ceased in these areas overnight, the habitat would continue to decline until proper restoration works and rewetting of the bogs take place (including blocking drains etc.)

mikom · 08-03-2012 1:38pm

Uriel. wrote: »

What does it all mean,news reports are not giving detail and what the consequences actually are.

Whatever was decided, turf cutting cant happen in the 53 SACs

I predict a legal challenge on the way.

slowburner wrote: »

(Forgive me if I am a little off topic here, but I feel mention needs to be made of this.)

I am surprised that no mention has been made here of the effects of afforestation on bogs.
I worked on a paper on this many years ago (now lost, sadly).
The research was prompted by first hand experience of the effects of afforestation on a particular catchment in the West of Ireland.
The fishery in question was probably one of the most noted sea trout fisheries in the region but towards the end of the 1980s it had begun to suffer from the effects of coniferous forestry plantations.
From the aquatic environmental point of view, the processes of afforestation are pretty devastating.
The first step is ploughing/trenching (probably not the right terms) - apart from the obvious, immediate impact on the bog itself, this causes the deposition of massive amounts of sediment.
Sea trout and salmon depend on clean gravel for spawning.
The second step is the application of fertiliser. This stimulates abundant algal growth in the watercourses.
Again, the spawning gravels become choked.
This became so bad on one particular lake, that anglers' lines would end up covered in a green slime.
Once the algae and sediment become prevalent in the catchment, the penetration of light becomes limited - aquatic plants struggle to grow and daytime oxygen levels decrease as a consequence.
The third phase of the process is less obvious. After the initial dramatic effect of preparation and planting the plantations are fairly static until harvesting.
The impact during this period is less obvious but causes damage in a different way.
As the conifers grow, they continuously shed their needles each year and this causes an increase in the acidity of the water.
Then the crop is harvested, replanting gets under way and the whole cycle begins again.

As I posted earlier........

mikom wrote: »

Those habitats will change completely once all cutting is stopped......... and maybe not for the better.
Some flora and fauna will increase, however others will decline as the land use shifts.
I forsee two other complications:

kippy · 08-03-2012 1:38pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Again, the cessation of turf cutting is not to protect peat or turf generally. It is to protect a specific type of habitat. Domestic/small scale cutting is impacting that habitat quite significantly. In fact the drainage needed to allow turf cutting is having a massive negative effect on the protected bog habitat. The drying out of the bog by the drainage is causing the active raised bog areas to continue to shrink. Even if all turf cutting ceased in these areas overnight, the habitat would continue to decline until proper restoration works and rewetting of the bogs take place (including blocking drains etc.)

I get that point, however believe it is being overstated and compounded by the mechanisation of turf cutting.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 2:08pm

kippy wrote: »

I get that point, however believe it is being overstated and compounded by the mechanisation of turf cutting.

Ming is suggesting that the mechanised extraction leaves less waste than slean cutting. Not sure if he has any evidence to back that up though.

Either way, as I say even if no cutting is to happen, the drainage etc.. is still killing the habitat. cutting needs drainage. therefore cutting is killing the habitat. Therefore no cutting can take place.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 2:09pm

mikom wrote: »

I predict a legal challenge on the way.

Can't really see on what grounds and reading the debate transcripts doesn't suggest a legal challenge to be honest. But a look towards flexibility from the EU in a tiny number of cases.

kippy · 08-03-2012 2:22pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Ming is suggesting that the mechanised extraction leaves less waste than slean cutting. Not sure if he has any evidence to back that up though.

Either way, as I say even if no cutting is to happen, the drainage etc.. is still killing the habitat. cutting needs drainage. therefore cutting is killing the habitat. Therefore no cutting can take place.

I'll say it again, I amn't a member of and wouldnt associate myself with ming and these turf cutters. I dont agree with that particular comment he made, just because he said it, as you are aware, doesnt make it true.

slowburner · 08-03-2012 8:34pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Sorry that was a mistype on my behalf but doesn't alter my view

This makes no sense. What you are saying effectively is that no Law (environmental, EU etc...) should be implemented if it affects a tradition of an individual or a group of individuals in specific areas.

The Habitats Directive means that turf cutting cannot take place in 53 Raised Bog SACs - so no turf cutting can take place. But that doesn't mean that the tradition of turf cutting in Ireland, Europe, Internationally is lost. What it does mean is that that tradition in specific geographic areas cannot continue.

Cutters can move to other areas an carry on as before. Turf Cutting Culture, Heritage and Tradition is not affected generally in Ireland by the Directive nor is it the Directive's intention to do so. It designed to protect representative samples of rare and endangered habitats where if no alteration of current practices occurs, then the habitat type will be gone like the dodo.

Typos aside , I do wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

I neither said, nor implied 'that no Law (environmental, EU etc...) should be implemented if it affects a tradition of an individual or a group of individuals in specific areas.'
It's very simple really. Pity I have to repeat it.

slowburner wrote: »

To put it another way, has the heritage associated with turf cutting in these 139 areas of bog been assessed?
That's a big area.

If there is a loss of one single tradition because of these directives, then that loss is national, or even international.

OssianSmyth · 08-03-2012 11:13pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06dCKDyw1M

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 11:16pm

slowburner wrote: »

Uriel. wrote: »

Sorry that was a mistype on my behalf but doesn't alter my view

This makes no sense. What you are saying effectively is that no Law (environmental, EU etc...) should be implemented if it affects a tradition of an individual or a group of individuals in specific areas.

The Habitats Directive means that turf cutting cannot take place in 53 Raised Bog SACs - so no turf cutting can take place. But that doesn't mean that the tradition of turf cutting in Ireland, Europe, Internationally is lost. What it does mean is that that tradition in specific geographic areas cannot continue.

Cutters can move to other areas an carry on as before. Turf Cutting Culture, Heritage and Tradition is not affected generally in Ireland by the Directive nor is it the Directive's intention to do so. It designed to protect representative samples of rare and endangered habitats where if no alteration of current practices occurs, then the habitat type will be gone like the dodo.

Typos aside , I do wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

I neither said, nor implied 'that no Law (environmental, EU etc...) should be implemented if it affects a tradition of an individual or a group of individuals in specific areas.'
It's very simple really. Pity I have to repeat it.

slowburner wrote: »

To put it another way, has the heritage associated with turf cutting in these 139 areas of bog been assessed?
That's a big area.

If there is a loss of one single tradition because of these directives, then that loss is national, or even international.

Typos? Is that what you have?

Can you then elaborate on what you are saying because it is not clear.

slowburner · 08-03-2012 11:21pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Typos? Is that what you have?

Can you then elaborate on what you are saying because it is not clear.

It's perfectly clear, my dear.
You might just need to read it a bit more slowly. I've posted it twice to help you.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 11:21pm

OssianSmyth wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06dCKDyw1M

Is that in a designated site? If it is i think its disgraceful moreso because it is a difco (sausage) machine.

Uriel. · 08-03-2012 11:24pm

slowburner wrote: »

Uriel. wrote: »

Typos? Is that what you have?

Can you then elaborate on what you are saying because it is not clear.

It's perfectly clear, my dear.
You might just need to read it a bit more slowly. I've posted it twice to help you.

It's not clear to me to be honest but if you want to be a smartass about it then i will just leave it. It is a discussikn site afterall

Macha · 08-03-2012 11:46pm

slowburner wrote: »

It's perfectly clear, my dear.
You might just need to read it a bit more slowly. I've posted it twice to help you.

[mod]Enough of the condescending comments please. And no more "my dear"s - it's International Women's Day for heaven's sake.[/mod]

slowburner · 09-03-2012 10:29am

Uriel. wrote: »

It's not clear to me to be honest but if you want to be a smartass about it then i will just leave it. It is a discussikn site afterall

I'll try again.
Has any study been undertaken to evaluate the cultural heritage of the areas where turf cutting will no longer be allowed?
If there are methods and traditions associated with turf cutting, which are unique to these areas, they have a value.
I don't think it is credible to argue that the traditions will survive because the cutters will just move to an area where cutting is permitted.
Traditions are linked to place.
Industrial heritage is just as valuable as any other form of heritage.
I'm all for conservation, especially wetlands, but conservation is about much more than just the natural environment.

Macha wrote: »

[mod]Enough of the condescending comments please. And no more "my dear"s - it's International Women's Day for heaven's sake.[/mod]

Fair enough, I just dislike being misquoted.

Markcheese · 22-03-2012 11:09pm

Okay, I must be a bit thick or something,
What's the cultural heritage value in some one mechanically harvesting turf !! Wether it's a hymac or sausage machine...paying a guy to harvest turf is not the same as a meithal or the old day at the bog....

kippy · 23-03-2012 12:13am

Markcheese wrote: »

Okay, I must be a bit thick or something,
What's the cultural heritage value in some one mechanically harvesting turf !! Wether it's a hymac or sausage machine...paying a guy to harvest turf is not the same as a meithal or the old day at the bog....

I agree to an extent, however while turf may be cut by machine, in general it has to be "saved" by hand.

joela · 07-04-2012 10:18pm

kippy wrote: »

I agree to an extent, however while turf may be cut by machine, in general it has to be "saved" by hand.

and? Saving it by hand makes it a cultural tradition to be kept alive at the cost of the environment and the Irish people?

Good article here http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__12011

Markcheese · 07-04-2012 10:28pm

I know LMK likes burning issues (gange, turf,bond holders? Smokin local authorities,and that burning anger he seems to have if he gets on radio) but is it a bit of a dose to have this on Sustainability and the environment.. Kind of preaching to the converted.... Back to the bogs, if u cut it by hand and turn it by hand you should be allowed harvest turf... About 1 season would sort that prob

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan & his band of merry turf cutters

Comments