[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by Avns1s

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?

Originally Posted by kippy

...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?

Originally Posted by kippy

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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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]

Originally Posted by joela

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by joela

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.

[joela]

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.]

Originally Posted by kippy

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.]

Originally Posted by joela

@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.]

Originally Posted by joela

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]

Originally Posted by Uriel.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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]

Originally Posted by joela

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]

Originally Posted by Uriel.

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.