The battle of the Bog

Sponge Bob

The state deployed the following.

1. The Air Corps it seems, maybe a private plane but usually it's the Air Corps.
2. The ERU
3. A number of uniformed police...and scuttling along behind them.

3. The Rangers. Thats the National Parks rangers not the special forces.

And between them they confiscated 2 turf cutting machines on a bog.

The machines were rescued by a couple of local farmers that night.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26413-bog-owners-twelve-hour-stand-garda%C3%AD-turf-row-hits-new-low

A file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) following a twelve-hour showdown at a County Galway bog in which a group of 100 local people used cover of darkness to take back two turf-cutting machines which had been seized from them by Gardai on Tuesday.

And the locals are not too happy at having guns flashed at them and low flying air corps aircraft buzzing etc.

But Gardai have been accused of an ‘over the top’ reaction after an airplane, the Crime Scene Unit, the Armed Response Unit, a jeep, and two patrol cars were deployed to Clonmoylan Bog, near Portumna, which is one of 53 bogs nationwide which have been designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

This one is gonna run

A file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) following a twelve-hour showdown at a County Galway bog in which a group of 100 local people used cover of darkness to take back two turf-cutting machines which had been seized from them by Gardai on Tuesday.

100 people.. christ. In a few months we'll get a headline along the lines of "50 million spent protecting bogs"...

Just throw them (ALL) in jail if they're breaking the law and be done with it.

Sponge Bob

Lock them up with Seaneh Fitz and the other criminals I say.

IrishHomer

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The state deployed the following.

1. The Air Corps it seems, maybe a private plane but usually it's the Air Corps.
2. The ERU
3. A number of uniformed police...and scuttling along behind them.

3. The Rangers. Thats the National Parks rangers not the special forces.

And between them they confiscated 2 turf cutting machines on a bog.

The machines were rescued by a couple of local farmers that night.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26413-bog-owners-twelve-hour-stand-garda%C3%AD-turf-row-hits-new-low




And the locals are not too happy at having guns flashed at them and low flying air corps aircraft buzzing etc.





This one is gonna run

So Spongebob how come your not over there beefing up the numbers for your cause, too wet for you?

mike65

Why do people cutting turf for personal use need mechanised methods?

IrishHomer

mike65 wrote: »

Why do people cutting turf for personal use need mechanised methods?

Laziness & greed

laoisman11

IrishHomer wrote: »

Laziness & greed

obviously never worked with turf......

IrishHomer

laoisman11 wrote: »

obviously never worked with turf......

Eh obviously did!!!!!!!!!!!!

laoisman11

IrishHomer wrote: »

Eh obviously did!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if you "obviously did" maybe you can tell us the amount of time it would take for one person to foot enough turf for an average family home?

Any then perhaps you can explain why you deem the use of mechanised equipment to do this "laziness and greed"?

mike65

The reason I ask is the obvious one, that using machinery means enough can be lifted for black market sales, slipping the neighbour half a tonne for a few bob (no idea what the going rate would be).

Seth Brundle

According to the IT, the siezed equipment has been torched: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0621/breaking4.html

laoisman11

laoisman11 wrote: »

obviously never worked with turf......

What Irish person hasn't worked with turf? I'm as city as they come and even I've spent time cutting and stacking turf as a teen over multiple summers.

laoisman11

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What Irish person hasn't worked with turf? I'm as city as they come and even I've spent time cutting and stacking turf as a teen over multiple summers.

That's what I was wondering too. Irishhomer wanted to raise some point but then thought that by letting the rest of world know what he meant was derailing the thread.

Odd.

IrishHomer

laoisman11 wrote: »

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What Irish person hasn't worked with turf? I'm as city as they come and even I've spent time cutting and stacking turf as a teen over multiple summers.

That's what I was wondering too. Irishhomer wanted to raise some point but then thought that by letting the rest of world know what he meant was derailing the thread.

Odd.

Eh can you read?

I gave a quick answer to mike65s question that sidetracked things originally, now is OP still gone to ground? LOL :-)

laoisman11

Anyway......

Back OT........the authorities went way overboard here. Where is the political pressure coming from on this one, Europe? And why on this when the govt couldn't be bothered protecting the area surrounding archaelogical sites like Tara?

Seth Brundle

laoisman11 wrote: »

Anyway......

Back OT........the authorities went way overboard here. Where is the political pressure coming from on this one, Europe? And why on this when the govt couldn't be bothered protecting the area surrounding archaelogical sites like Tara?

I believe that the EU would fine us something like 25K per day were we to allow it to continue.
Tara unfortunately wouldn't have incurred such a fine.

laoisman11

laoisman11 wrote: »

Anyway......

Back OT........the authorities went way overboard here. Where is the political pressure coming from on this one, Europe? And why on this when the govt couldn't be bothered protecting the area surrounding archaelogical sites like Tara?

Tell us, what should the authorities do when a certain sub-section of the population are willfully breaking the law as such?

Aidan1

2. The ERU

No, the RSU supposedly - different entirely. And the GS haven't confirmed they were there either - any photographic evidence?

That said, given that there is numerous cases of turf cutters threatening the lives of the NPWS or Gardai, why would they not have armed officers there to protect those upholding the law?

Sponge Bob

IrishHomer wrote: »

So Spongebob how come your not over there beefing up the numbers for your cause, too wet for you?

What are you on about??? What "Cause"??? Go off and troll elsewhere willya.

Sponge Bob

Latest. The Assistant Commissioner is involved now.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26438-agreement-reached-standoff-clonmoylan-bog

Assistant Garda Commissioner Jack Nolan has given a briefing that they hopper machine seized by Gardai is to be returned to its rightful owner.

An examination of the machine will be undertaken by Gardai later today.

Iwasfrozen

I'm sick of these bloody turf cutters. Anyone breaking the law should be put in jail simple as. :mad:

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a few points of clarification:

- People do not have to join a cause or be affiliated with it in order to discuss it on this website. So let's cut the 'why aren't YOU over protesting'-type responses.

- If you have an issue with someone's posts, please report them rather than retaliating on-thread.

This can be a good thread if it does't get bogged down (;)) by petty sniping.

dulpit

It puzzles/bothers me that people feel like they can kick up a fuss when they disagree with the law that's there. They're breaking the law, so stick them in jail.. Instead we have Ming out there going on about how they should be getting compensated/etc.:mad:

Also, on a side note:

MOD SNIP: Leave the face-palming for AH, thanks.

Mr.Micro

dulpit wrote: »

It puzzles/bothers me that people feel like they can kick up a fuss when they disagree with the law that's there. They're breaking the law, so stick them in jail.. Instead we have Ming out there going on about how they should be getting compensated/etc.:mad:

Also, on a side note:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

The Irish and ungovernable comes to mind. There appears to be an issue with some group over everything. The whole country appears to be a group of factions, farmers, turf cutters, anti household charge, anti septic tank, anti bin charges, D4 types, Mick Wallace types who do as they like and respect nobody, all with a non conformist mentality, "you are not telling me what to do".

MadsL

I also note plenty of anti-EU sentiment, until it comes to farmers cashing the EU cheques.

Sponge Bob

Many badly thought out Civil Service concoctions are blamed on 'the EU told us to do this' rather than the Civil Service admitting they only half thought out a package of measures and apologising. Sadly it seems to have a cumulative effect.

It wasn't the EU who came up with the idea of delivering (substandard) turf as 'compensation' or allocating alternative bogs 70 miles away in lieu of the current plot. That was our dears.

Like I said in the first post, this one is gonna run.

Seth Brundle

dulpit wrote: »

Instead we have Ming out there going on about how they should be getting compensated/etc.:mad:

They have been paid -quite handsomely at that!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/payments-under-turf-scheme-are-doubled-3041634.html
http://www.shannonside.ie/news-details.php?nid=12437&action=newsdetails

Being paid 2 grand this year and 1500 for the following 14. How much does it cost to heat your house? Being paid not to have to go to the hassle of cutting and drying and hauling turf?

Sponge Bob

kbannon wrote: »

Being paid 2 grand this year and 1500 for the following 14. How much does it cost to heat your house? Being paid not to have to go to the hassle of cutting and drying and hauling turf?

Some people accepted the offer. Not all of them.

MadsL

kbannon wrote: »

They have been paid -quite handsomely at that!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/payments-under-turf-scheme-are-doubled-3041634.html
http://www.shannonside.ie/news-details.php?nid=12437&action=newsdetails

Being paid 2 grand this year and 1500 for the following 14. How much does it cost to heat your house? Being paid not to have to go to the hassle of cutting and drying and hauling turf?

Ming said that you can't heat a telephone box on €1000 a year, and then claimed it was not about the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmaOpFP5e9U

He also claimed that turfcutters were like the black civil rights movement in 50s America. :rolleyes:

Members of the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association claim they are being “intimidated” by low-flying Air Corps aircraft monitoring activities. Independent Roscommon TD Luke “Ming” Flanagan has colourfully likened the turf-cutters’ activities to the resistance movement of the US black civil rights heroine Rosa Parks. “There are occasions that, during the tyranny of the state, the law needs to be broken,” he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0529/1224316867975.html

Icepick

kbannon wrote: »

They have been paid -quite handsomely at that!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/payments-under-turf-scheme-are-doubled-3041634.html
http://www.shannonside.ie/news-details.php?nid=12437&action=newsdetails

Being paid 2 grand this year and 1500 for the following 14. How much does it cost to heat your house? Being paid not to have to go to the hassle of cutting and drying and hauling turf?

unbelievable
If they cannot heat homes for 1,500 a year, they need to insulate and it's clear they are selling it on the side.

Rasheed

I'm from a county that is badly hit by the ban. When they first started talking about stopping turf cutting, I was livid.

Now, not so much after reading the facts. It's coming from Europe,it's not an Irish thing so it has to be adhered to. End of. We can't afford €25 a day, never mind €25000.

Next point is the compensation is more then fair in my opinion. I know it's not all black and white either and I'm open to correction, but the offer of €2000 this year, €1500 for the next 14 seems fair to me. Plus they are offering bog relocation if the money doesn't suit.

I have heard people are afraid they will accept the money, stop cutting and that the government will say they have no money for compensation in 3/4 years time. If this happens, I will personally spend every waking minute to spare I have cutting turf by hand.but I don't think the government are that stupid either.

freyners

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

Rasheed

freyners wrote: »

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

Ya fair point and I think you're right, never thought of that. I suppose getting the turf delivered and sharing it out or taking the other bog offered is the only way here.

MadsL

freyners wrote: »

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

They have had ten years notice. Forgive me if I am not more sympathetic. Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. The way some of this lot behave you would think the rights were God-given.

freyners

MadsL wrote: »

They have had ten years notice. Forgive me if I am not more sympathetic. Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. The way some of this lot behave you would think the rights were God-given.

not disputing the notice but if what ive heard is true (again im basing this on hearsay only) you can understand the complaining over the compensation scheme, either the farmer is losing his land so people can claim the money (no a snowballs chance in hell of happening) or non owners are left with nothing.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased.

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

He also claimed that turfcutters were like the black civil rights movement in 50s America. :rolleyes:

Sure, because the right to permanently destroy an extremely rare and irreplaceable habitat is exactly the same as the right not to be treated as sub-human.

oscarBravo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

But turbary is a common law principle and can be overridden by statute. No?

Rasheed

I love Ming but he really needs to cool the jets with the turf. He's not the quirky mayor of Roscommon anymore. He needs to have more respect for the law and protest in a more legal way.

oscarBravo

Rasheed wrote: »

I love Ming but he really needs to cool the jets with the turf. He's not the quirky mayor of Roscommon anymore. He needs to have more respect for the law and protest in a more legal way.

There's an entire rump of our national parliament that believes that obedience of the law is totally conditional on whether you feel like obeying it. If you don't feel like obeying the law, you describe it as "unjust" and invoke Rosa Parks, and bada bing: you're not a criminal, you're a civil rights hero.

I find corporation tax unjust. I feel I have a civic duty not to pay it.



(For the avoidance of doubt: I will most certainly be paying my corporation tax, and my VAT, and my PAYE and PRSI returns, and everything else that's required of me by law. I'm not even remotely interested in running for elected office, but I hold myself to a higher standard than many of our current crop of representatives appear to feel the need to.)

MadsL

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

What notice period should the State give?

And to be clear, are you saying that some mysterious 15th or more likely 19th Century agreement (transferred from landowner to tenant) has precedent over the democratically agreed law of the State and the European Union?

Xantia

Some laws are unjust.
Just because they have been made laws does not mean that they are unjust laws.

People have to stand up for what they believe in.

MadsL

Xantia wrote: »

Some laws are unjust.
Just because they have been made laws does not mean that they are unjust laws.

People have to stand up for what they believe in.

How is this law unjust. No-ones land is being taken from them and they are being generously compensated for the loss of the turf. Wtf were they expecting?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

Here's Phil Hogan to explain it to you again. I'm sure you are very familiar with the legislation - but I realise you do like to read it selectively.

Under the 1992 Habitats Directive Ireland agreed to protect various natural habitats which are of international importance, including by designating areas as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for their protection. Once designated, Ireland is obliged to monitor, protect and, where necessary, restore those habitats and species which are under threat. 55 sites have been designated as SACs for the conservation of raised bog habitat. In 2004, Ireland also designated 75 raised bogs as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) under the Wildlife Acts.

In 1999, arrangements were announced for the protection of the 31 raised bog sites that had been designated as SACs at that time. This included a 10-year national derogation during which domestic turf cutting could continue subject to certain restrictions. A similar 10-year derogation applied to the further 24 raised bog SACs and 75 raised bog Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) designated after 1999.

In May 2010, the Government confirmed the end of the derogation for domestic turf cutting in these 130 Raised Bog conservation sites, on a phased basis, with restrictions being implemented on 31 bogs from 2010. The previous Government did not take any decision to amend or reverse their decision of May 2010.

An interim compensation scheme was put in place and land / turbary right owners that could be readily identified were notified directly of the restrictions and the compensation scheme. Advertisements were placed in local newspapers and on local radio.

My Department continued to monitor bogs in designated areas following the Government decision ending the derogation. In a number of cases contractors coming onto bogs to begin turf cutting discontinued their activities on having the situation explained to them.

The Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of independent mediation between all relevant stakeholders with the specific objective of facilitating resolution to 55 Special Area of Conservation designated SAC bogs and to outstanding issues associated with turf cutting on blanket bogs.

I am giving early and urgent attention to this issue, and am currently working with my colleague Mr Jimmy Deenihan, TD, who will have responsibility for this matter as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, in developing comprehensive proposals for Government reflecting the commitment in the Programme for Government. These proposals will also form the basis of Ireland’s response to a recent Letter of Formal Notice from the European Commission regarding Ireland’s alleged breaches of the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives in relation to the issue of peat extraction.

The European Commission has also expressed concern regarding turf-cutting on raised bog Natural Heritage Areas. In addressing this issue, and achieving compliance with European law, we will also seek to accommodate the rights and wishes of turbary right owners in these sites, in accordance with the provisions of the Programme for Government of the Habitat Directive.

This Government will seek to resolve the long-standing issues regarding peat extraction on protected sites by working with local communities to address legitimate concerns while ensuring that Ireland is in compliance with EU environmental legislation. The proposals which are now being developed will put in place a range of measures designed to meet these twin aims.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-22.945.0&s=Turbary

http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/Press%20Release%20-%20illegal%20Turf%20Cutting.pdf

Sanctions available to the Government include prosecution under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, prosecution under the European Communities (Environmental Liability) Regulations 2008 and cross compliance reporting which may affect payments to farmers who are found to have cut turf illegally.

Also the majority of cutters at the protest bog have already been paid to stop cutting or be relocated.

Site Name
Cloonmoylan Bog

Counties
Galway
Total acknowledged
35
Number expressing an interest in relocation
5
Number of payments made
18

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-05-02.749.0&s=Turbary


Take a look at kildarestreet.com http://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=Turbary
What you will also notice is the vast number of (details supplied) type written questions about when is Mr Bog-cutter getting his cheque. Seems like TDs spend more time asking about when the money is coming through.

Sponge Bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

But turbary is a common law principle and can be overridden by statute. No?

Yes.....but what statute are you referring to precisely and a linkee poos required from the rather aptly named http://www.irishstatutebook.ie with reference to article in statute. ???

Ta.

Next up From VERRRY long quote by Madsl from a speech from a quite recently appointed minister....greatly shortened for clarity.

Relying on extensive quotation of Phil Hogans bluster in parliament absent Linkee Poo to statute is , shall we say, "Unpersuasive". !!!!

"In 1999, arrangements were announced for the protection of the 31 raised bog sites that had been designated as SACs at that time. This included a 10-year national derogation during which domestic turf cutting could continue subject to certain restrictions. A similar 10-year derogation applied to the further 24 raised bog SACs and 75 raised bog Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) designated after 1999."

Linkee Poos to statute from you too

Apropos some of the elegant homilies on national parilaments...there is a large rump that believes that rural ireland has universal broadband because it has been announced in parliament. Reality is somewhat at odds with the parliamentary announcements.

As the song sez....Same As It Ever Was > Supporting Link Here .

MadsL

We have been over this; but to indulge you.

General provisions for the prevention of damage to European Sites

35. (1) A person who, without lawful authority—

(a) carries out, on land within or outside a European Site, any plan or project or activity that may have a significant effect on, or adversely affect the integrity of, a European Site, or

(b) enters or occupies any European Site, or brings onto or places or uses or releases in any European Site any animal or object, including but not limited to—

(i) any off-road vehicle, recreational watercraft, plant and equipment, tractor or engine,

(ii) machinery for the extraction or mining of natural resources including, but not limited to trees, vegetation, minerals, rock, soil, gravel, sand, turf or peat,

Example legislation with respect to NHAs

4. (1) Subject to sub-article (2) of this article, each of the works mentioned in Schedule 2 is specified for the purposes of section 19(1) of the Act and is unlawful unless carried out with the consent of the Minister.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Baralis1

Rural turfcutters who own bogs have cut turf in a conservative way for their own use for hundreds of years and own only a small proportion of what was originally bog in this country, doing minimal damage to the bogs. The state through bord na mona, owned the vast majority of bog, and destroyed millions of acres of it recklessly over the last 80 years or so to supply towns and cities with briqettes, and the country with electricity. The state have destroyed their bogs and done huge amounts of damage which cannot be undone and now they want to punish the rural turfcutters who have done minimal damage. That is madness! The state should just pay the fine and invest the resources used to harass turfcutters into trying to create a sustainable habitat for wildlife in what was once Bord na Mona bogland.

By the way, most turfcutters own their bog, and a few years compensation is not enough to replace maybe hundreds of years of heating fuel self sufficiency into the future.

For the person who asked about the use of machinery and accused turfcutters of laziness. Nowadays people work full time and don't have large families of ten or twelve children to call upon to cut turf by hand. It is a very labour intensive job to cut turf by hand with a slean and not feasible in the modern lifestyle.

I fully support those people in Portumna, and nobody will stop me cutting turf in my own bogs if they are eventually included in the same scheme.

MadsL

Baralis1 wrote: »

Rural turfcutters who own bogs have cut turf in a conservative way for their own use for hundreds of years and own only a small proportion of what was originally bog in this country, doing minimal damage to the bogs. The state through bord na mona, owned the vast majority of bog, and destroyed millions of acres of it recklessly over the last 80 years or so to supply towns and cities with briqettes, and the country with electricity.

Please do try and understand the difference between Raised bog and Blanket bog. The 'whataboutery' of Bord Na Mona simply isn't relevant. BNM are cutting blanket bog, the protected bogs are not the same thing.

The state have destroyed their bogs and done huge amounts of damage which cannot be undone and now they want to punish the rural turfcutters who have done minimal damage.

You think this a 'punishment'?? Minimal damage? Get real.

That is madness! The state should just pay the fine and invest the resources used to harass turfcutters into trying to create a sustainable habitat for wildlife in what was once Bord na Mona bogland.

Pay the fine? You realise it is €25k a day - what hospitals do you propose closing to cover it?

By the way, most turfcutters own their bog, and a few years compensation is not enough to replace maybe hundreds of years of heating fuel self sufficiency into the future.

If raised bog turf-cutting were sustainable do you think we would be having this debate?

For the person who asked about the use of machinery and accused turfcutters of laziness. Nowadays people work full time and don't have large families of ten or twelve children to call upon to cut turf by hand. It is a very labour intensive job to cut turf by hand with a slean and not feasible in the modern lifestyle.

And there's money to be made, stop with the diddle-iddley rose-tints. Sausage machines are not cheap.

I fully support those people in Portumna, and nobody will stop me cutting turf in my own bogs if they are eventually included in the same scheme.

Prepared to go to jail?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

1. A Statutory Instrument NOT A "Statute" which is what I asked for.
2. Bird SI, not applicable in a SAC ....only in an SPA.

Why did you rely on this irrelevant piece of secondary legislation ?????

Cookie_Monster

what's the point in jailing them, more money. Simply hand them an invoice for the EU fine, much fairer deal. Likely more incentive to stop them too

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

1. A Statutory Instrument NOT A "Statute" which is what I asked for.
2. Bird SI, not applicable in a SAC ....only in an SPA.

Why did you rely on this irrelevant piece of secondary legislation ?????

1. Are you now questioning if an S.I. carries force of law?? Behave.

2. Really? “activity” includes any operation or activity likely to impact on the physical environment or on wild flora or fauna or on the habitats of wild flora and fauna, other than—

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

“activity requiring consent” includes any activity that has, before the commencement date of these Regulations, been notified pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, any activity listed in Regulations made under the Act of 1972 for the purpose of designating a site as a special protection area or as a special area of conservation, and any activity in relation to which the Minister has given a Direction pursuant to Regulation 28 of these Regulations, as being an activity that requires the approval of the Minister or is covered by the consent of a public authority;


I think you are really struggling if you truly believe turf-cutting does not require the consent of the Minister in SACs