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

joela · 04-03-2012 6:41pm #1

It appears that the Turf Cutters have made their way to Europe to the Commission, published a report and are their way to Dublin on Wednesday to protest their "right" to cut turf on the small number of raised bog SACs affected by ban. The report can be found on the TCCA website and Facebook page and does not appear to be composed of anything new. There certainly is none of the promised scientific arguements showing that all previous scientists were wrong and that the bogs can happily coexist with domestic turf cutting.

I can't upload the file as it is too large but if anyone is interested they can read it on the website and Facebook page but I'd suggest reading the FIE report as a counterbalance http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/fie_designated_raised_bogs_report_2011__final__25_may_2011.pdf.

This issue needs to be resolved finally by properly implementing the ban once and for all as this destruction has gone on far too long. The TCCA arguement is nonsense, this ban only affects a very limited number of sites and the ban was a long time coming. Luke Ming has to stop cherry picking the law and pretending he can take the high moral ground on issues when he blatantly disregards the law when it doesn't suit him.:mad:

mikom · 04-03-2012 6:46pm

joela wrote: »

Luke Ming has to stop cherry picking the law and pretending he can take the high moral ground on issues when he blatantly disregards the law when it doesn't suit him.:mad:

If you are referring to Lukes love of plant inhalation then all I can say is "Bad law is worse than no law".

henryporter · 04-03-2012 6:55pm

He's a right sod that Flanagan!

Seriously though it's incredible how these people can't see the damage they are inflicting on a highly unique and important environment. As usual they won't be happy until it's all gone and then they'll probably start hacking down whatever trees are left in the country. Muppets:mad:

joela · 04-03-2012 7:21pm

The worst thing is it for the short term gain of a few people and their supposed case is based on misinformation and misrepresentation of facts. It is not even all bogs in Ireland but a tiny percentage of protected sites.

theoneeyedman · 04-03-2012 7:28pm

joela wrote: »

The worst thing is it for the short term gain of a few people and their supposed case is based on misinformation and misrepresentation of facts. It is not even all bogs in Ireland but a tiny percentage of protected sites.

If you want to see widespread destruction of bogs and non enviornmentally friendly harvesting ofpeat look no further than bord na mona......amount of damage done by privateers is minimal in comparison

joela · 04-03-2012 7:42pm

Bord na Mona do not cut protected sites so that point is moot in this case.

TCCA continuously trot that out when it simply is not relevant in relation to SAC sites. Bord na Mona have destroyed much but they also had to hand back raised bogs sites to the state many years ago and so they are complying with the Habitats Directive at least in that sense. Domestic turf cutters have done and are doing plenty of damage and if they are not stopped by the Irish people then they will destroy very important habitat.

opinion guy · 04-03-2012 7:44pm

I don't know enough about this issue to take sides (though I lean away from Ming & co), but can I just say this - EPIC thread title OP.

mikom · 04-03-2012 7:49pm

joela wrote: »

Bord na Mona do not cut protected sites so that point is moot in this case.

TCCA continuously trot that out when it simply is not relevant in relation to SAC sites. Bord na Mona have destroyed much but they also had to hand back raised bogs sites to the state many years ago and so they are complying with the Habitats Directive at least in that sense. Domestic turf cutters have done and are doing plenty of damage and if they are not stopped by the Irish people then they will destroy very important habitat.

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:
1. A change in drainage profiles as bogs will no longer be drained by their workers. So expect a few more flooding stories on your nightly news in the upcoming winters.
2. A massive increase in bog fly-tipping. "Shur, no one comes down here anymore boss".

Avns1s · 04-03-2012 7:58pm

henryporter wrote: »

He's a right sod that Flanagan!

Seriously though it's incredible how these people can't see the damage they are inflicting on a highly unique and important environment. As usual they won't be happy until it's all gone and then they'll probably start hacking down whatever trees are left in the country. Muppets:mad:

If you knew anything about how turf is cuf mechanically for a household, you would realise that it involves digging a hole of perhaps 10ft x 10ft and spreading the peat on the adjacent bog to dry.

Unfortunately this SAC lark as applied to the bogs is driven by those who can sit on their high horse on supposed environmental justification and none are likely to be affected by any such ban. If they were, their environmental morals would likely be re-evaluated.

I am no fan or support of Ming Flanagan but in reality the "damage to these unique and important habitats" by domestic turfcutting is minimal and does not justify the ban by a long shot.

mikom · 04-03-2012 8:08pm

Avns1s wrote: »

If you knew anything about how turf is cuf mechanically for a household, you would realise that it involves digging a hole of perhaps 10ft x 10ft and spreading the peat on the adjacent bog to dry.

Unfortunately this SAC lark as applied to the bogs is driven by those who can sit on their high horse on supposed environmental justification and none are likely to be affected by any such ban. If they were, their environmental morals would likely be re-evaluated.

I am no fan or support of Ming Flanagan but in reality the "damage to these unique and important habitats" by domestic turfcutting is minimal and does not justify the ban by a long shot.

Yep.

Goodbye this..... http://www.gardenplansireland.com/forum/about112.html

joela · 04-03-2012 8:09pm

okay I will say once more to read the excellent report I linked earlier which shows how DOMESTIC turf cutters have damaged the SAC bogs, I can also provide you with many, many links to papers and publications all saying that turf cutting (domestic or otherwise) damages the habitat.

Flora and Fauna diversity will increase which can only be a good thing, again I suggest you read some of the literature as opposed to TCCA stuff and nonsense.

Flooding will not increase due to drain blocking, it will decrease as the bog begins to hold water again so that arguement is that not correct at all.

As for fly tipping, it occurs anyway and is hardly a valid reason to allow cutting to continue.

If the ban were to affect me I would hope I was intelligent and reasonable enough to find out and understand the reasons why plus I would have had more than 10 years to figure out by now, Such BS always brought up, oh them environmentalists no nothing of the country blah blah blah.

joela · 04-03-2012 8:13pm

mikom wrote: »

Yep.

Goodbye this..... http://www.gardenplansireland.com/forum/about112.html

You honestly think that is what is happening on these bogs? Have a look at a few pictures from Ming's bog https://picasaweb.google.com/114566506932046014907/000600CloonchambersBogRoscommon?authkey=Gv1sRgCJXesumRhtW-wgE

mikom · 04-03-2012 8:17pm

joela wrote: »

You honestly think that is what is happening on these bogs? Have a look at a few pictures from Ming's bog https://picasaweb.google.com/114566506932046014907/000600CloonchambersBogRoscommon?authkey=Gv1sRgCJXesumRhtW-wgE

So what's happening on that bog http://www.gardenplansireland.com/forum/about112.html and the ones mentioned by Avns1s?

Avns1s · 04-03-2012 8:19pm

joela wrote: »

If the ban were to affect me I would hope I was intelligent and reasonable enough to find out and understand the reasons why plus I would have had more than 10 years to figure out by now, Such BS always brought up, oh them environmentalists no nothing of the country blah blah blah.

I am sure the turfcutters and residents of rural Ireland will bow to your superior intelligence.

To presume that these people are neither intelligent nor reasonable is about as condescending as one can get.

These people have lived in these areas for generations. Their ancestors cut these bogs for hundreds of years and funny enough, the bogs still exist and are worth protecting. Funny that isn't it?

Also, funny how some desk researchers probably from the city, with no connection to the countryside or even perhaps to Ireland, can publish a report which funnier again, will make no impact on their lives and seek to impose it on others.

Rural Ireland is where people live and have undertaken various tasks for generations, including turf cutting. Rural Ireland is NOT a playground or park where urban dwellers can come and look at the flowers or insects once or twice a year.

joela · 04-03-2012 8:37pm

Are you for real? I AM a country dweller and it has nothing to do with smelling flowers as you put it thereby displaying ignorance in such a comment, it has to do with protecting water quality, flood prevention, carbon sequestration and history. The history doesn't just belong to the people living there now it is part of Irish history and an important part and for that reason it is being protected.

Only a TINY proportion of sites are protected, tiny,tiny and the short term view of a minority of people is jeopardising the long term for the entire country. The bogs survived not thanks the people using them but inspite of them, the sausage machine/hopper method has increased the impact to such an extent now that the bogs are really suffering. Just because you always did it doesn't mean you should continue doing it, people always smoked because they didn't realise it was bad for them but they are widely dissuaded from doing so now, same with drink driving and wearing a seatbelt.

Your refusal to accept facts means that you cannot see that what is happening is destroying the very history you talk about. Also trotting out the usual codswallop about people at desks in offices and the townies not understanding the country etc. etc. I grew up on a farm, in a house with a septic tank and we used to burn rubbish. Now we don't burn rubbish, our septic tank has to be monitored and there are rules about spreading ****e into groundwater and rivers and there wasn't any of this as I was growing up. Guess what, sometimes change has to happen for the greater good and the turf cutting cessation on a TINY percentage of already protected bogs more than 10years after it should have been implemented HAS TO HAPPEN for the greater good.

henryporter · 04-03-2012 8:37pm

Avns1s wrote: »

If you knew anything about how turf is cuf mechanically for a household, you would realise that it involves digging a hole of perhaps 10ft x 10ft and spreading the peat on the adjacent bog to dry.

Unfortunately this SAC lark as applied to the bogs is driven by those who can sit on their high horse on supposed environmental justification and none are likely to be affected by any such ban. If they were, their environmental morals would likely be re-evaluated.

I am no fan or support of Ming Flanagan but in reality the "damage to these unique and important habitats" by domestic turfcutting is minimal and does not justify the ban by a long shot.

oh lets see, how do I start - ok I spent may years as a child footing turf with my family in Mayo (cos that's I'm from see), so anyone who comes along and says you can get a years supply of turf from a 10 by 10 plot is obviously talking through their hole.

Last time I was in a bog was with my Father back in 2005 about a month before he died - even he was disgusted at the vandalism being inflicted through the use of excavators (Hymacs or JCBs if you need to comprehend through the use of the vernacular), and other heavy transportation machinery.

Even the use of turf cutting machines (you obviously know the ones being such an expert) - those that vertically slice through the bog and spit out sausages of turf - 'great job' except for the fact that they cause collapse of the slices of bog.

Anyhow let me now how long you'll get out of that 10 x 10 plot, cos last time I check we used to use a half acre (or 2023.3 square metres which is roughly 20 times what you get by on). And do you know which end of a loy to pick up. Next time you shoot your mouth off imbecile, make sure you have a few facts right. IDIOT!

joela · 04-03-2012 8:41pm

mikom wrote: »

So what's happening on that bog http://www.gardenplansireland.com/forum/about112.html and the ones mentioned by Avns1s?

EXactly the same thing as shown in the report I linked in my OP. The EPA also did a report called Boglands recently http://erc.epa.ie/safer/iso19115/displayISO19115.jsp?isoID=236 which supports a cessation of turf cutting.

mikom · 04-03-2012 8:41pm

henryporter wrote: »

Next time you shoot your mouth off imbecile, make sure you have a few facts right. IDIOT!

Nice.

Avns1s · 04-03-2012 8:43pm

For who's good? The insects, flowers, foxes?

People have died from smoking for sure, but one thing is more sure, no-one is going to die anytime soon if there isn't a ban on turfcutting in the small proportion of bogs you talk about.

In fact, there may be people who will die because there method of heating their houses is removed from them.

joela · 04-03-2012 8:43pm

Well in fairness the other guy is being a bit belligerent so maybe that annoyed him?

Avns1s · 04-03-2012 8:44pm

henryporter wrote: »

oh lets see, how do I start - ok I spent may years as a child footing turf with my family in Mayo (cos that's I'm from see), so anyone who comes along and says you can get a years supply of turf from a 10 by 10 plot is obviously talking through their hole.

Last time I was in a bog was with my Father back in 2005 about a month before he died - even he was disgusted at the vandalism being inflicted through the use of excavators (Hymacs or JCBs if you need to comprehend through the use of the vernacular), and other heavy transportation machinery.

Even the use of turf cutting machines (you obviously know the ones being such an expert) - those that vertically slice through the bog and spit out sausages of turf - 'great job' except for the fact that they cause collapse of the slices of bog.

Anyhow let me now how long you'll get out of that 10 x 10 plot, cos last time I check we used to use a half acre (or 2023.3 square metres which is roughly 20 times what you get by on). And do you know which end of a loy to pick up. Next time you shoot your mouth off imbecile, make sure you have a few facts right. IDIOT!

I thought there was a rule in boards about attacking the post and not the poster. Post reported.

henryporter · 04-03-2012 8:49pm

Avns1s wrote: »

I thought there was a rule in boards about attacking the post and not the poster. Post reported.

I thought so too - so how come you start your post with "If you knew anything about..." and then run off like a baby to get the mods to defend your stupid comments?

joela · 04-03-2012 8:59pm

Avns1s wrote: »

For who's good? The insects, flowers, foxes?

People have died from smoking for sure, but one thing is more sure, no-one is going to die anytime soon if there isn't a ban on turfcutting in the small proportion of bogs you talk about.

In fact, there may be people who will die because there method of heating their houses is removed from them.

Well the flooding in areas may stop for a start, water quality for drinking may improve, the pollution from peat in the watercourses should improve things for fish amongst other things. The reduction in siltation from peat run-off should also help with flooding so all in all a lot of things positive for human health.

Yes the habitats are important because they support the bees and insects required to pollinate the fruit and veg, grasses, cereals etc. You keep trashing their habitat and eventually you have no pollinators and what you going to do for food production then? So yeah it is a big threat to human health in terms of the impact the actions of a few will have on the rest of us.

A bit of an exaggeration to say people will die if they don't cut turf isn't it? There is a)monetary compensation, b)turf provision from another bog, c)grant system with SEAI to insulate houses & change to alternative sustainable fuel supply such as wood. If you really care about the people you mention then I am sure you could get turf for them at one of the bogs where cutting is allowed?

mikom · 04-03-2012 9:02pm

joela wrote: »

Yes the habitats are important because they support the bees and insects required to pollinate the fruit and veg, grasses, cereals etc. You keep trashing their habitat and eventually you have no pollinators and what you going to do for food production then? So yeah it is a big threat to human health in terms of the impact the actions of a few will have on the rest of us.

The vast Bord na mona bogs never once grew heather....... I must have missed that in the report.

joela · 04-03-2012 9:11pm

Again the Bord na Mona bogs are a separate issue but I'll bite this once. The vast tracts of destroyed bog are indeed horrific but this damage was primarily done in the past and as I pointed out before Bord na Mona handed back all intact and protected bog sites many years ago. This issue surrounds SAC bogs so I didn't want to go into the wrongs and rights of other turf cutting but if you insist I will let you know that eventually I would hope that we as a people would recognise the unsustainable nature of turf cutting and it would cease all over the country. Bord na Mona are however at least being forced into the position of hiring ecologists to work on restoration and habitat creation on their sites. So heather has and will return in some places although sadly the bogs themselves are lost forever which is even more reason to properly protect the ones we have left.

To get back to the issue at hand the SAC bogs were chosen for their qualities as representing that particular habitat so why shouldn't they be protected from destruction. There are other bogs for goodness sake so why can't the people accept the change which they had plenty of warning about.

mikom · 04-03-2012 9:18pm

joela wrote: »

There are other bogs for goodness sake so why can't the people accept the change which they had plenty of warning about.

joela wrote: »

I will let you know that eventually I would hope that we as a people would recognise the unsustainable nature of turf cutting and it would cease all over the country.

*adopts native American indian voice*

"Conservationist paleface speaks with forked tongue."

joela · 04-03-2012 9:24pm

Don't be ridiculous for goodness sake, so I can't have an opinion? Do YOU think cutting bogs is sustainable? Ah maybe you are a climate denier as well? Whatever you are you are going to have to change because the Irish taxpayer should not have to pay fines to the EU because of a small minority refusing to acknowledge the law.

mikom · 04-03-2012 10:33pm

joela wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous for goodness sake, so I can't have an opinion? Do YOU think cutting bogs is sustainable? Ah maybe you are a climate denier as well? Whatever you are you are going to have to change because the Irish taxpayer should not have to pay fines to the EU because of a small minority refusing to acknowledge the law.

Calm down dear.

joela · 04-03-2012 11:15pm

Perfectly calm pet but thanks for your concern

mikom · 04-03-2012 11:38pm

joela wrote: »

Perfectly calm pet but thanks for your concern

Indeed.....

djpbarry · 05-03-2012 1:43pm

henryporter wrote: »

Next time you shoot your mouth off imbecile, make sure you have a few facts right. IDIOT!

[MOD]Less of the name-calling please.

I think everyone could do with cooling off a little before posting anything else.[/MOD]

joela · 05-03-2012 10:22pm

BOGLAND: Sustainable Management of Peatlands in Ireland. This is a really interesting report on Boglands which was published by the EPA in 2011 and supports the scientific claims that domestic turf cutting is causing serious damage to peatlands.

Max Powers · 06-03-2012 11:22am

there is a lot of self-righteous talk on this forum re: bogs. 99% of it done by people who probably have never seen a bog (myself included). I think we all need to ask ourselves would we stop cutting a bog; saving us thousands every year, fuel independence and if our family had done it for generations.

mikom · 06-03-2012 11:40am

Max Powers wrote: »

there is a lot of self-righteous talk on this forum re: bogs. 99% of it done by people who probably have never seen a bog (myself included). I think we all need to ask ourselves would we stop cutting a bog; saving us thousands every year, fuel independence and if our family had done it for generations.

The oil sheiks, polish coal miners, and the shipping magnates wouldn't like to hear that kind of talk.

joela · 06-03-2012 2:59pm

Max Powers wrote: »

there is a lot of self-righteous talk on this forum re: bogs. 99% of it done by people who probably have never seen a bog (myself included). I think we all need to ask ourselves would we stop cutting a bog; saving us thousands every year, fuel independence and if our family had done it for generations.

I think that short term gain in terms of fuel independence isn't worth it in the long term when valuable functioning carbon sinks also acting as water filters, flood defences and home to rare habitats and species will have been lost forever. Furthermore the issue is not about ALL turf cutting but merely halting the illegal turf cutting of EU protected sites which are a small number in terms of the whole country.

As for oil sheiks and shipping magnates, they have nothing to do with cessation of turf cutting on a number of protected sites in Ireland.

The reality is we, all of us, have to start using sustainable fuel sources and turf cutting as practised today is not sustainable. Fuel independence for one family is an emotive cry but what about all the other families who will be impacted by flooding, contaminated water and still have no fuel as a result of greed. This cessation is to protect our futures not to continue destroying it. http://www.ecocoop.org/ireland/bogs/vid2.htm

Oh, I've been on a lot of Irish raised bogs and blanket bogs too so I am familiar enough with them to know what I'm talking about.

Pete_Cavan · 06-03-2012 11:23pm

Max Powers wrote: »

I think we all need to ask ourselves would we stop cutting a bog; saving us thousands every year, fuel independence and if our family had done it for generations.

I think the turf cutters need to ask themselves is there any real saving when you consider the effort that goes into getting something with such a low calorific value that most likely needs to be supplemented by with another fuel source anyway versus buying more efficient fuels which can provide space and water heating, do you really have fuel independence if you pay over the odds for hot water from an electric immersion, and would you be better switching to a sustainable fuel source like wood which future generations of your family could use?

Max Powers · 07-03-2012 11:26am

joela wrote: »

I think that short term gain in terms of fuel independence isn't worth it in the long term when valuable functioning carbon sinks also acting as water filters, flood defences and home to rare habitats and species will have been lost forever. Furthermore the issue is not about ALL turf cutting but merely halting the illegal turf cutting of EU protected sites which are a small number in terms of the whole country.

As for oil sheiks and shipping magnates, they have nothing to do with cessation of turf cutting on a number of protected sites in Ireland.

The reality is we, all of us, have to start using sustainable fuel sources and turf cutting as practised today is not sustainable. Fuel independence for one family is an emotive cry but what about all the other families who will be impacted by flooding, contaminated water and still have no fuel as a result of greed. This cessation is to protect our futures not to continue destroying it. http://www.ecocoop.org/ireland/bogs/vid2.htm

Oh, I've been on a lot of Irish raised bogs and blanket bogs too so I am familiar enough with them to know what I'm talking about.

'EU protected sites'....who cares what the EU says is protected, if I say i own it, i will cut the turf there. If i dont own it, then fair enough, its private property.

the 'reality' of 'sustainable' fuel sources......lets face it, if you or I had access to free fuel, we are going to use it, to think that anybody would give 2 whoots about some flowers or the usual buzz words of 'sustainable' in a bog when im saving thousands NOW is ludicrous.

Max Powers · 07-03-2012 11:36am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think the turf cutters need to ask themselves is there any real saving ....QUOTE]

YES there is a real saving, imagine heating your house for free, possibly having a back boiler heating water also. Would you be better off switching to buying more sustainable wood fuel, no, that would require a new boiler and paying for fuel so definetly no. At the end of the day, the owners of bogs dont care about flora/fauna etc when weighed up against hard cash.90% of people wouldnt care either if given the choice, its easy to talk about sustainability, long term, for the good of the plants, bogs, birds etc. from the outside

Uriel. · 07-03-2012 11:53am

Max Powers wrote: »

'EU protected sites'....who cares what the EU says is protected, if I say i own it, i will cut the turf there. If i dont own it, then fair enough, its private property.

the 'reality' of 'sustainable' fuel sources......lets face it, if you or I had access to free fuel, we are going to use it, to think that anybody would give 2 whoots about some flowers or the usual buzz words of 'sustainable' in a bog when im saving thousands NOW is ludicrous.

The recent case re the destruction of the Ringfort in Kerry clearly outlines that ownership rights do not provide carte blanche to do whatever you wish. Property Rights are enshrined in the Constitution but with the caveat that restriction can be imposed in the interests of social justice and the common good - Article 43 2(1)(2).

Just to clear this up again re the rationale for the cessation of turf cutting...
It is aimed specifically towards particular habitats (active raised bog and degraded raised bog, capable of regeneration). These are priority habitats under the Habitats Directive and must be afforded protection under European and National Law. It is not about protecting butterflies or general flora and fauna.

The bogs selected for preservation are the best example of those in Ireland with these habitats. Any issues in respect of Bord na Móna, the destruction of peat generally etc... are irrelevant. It is very specific legislation for a very specific type of habitat we are dealing with here.

EDIT: also while some of the work done by FIE is good work and they have, generally good intentions, they are no different to the turf cutters and will skew the facts and tell mistruths in order to suit their own agenda. The report linked in earlier in the thread, as I understand it, contains a number of examples of turf cutting damaging SAC sites (but some of the examples provided are not actually in the SAC). Didn't do themselves any favours there if that is the case.

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 2:15pm

Max Powers wrote: »

'EU protected sites'....who cares what the EU says is protected...

Ireland is part of the EU, last time I checked, so if the EU is saying something is protected, Ireland is (at least partly) saying the same.

Max Powers wrote: »

...lets face it, if you or I had access to free fuel, we are going to use it...

But it's not "free" - that's the point. Cutting turf is extremely expensive, relative to the energy yield obtained from burning it. That's why turf-fired electricity generation is heavily subsidised in Ireland.

Max Powers wrote: »

to think that anybody would give 2 whoots about some flowers or the usual buzz words of 'sustainable' in a bog when im saving thousands NOW is ludicrous.

Thousands? Really? You don't value your time much, do you? If you had some slaves cutting the turf for you, you might have a case.

Max Powers wrote: »

...its easy to talk about sustainability, long term, for the good of the plants, bogs, birds etc. from the outside

Well I’m talking economics.

It’s probably also worth pointing out at this point, if it hasn’t been already, that, as far as I am aware, protected bogs represent a tiny percentage of total bogland in Ireland.

Max Powers · 07-03-2012 4:57pm

djpbarry wrote: »

But it's not "free" - that's the point. Cutting turf is extremely expensive, relative to the energy yield obtained from burning it. That's why turf-fired electricity generation is heavily subsidised in Ireland.
Thousands? Really? You don't value your time much, do you? If you had some slaves cutting the turf for you, you might have a case.
.

I think we are on different pages here, electricity generation or subsidisation was not in my mind when I think of this issue. (i cannot believe we are subsidising this, unbelievable) My understanding of it from talking to people with access to bogs is that, you go out there yourself for a few days, cut a load of it, dry it and then you dont need to buy coal or anything for your fire. from speaking to those who do it, they save thousands that would be spent on oil, coal etc if they didnt have the turf. It IS practically free, all you need is your shovel, a trailer and a big tarp to store the stuff under, sounds like a solid investment.

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 5:33pm

Max Powers wrote: »

My understanding of it from talking to people with access to bogs is that, you go out there yourself for a few days, cut a load of it, dry it and then you dont need to buy coal or anything for your fire. from speaking to those who do it, they save thousands that would be spent on oil, coal etc if they didnt have the turf.

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.

Avns1s · 07-03-2012 5:45pm

On the cost saving, about €500 spent getting a contractor to cut the turf will heat 3 houses for a year (based on my practical experience with the in-laws) If there was no turf and these houses were heated by oil, there is no way that it would cost less than €5000 (€1666 per house) and I think that is being conservative to be honest.

So, in tight times if someone can save in the region of €1500 per annum on their heating bill, then most people will opt for it.

For sure it's hard work, but it's mainly done by people who don't take a view of their time as being valuable in terms of € per hour, but rather view it from the point of the saving to be made, the tradition, the exercise and fresh air and in fact, the social interaction while carrying out the tasks in the bog.

kippy · 07-03-2012 5:48pm

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.

Not true at all tbh.

I come from a rural area where bogs are all over the shop. Turf is still either cut by hand or by machine (from the bank). It is dried manually, with spreading, footing and the use of wheelbarrows to bring from the banks to somewhere it can be loaded on a tractor.
It's a pretty manual process and labour intensive.
I spend many years between the ages of 5 and 17 on the bog, saving the turf with my parents and siblings. We cursed it at the time but now, living in a city and paying for the miracle that is oil fired central heating, I can gladly say it was a cost effective way of heating a house and far more environmentally friendly than oil.
The intensive turf cutters probably do the most damage, where it is always with machines and little care is left in ensuring some part of the bog is left.

My family at home still save the turf and manage very easily to head a large bungalow with a range/backboiler and open fire in the sittingroom (if required) on a few trailerloads of turf saved every year. My mum and dad are both at home now so it's easier save it and gets them out of the house and involved in activities.
Turf cutting had died out almost completely up until the past few years however since the price of fuel has increased drasticilly and the mythical savings of "green" energy such as solar panels, wind etc hasnt really materialised, people are starting to go back to the bogs.
Bogs by the way that have been cut for hundreds of years.

I'm not one to stand with Ming Flanagan in anything but these turf cutters have a right to protest and make their point heard.
EDIT: I would easily agree with the previous posts on the cost savings, benefits of turf as a fuel, and as they mention the figures he puts out there are conservative.

joela · 07-03-2012 6:18pm

The turf cutters have a right to protest but surely they have to realise that there are Irish people who do not agree with the cutting of protected raised bogs and who have a right to speak also. The general public have never once been consulted by Ming & TCCA yet they claim to speak on behalf of Irish people.

Kippy your description of hand cutting turf is not the common sight seen in modern times despite TCCA and Ming comments to the contrary. The bogs are largely machine cut and creating far more damage than when hand cutting was commonplace. It isn't just how the bogs are cut either, it is the drainage and ultimately the run-off etc. caused by removing vegetation.

I'm also puzzled by your claims that cutting turf is more environmentally friendly than using oil, both are fossil fuels and damaging to the environment in terms of damage to the earth and atmosphere. People commonly talk of rainforest destruction and the resultant carbon release and loss of a carbon sink, well the bogs are just as if not more important than rainforest as carbon sinks. While I am sure I'll be dismissed by some the simple truth is that peat is of more value to us when it is conserved for future generation than it is by short term views of it as a fuel source. If you really want to conserve heritage for your kids cutting peat is not the way to go. Furthermore the argument that peat has been cut for hundreds of years is consistently produced, well lots of things happened for hundreds of years and don't now. Damaging activities should not be continued just because it was always done, add in the fact that domestic turf extraction is now largely mechanised and of greater impact than ever then that argument just doesn't hold water.

@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.

Ming et al. are incapable of producing facts. I say that as someone who works in the environmental industry, not NGO or organisation but the industry where real studies are done before development can commence. This is something supporters of turf cutting on designated bogs neglect to see, what they are doing is illegal and if I tried to build a wind farm or housing on the same bogs I would have to jump through hoops before doing so so why do the rules not apply to them? Oh I know, they do apply but they choose to ignore them!! Why should I bother adhering to guidelines and legislation if people like that won't, well I well because I genuinely love the Irish landscape and environment and want to conserve it for the sake of future generations. The environment is what provides us with the food and water to survive so we should look after it.

Max Power I don't know what to say to your comments, as they are so blind to reality I guess there is no point even attempting discussion.

djpbarry · 07-03-2012 6:22pm

Avns1s wrote: »

On the cost saving, about €500 spent getting a contractor to cut the turf will heat 3 houses for a year...

Forgive me for being sceptical, but that seems incredibly cheap - €500 to cut, what, 10 tonnes of turf?

kippy wrote: »

...I can gladly say it was a cost effective way of heating a house and far more environmentally friendly than oil.

Ignoring for a moment the environmental impact of extracting turf or oil, how is burning turf more environmentally friendly? It has a far lower energy content than oil?

kippy wrote: »

My family at home still save the turf and manage very easily to head a large bungalow with a range/backboiler and open fire in the sittingroom (if required) on a few trailerloads of turf saved every year.

But that’s not really contradicting my point? A few trailer-loads would easily amount to several hundred kilos?

kippy · 07-03-2012 6:49pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Forgive me for being sceptical, but that seems incredibly cheap - €500 to cut, what, 10 tonnes of turf?
Ignoring for a moment the environmental impact of extracting turf or oil, how is burning turf more environmentally friendly? It has a far lower energy content than oil?
But that’s not really contradicting my point? A few trailer-loads would easily amount to several hundred kilos?

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

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 , among others.

Turf is not a viable fuel for the masses, but for those who have access to it it's an ideal fuel. If you cut turf manually the cost of turf doesn't change from year to year.
I can tell you from actual experience, that the cost of using turf as a fuel for a year is at least €1500-2000 per annum cheaper at current oil prices, more so if you cut it yourself.

If you had a bog, legally held in your name, and you cut what you needed on an annual basis from it for the past X years, reducing your reliance on oil, gas, in a market where oil and gas are only going one way, in an economy where prices of everything are going up and jobs are scarce you'd be very annoyed (at best) to be told that you could no longer cut the turf anymore and may have to change (at cost to yourself) your heating system as well as the annual cost of oil.

There are hectares and hectares of bog out there that aren't currently and never have been cut, plenty for nature and those who want to experience it.

kippy · 07-03-2012 7:00pm

joela wrote: »

The turf cutters have a right to protest but surely they have to realise that there are Irish people who do not agree with the cutting of protected raised bogs and who have a right to speak also. The general public have never once been consulted by Ming & TCCA yet they claim to speak on behalf of Irish people.

I don't like people claiming to speak on my behalf so I completely agree with that point. There are a considerable amount of people that appreciate where the TCCA are coming from however.

Kippy your description of hand cutting turf is not the common sight seen in modern times despite TCCA and Ming comments to the contrary. The bogs are largely machine cut and creating far more damage than when hand cutting was commonplace. It isn't just how the bogs are cut either, it is the drainage and ultimately the run-off etc. caused by removing vegetation.

Where I am from, it is still commonplace, believe it or not. Those bogs that are cut by machine are done so by mechanical digger, removing turf from the bank, in a similiar way as a Slean would cut (but obviously faster). The impact of this is a lot lesser than the Bord na Mona type cutters and indeed the "sausage" type cutters.

I'm also puzzled by your claims that cutting turf is more environmentally friendly than using oil, both are fossil fuels and damaging to the environment in terms of damage to the earth and atmosphere. People commonly talk of rainforest destruction and the resultant carbon release and loss of a carbon sink, well the bogs are just as if not more important than rainforest as carbon sinks. While I am sure I'll be dismissed by some the simple truth is that peat is of more value to us when it is conserved for future generation than it is by short term views of it as a fuel source. If you really want to conserve heritage for your kids cutting peat is not the way to go. Furthermore the argument that peat has been cut for hundreds of years is consistently produced, well lots of things happened for hundreds of years and don't now. Damaging activities should not be continued just because it was always done, add in the fact that domestic turf extraction is now largely mechanised and of greater impact than ever then that argument just doesn't hold water.

You've obviously not heard of this site:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html
I have never heard of a "turf" issue as big as any of those, never mind the issues around the moral and ethical use of poorer states to extract oil and gas etc etc.

Plant more trees, we have lots of open country side.

What needs to have here are restrictions place on how, how much, by whom and how to ensure as little damage is done while still respecting the rights of those that cut turf.

We have always done it isn't great logic, my point, they are reliant on it as a means of heating their homes.

I'm not even sure if our home bogs are in the SAC's or not. Its unlikely my father will stop cutting them if they are. He and my mother are unemployed and are lucky to have cheap, accessible fuel available to them.
Theres hectares of open bog all around them that have never been cut.

joela · 07-03-2012 7:03pm

There are hectares and hectares of bog out there that aren't currently and never have been cut, plenty for nature and those who want to experience it.

That is quite simply untrue! The people who are affected by the turf cutting ban are those cutting protected sites and have been aware for 10years or more they would have to stop. I get told lots of things that piss me off but I still abide by the law.

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.

joela · 07-03-2012 7:15pm

Hectares of open bog that have been cut around the fringes?

I am sorry but the hopper and mechanical digger is very damaging. I agree about Bord na Mona but they are not cutting designated sites, they do not own any designated sites and unfortunately they had been given free rein to damage bogs industrially long before I was born. The impacts of BnM activities are separate to this discussion though and they will also have to start behaving better in terms of protection of watercourses etc.

I think I would appreciate where your parents come from whereas TCCA are telling lies, scaremongering and generally holding up the process. I think reasonable people when talking to other reasonable people will come to an agreement but the antics of TCCA and Ming have largely been responsible for that not happening.

kippy · 07-03-2012 7:19pm

joela wrote: »

That is quite simply untrue! The people who are affected by the turf cutting ban are those cutting protected sites and have been aware for 10years or more they would have to stop. I get told lots of things that piss me off but I still abide by the law.

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.

What is untrue, that there arent hectares and hectares of untouched bogland out there?

This doesn't just piss people off. This effects directly their current quality of life and finances, as well as that of their family into the future. They have had rights to cut turf on these lands for generations and see no real impact of what they do on the ecosystem in general, particularly when compared to other forms of fuel. As I said, put yourself in their position, if you can.
And how long before "the recession" or other financial issue means the reduction of such schemes?

Ultimately I believe these guys know they are wasting their time, however are trying to get the best deal for them in the longer term and this to me, is perfectly acceptable.

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

Comments