The battle of the Bog

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a reminder to posters: play the ball, not the (wo)man. If you can't critique someone's argument without critiquing their intelligence, then think long and hard before posting.

Personal digs aside, at this point this 'debate' seems to be generating more heat than light. If this is just going to be a snipe-fest, then I'm afraid this thread isn't going to stay open much longer.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

Uriel.

Not gonna dwell on this too much cause it was done to death in a previous thread which was closed.

The state doesnt need a contract with any citizen to introduce and enforce laws. I have no contract with the state committing me to abide by the speed limits. Yet when I break them and get caught I pay the penalty.

Land rights are protected in the constitution but with caveats for the public good - farmer in kerry found this out at his expense after destroying a ring fort earlier this year.

If you break a law you deserve punishment, I have no sympathy and I hope the state grows some balls soon and starts punishing these criminals.

If anyone thinks the law is unconstitutional then the courts is the place to play that one out not through civil disobedience.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

OK, I'll bite, despite your odd concept of a discussion. I'll assert that no constitutional changes we required to introduce the planning system. Do you agree?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

OK, I'll bite, despite your odd concept of a discussion. I'll assert that no constitutional changes were required to introduce the planning system. Do you agree?

Sponge Bob

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

Seth Brundle

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

Who says that we didn't need one?
We don't have public sector accountability at the moment but we need it.
We don't have many things that we need. Getting them into law is a long and arduous process, often stymied by the politicians themselves who all too often prefer personal interests over public interest.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

and the question dodged once more. Care to answer any of the other questions I have posed to you? You seem to be really struggling with the concept of the State having a say in activities on private land. Why is that?

re: land registry comment. Care to explain?

funt

was it not some jouneyman gun for hire that sent us to the bogs in the first place, then we discover we can burn the wet mud he couldn't drown us in, and now some eastern european chancellor tells us no. tell her to feck off with all due respekt

(i don't own a bog or even a scrap of land in the republic of ireland,)

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

and the question dodged once more.

Bog utilisation rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the 1963 planning act. The question is therefore irrelevant.

The Title legislation from around that time is not irrelevant but you seem completely unaware of that legislation despite my hint and I won't go into it any further...it is more than a tad complex.

washman3

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.

Let June 2012 be remembered as a time when the lunatics finally take control of the asylum....:mad:

60 Gardai
24 Patrol cars
12 armed members of the ERU
a Garda helicopter
an air corps plane

on a bog in the wilderness of Galway preventing people cutting turf.
while the scumbags that brought this country to its knees still swan around in the lap of luxury safe in the knowledge that they will never be touched,
and ecstatic that a handful of environmentalists will deflect attention from their crimes thus allowing them to pursue their evil ways in the near future.
The mind absolutely boggles....

southsiderosie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is very clear but would you perhaps like to improve its overall clarity just a tad??

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Lets try this again shall we.

While that reasoning of yours is _very clear_ I implore you to to find time to make it clearer again.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can you work on clarifying your 'Turbary Rights' piece instead, and my advance thanks in great anticipation of a job well done.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bog utilisation rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the 1963 planning act. The question is therefore irrelevant.

The Title legislation from around that time is not irrelevant but you seem completely unaware of that legislation despite my hint and I won't go into it any further...it is more than a tad complex.

MOD NOTE:

Here's the problem: this is a discussion forum, not a hint forum. And putting smiley faces at the end of your sentences doesn't negate the fact that you have obfuscated your way through this thread.

If you don't want to engage with other posters, then rather than changing the subject, 'hinting' at arguments, and getting personal digs in, just step back and don't post. It is fine to disagree, but these posts have veered into wind-up territory.

On that note, for all posters, this is the last warning to keep it civil and on-topic. The next flamewar will result in red cards and/or bans.

jmayo

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:
... If this is just going to be a snipe-fest, then I'm afraid this thread isn't going to stay open much longer.

Funny you should mention snipe.
Actually isn't this whole thing about protecting the habitat of things like the snipe or is just about protecting mosses and frog spawn ?

Always remember one of the few good things about working in the bog was the sounds and the fact you can one almighty suntan, or sunburn, if there is a bit of sun.

Anyway a few questions about this whole issue.
Is it only raised lowland bogs that are affected ?
Are there plans to extend the remit to upland blanket bog ?
Are any of the bogs in private ownership, i.e. are the bogs commonage with turf cutting rights or does any of it actually belong to the folio number of the turfcutters ?

If it is the latter surely that then raises interesting question about government and state interference in dictating what the owner of land can do with the land.
What happens where a farmer is cutting out a bog and plans to reclaim the cutout bog for agricultural use, but the farmer is prevented from cutting out the bog due to such legislation ?

I would be interested in the answer to these questions rather than the usual huff and puff about saving the planet or keeping oneself warm.

Sponge Bob

jmayo wrote: »

Funny you should mention snipe.
Actually isn't this whole thing about protecting the habitat of things like the snipe or is just about protecting mosses and frog spawn ?

Anyway a few questions about this whole issue.
Is it only raised lowland bogs that are affected ?

Yes and Yes to the 2 questions.

Are there plans to extend the remit to upland blanket bog ?

These have been partially dealt with through REPs and also through a more completist Management Plamning regime. I would guess that upland bog is next up to be dealt with comprehensively as a habitat but that the abolition of REPs is not a help in this regard and that REPs should be reintroduced as part of EU Designated Habitat Management.

Are any of the bogs in private ownership, i.e. are the bogs commonage with turf cutting rights or does any of it actually belong to the folio number of the turfcutters ?

I have covered an awful lot of this if you look back over the thread. Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio...... is the simple answer.

The state should have forced everyone with any form of easement or 'profit' in the legal sense to register those years ago and the situation would be a lot less murky. They should still force them...say within three years...seeing as the Land Registry is harly busy nowadays.

In many cases commonages were divided because of REPs with ugly fencing made mandatory by the government. This arrangement should be abolished particularly in upland areas.

If it is the latter surely that then raises interesting question about government and state interference in dictating what the owner of land can do with the land.

Hence my consistent point that the Raised Bog Folio Owners were essentially CONTRACTED out of cutting for 15 years in order that their rights may be extinguised in common law.

Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio and some Turbary owners with unregistered rights were not contracted not to cut in the raised bogs. They are not happy Turbary owners.

What happens where a farmer is cutting out a bog and plans to reclaim the cutout bog for agricultural use, but the farmer is prevented from cutting out the bog due to such legislation ?

Depends to an extent on whether the Habitat is earmarked for Restoration and Protection (as with Raised Bog) or for Protection only (Blanket Bog ..upland and lowland) . Not every raised or blanket bog is protected.

The other thorny problem is that lowland blanket bog that is cut away or part cut away is frequently much richer in species of flora and fauna than intact blanket....ie BECAUSE man interfered with the blanket.

That is an extremely thorny question and one that the NPWS constantly ducks and dives around in my experience.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes and Yes to the 2 questions.

Mistruths as usual. This is issue is specifically about the protection of a priority European Habitat - active raised bog. This has been made clear to you previously.

These have been partially dealt with through REPs and also through a more completist Management Plamning regime. I would guess that upland bog is next up to be dealt with comprehensively as a habitat but that the abolition of REPs is not a help in this regard and that REPs should be reintroduced as part of EU Designated Habitat Management.

Reps has been around for years on all of these sites including the 53 raised bogs. I would wager that there are plenty of farmers who received reps payments but still cut turf - if that is the case, then reps doesn't deliver.
Also if you are getting European money as a farmer, you must abide by European Directives. It is clear that some farmers haven't done this - Minister has been clear that Single Farm Payments will now be targeted.

I have covered an awful lot of this if you look back over the thread. Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio...... is the simple answer.

The state should have forced everyone with any form of easement or 'profit' in the legal sense to register those years ago and the situation would be a lot less murky. They should still force them...say within three years...seeing as the Land Registry is harly busy nowadays.

That's a fine idea but those who cannot prove ownership as required under the compensation rules should be excluded from those schemes even if tehy manage to register some title in "the 3 years"

Hence my consistent point that the Raised Bog Folio Owners were essentially CONTRACTED out of cutting for 15 years in order that their rights may be extinguised in common law.

The law requires you to have consent to cut turf. were consent is not given and cutting occurs it is an offence. "Contract" or not

Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio and some Turbary owners with unregistered rights were not contracted not to cut in the raised bogs. They are not happy Turbary owners.

see above

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

Mistruths as usual. This is issue is specifically about the protection of a priority European Habitat - active raised bog. This has been made clear to you previously.

He asked about other habitats as well. There is an objective to proect and restore certain habitats and to protect (only) others. It depends on how they are Annexed .

Reps has been around for years on all of these sites including the 53 raised bogs. I would wager that there are plenty of farmers who received reps payments but still cut turf - if that is the case, then reps doesn't deliver.
Also if you are getting European money as a farmer, you must abide by European Directives. It is clear that some farmers haven't done this - Minister has been clear that Single Farm Payments will now be targeted.

Not all Turbary Owners are in REPS and are not in a REPS contract in that case. Your assertion is true where they are.

That's a fine idea but those who cannot prove ownership as required under the compensation rules should be excluded from those schemes even if tehy manage to register some title in "the 3 years"

I dont think they should be paid anything until title is fully registered. The objective of a 3 year final reckoning is to register a claim for every 'profit' type right for the first time ever. Whether these are granted depends on the particular merits of the individual cases.

Then we know what and who we are dealing with. Other such 'profit' rights are Piscaries and Estovers and Grazing rights but Turbaries are the largest class. No point implementing a half measure.

Sponge Bob

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)

A motion put forward by Cllr McClearn calling for the disbandment of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was passed unanimously by Galway County Council at a meeting on Monday night.

http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.

Fine Gael’s Jimmy McClearn who, along with Sinn Féin’s Cllr Dermot Connolly, helped broker an agreement between turf-cutters and gardaí to end the stand-off last week.

I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)

A motion put forward by Cllr McClearn calling for the disbandment of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was passed unanimously by Galway County Council at a meeting on Monday night.

http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.

Fine Gael’s Jimmy McClearn who, along with Sinn Féin’s Cllr Dermot Connolly, helped broker an agreement between turf-cutters and gardaí to end the stand-off last week.

I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Or maybe you just don't like their message

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)



http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.



I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Ah the auld huffin' and puffin' - usually it is gombeen councillors calling for the abolition of An Taisce when their pet absurdly unsustainable scheme for 'bringing jabs' is shot down by ABP. Not of course, the abolition of ABP who actually make the decision, but An Taisce for daring to point out the flaws.

In this case it is a council being mislead into attacking those who merely carry out policy for fear of a voting backlash.

Not that any of this matters, Galway Co. Co. could call for pretty much anything they like - all it does is make them appear as is petulant toddlers - this vote has zero relevance.

“It’s [the Government’s] implementation of these SACs that had led to this and these SACs were never meant to cripple local people

Sorry, cripple? The hyperbole is just ridiculous at this point. The only people being 'crippled' are those cutting for profit, which was never the point of Turbary rights in the first place.

Reacting to Minister Jimmy Deenihan’s warning that illegal turf cutting could bring fines of up to €25,000 per day, Mr Moran said the money used to fund Garda and NPWS operations could cover such fines

Is this guy for real? He really is a Moran (sic) - has he any grasp of real-world economics?


Remind me again why no turfcutter has brought either constituional challenge nor any other form of legal action. The new Planning and Development Act allows for court cases to be brought where each side covers their own costs and no punitive costs are awarded. Surely some lawyer would pro-bono this case?

The reason? Raised bog turf-cutters have no case.

Sponge Bob

This all went fairly quiet in recent weeks ( bar some meetings hither and yon in East galway in particular) but is set to het up again now the rain has finally stopped and the warm dry summer weather is on the way back to us.

Meanwhile Ming has hitched up with Mischa Barton and Galway County Council (majority FG plus Independents) are discussing the matter at their meeting this week.

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/news/kfmhojgbql/

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan has praised the star for the positive publicity she has given turf cutting in the county, following her statement.
"It goes to show that turf cutting is something close to the hearts of even Hollywood's biggest stars. I'm sure there are plenty of lads who would be more than happy to have her back in Roscommon working on their bogs when she comes back to Ireland in September!"

Now that would be funny, the FIE air corps buzzing a Hollywood star on a bog.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Mischa Barton [/url]



Now that would be funny, the FIE air corps buzzing a Hollywood star on a bog.

"Hollywood Star" you are so funny, Bob...

laoch na mona

the government should lead by example and close the board na mona bogs first

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

the government should lead by example and close the board na mona bogs first

Please try and understand the difference between raised and blanket bogs. BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM have nothing to do with this debate. Read back in the thread.

laoch na mona

MadsL wrote: »

Please try and understand the difference between raised and blanket bogs. BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM have nothing to do with this debate. Read back in the thread.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/our-company/our-businesses/feedstock/peat/

bord na mona own 20% of raised bogs

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

http://www.bordnamona.ie/our-company/our-businesses/feedstock/peat/

bord na mona own 20% of raised bogs

It is fairly obvious I would have thought that ownership does not automatically mean cutting. Which Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Heritage Areas bogs are BnM cutting on?

laoch na mona

MadsL wrote: »

It is fairly obvious I would have thought that ownership does not automatically mean cutting. Which Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Heritage Areas bogs are BnM cutting on?

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

Where are you getting 12% from?

Raised bogs currently in production by Bord na Móna 25,000 hectares 8%

They are cutting on just 8% of the total area of raised bogs. Can you show me which of that 8% is an SAC or NHA? BnM are also rehabilitating a number of cut bogs under the supervision of NPWS.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BNM_SR_english.pdf

This is just a red herring in the debate, I'm not a supporter of BnM's activities, but the whataboutery is just a smokescreen for individual's unsustainable activities.

Uriel.

MadsL wrote: »

laoch na mona wrote: »

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

Where are you getting 12% from?

Raised bogs currently in production by Bord na Móna 25,000 hectares 8%

They are cutting on just 8% of the total area of raised bogs. Can you show me which of that 8% is an SAC or NHA? BnM are also rehabilitating a number of cut bogs under the supervision of NPWS.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BNM_SR_english.pdf

This is just a red herring in the debate, I'm not a supporter of BnM's activities, but the whataboutery is just a smokescreen for individual's unsustainable activities.

He can't show you because BnM don't cut on protected sites.

A number of sites which the Bord had an interest in back in 97 were designated as SACs. The bord's land interest in those sites were subsequently transferred to the State

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM ONLY CUT on raised bogs nowadays.

They have handed cutaway specimens to the state such as Derryfadda near Ballyforan and they have also handed over intact specimens they never got around to developing...at least I think that is what Uriel means. Some ( even cutaway specimens) were designated as NHA after being cut away but only fairly intact ones are SACs.

I think BnM owned fully 50% of raised bog in the state at one point but have cut away much of that .

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

BnM ONLY CUT on raised bogs nowadays.

They have handed cutaway specimens to the state such as Derryfadda near Ballyforan and they have also handed over intact specimens they never got around to developing...at least I think that is what Uriel means. Some ( even cutaway specimens) were designated as NHA after being cut away but only fairly intact ones are SACs.

I think BnM owned fully 50% of raised bog in the state at one point but have cut away much of that .

Which SACs are they currently cutting on?