Should farmers be paid to allow walkers access to their land?

Evil Phil

http://www.ireland.com/head2head/

At time of writing the vote is 70% to 30% for yes, they should be paid. Probably because the farmers are far more organised than the walkers (I for instance only heard about it this morning).

I voted No.

mikemac

I may as well state I come from a farming background. You are correct that farmers are well organised, but they’re not half as militant as the French:)

Can all farmers valid concerns be addressed.
- Litter
- People bringing dogs, particularly during lambing season. Dogs are often shot for chasing sheep.
- Compo culture. Dublin City Council paid over €4 million in compensation from people tripping on footpaths last year.On a trail the dangers are worse, who pays for insurace?
- Anti-social behaviour, can a group of youths knacker drinking on a trail have the law on their side and not be moved on?

There are loads of other concerns, these are just the ones that sprung to mind.

http://www.walkireland.ie/trail-search-guide.aspx
Over 3,000km of established routes in operation. That’s enough to last anyone.

I know the majority of people on boards are from Dublin so maybe they have no empathy with farmers. And maybe someone with more knowledge will disect and destroy my post. I’m just posting my views. Edit: I haven't read the link the OP posted so maybe all my concerns are addressed there

Suprisingly, I don’t farmers should be paid. But a new walkway should only be established where everyone agrees to it and not forced through.

The Labour Party aren’t going to win many votes with farmers but then they never had much support from that group either. Seems like a campaign aimed at the main voters, middle-class people in urban areas. Some say these stopped representing the working class a long time ago

Evil Phil

- Litter
Fair enough point, this is everybody's problem not just the farmers. Dunno how to handle that one.

- People bringing dogs, particularly during lambing season. Dogs are often shot for chasing sheep.
Again fair enough, the farmer's have to protect their livestock. I also think the dog owners should pay compensation for bringing the dog unto the farmers land in the first place and should pay further compensation for any loss of stock. But we're not talking about Sheep Worrying rights anyway, walkers etc will just have to leave the pooch at home.

-Compo culture. Dublin City Council paid over €4 million in compensation from people tripping on footpaths last year.On a trail the dangers are worse, who pays for insurace?
Nobody in an ideal world. There was a case in recent years of a tourist trespassing on land (this may have been in Sligo) and walking off a cliff. He sued the farmer for not putting up warning signs and got in the region of 80 grand. This caused an awful lot of access problems. Happily the descision was overturned on appeal. This was also a case were a lot of groups on both side of the fence, walkers and farmers joined together together to fight both the inital claim and the appeal. At the end of the day if you're engaged in an Outdoor Pursuit there are risks involved and it's up to the individual to take care of themselves.

- Anti-social behaviour, can a group of youths knacker drinking on a trail have the law on their side and not be moved on?
Youths knacker drinking anywhere can be moved on, and have their alcohol confiscated too afaik.

I think there is a happy medium for both camps here and that will eventually worked out. How many of the 3,000km of walks will be shut of access is restricted?

Evil Phil

I will say that most hill walkers and climbers are fervently anti-litter. While I don't litter anywhere I do bring litter back with me from the hills if I come across it.

Viscosity

I voted yes. I'm from a farming background and and spent a good bit of time in the hills. I've always made it my business to ask permission or to enquire about any access issues with locals before heading out.

I do agree that the IFA's demands are excessive but that seems to be all the rage when in negotiations with the government at the minute. Farmers should have the right to earn an income from choosing opening up their land to walkers, hence it should be a voluntary action.

The arguements put forward by David Herman that by accepting CAP money, farmers are somehow obligated to give up their right to exclue the public from private property won't advance the process of striking a deal. The CAP has absolutely nothing to do with walkers rights and we can't retrospectively change it. Its verging on insulting for him to think that it buys walkers the right to have free rein around farming land. Its that attitude will have farmers reaching for their shot-guns.

Its also fair to say that drawing a comparison to Scotland doesn't really apply to this situation as a lot of the Highlands have been sparsely populated since the clearances. Land ownership in Ireland is far too complex an issue to compare it to other countries, theres an awful lot of history that can't be forgotten with the swipe of a civil servants pen.

As for Ruairi Quinns proposal, I'm of the mind that having Labour making plans for the farming community is akin to asking a jewish person what a rasher tastes like.

Anyway, I'm sure they will find a solution at some stage. I did like the proposal to have a scheme where farmers work part-time to build and maintain pathways in their area, almost like the Fas schemes. Both sides do want to come to an agreement, it can be hammered out.

fits

Anyway, I'm sure they will find a solution at some stage. I did like the proposal to have a scheme where farmers work part-time to build and maintain pathways in their area, almost like the Fas schemes. Both sides do want to come to an agreement, it can be hammered out.

Not a bad idea there.
I dont think farmers should be expected to carry the costs of allowing the general public to walk through their land. Things like maintenance of paths and having to keep vulnerable stock away from walkers are definitely inconveniences.
Personally, I dont 'like' seeing strangers walking across my fathers farm.. its like an invasion of personal space. Its like having strangers walk through one's garden. I would be willing to facilitate it as long as my stock werent suffering, and walkers stuck to defined paths, closed gates and didnt feed the stock.

dogmatix

No - they should not be paid. I suggest eveyone interested in this issue read the recent debate in the irish times - I think one of the guys was David Herman. for the IFA to trot out that now tired comparison between farming land and private gardens is so old it's laughable. And of course the IFA guy in the debate trotted out that same old argument! If farmers want to treat this issue as a business scenario then ok - but then they should accept then removal of all grants and subsidies from europe also.

There was recent legislation - can't remember the name - that protected farmers from hillwalkers coming on their land and then trying to sue if they get themselves injured. This legislation has proven it's worth a few times already I believe. This legislation was demanded by the farming community as a safegaurd for themselves against hillwalkers. The impression had been given that if this legislation was implemented all would be well. Not surprisingly once it was implemented then more excuses where given to deny access for walkers.

The whole situation is also being inflamed by Irelands complete lack of any legal definitition of the concept of "rights of way", recent cases in which landowners closed of these rights of way and get away with it and some farmer owners fencing off areas of open mountainside and coast, for no apparent reason.

There are pros and cons on both sides of this debate but in the last 10 years it has been the farmers and landowners who appear to have been going the "nuclear option".

fits

dogmatix wrote:

No - they should not be paid. I If farmers want to treat this issue as a business scenario then ok - but then they should accept then removal of all grants and subsidies from europe also.
".

This betrays a complete lack of understanding of farming issues. Personally I dont think they should be paid for the 'access' either, but they should be compensated for maintaining the pathways and for the inconvenience. If we had lovely well maintained paths and stiles, wouldnt it be worth it for everyone?
And it is a similar thing, if not the same as people walking through a back garden. Farmers spend many hours out working their land. It is a personal space to them.

cycling is fun

why should people be allowed to walk on farmers land in the first place if someboby went to a house in Dublin says to them l want to walk in your back garden should this be allowed l know that back gardens in Dublin are small and that they do not have the same feel as a walk in the country but l am sure that they are people that would still love to do same should this be allowed also am sure that there are people that have an interest in building designs can they be allowed in to ever building be they private or public also how about the large houses in howth can these gardens be used to walk on for country walkers

Evil Phil

Walkers aren't looking to roam freely about farms. Really we just want access to the upland area's which may take us across farmland. When we can do this, and I've observed a lot of groups doing the same, it's pretty much follow the path quickly and quietly to where we want to go, avoid livestock and don't do any damage to the property. Walking around a farm is, quite frankly, pointless unless you're a farmer.

This doesn't apply to every farm either, its a small percentage of farmland in upland area's.

dogmatix

With regards to "Fits", the point I was trying to get across (perhaps badly) was that farmers seem to be treating this as a revenue generating exercise - in other words running a business by offering a service. Which is fine but taxpayers already pay towards various grants, payments and the like so if you want one thing then maybe lose the other? A facile argument perhaps but there you go.

As for "cycling is fun" - please read earlier replies as to why this argument is so pointless. Farmland and someon'e back garden are not really the same. Also "Evil Phil" states why we want access - we do not want permission to go everywhere on someones land, we just want a resonable level of access to walks, forests, rivers, mountains and other beauty spots.

Up until a few years ago I would have been in favour of some form of payment to farmers in return for access, but the IFA's greed and intransigence has allientated most of us in the hillwalking community, even those of us who would have sympathised with some form of payment. I'm even supportive of David Herman these days - and I would always have regarded him in the past as far to confrontational to be of any use to the cause.

In a nutshell I think we need proper and legally defined rights of way as per the British model - and that should inculde reclaiming all rights of way lost over the last few decades.

We should also have a legally defined right to roam legislation - again as per the British model.

With regards to "right to roam", I would be interested in hearing from Farmers and landowners here if they think this is a good idea and if not what would be their main objections. It seems to work fine over there - so why not here?

cycling is fun

what is the difference between a garden and farmland would love to know apart from the ovious that a farm is bigger than a back garden ownership wise its the same thing

Evil Phil

Just to follow on from dogmatix, I'm not a supporter Keep Ireland Open. The Mountaineering Council Or Ireland have a much more open approach to this issue and it seems are more likely to open a dialog with farmers to find away of keeping everybody happy.

I mentioned the case in Sligo earlier in this thread. It was the MCI who fought (alongside what ever farming orgainsations were invovled) to have the desicion regarding compensation paid out to be over turned.

what is the difference between a garden and farmland would love to know apart from the ovious that a farm is bigger than a back garden ownership wise its the same thing

If there isn't a difference why are farmers getting grants when garden owners aren't? Because the two are quite obviously different. TBH this is a rather childish argument that doesn't hold any water.

While I do understand the Farmers concerns regarding their land I do see this exercise by the IFA as a money making scheme and little else. Who's going to police how the €5 per metre of path is maintained? What standards of path can we expect? If farmers are getting paid to maintain the path will they be liable for any walkers using the path if its in a poor state?

If a resolution comes about (and it will) I reckon it will come from more moderate voices than the IFA and Keep Ireland Open.

Alun

Evil Phil wrote:

Just to follow on from dogmatix, I'm not a supporter Keep Ireland Open. The Mountaineering Council Or Ireland have a much more open approach to this issue and it seems are more likely to open a dialog with farmers to find away of keeping everybody happy.

I'm not sure. KIO certainly have a bit of an 'in your face' attitude that, I agree, isn't going to get anybody anywhere, but IMO the MCI's overly passive 'sit back and wait' approach isn't going to bear much fruit either I'm afraid. What we need is a more pro-active approach .. for example, why not ship over a load of some of the more vociferous farmers to meet some of their counterparts in Britain, and talk to them about what it's really like over there, and allay some of their, mostly unfounded, fears? Like someone else said, I don't want to trample through farmyards either .. all I want to do is to get onto the high ground with the minimum of fuss and bother. All that takes in most instances is a couple of stiles and a signpost or two. I've no problem if a farmer is paid to upkeep and maintain those, and to keep the footpath clear, but if he doesn't then he should have his money withheld, which is the situation in Britain too AFAIK.

I'm not saying that opening up the countryside isn't without it's downsides. In Britain there are undoubtedly disputes and problems, the difference is that over there there are well documented procedures and avenues for complaint, and for the resolution of such disputes that don't involve shotguns or barbed wire. Here we have an example of this in the form of the Wicklow Uplands Council that means that we in Wicklow are relatively free of the kind of problems that plague the West of the country.

What is probably the biggest hurdle though, as someone pointed out, is that the legal basis for rights of way in Britain is vastly different to that over here. Without any real right-of-way legislation and relying 100% on permissive "rights of way" I'm not sure we're going to get very much further to be honest.

cavedave

I believe it is in the farmers interests to allow access to their land to interested respectful members of the public. I believe hill walkers and other outdoor pursuits people share a common interest with farmers in the maintaince of our rural environment.
While safety and respect concerns by farmers are valid alienating walkers as a source of support for countryside people seems like a short term benefit to me. I include financial support in the form of tourism as well as political support for farmers attempts to maintain the rural environment which they are an important part of.
Farming is going through difficult times. Preventing people from appreciating the value of the countryside to them will only result in farmers and the rural environment being less valued over time.
In short if no one goes to the hills there will be no one who appreciates their value and thus no one who will appreciate farmers who maintain them.

Borzoi

AFAIK the EU are keeping pressure on the government not to pay for access rights, because there would be implications for payments right across Europe.

TBH I tend to agree, there should not be payment for access. However where a farmer mantains a walkway or stiles or fencing, or his useable land is reduced, while then there should be a payment. Wheteher a once off, to buy the paths, on annual upkeep - I suppose circumstances would dictate. But the IFA claim at the moment would seem ridiculously high.

In general I would tend to agree with the Labour party proposal to make uplands universally accessable, and then for the famers to be entitled to make individual cases why not.

Really the situation at the moment is a mess, and the sooner it's sorted the better

jhegarty

dogmatix wrote:

but then they should accept then removal of all grants and subsidies from europe also.

I hope you don't claim mortgage interest relief/rent relief. If you do, please give it up or I would like the walk around your garden all day....

the hunter

if walkers want to access farmers land and to stop the farmes worrying about compo why dont the walkers take out insurance from say the (countryside alliance) and always carry the policy with them while out walking ???

cavedave

if walkers want to access farmers land and to stop the farmes worrying about compo why dont the walkers take out insurance from say the (countryside alliance) and always carry the policy with them while out walking ???

I have tried this with caving insurance without much joy. Farmers are understandably unwilling to break out the lawyer, actury and insurance broker to peruse such a document.

Evil Phil

jhegarty wrote:

I hope you don't claim mortgage interest relief/rent relief. If you do, please give it up or I would like the walk around your garden all day....

Why the hell would anybody want to walk around your farm all day? Does it have a particularly interesting gate or something? Amazing ditch somewhere perhaps?

We've already covered this arguement jhegarty, and its been clearly stated more than once in this thread what kind of access we're looking for. If you're going to make comments that you want the walkers to take on board then at least familiarise yourself with the issues being discussed.

Evil Phil

cavedave wrote:

I have tried this with caving insurance without much joy. Farmers are understandably unwilling to break out the lawyer, actury and insurance broker to peruse such a document.

I've only been asked about insurance once, I told the farmer I had public liability insurance with the MCI and he was happy enough with that.

The final result of the poll: http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/head2head/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pollid=7740&subsiteid=352

dogmatix

Sorry jhegarty - don't have a graden. But your welcome to tramp around my 2ft by 5ft balconey if that makes you happy. You sound like the sort of person who might be easily amused doing that all day. Mind you it's not actually my balconey either - it's the management company of the apartment block who own it. So if you ask them nicely jhegarty, well who knows...

But seriously - most hillwalkers don't want to tramp all over farmland. Simple access routes to and from desired locations should be sufficent in most cases. Other problems such as issues about security and litter would not apply to hillwalkers anyway - yobbos from towns and cider parties are the main cause of that I think and thats been happening for years and will always happen because that's why there called yobbos. As for litigation - recent legislation has covered that area.

First off - can we not agree that equating farmland and other large tracts of land with small private gardens (or even apartment balconeys) is not really the same thing. That argument is moot, it's been trashed to death - lets move on.

Still hoping someone from the farming/landowning community can comment on why/why not have right to roam and right of way legislation.

cavedave

I tried asking some people on the farming forum to join this discussion but have not succeeded. Some of their thoughts are here though
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055082654

Alun

I thought the whole liability thing that the farming lobby keep bringing up had now finally been sorted out with the Supreme Court decision in the Donegal case?

dogmatix

The whole litigation/liability issue was sorted a few years back I think. At the time it was the farming lobby who wanted this - the impression being given was that was the only stumbling block to easier access for hill walkers. Well the legislation was passed and in at least two cases (including the donegal one - not sure about the other) it found in favour of the landowner as it was intended. but this has not millified the farming/landowning lobby at all. So it's enough to make one believe that it was all about the money from the very beginning. Maybe i'm just a cynic.

One of the downsides to this whole debate is how it is polarising everyone to one extreme or the other and leaving very little middle ground. I've been surprised myself at how even a moderate like me has been pushed ever closer to the "keep ireland open" camp. I even have their website bookmarked now - but have not joined yet.

Sooner or later it will have to be sorted - and I suspect in the end it will be down to some sort of payment scheme or a compusory purchase thing or combination of the two.

emaherx

I'm a farmer and don't mind people walking on my land. I don't want to get paid to allow people on my land and have no intention in maintaing walk ways.

I can understand why some farmers would want to prevent the public from entering the land because not everyone is responsable and certin people can cause alot of damage.

I had a few acers of grass land (for silage) damaged by kids on scramblers last year. Also litter and damage to fences / hedges by people making their own route through my land is unexceptable.

If people enter my land by one gate and leave by anoter that is fine as long as they close the gates and don't bother my livestock (with dogs or anything else).

The country side should be enjoyed by everyone as long as they show a little respect.

cavedave

From reading over at the farmers board and from some experiences myself I have increasing sympathy for the "keep them all out" viewpoint. That post by the guy who got his sheep burned in a forest fire is pretty heartbreaking.
Say we agree that under Irish law farms have and should have no liability. And we also agree that straight out thugs (like those you see driving through the herd of deer in the Phoenix park on their mopeds) are not going to be disuaded by a lack of right to roam legislation.
You are still left with many incompetant outdoor pursuits types who mess everything up. What can we do to improve the situtation?
My guess 1) eduacate everyone about how to act in the countryside. That includes people who post "i want to go drink cans with my mates" threads
2) Copy the hunting lobby in involving local people in our activities, and making efforts to fix any damage our activities create.

fastrac

I had to go out one night to ask (politely) 4 guys with guns dogs and high powered lights to leave my farm as my milking cows were herded into a corner while the men took pot shots at rabbits.Walkers are ok but its a lonely walk to a group of strangers in a dark field.

Evil Phil

fastrac wrote:

I had to go out one night to ask (politely) 4 guys with guns dogs and high powered lights to leave my farm as my milking cows were herded into a corner while the men took pot shots at rabbits.Walkers are ok but its a lonely walk to a group of strangers in a dark field.

Fair play to you for doing it. Would you be able to ring the guards in this situation or would they respond?

cavedave

I had to go out one night to ask (politely) 4 guys with guns dogs and high powered lights to leave my farm as my milking cows were herded into a corner while the men took pot shots at rabbits.Walkers are ok but its a lonely walk to a group of strangers in a dark field.

Fair point, well made.

Consider the amount of damage a horse hunt can do to land, yet these still take place. This is probably because the farming community sees value for them in hunts.

fits

cavedave wrote:

Consider the amount of damage a horse hunt can do to land, yet these still take place. This is probably because the farming community sees value for them in hunts.

Depends on the hunt tbh.. I've heard stories of damaged land, but have never seen it. The local one sticks to scrubby/boggy land, tillage land thats in stubble, and upland areas. If they do have to cross good land.. the field are strictly kept to the headlands at a walk.
Thats only being respectful, and its the least any hunt should do.

hmmm

Let's say that someone bought Croagh Patrick. Can they then turn around and tell Irish people they no longer have access to it?

The fundamental point here is whether or not someone can "own" parts of Ireland and make it offlimit to Irish people.

The back garden argument is nonsense. No farmer has ever looked out their window to find a bunch of hillwalkers tramping around in their rose bushes. The top of a mountain is not a back garden.

I'm not in support of a generalised payment to landowners. There are some farmers who do have costs to maintain trails/stiles/bridges etc. I have no objection whatsoever to them being paid, and in fact they deserve payment right now. Other landowners should not be paid, just to allow Irish people the "right" to walk on their land.

The liability issue should be dealt with simply by the local authority agreeing to indemnify landowners.

The UK way strikes me as best. A network of paths have been created and are maintained by the local authority. Landowners do not get paid.

Ultimately the farmers and landowners who are resisting walkers (a small minority) are doing themselves, their families and communities a disservice. Walking tourism brings people who want to stay, socialise and spend in rural communities. Rural communities see nothing from weekend tourists who visit Temple Bar, they get almost 100% from the couple who stay in a local B&B and climb a few hills that day. A single farmer waving a shotgun at a walking group has the ability to help kill off that tourism not only to his local community but to the whole of Ireland.

Another argument that is made is about "permissive access". The trouble here is that if a route is advertised, and pushed by a tourist authority, a single landowner on the route can withdraw permission for his land to be used, at his own discretion. This is unacceptable as it provides no stability.

In short my view - local authorities should maintain paths (or pay farmers to maintain), no general payment to landowners, right to roam above say 100 metres, indemnity for landowners where due care has been paid.

Viscosity

hmmm wrote:

The fundamental point here is whether or not someone can "own" parts of Ireland and make it offlimit to Irish people.

Thats not a relatively new concept, its called private property. I agree that the back garden argument doesn't hold water but the attitude that you're entitled to trod whereever you please won't endear you to the farming community. Your post displays a complete misunderstanding of rural ways and traditions.

The top of a mountain isn't like a back garden in an urban area. Its more than likely been in the family for a couple of generations and would probably have sustained the current holder for most of their life while their landless siblings were forced to go to America and England in the 50s and 60s. Land isn't just grass and soil, it's way more important.

I'm not sure someone who isn't from a rural area can really grasp how intrusive some people may find having a complete stranger walking around on their land. Those of you from urban areas may be quite accustomed to being surrounded by other people but where I'm from, strangers walking on the roads are sometimes enough to generate a bit of a fuss. To be honest its almost part of the culchie way to find out who they are, where they're from and what are they doing in the area.

I'm all for opening up rough grazing land to the general public but it will have to be done on a voluntary basis. We're all aware of the economic benefits which having specified access agreements can bring, Wales did it with mountain biking trails not too long ago. It will happen but never in the way that Labour and KIO have been campaigning for.

hmmm

Viscosity wrote:

Thats not a relatively new concept, its called private property. I agree that the back garden argument doesn't hold water but the attitude that you're entitled to trod whereever you please won't endear you to the farming community. Your post displays a complete misunderstanding of rural ways and traditions. .

You haven't answered my question. If someone buys a part of Ireland, is it right that that part of Ireland becomes off limits to Irish people?

We live in a society where decisions are made collectively for the greater good - I don't object when my tax money is put into schools because I have no kids. Private property as a right is based on a persons right for shelter and enjoyment of that shelter without interference - to me that means our homes and gardens, but doesn't extend to our wild areas which are not farmed and which are a part of who we are as a people. If a farmer feels they are being personally violated because someone is 1000 metres above them on a mountain, that's something they really need to get over.

No-one is looking for rights of access to areas which disrupt rural life. There are negligible access issues in Wicklow for example, because farmers and the walking community (many of which are rural people) have agreed on access. There is one mountain area in Wicklow I know is off limits and is owned by an American. No Irish person can enter that area without his permission - I don't think that's acceptable, this is our country and just because someone has money to "buy" it, doesn't mean Irish people can be kept within our pens and be told it is off limits.

Keep Ireland open and David Herman do not represent the majority of Irish hillwalkers, keep that in mind.

Viscosity

hmmm wrote:

You haven't answered my question. If someone buys a part of Ireland, is it right that that part of Ireland becomes off limits to Irish people?
QUOTE]

Of course its right that a property owner can exclude members of the public if thats their wish, its their land, they can do what they like with it. And we don't actually live in a society where decisions are made for the greater good, honestly thats naive beyond belief. Its all about competing interests struggling to assert their power but thats also pure textbook waffle and here its completely irrelevant.


Look, read my earlier post, it sums up how I feel about this situation. That belief that farmers will accept a one-size-fits-all decree from above that all land above a certain altitude is common ground will be greeted with nothing but laughter followed by disgust. A consensus can and will be found miles away from your position on this topic.

Happy hiking.

hmmm

Viscosity wrote:

That belief that farmers will accept a one-size-fits-all decree from above that all land above a certain altitude is common ground will be greeted with nothing but laughter followed by disgust.

The belief that farmers will stop putting words into peoples mouths obviously will take longer to come true. No-one is looking to make anywhere common ground, they are looking for transient recreational access. No-one is looking to tramp around farmers back gardens. The paranoia that landowners have in this country is mind boggling, but maybe it's really just about screwing the taxpayer now that farmer groups sniff a handout.

Viscosity

As I've said before in this thread that the IFA's demands are excessive but thats the way this government intervention game works.

I think an agreement can be reached without the lump sum payments, payments per metre of track or the state having to purchase the land by CPO. If they can benefit financially for providing an outlet for tourists and day-tripping walkers, then its up to them to secure the best deal they can.

What I do take offence to is the idea that they are obliged to open up their land to the general public without their consent.

G'luck

Evil Phil

I think this thread and its *sister* thread on the Forestry & Farming forum have shown that both sides of the arguement are prepared to listen and to comprimise. I certainly am.

cavedave

I find it slightly odd that the outdoor pursuits community who tend to be pretty libertarian see to change their views on this issue.
By libertarian i mean in favour of individual rights and lack of stae involvment. So for example I believe I have the right to do something silly like climb a mountain and no one should tell me i cannot "for my own good". Usually libertarianism is associated with individual property rights (police/people cannot enter your house without a very good reason for example) but this seems not to hold when it comes to allowing us to get someplace.

The idea of free access to culturally important areas is interesting. It is similar to certain sporting events having to be on free to air television. It is sad that stopping the soccer world cup final being on RTE would create a much bigger upset then banning all hillwalking access but that is a different issue. Take three important cultural areas. Are these freely open to the public? Dun Aengus, Newgrange, Cliffs of Moher. An argument that newgrange is so valuable that some security is needed may be valid. But do we have free access to these landmarks? And if not can we really argue for free access to hillsides?

redspider

The state owns a lot of lands, and they should have walking paths, mountain cycling paths, etc, through them. With some CPO's (Compolsory Purchase Orders) to buy land from land-owners (Farmers, etc) to allow the general public get access to the 'hidden jewels', such as mountain tops, state forests, etc. The Governmemnt should also spend some money on getting the paths up to useable level and properly fenced and waymarked. The money can be taken from the health budget!

Perhaps a CPO (one time purchase) is not the ideal mechanism for all, and in that case the state could pay a rent, which would increase each year with the CPI (ie: index linked).

I think its asking for trouble if Farmers are given some sort of gratuity payments by the Government in the shape of a grant and then give carte blanche to all and sundry to go walk where the like.

This can be organised, and the concerns of Farmers, etc, can be worked out with the needs for people to get access to some beautiful spots on our planet.

enjoy ....

Redspider

redspider

redspider wrote:

The state owns a lot of lands, and they should have walking paths, mountain cycling paths, etc, through them. With some CPO's (Compolsory Purchase Orders) to buy land from land-owners (Farmers, etc) to allow the general public get access to the 'hidden jewels', such as mountain tops, state forests,

Too right.
The way I see it is that its an untapped resource. An enterprise waiting to begin the tourism could be top notch such potential.
Our lack of properly marked trails and access to the countryside is brutal. Very few places without facilities where you can camp legally. I know many rights of ways marked out on ordnance survey maps that are blocked off by farmers with various things.
No way should the farmers be paid to upkeep trails etc - buying the land is the way to go better for everybody - some farmers wont want the hassle of looking after trails - they want to farm! And no way should a farmer be liable for anyone who hurts themselves on their land.
I think the best way should be to keep trails and farmland seperate, that way you are not relying on people to allow access.

embraer170

I know many rights of ways marked out on ordnance survey maps that are blocked off by farmers with various things.

What are the laws surrounding this? When there's a marked right of way (on an OS map etc.) that is blocked by a farmer?

cavedave

Just some more evidence as to why we do want to be able to go for walks int he country.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2539566.ece

Country walks can help reduce depression and raise self-esteem according to research published today

eoghan.geraghty

Just posted this on the same thread in the farming forum:

It seems that everyone here represents a voice of moderation and resposibility, shame that all those involved in sorting the dispute don't.
What is needed is clear leadership and an undertaking of its duties by the govt. ( never likely to happen really ).
I was rambling and camping a few months ago in australia. A parks ranger arrived at the campsite every morning at 7am to check over the place and I got the impression that she would not tolerate any law breaking.
This country earns revenues from tourists wanting to "discover ireland" so money needs to be spent on full time teams of rangers enforcing new laws in relation to hiking,camping,fishing etc.
I don't think farmers should be paid for nothing, but if a lamb is mauled by a dog or suffers any other loss due to ignorant trespassers he should be compensated.
I think hikers should remain as trespassers, but trespassing would not be an offence in itself as long as its not in the farmers yard or vicinity of his house.
Hikers should be responsible for their own insurance and not be able to sue a farmer/landowner.
Just my 2c worth