Dept braced for turf ban revolt under EU ban?

caseyann

With some turf cutters threatening to go to jail in defiance of the ban, the IFA said Mr Gormley must significantly strengthen the compensation package on offer to families and individuals affected by the ban, which took immediate effect from last week.
"Failure to do so will lead to a massive rejection of his attempts to stop turf cutting on 25,000ac of bog next year," said IFA conservation spokesman Padraic Divilly.
"The €1,000 offer to bog owners who have been stopped from cutting turf this year is some recognition of the value of turf extraction for home use, but turf cutters must be given other options," said Mr Divilly.

Similar bans will take effect on 24 more SACs by the end of next year, followed by another 75 Natural Heritage Areas at the end of 2013, as 10-year derogations that Ireland had negotiated with the EU are set to run out. Mr Gormley stated that Ireland could be fined millions by the EU for non- compliance.


Alot of new laws and rules been sanctioned by EU.Is it a chain around the neck of those who use turf cutting as a lifestyle and been doing it for generations.
I heard on news they said it will effect thousands.But official sources say only 785 families.
Is it enough compensation?
I am quite surprised was there fore warning of this as i hadn't heard any.

Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

With some turf cutters threatening to go to jail in defiance of the ban, the IFA said Mr Gormley must significantly strengthen the compensation package on offer to families and individuals affected by the ban, which took immediate effect from last week.
"Failure to do so will lead to a massive rejection of his attempts to stop turf cutting on 25,000ac of bog next year," said IFA conservation spokesman Padraic Divilly.
"The €1,000 offer to bog owners who have been stopped from cutting turf this year is some recognition of the value of turf extraction for home use, but turf cutters must be given other options," said Mr Divilly.

Similar bans will take effect on 24 more SACs by the end of next year, followed by another 75 Natural Heritage Areas at the end of 2013, as 10-year derogations that Ireland had negotiated with the EU are set to run out. Mr Gormley stated that Ireland could be fined millions by the EU for non- compliance.


Alot of new laws and rules been sanctioned by EU.Is it a chain around the neck of those who use turf cutting as a lifestyle and been doing it for generations.
I heard on news they said it will effect thousands.But official sources say only 785 families.
Is it enough compensation?
I am quite surprised was there fore warning of this as i hadn't heard any.

The Habitats Directive, which this ban comes under, should have come into force 11-12 years ago. There was a 10-year derogation, and then a further 1-year extension a year ago. Throughout that period, any affected landowner could apply for compensation - the sites were designated nearly a decade ago.

The affected area is very small - something like 4.1% of all pristine bogland, and an even smaller percentage of total bogland. I have the figures somewhere if I can find them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

caseyann wrote: »

With some turf cutters threatening to go to jail in defiance of the ban, the IFA said Mr Gormley must significantly strengthen the compensation package on offer to families and individuals affected by the ban, which took immediate effect from last week.
"Failure to do so will lead to a massive rejection of his attempts to stop turf cutting on 25,000ac of bog next year," said IFA conservation spokesman Padraic Divilly.
"The €1,000 offer to bog owners who have been stopped from cutting turf this year is some recognition of the value of turf extraction for home use, but turf cutters must be given other options," said Mr Divilly.

Similar bans will take effect on 24 more SACs by the end of next year, followed by another 75 Natural Heritage Areas at the end of 2013, as 10-year derogations that Ireland had negotiated with the EU are set to run out. Mr Gormley stated that Ireland could be fined millions by the EU for non- compliance.


Alot of new laws and rules been sanctioned by EU.Is it a chain around the neck of those who use turf cutting as a lifestyle and been doing it for generations.
I heard on news they said it will effect thousands.But official sources say only 785 families.
Is it enough compensation?
I am quite surprised was there fore warning of this as i hadn't heard any.

A near perfect crystallisation of the problem of EU overregulation.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

A near perfect crystallisation of the problem of EU overregulation.

Actually, the whole thing is rather closer to a crystallisation of our attitude to environmental matters - the same attitude that meant the only official body really questioning the Tara motorway was the European Commission.

Every other country in Europe - nearly every country in the world, including many much much poorer than us - make efforts to preserve their unique landscapes. Are you saying that we should not?

regards,
Scofflaw

Nodin

It has to be said that when you see the preservation abroad of buildings and towns - particularily in countries that suffered massive bomb and war damage - you truly shudder when you consider whats been done here.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, the whole thing is rather closer to a crystallisation of our attitude to environmental matters - the same attitude that meant the only official body really questioning the Tara motorway was the European Commission.

Every other country in Europe - nearly every country in the world, including many much much poorer than us - make efforts to preserve their unique landscapes. Are you saying that we should not?

regards,
Scofflaw

The environment is one of many concerns. With unemployment at critical levels we need to be pragmatic.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The environment is one of many concerns. With unemployment at critical levels we need to be pragmatic.

That's an utterly irrelevant point - no, sorry, it's not a point at all, it's a piece of mindless buzzworded drivel. Allowing the destruction of the last few remaining pristine pieces of a typically Irish environment has nothing to do with unemployment. And "unemployment at critical levels"? WTF? Unemployment is two-thirds of what it was when I left college. You don't know you're born.

"We need to be pragmatic"...Christ on a bicycle.

Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an utterly irrelevant point - no, sorry, it's not a point at all, it's a piece of mindless buzzworded drivel. Allowing the destruction of the last few remaining pristine pieces of a typically Irish environment has nothing to do with unemployment. And "unemployment at critical levels"? WTF? Unemployment is two-thirds of what it was when I left college. You don't know you're born.

"We need to be pragmatic"...Christ on a bicycle.

Scofflaw

I must go now and thank someone that you have no public influence or power although I am sceptical. Can you please cite one use for pristine bogland apart from the enjoyment of a few public sector day trippers. Scofflaw when you consider the government is taxing home heating oil, banning turf cutting it is tantamount to a policy of depopulation in the west of ireland. Or should they all be converting to electrical heating imported from nuclear power plants in england.
Additionally this ill conceived outburst on your part puts you in the Brian Lenihan category of sure the country is to small and people should leave!!. I am truly astonished. It is rather like the rationale of the landlords circa 1860-70.

My own opinion is that we should be allowed to do what we want with our bogs. They can either provide for us or not. Personally I think the whole lot of them should be forested which would provide fresh air, compensate carbon emissions, managed correctly an industry, increase habitats for wild animals and provide an enormous tourist spin off. That I consider pragmatic and environmentally friendly. It is our land, ours to destroy and ours to enhance. I am extremely uncomfortable with legislation that limits an individuals rights created by unnamed faces who never live in this environment.

Needles to say, I expect a retort however I will never consider a bog pristine in any shape or form, call me a philistine if you will.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I must go now and thank someone that you have no public influence or power although I am sceptical. Can you please cite one use for pristine bogland apart from the enjoyment of a few public sector day trippers. Scofflaw when you consider the government is taxing home heating oil, banning turf cutting it is tantamount to a policy of depopulation in the west of ireland. Or should they all be converting to electrical heating imported from nuclear power plants in england.
Additionally this ill conceived outburst on your part puts you in the Brian Lenihan category of sure the country is to small and people should leave!!. I am truly astonished. It is rather like the rationale of the landlords circa 1860-70.

My own opinion is that we should be allowed to do what we want with our bogs. They can either provide for us or not. Personally I think the whole lot of them should be forested which would provide fresh air, compensate carbon emissions, managed correctly an industry, increase habitats for wild animals and provide an enormous tourist spin off. That I consider pragmatic and environmentally friendly. It is our land, ours to destroy and ours to enhance. I am extremely uncomfortable with legislation that limits an individuals rights created by unnamed faces who never live in this environment.

Needles to say, I expect a retort however I will never consider a bog pristine in any shape or form, call me a philistine if you will.

The gulf is far too wide for me to bother shouting across, and it certainly wouldn't be worth straining my voice just to shout an insult.

Purely on acreage, though, the idea that preserving some of our remaining bogs of scientific interest is akin to saying the "country is too small for the people" is obvious rubbish, since the country supported twice this population and a heck of a lot more bog. As to forestry on bog...most bog is useless for forestry - the only reason there's forestry there is tax breaks - indeed, most bogland is useless for anything else except bog.

regards,
Scofflaw

Macha

rumour wrote: »

Can you please cite one use for pristine bogland apart from the enjoyment of a few public sector day trippers.

1. Bogs are a massive carbon storage. They release far more carbon dioxide into the air than any other form of fossil fuel.
2. Bogs are scarce, yet crucial for biodiversity, something that should matter to every single person for purely selfish reasons, if no other.

In short, cutting up swathes of scarce habitat that is important for biodiversity and in doing so releasing atrocious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere just for the sake of tradition is completely moronic.

rumour wrote: »

Scofflaw when you consider the government is taxing home heating oil, banning turf cutting it is tantamount to a policy of depopulation in the west of ireland. Or should they all be converting to electrical heating imported from nuclear power plants in england.

I must be mistaken - I was under the impression that:
a) the rural electrification of Ireland was completed in 1973
b) Ireland is currently meeting almost 100% of domestic demand for electricity through national power stations.

rumour wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should be allowed to do what we want with our bogs.

Who is "we"? And which generation would "we" belong to?

rumour wrote: »

They can either provide for us or not. Personally I think the whole lot of them should be forested which would provide fresh air, compensate carbon emissions, managed correctly an industry, increase habitats for wild animals and provide an enormous tourist spin off. That I consider pragmatic and environmentally friendly.

Please, please educate yourself. This sort of paragraph is just an embarrassment:

http://www.raisedbogrestoration.ie/

rumour wrote: »

It is our land, ours to destroy and ours to enhance. I am extremely uncomfortable with legislation that limits an individuals rights created by unnamed faces who never live in this environment.

The boglands of Ireland are of national importance for the reasons outlined above and therefore should not be left up to the whims of a few individuals, and particularly not individuals with your attitude. Thank God for the EU is all I can say.

rumour wrote: »

Needles to say, I expect a retort however I will never consider a bog pristine in any shape or form, call me a philistine if you will.

Probably because you seem to have a different definition of pristine when applied to habitats than the rest of the world.

Scofflaw

And, as far as I recollect, it was only personal cutters who are banned, commercial cutting will continue! How does that preserve the bogs??

That's sort of the wrong way round - cutting on 'conserved' bogs other than those in private hands has already ceased.

Perhaps I should clarify again that this measure only affects a very small area of bogs that are considered to be on scientific value. It does not affect the vast majority of bogs at all, and it certainly doesn't affect any bog that is already being cut, whether by terribly indigent families or not. 95% of uncut bogland will still be cuttable, and 100% of already cut bogland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

The gulf is far too wide for me to bother shouting across, and it certainly wouldn't be worth straining my voice just to shout an insult.

I am equally dumbfounded by the gulf.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to forestry on bog...most bog is useless for forestry - the only reason there's forestry there is tax breaks - indeed, most bogland is useless for anything else except bog.

I disagree, nearly all bog will support pine forests. Sweeden and Norway are good examples. We can either choose to do something sustainable or do nothing. Seems yet again we have adopted the do nothing scenario. The easy political cop out, especially when we can blame the EU for having to do it.

taconnel wrote: »

The boglands of Ireland are of national importance for the reasons outlined above and therefore should not be left up to the whims of a few individuals, and particularly not individuals with your attitude. Thank God for the EU is all I can say.

I disagree with your reasons. They are based more on ideology than fact. I believe statements like the following demonstrate this:

taconnel wrote: »

Bogs are scarce, yet crucial for biodiversity, something that should matter to every single person for purely selfish reasons, if no other.

Can you enlighten me please as to what category of crucial biodiverse bogs fit into?

taconnel wrote: »

The boglands of Ireland are of national importance for the reasons outlined above and therefore should not be left up to the whims of a few individuals, and particularly not individuals with your attitude. Thank God for the EU is all I can say.

Can you enlighten me please as to what category of national importance bogs should be allocated?
I mean if we stopped importing oil tomorrow and people needed to light a fire to cook or stay warm should the army be sent out to shoot any one who would dare touch the bogs? Please expand on your 'national importance' criteria.
Apalling as it may sound to you, I propose that under the above circumstances the bogs are not 'crucial' at all. Now if this is true, is it really appropriate to use the word crucial other than to engage in hyperbole to support an ideology.

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The environment is one of many concerns. With unemployment at critical levels we need to be pragmatic.

BL has it nailed in one here. We can give the EU the finger AND make serious inroads in our unemployment levels by allowing that tiny amount of bog affected by this ban to be cut. :rolleyes:

Nodin

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The environment is one of many concerns. With unemployment at critical levels we need to be pragmatic.

...thats the attitude I was sort of getting at in Post 5.

Nodin

molloyjh wrote: »

BL has it nailed in one here. We can give the EU the finger AND make serious inroads in our unemployment levels by allowing that tiny amount of bog affected by this ban to be cut. :rolleyes:

Yep. Get rid of it, then concrete it over to make a few housing estates with one chipper and no bus service between them.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Get rid of it, then concrete it over to make a few housing estates with one chipper and no bus service between them.

You forgot to mention that there would also be a tendency to flood. It might be marketed as a natural water feature.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Habitats Directive, which this ban comes under, should have come into force 11-12 years ago. There was a 10-year derogation, and then a further 1-year extension a year ago. Throughout that period, any affected landowner could apply for compensation - the sites were designated nearly a decade ago.

The affected area is very small - something like 4.1% of all pristine bogland, and an even smaller percentage of total bogland. I have the figures somewhere if I can find them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Correct me if I am wrong here but wouldn't the decision on which areas are Natural Heritage Areas or SACs have been made by the Dept of the Environment (or other Government body) here in Ireland?

I would imagine the Directive doesn't specify that bogs X and Y in Roscommon must be declared a SAC....

Cavehill Red

Why do the Greens hate rural life so much?

Macha

View wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here but wouldn't the decision on which areas are Natural Heritage Areas or SACs have been made by the Dept of the Environment (or other Government body) here in Ireland?

I would imagine the Directive doesn't specify that bogs X and Y in Roscommon must be declared a SAC....

It is left up to the Dept of Environment to designate SACs. Ecologists under the NPWS would have made assessments and recommended specific sites.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why do the Greens hate rural life so much?

Do you understand the importance of biodiversity and minimising carbon emissions to rural life?

Bogger77

We useta have "cutting rights" on one of the bogs listed last week, and even my dad is happy that that bog finally safe from both BnM and local turf cutters.
As for the comment of planting trees on the bogs, I know in the case of the nearest bog to us, that no machinery could be used to plant, or they'd end up sunk, as a person cannot even walk on the bog. A natural untouched raised bog, is basically like a sponge swollen with water, and doing anything like draining, etc ruins it.

There's enough bog left for turf cutting, this is just the IFA looking for more money, which is funny cos compensation was paid for most of these bogs or they're owned by BnM.

oppenheimer1

How could anybody be against this directive? Clearly some people here have never lifted turf or they would realise it is the most annoying and hard part of rural life. Good riddance I say.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here but wouldn't the decision on which areas are Natural Heritage Areas or SACs have been made by the Dept of the Environment (or other Government body) here in Ireland?

I would imagine the Directive doesn't specify that bogs X and Y in Roscommon must be declared a SAC....

Yes, the list of SACs was prepared by the Dept of the Environment, as far as I know, although the sites were largely submitted by environmental NGOs like the IPCC (see here, for example). It would have been submitted back in 2003 or thereabouts, so the list of proposed SACs has been available for a decade or so, and the list of finalised ones for about 5 years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

taconnol wrote: »

Do you understand the importance of biodiversity and minimising carbon emissions to rural life?

I'm all for biodiversity.
On the other hand, I am sceptical about the anthropogenic global warming thesis, and its insistence on reducing carbon emissions that frankly effect the weather microscopically if at all compared to methane emissions or indeed solar cycles.

marco_polo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm all for biodiversity.
On the other hand, I am sceptical about the anthropogenic global warming thesis, and its insistence on reducing carbon emissions that frankly effect the weather microscopically if at all compared to methane emissions or indeed solar cycles.

I am interested as to how someone could be "all for biodiversity" yet are against this directive which will protect a tiny percentage of raised bogs in one of the last remaining countries in Europe where such bogs still exist.

Cavehill Red

marco_polo wrote: »

I am interested as to how someone could be "all for biodiversity" yet are against this directive which will protect a tiny percentage of raised bogs in one of the last remaining countries in Europe where such bogs still exist.

Remind me which endangered species exist solely on these bogs, please?

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, the list of SACs was prepared by the Dept of the Environment, as far as I know, although the sites were largely submitted by environmental NGOs like the IPCC (see here, for example). It would have been submitted back in 2003 or thereabouts, so the list of proposed SACs has been available for a decade or so, and the list of finalised ones for about 5 years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So, since it is the Dept of the Environment that is deciding whether bog X or Y is closed to turf-cutting, this is actually an "Irish ban" on the relevant bogs.

I guess that facing up to that though that would ruin most of the whining about the ban.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Remind me which endangered species exist solely on these bogs, please?

A good starting point for the answer to that would be here. However, the argument for conservation applies to whole habitats as well as individual species.

View wrote:

So, since it is the Dept of the Environment that is deciding whether bog X or Y is closed to turf-cutting, this is actually an "Irish ban" on the relevant bogs.

I guess that facing up to that though that would ruin most of the whining about the ban.

Oh, I don't know - it offers the opportunity to have a go at both the EU and the Green Party. Admittedly, the necessary Irish legislation came in in 1997, the list was finalised by 2005, and the 10-year moratorium expired a year ago without any hope of any such a long moratorium being granted again (given we've already had judgements given against us in the ECJ), so it's not really as if the Green Party had anything to do with it, but that sort of thing doesn't stop a griper griping.

As usual, the detail of the thing seems completely lost in the debate - turf-cutting is not being banned except on a selected list of sites. The vast majority of sites where people have turbary rights are on bogs that are of no conservation interest because they've already been cut.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

A good starting point for the answer to that would be here. However, the argument for conservation applies to whole habitats as well as individual species.

Your argument does. Not mine. I see no reason for sparing land that could be put to useful purpose simply because some hippies want to designate it a 'habitat' (which in any case is defined as a place where creatures live.)
Where there is genuine biodiversity - ie a diversity of animal species that would be threatened by development, I'm in full support. That's not the case with these bogs.
Apparently the answer to my question is one species of goose which is not endangered and sphagnum moss.
Or to put it bluntly, no species is endangered by this at all.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Your argument does. Not mine. I see no reason for sparing land that could be put to useful purpose simply because some hippies want to designate it a 'habitat' (which in any case is defined as a place where creatures live.)
Where there is genuine biodiversity - ie a diversity of animal species that would be threatened by development, I'm in full support. That's not the case with these bogs.
Apparently the answer to my question is one species of goose which is not endangered and sphagnum moss.
Or to put it bluntly, no species is endangered by this at all.

Meh. If you don't see any value in habitat protection, you don't see any value in habitat protection. Again, this is a gulf not worth shouting across, particularly since the legislation is there, and is not optional. The economic impact is virtually nil, and compensation has been available at any point over the last decade. The land is virtually no use for anything else, including forestry - bogland forestry is largely the product of tax breaks and CAP grants.

Personally, I'm glad that we'll have some bogland protected so that our descendants will have (climate permitting) some vague idea of what Ireland's heritage and history is. Also, personally, I like bogland, but there we go, it takes all sorts, and you're the one rowing against the tide rather than me. If at some point the protected boglands make the difference between economic health and illness for the country, I'll be happy to reconsider my support.

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Can argue your point, or argue with mine, so you hide behind 'suck it up, it's the law.'
Well, it's a wrong law, designed by the Greens, to damage rural life.

P. Breathnach

Cavehill Red wrote: »

...
Well, it's a wrong law, designed by the Greens, to damage rural life.

To some extent, it is acceptable to slag off politicians if you don't agree with them, but I don't think this falls within the range of fair comment.
1. The Greens were a long way outside government when this process was initiated.
2. Even if you disagree with Green policies, it is going way OTT to impute to them the objective of damaging rural life.

molloyjh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Can argue your point, or argue with mine, so you hide behind 'suck it up, it's the law.'
Well, it's a wrong law, designed by the Greens, to damage rural life.

1. The law was not "designed" by the Greens, nor did they designate the particular bogs in question. They are merely enforcing a law that was passed long before they came into Government. They have no choice in the matter.

2. The amount of bogland affected is pretty small and there is and has been compensation available to those affected. There is still plenty more bogland that can be cut.

3. While you personally may disagree with the idea of holding onto a small amount of bogland from a cultural perspective, others will agree with it. Given that it is a pretty small amount of land we're talking about I personally agree with it.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Can argue your point, or argue with mine, so you hide behind 'suck it up, it's the law.'

Some people simply don't see any point in conservation, never have, and never will. There's no more point arguing about the value of conservation with someone like that than there is arguing over music with someone tone-deaf.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, it's a wrong law, designed by the Greens, to damage rural life.

It's amazing you managed to be so completely inaccurate immediately after I'd pointed out that the Greens had nothing to do with this. With accuracy like that is it any wonder I'm not bothered arguing with you?

regards,
Scofflaw

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How could anybody be against this directive? Clearly some people here have never lifted turf or they would realise it is the most annoying and hard part of rural life. Good riddance I say.

Jeeze I would never have pictured you doing turf :eek:
You are right it can be back breaking, but can be great for getting a suntan, as good as a beach.
Hell I have a cunning plan

For all the ones around here who never saw a bog bar form the window of their passing cars, something to note is that even cutaway bog that has not been reclaimed also provides huge ares of habitat for foxes, hares, snipe, grouse, etc, etc.
So why not also have some preservation of these areas ?

Anyway the reason a lot of farmers would see it as an attack is that as they are being banned from cutting turf when the alternatives like heating oil will also be facing tax hikes.

Oh and gormless together with the rest of the green party are a bunch of gimps who could do with getting their heads shoved down a bog hole.

Riskymove

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Can argue your point, or argue with mine, so you hide behind 'suck it up, it's the law.'
Well, it's a wrong law, designed by the Greens, to damage rural life.

what nonsense....the law emenates from the EU...forma time when we prbably had no or few Green politicians in this country

nacho libre

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How could anybody be against this directive? Clearly some people here have never lifted turf or they would realise it is the most annoying and hard part of rural life. Good riddance I say.

"Harden the **** up"

i can see both sides of this. I pity the environmental officers going around trying to enforce this ruling. There arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Am i right in think that most of the bog affected by this EU directive are in the midlands?

nacho libre

jmayo wrote: »

For all the ones around here who never saw a bog bar form the window of their passing cars, something to note is that even cutaway bog that has not been reclaimed also provides huge ares of habitat for foxes, hares, snipe, grouse, etc, etc.
So why not also have some preservation of these areas ?

.

I must say seeing a snipe in the bog is is quite a sight. Their speed in the air is something to behold. Is it true the only bird that preys on it is the hawk?

As you say the bog is great for a tan too!

thirtythirty

rumour wrote: »

I must go now and thank someone that you have no public influence or power although I am sceptical. Can you please cite one use for pristine bogland apart from the enjoyment of a few public sector day trippers.

UH-DUHHHH.....bogland is a massive carbon sink. The more that's cut away, the worse our country's emmissions will be and we'll NEVER keep within our allocated carbon credits, much less make any targets for 2020 and beyond. Do you have any idea how much fines for going above your carbon limits could cost the government...and hence us!?

Man, i wish there was a smiley that had his tongue stuck under his bottom lip and crossing his eyes at the same time.

Scofflaw

nacho libre wrote: »

"Harden the **** up"

i can see both sides of this. I pity the environmental officers going around trying to enforce this ruling. There arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Am i right in think that most of the bog affected by this EU directive are in the midlands?

Non-commercial turf-cutting is to be banned on the following 32 raised bogs:

1 Killyconny Bog (Cloghbally) Cavan and Meath

2 Barroughter Bog Galway

3 Cloonmoylan Bog Galway

4 Kilsallagh Bog Galway

5 Lisnageeragh Bog and Ballinstack Turlough Galway

6 Lough Corrib Galway and Mayo

7 Lough Lurgeen Bog/Glenamaddy Turlough Galway

8 Shankill West Bog Galway

9 Sheheree (Ardagh) Bog Kerry

10 Ballynafagh Bog Kildare

11 Lough Ree Ros/LD/WM

12 Derrynabrock Bog Mayo and Roscommon

13 Flughany Bog Mayo and Sligo

14 Tawnaghbeg Bog Mayo

15 All Saints Bog and Esker Offaly

16 Clara Bog Offaly

17 Ferbane Bog Offaly

18 Mongan Bog Offaly

19 Moyclare Bog Offaly

20 Raheenmore Bog Offaly

21 Sharavogue Bog Offaly

22 Bellanagare Bog Roscommon

23 Carrowbehy/Caher Bog Roscommon

24 Cloonchambers Bog Roscommon

25 Derrinea Bog Roscommon

26 Cloonshanville Bog Roscommon

27 Ballyduff/Clonfinane Bog Tipperary

28 Kilcarren-Firville Bog Tipperary

29 Garriskil Bog Westmeath

30 Carrownagappul Bog Galway

31 Lough Forbes Complex Longford and Roscommon

32 Corliskea/Trien/Cloonfelliv Bog Galway and Roscommon

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

spottyelephant wrote: »

UH-DUHHHH.....bogland is a massive carbon sink. The more that's cut away, the worse our country's emmissions will be and we'll NEVER keep within our allocated carbon credits, much less make any targets for 2020 and beyond. Do you have any idea how much fines for going above your carbon limits could cost the government...and hence us!?

Man, i wish there was a smiley that had his tongue stuck under his bottom lip and crossing his eyes at the same time.

??????, what is the use for this pristine bog or carbon sink as you want to call it???

OMG lets not talk about the world of carbon credits, its nothing but an artificial market. What difference will a few bogs make to global warming when China for example is opening a caol mine a day. Its like a sceen from the Monthy Python movie where the city is sinking. We're borrowing twice as much money as we earn a day to pay for bloated salaries that are far in excess of the european averages and you are upset about the carbon emissions from a few bogs and worried about the potential fines.

I say forest the whole bloody lot of them, they are useless to anyone, apart from as I have said day trippers from urban areas who in my opinion are generally public sector employess with nothing to do on their 14days extra holidays (sorry sick days) a year.

Can someone please tell me a use for these bogs?

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

??????, what is the use for this pristine bog or carbon sink as you want to call it???

OMG lets not talk about the world of carbon credits, its nothing but an artificial market. What difference will a few bogs make to global warming when China for example is opening a caol mine a day. Its like a sceen from the Monthy Python movie where the city is sinking. We're borrowing twice as much money as we earn a day to pay for bloated salaries that are far in excess of the european averages and you are upset about the carbon emissions from a few bogs and worried about the potential fines.

I say forest the whole bloody lot of them, they are useless to anyone, apart from as I have said day trippers from urban areas who in my opinion are generally public sector employess with nothing to do on their 14days extra holidays (sorry sick days) a year.

Can someone please tell me a use for these bogs?

Burying bodies.

regards,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Burying bodies.

regards,
Scofflaw

:pac: lol, then in the future we can have them reclassified as national monuments!!!
Apparently bogs are good at preserving bodies, we could sell real life CSI weekends in our drive to increase tourism.
There is the added benefit that in three thousand years time some archaelogists will uncover them ( the CSI activities will have to be regulated of course to make it sustainable) and determine that we all must have loved these places as some sort of ancient spiritual resting ground.

People like me who wanted to plant trees will be wiped from history!!

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

:pac: lol, then in the future we can have them reclassified as national monuments!!!
Apparently bogs are good at preserving bodies, we could sell real life CSI weekends in our drive to increase tourism.
There is the added benefit that in three thousand years time some archaelogists will uncover them ( the CSI activities will have to be regulated of course to make it sustainable) and determine that we all must have loved these places as some sort of ancient spiritual resting ground.

People like me who wanted to plant trees will be wiped from history!!

No harm, that - we're not short on conifer plantation. We could do with more broadleaf, but it needs better land.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Meh. If you don't see any value in habitat protection, you don't see any value in habitat protection. Again, this is a gulf not worth shouting across, particularly since the legislation is there, and is not optional. The economic impact is virtually nil, and compensation has been available at any point over the last decade. The land is virtually no use for anything else, including forestry - bogland forestry is largely the product of tax breaks and CAP grants.

Personally, I'm glad that we'll have some bogland protected so that our descendants will have (climate permitting) some vague idea of what Ireland's heritage and history is. Also, personally, I like bogland, but there we go, it takes all sorts, and you're the one rowing against the tide rather than me. If at some point the protected boglands make the difference between economic health and illness for the country, I'll be happy to reconsider my support.

regards,
Scofflaw

I disagree, lets plant some trees and find out!!!

As for heritage and history???? are the egyptians remembered by the marshes of the nile, the romans by the reeds of the tiber, england by norfolk (mud flats). Seems to me you have a version of history & heritage already written in your mind, seems a bit 18C landlord to me. That said at least you are open to the future.

Macha

rumour wrote: »

I disagree, lets plant some trees and find out!!!

I believe that was already tried in the 1950s.

K-9

Really, what is the harm in preserving some of these bogs?

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I disagree, lets plant some trees and find out!!!

As for heritage and history???? are the egyptians remembered by the marshes of the nile, the romans by the reeds of the tiber, england by norfolk (mud flats). Seems to me you have a version of history & heritage already written in your mind, seems a bit 18C landlord to me. That said at least you are open to the future.

Having been up in the Dublin Mountains at the weekend, I'm reminded that (a) I like bog, and (b) lots of other people do too. You won't get a skylark lifting off from forestry, and you won't get tourists or locals coming to drive round agricultural forestry.

The idea that we should forest Connemara or the Ring of Kerry with identikit conifer plantations is nonsense. It doesn't even make commercial sense, because most bog isn't suitable even for low-grade conifer forestry, due to shallow rooting, waterlogging, high windthrow, and extraction difficulties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having been up in the Dublin Mountains at the weekend, I'm reminded that (a) I like bog, and (b) lots of other people do too. You won't get a skylark lifting off from forestry, and you won't get tourists or locals coming to drive round agricultural forestry.

The idea that we should forest Connemara or the Ring of Kerry with identikit conifer plantations is nonsense. It doesn't even make commercial sense, because most bog isn't suitable even for low-grade conifer forestry, due to shallow rooting, waterlogging, high windthrow, and extraction difficulties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I acknowledge your personal preferences I guess all we should do now is legislate accordingly???


I didn't know your commercial acumen also covered forestry. (in addition to your undoubted comphrehensive knowledge of all matters European).

Have you ever been to bavaria, northern sweeden or indeed finland? It can work if managed properly. Additionally they do not have to be conifers however wind breaks are required to provide shelter for the decidious trees. It would take at least two/three generations to establish a natural forest. Again I see no problem with that even though some people might be inconvenienced on their weekends.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

I acknowledge your personal preferences I guess all we should do now is legislate accordingly???


I didn't know your commercial acumen also covered forestry. (in addition to your undoubted comphrehensive knowledge of all matters European).

Have you ever been to bavaria, northern sweeden or indeed finland? It can work if managed properly. Additionally they do not have to be conifers however wind breaks are required to provide shelter for the decidious trees. It would take at least two/three generations to establish a natural forest. Again I see no problem with that even though some people might be inconvenienced on their weekends.

Or maybe we could preserve some of them for future generations and forest the rest?

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Burying bodies.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having been up in the Dublin Mountains at the weekend, I'm reminded that (a) I like bog, and (b) lots of other people do too. You won't get a skylark lifting off from forestry, and you won't get tourists or locals coming to drive round agricultural forestry.
...

Was there a connection betweent the two posts ?

BTW you might get tourists up in Dublin Mountains (or more correctly I reckon Wicklow Mountains), Connemara or maybe sections of Donegal, but trust me you never get tourists in large tracks of Irish bogs.
And these are the bogs being targetted with this.
Also the bog on mountain side is different from lowland bogs.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I acknowledge your personal preferences I guess all we should do now is legislate accordingly???


I didn't know your commercial acumen also covered forestry. (in addition to your undoubted comphrehensive knowledge of all matters European).

Have you ever been to bavaria, northern sweeden or indeed finland? It can work if managed properly. Additionally they do not have to be conifers however wind breaks are required to provide shelter for the decidious trees. It would take at least two/three generations to establish a natural forest. Again I see no problem with that even though some people might be inconvenienced on their weekends.

My knowledge of matters European is recent, but I have an environmental MSc, and spent most of my early career in and around people like Teagasc. I can assure you that the majority of Irish bogland is of no commercial value as forestry without tax breaks - that's why the tax breaks have always been provided.

Now, arguing that we should not only ignore any conservation, aesthetic, touristic, or historical value of the bogs in favour of their commercial value is one thing, but arguing that we should do it when the only way of doing it is to provide taxpayer's money to do it is frankly pretty silly.

Was there a connection betweent the two posts ?

That's for me to know...

cordially,
Scofflaw