Fishing Rights along the irish coastline.

danbrosnan

As far as i am aware anybody can fish along a waterway in Ireland???

I stand to be corrected on that but is there any truth in it???

I know that on freshwater rivers if the waters are not accompanied by a club or membership of some form then its considered free fishing. But what of the sea???

I say this because recently friends of mine where fishing an island, they were causing no harm to no one and the owner of the land video taped them and photographed them and started roaring abuse. Now i would always understand if somebody was scared etc, but there was no need for this.

What do any legal experts think?:cool:

krd

danbrosnan wrote: »

As far as i am aware anybody can fish along a waterway in Ireland???

I stand to be corrected on that but is there any truth in it???

I'm not sure if that's true. I've been told, that many farmers have exclusive fishing rights to water courses that border their property.

And farmers whose farms border beaches - the beach is also their private property.

I say this because recently friends of mine where fishing an island, they were causing no harm to no one and the owner of the land video taped them and photographed them and started roaring abuse. Now i would always understand if somebody was scared etc, but there was no need for this.

Awful aren't they. They're not roarin' and shoutin' when they have their hands out for agricultural subsidies.

Fey!

krd wrote: »

And farmers whose farms border beaches - the beach is also their private property.

As far as I know that's only to the high-tide line.

danbrosnan

Fey! wrote: »

As far as I know that's only to the high-tide line.

So the answer is that there is no right to the fisherman?

jd

You'd have a right to fish below the medium high tide mark (the foreshore), but you don't have a right of access through private property. It wan't Fenit Island, by any chance?

What is the Foreshore?
The foreshore of Ireland is classed as the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium tides (shown HWM on Ordnance Survey maps) and the twelve-mile limit (12 nautical miles equals approximately 22.24 kilometers). Foreshore also covers tidal areas of rivers particularly estuaries.
Who owns the Foreshore?
All the foreshore of Ireland is presumed state-owned unless valid alternative title is provided.

danbrosnan

jd wrote: »

You'd have a right to fish below the medium high tide mark (the foreshore), but you don't have a right of access through private property. It wan't Fenit Island, by any chance?

No valentia... but it the same story down in feint i hear!!!

Dont be daft

krd wrote: »

I'm not sure if that's true. I've been told, that many farmers have exclusive fishing rights to water courses that border their property.

And farmers whose farms border beaches - the beach is also their private property.



Awful aren't they. They're not roarin' and shoutin' when they have their hands out for agricultural subsidies.

First of all there was no mention of the land owner being a farmer

Secondly if the guys fishing were trespassing on his property has he not every right to tell them to get off. I know were I'd be telling someone to go if I lived on the Canal and some clown in waders was casting off my balcony. Why should this be any different?
Are you a property owner? Would you agree to others entering or trespassing on your property to access an amenity?

Thirdly if you had any notion of how food supply and production works in this world you'd keep your mouth shut about subsidies.
If you wanna ban subsidies then fire away. Let the price in the supermarkets rise to meet production costs and watch as millions across Europe are left literally unable to afford food.

OP, the issue here is not fishing rights on the sea but rather trespassing on what I presume was a private island. As far as I'm aware there are no restrictions on recreational fishing on the sea once it is conducted from a public place or a craft.
From the foreshore is a grey area because it is possible, although its unusual, for foreshore to be privately owned.

Inland waterways are completely different with fishing "rights" being alotted along the rivers. In fact many land owners have rivers running alongside their property but no fishing rights

danbrosnan

Well i don't want this thread to get personal!!! Why do people take things personal???

I think the whole area is a "Grey Area"....

I am a keen angler and tbh i wasn't looking for opinions on this and on that, i was asking what was the law...

And i had a fair idea of it already... People have to understand that there is laws for the fisherman as well as the landowner because you can't actually own a river or lake... The state own it and if your land is beside the river or lake you must give way for the fisherman..

Now i understand that people do break fences, leave gates open and litter property and does is disgraceful behavior... and as far as subsidies, farmers do need subsidies ITS THE LAW!!!

Dont be daft

danbrosnan wrote: »

Well i don't want this thread to get personal!!! Why do people take things personal???

I think the whole area is a "Grey Area"....

I am a keen angler and tbh i wasn't looking for opinions on this and on that, i was asking what was the law...

And i had a fair idea of it already... People have to understand that there is laws for the fisherman as well as the landowner because you can't actually own a river or lake... The state own it and if your land is beside the river or lake you must give way for the fisherman..

Now i understand that people do break fences, leave gates open and litter property and does is disgraceful behavior... and as far as subsidies, farmers do need subsidies ITS THE LAW!!!

Well thats not really true. There are some public right of ways which give access to lakes, rivers and beaches but these are the exeption rather than the rule.
I know of only a handful local to me and these are mostly due to fishing clubs or individuals owning or buying fishing rights on a particular stretch of river. There is no general right to access to a river or lake to fish

danbrosnan

The state own it and if your land is beside the river or lake you must give way for the fisherman..

You just answered the question...

MagicSean

danbrosnan wrote: »

The state own it and if your land is beside the river or lake you must give way for the fisherman..

You just answered the question...

You just quoted yourself.

And you don't seem to be reading other people's posts at all.

krd

Dont be daft wrote: »

First of all there was no mention of the land owner being a farmer

The chances are it's not anyone else.

Secondly if the guys fishing were trespassing on his property has he not every right to tell them to get off. I know were I'd be telling someone to go if I lived on the Canal and some clown in waders was casting off my balcony.

For the love of god.

Why should this be any different?

Because it's completely different. Crossing farm land to get to an amenity is nothing like walking into someone's bedroom and fishing from their balcony.

The "gesh of my landge " brigade trot this one out. As long as people are not poking around farm buildings, they're not really trespassing. They're just doing what people have always done in the countryside, crossing land to get to somewhere else.

Are you a property owner? Would you agree to others entering or trespassing on your property to access an amenity?

I grew up in the countryside. There was absolutely nothing abnormal about people crossing land to get to an amenity like a river or stream to fish in.

Very occasionally you'd have a bollocks who'd hunt people of their land, or they would do something like blocking up a public right of way. A farmer near where I grew up, put a fence up on a river walk way that wasn't even his property. "Ish my landge ....Holy god gave ish to me"

Thirdly if you had any notion of how food supply and production works in this world you'd keep your mouth shut about subsidies.

I do know how food is produced. Food production over most of the world is not subsidised. A lot of food production in Ireland is not subsidised. In England most farmers never see a penny of the subsidies. If goes straight into the pockets of the land owners. They did not stop producing food, and the people of England are not starving.

With modern efficient farming methods, a handful of people can produce food for thousands of people.

The subsidise exist for purely political reasons. The inefficient farmers vote for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, staunch right wingers. And Fianna Fail and Fine Gael confiscate money from the urban workers and hand it over to the farmers so they can go on living their grand lives.

If Irish agriculture was run like Ryan Air, instead of old Aer Lingus, it wouldn't need any subsidies at all and would be far more productive. Farmers being right-wingers, and firm believers in capitalism you would think would see the logic. They probably do, but they don't want to end up like Ryan Air employees - that kind of thing is not for likes of them. The upper class - the landed gentry.

If you wanna ban subsidies then fire away. Let the price in the supermarkets rise to meet production costs and watch as millions across Europe are left literally unable to afford food.

People are already eating unsubsidised food. And it's the same people paying the subsidises.

And I would love to fire away and get rid of subsidies. And this roarin' and shoutin' at people trying to do a little fishing even makes me want to remove them even more.

The ingratitude of country people is jaw dropping. We should be able to take our charity elsewhere. Give it to people who need it and would appreciate it. And not just expect it.

First of all there was no mention of the land owner being a farmer

You're right. He could be one of them boys who made millins building ghost estates - and paid themselves millins before selling a single house. Or maybe he made millins building cycle paths in the middle of nowhere. Or made millins selling a few acres for a ghost estate.

Victor

http://www.fishinginireland.info/regulations.htm

Marcusm

Victor wrote: »

http://www.fishinginireland.info/regulations.htm

Unfortunately, none of that is applicable to sea fishing!

Dont be daft

krd wrote: »

The chances are it's not anyone else.



For the love of god.



Because it's completely different. Crossing farm land to get to an amenity is nothing like walking into someone's bedroom and fishing from their balcony.

The "gesh of my landge " brigade trot this one out. As long as people are not poking around farm buildings, they're not really trespassing. They're just doing what people have always done in the countryside, crossing land to get to somewhere else.



I grew up in the countryside. There was absolutely nothing abnormal about people crossing land to get to an amenity like a river or stream to fish in.

Very occasionally you'd have a bollocks who'd hunt people of their land, or they would do something like blocking up a public right of way. A farmer near where I grew up, put a fence up on a river walk way that wasn't even his property. "Ish my landge ....Holy god gave ish to me"




I do know how food is produced. Food production over most of the world is not subsidised. A lot of food production in Ireland is not subsidised. In England most farmers never see a penny of the subsidies. If goes straight into the pockets of the land owners. They did not stop producing food, and the people of England are not starving.

With modern efficient farming methods, a handful of people can produce food for thousands of people.

The subsidise exist for purely political reasons. The inefficient farmers vote for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, staunch right wingers. And Fianna Fail and Fine Gael confiscate money from the urban workers and hand it over to the farmers so they can go on living their grand lives.

If Irish agriculture was run like Ryan Air, instead of old Aer Lingus, it wouldn't need any subsidies at all and would be far more productive. Farmers being right-wingers, and firm believers in capitalism you would think would see the logic. They probably do, but they don't want to end up like Ryan Air employees - that kind of thing is not for likes of them. The upper class - the landed gentry.




People are already eating unsubsidised food. And it's the same people paying the subsidises.

And I would love to fire away and get rid of subsidies. And this roarin' and shoutin' at people trying to do a little fishing even makes me want to remove them even more.

The ingratitude of country people is jaw dropping. We should be able to take our charity elsewhere. Give it to people who need it and would appreciate it. And not just expect it.



You're right. He could be one of them boys who made millins building ghost estates - and paid themselves millins before selling a single house. Or maybe he made millins building cycle paths in the middle of nowhere. Or made millins selling a few acres for a ghost estate.

I dont even know were to start.
In the time it took you to write all that you could have gone of and educated yourself on the topics you seem so opinionated and equally in ignorance of.

I will concede that the balcony argument was misguided but the principle is the same. If no public or private right of way exists what makes you think we should all be able to break the law when it suits us?
Its not really trespassing? Ah, what? How is it anything but trespassing?

As for your views on subsidies, you just have not got a clue. No, really, you havent a clue.
In the argument you have put forward there are so many inaccuracies, lies and out of context facts that its just dribble at this stage.
You were better of heeding my advice and keeping your mouth shut.
I havent the time or patience to school you on the issue but I strongly recommend you go off and read up on the matter yourself. Your ignorance on the whole subject is laughable.

BornToKill

Marcusm wrote: »

Unfortunately, none of that is applicable to sea fishing!

Not even the sea fishing part?

krd

Dont be daft wrote: »

I will concede that the balcony argument was misguided but the principle is the same. If no public or private right of way exists what makes you think we should all be able to break the law when it suits us?
Its not really trespassing? Ah, what? How is it anything but trespassing?

Because it is not trespassing at all. A public right of way, all members of the public have right of access. A private right of way, or to cross land, the public have a right of way as long as they don't or don't look like they have the intention of:

Substantially damaging the land

Substantially damaging any amenity on the land or prevent any person from making reasonable use of that amenity

Render the land or any amenity on it unsanitary or unsafe

Substantially interfere with the land or an amenity on it.

In other words. If someone crosses land to fish, as long as they're not interfering with anything on the farm land, they're not trespassing. If the landowner thinks they may be attempting to illegally occupy the land, they can call the guards. If they're poking around farm buildings, they are trespassing. They can ask them to leave, or even call the guards.

So your man coming out roarin' and shoutin' was in the wrong. Those people were doing no harm to his land, and were just fishing, they had every right to be there.

As for your views on subsidies, you just have not got a clue. No, really, you havent a clue.

The average Irish farm is 81 acres, and receives on average €54,000 a year in CAP payments. That's just the subsidy anything the farm makes is gravy.

Of course it's always hard to find out precisely what farmers make. Every time they're on the media, they make distorted claims for their incomes. And farming is so tough everyone is getting out of it. Really it's just old farmers selling up or transferring to family. The average acre only goes on the open market once every 400 years.

Farmers plead poverty, but they have a much higher standard of living than most people who live in urban areas.

In the argument you have put forward there are so many inaccuracies, lies and out of context facts that its just dribble at this stage.

You're the one calling crossing farm land trespassing when it isn't. Making comparisons to fishing from someone's balcony. You're the one muddying the waters.

You were better of heeding my advice and keeping your mouth shut.

Or what. You'll come out with your shot gun and run me off your land.

nuac

Fishing rights can be very complicated.

E.g Litigation c 1920s about fishery rights at Ballyshannon, and litigation about 15 years about rights at the Moy.

In more recent times the rights in rivers etc were owned by landlords. When the estate went thru the Land Purchase Acts procedure ( i.e. being vested in the tenants ) the rights were either retained by the landlord if not vested in the Land Commission. Land Commission ( now Dept of Ag ) leased them out to individuals or clubs.

the actual bed of the river usually went the same way as the fishing rights.

ANyone may fish in the sea below HWM

One may only cross land to fish if there is a right of way for that purpose.. Many anglers misunderstand or profess to misunderstand this,

Marcusm

BornToKill wrote: »

Not even the sea fishing part?

Oops, I went to the page it linked! Sorry Victor...

Marcusm

krd wrote: »

Because it is not trespassing at all. A public right of way, all members of the public have right of access. A private right of way, or to cross land, the public have a right of way as long as they don't or don't look like they have the intention of:

Substantially damaging the land

Substantially damaging any amenity on the land or prevent any person from making reasonable use of that amenity

Render the land or any amenity on it unsanitary or unsafe

Substantially interfere with the land or an amenity on it.

In other words. If someone crosses land to fish, as long as they're not interfering with anything on the farm land, they're not trespassing. If the landowner thinks they may be attempting to illegally occupy the land, they can call the guards. If they're poking around farm buildings, they are trespassing. They can ask them to leave, or even call the guards.

So your man coming out roarin' and shoutin' was in the wrong. Those people were doing no harm to his land, and were just fishing, they had every right to be there.

What you're citing is what a rambler/land user needs to avoid in order not to commit the offene of criminal trespass. Otherwise, if there is no right of way, it remains trespass although that is a civil matter and not likely to be one in respect of which the court offers any damages. It reains the case that privately owned land without rights of way means that the landowner can scream at you to get off his land and you should follow his instructions.

O Cuiv set up a working group to look at this for ramblers, hill walkers etc but couldn't get beyond the type of guidelines you have cited. They fully acknowledged the land owners rights to keep his land private if he so wishes.

danbrosnan

nuac wrote: »

Fishing rights can be very complicated.

E.g Litigation c 1920s about fishery rights at Ballyshannon, and litigation about 15 years about rights at the Moy.

In more recent times the rights in rivers etc were owned by landlords. When the estate went thru the Land Purchase Acts procedure ( i.e. being vested in the tenants ) the rights were either retained by the landlord if not vested in the Land Commission. Land Commission ( now Dept of Ag ) leased them out to individuals or clubs.

the actual bed of the river usually went the same way as the fishing rights.

ANyone may fish in the sea below HWM

One may only cross land to fish if there is a right of way for that purpose.. Many anglers misunderstand or profess to misunderstand this,

This is the kind of response i wanted, educated and informed...

From reading everyones opinions what i gather is this:-

It is really down to the land owner if he wants to cause agro or not... Most land owners will not bother the fishermen but there is always a bollix...

Dont be daft

krd wrote: »

Because it is not trespassing at all. A public right of way, all members of the public have right of access. A private right of way, or to cross land, the public have a right of way as long as they don't or don't look like they have the intention of:

Substantially damaging the land

Substantially damaging any amenity on the land or prevent any person from making reasonable use of that amenity

Render the land or any amenity on it unsanitary or unsafe

Substantially interfere with the land or an amenity on it.

In other words. If someone crosses land to fish, as long as they're not interfering with anything on the farm land, they're not trespassing. If the landowner thinks they may be attempting to illegally occupy the land, they can call the guards. If they're poking around farm buildings, they are trespassing. They can ask them to leave, or even call the guards.

So your man coming out roarin' and shoutin' was in the wrong. Those people were doing no harm to his land, and were just fishing, they had every right to be there.



The average Irish farm is 81 acres, and receives on average €54,000 a year in CAP payments. That's just the subsidy anything the farm makes is gravy.

Of course it's always hard to find out precisely what farmers make. Every time they're on the media, they make distorted claims for their incomes. And farming is so tough everyone is getting out of it. Really it's just old farmers selling up or transferring to family. The average acre only goes on the open market once every 400 years.

Farmers plead poverty, but they have a much higher standard of living than most people who live in urban areas.



You're the one calling crossing farm land trespassing when it isn't. Making comparisons to fishing from someone's balcony. You're the one muddying the waters.



Or what. You'll come out with your shot gun and run me off your land.

If there is no Public right of way, which as I have previously highlighted are very rare, then there is no right to enter the property.

Your confusing the intention or act of causing damage with Criminal trespass.
If one enters a property be the recreational user or not and there is no public right of way then they do not have the right to do.
Why do you think you think the ironically named Walker case was brought? Walker sought a court declaration that no public ROW existed.
If the public had a right to cross his property regardless why would he have gone court?

As regards the 54k average CAP payout to Irish farmers I'd love to see the article you dug that up from.
Regardless of CAP the fact remains that the average farm income was 18k last year. In 2009 it was just under 12k which I believe is somewere around what the Job Seekers Allowance would add up to.
Its quite easy to see what farmers make, they're taxed the same way as any other sole-trader.

Your probably gonna spout some crap about farmers been a load of ineffecient fools if they cant make more than 18k a year but the fact is that Irish farmers are regarded as among the best in the world.

Irish farmers produce enough food not only to feed Ireland but probably another 30 million people as well. Then there's the whole Agrifoods industry which is based around it.

I wasnt implying violence when I said you were better off keeping your mouth shut. What I meant was your ill-informed and ignorant of the topic and it would be in your best interest from a credibilty aspect that you kept your opinions to yourself

danbrosnan

Dont be daft wrote: »

If there is no Public right of way, which as I have previously highlighted are very rare, then there is no right to enter the property.

Your confusing the intention or act of causing damage with Criminal trespass.
If one enters a property be the recreational user or not and there is no public right of way then they do not have the right to do.
Why do you think you think the ironically named Walker case was brought? Walker sought a court declaration that no public ROW existed.
If the public had a right to cross his property regardless why would he have gone court?

As regards the 54k average CAP payout to Irish farmers I'd love to see the article you dug that up from.
Regardless of CAP the fact remains that the average farm income was 18k last year. In 2009 it was just under 12k which I believe is somewere around what the Job Seekers Allowance would add up to.
Its quite easy to see what farmers make, they're taxed the same way as any other sole-trader.

Your probably gonna spout some crap about farmers been a load of ineffecient fools if they cant make more than 18k a year but the fact is that Irish farmers are regarded as among the best in the world.

Irish farmers produce enough food not only to feed Ireland but probably another 30 million people as well. Then there's the whole Agrifoods industry which is based around it.

I wasnt implying violence when I said you were better off keeping your mouth shut. What I meant was your ill-informed and ignorant of the topic and it would be in your best interest from a credibilty aspect that you kept your opinions to yourself

Listen to me ignorance is a terrible thing, if someone has an opinion then that is valid, this is not a website where anybody is right because its all fictional... people right stuff up and nobody knows anybody... if i have or anybody has an opinion that farmers earn more then there fair share then you have to accept that, rather then trying to shout louder on text "which makes you look stupid", you have gone completely off on one, and this is my opinion accept it or leave it....

Dont be daft

danbrosnan wrote: »

This is the kind of response i wanted, educated and informed...

From reading everyones opinions what i gather is this:-

It is really down to the land owner if he wants to cause agro or not... Most land owners will not bother the fishermen but there is always a bollix...

Yeah, apologies for going off topic there.
With regards to agro or not, its probably advisable to ask for permission 1st.
It shows the calibre of person you are and would put me at ease that you were a responsible angler.
i.e. Your not going damage fencing, leave gates open or litter. It would also give the landowner the opportunity to warn of dangers.

I appreciate this isn't always possible and to be fair your man on Valencia sounds like a bollix alright, but it can lead to a more amicable ending.

danbrosnan

Dont be daft wrote: »

Yeah, apologies for going off topic there.
With regards to agro or not, its probably advisable to ask for permission 1st.
It shows the calibre of person you are and would put me at ease that you were a responsible angler.
i.e. Your not going damage fencing, leave gates open or litter. It would also give the landowner the opportunity to warn of dangers.

I appreciate this isn't always possible and to be fair your man on Valencia sounds like a bollix alright, but it can lead to a more amicable ending.

you know what your dead right... simplicity is key!!!

I will go and ask him... thanks..

harry21

nuac wrote: »

Fishing rights can be very complicated.

E.g Litigation c 1920s about fishery rights at Ballyshannon, and litigation about 15 years about rights at the Moy.

In more recent times the rights in rivers etc were owned by landlords. When the estate went thru the Land Purchase Acts procedure ( i.e. being vested in the tenants ) the rights were either retained by the landlord if not vested in the Land Commission. Land Commission ( now Dept of Ag ) leased them out to individuals or clubs.

the actual bed of the river usually went the same way as the fishing rights.

ANyone may fish in the sea below HWM

One may only cross land to fish if there is a right of way for that purpose.. Many anglers misunderstand or profess to misunderstand this,

This post is nearly all correct. Under the Land Act, most of the fishing rights were retained by the Landlord when the land was vested in the tenant. In some cases the tenants also gained the rights. It really was down to the Landlord. Fishing rights were highly profitabl and desireable when the Land Act was intially introduced, and were bundled together with the sporting/hunting rights of the land.

However, the ownership of the bed is nearly always owned by the adjacent property owner, who may or may not have the rights to fish the river.

Dont be daft

harry21 wrote: »

This post is nearly all correct. Under the Land Act, most of the fishing rights were retained by the Landlord when the land was vested in the tenant. In some cases the tenants also gained the rights. It really was down to the Landlord. Fishing rights were highly profitabl and desireable when the Land Act was intially introduced, and were bundled together with the sporting/hunting rights of the land.

However, the ownership of the bed is nearly always owned by the adjacent property owner, who may or may not have the rights to fish the river.

And I'm nearly 100% sure Inland Fisheries Ireland were handed over the Land Commisions "Fishing Rights" porfolio when it was disolved in the 80's. IFI in turn leases them out to the clubs.

I think I remember seeing fishing rights being held over a Land Commission purchase and there wasnt even a river flowing anywere near it and was told at the time this was standard for the LC, that they claimed ownership of "Fishing Rights" on every property they acquired.

harry21

I think they did claim what they could, but in many cases the Landlords would not sell the rights, which they views as seperate to the sale of land. The result was they didn't end up with much that was worth anything.

Thats my experience anyway. IFI don't acutally lease that much fishing in Ireland. It is most privately held, again from my own experience.

Victor

nuac wrote: »

ANyone may fish in the sea below HWM

Unless they are a non-EU fishing trawler. Even non-Irish, EU trawlers will have issues.

nuac

Noted Victor I was thinking of anglers.

nuac

harry21 wrote: »

This post is nearly all correct. Under the Land Act, most of the fishing rights were retained by the Landlord when the land was vested in the tenant. In some cases the tenants also gained the rights. It really was down to the Landlord. Fishing rights were highly profitabl and desireable when the Land Act was intially introduced, and were bundled together with the sporting/hunting rights of the land.

However, the ownership of the bed is nearly always owned by the adjacent property owner, who may or may not have the rights to fish the river.

Thanks for your comment Harry

I know of a number of salmon rivers in the West of Ireland where the original landlords successors in title claim ownership of the bed of the river, In some cases I have seen the documentary evidence.

krd

Dont be daft wrote: »

As regards the 54k average CAP payout to Irish farmers I'd love to see the article you dug that up from.
Regardless of CAP the fact remains that the average farm income was 18k last year. In 2009 it was just under 12k which I believe is somewere around what the Job Seekers Allowance would add up to.
Its quite easy to see what farmers make, they're taxed the same way as any other sole-trader.

Okay, the income on small holdings - which there is a surprisingly large amount of, is terrible. Among other things, it's economies of scale. The CAP grants disproportionately benefit large farmers, where there is economies of scale. It's not subsidises keeping the cost of food low. It's modern production methods and economies of scale. The small holders lose out because often what they're producing, is not profitable for their scale.

Your probably gonna spout some crap about farmers been a load of ineffecient fools if they cant make more than 18k a year but the fact is that Irish farmers are regarded as among the best in the world.

That 18k farmer, could probably make more money from organising fish trips for tourists than they make from farming.

The 18k farmer could make more money from raising micropigs for the pet market than real pigs for the food market. http://www.micropigs.ie/ They were retailing for as much as £500 in the UK a few years back. I'd say you could eat one too.

You would have to question your own sanity, if you're breaking your back and all your getting is 18k.

Irish farmers produce enough food not only to feed Ireland but probably another 30 million people as well. Then there's the whole Agrifoods industry which is based around it.

The average small holder is getting less out of that agrifoods business, then the guy who puts the milk cartoons on the milk shelf in Tesco.

And this is the funny thing. Small holders could be making a lot more money, if they were in the business of welcoming the ramblers and the fishing tourists than running them off their land.

Dont be daft

krd wrote: »

Okay, the income on small holdings - which there is a surprisingly large amount of, is terrible. Among other things, it's economies of scale. The CAP grants disproportionately benefit large farmers, where there is economies of scale. It's not subsidises keeping the cost of food low. It's modern production methods and economies of scale. The small holders lose out because often what they're producing, is not profitable for their scale.



That 18k farmer, could probably make more money from organising fish trips for tourists than they make from farming.

The 18k farmer could make more money from raising micropigs for the pet market than real pigs for the food market. http://www.micropigs.ie/ They were retailing for as much as £500 in the UK a few years back. I'd say you could eat one too.

You would have to question your own sanity, if you're breaking your back and all your getting is 18k.



The average small holder is getting less out of that agrifoods business, then the guy who puts the milk cartoons on the milk shelf in Tesco.

And this is the funny thing. Small holders could be making a lot more money, if they were in the business of welcoming the ramblers and the fishing tourists than running them off their land.

Micropigs? Ramblers? FFS.....I give up

krd

Dont be daft wrote: »

Micropigs? Ramblers? FFS.....I give up

See, what's wrong with you... You have what is called an attitude problem, my friend.

It's not the backward 1930s. The days of pulling a plough with a horse, and wiping your bottom with fistfuls of grass, are long gone. It's the 21st century.

Just looking at Farmers Journal article from last year : Pig farmers losing money on every pig sold.

Getting 1.44c/kg at the factory. A Micropig, can weigh about as much as a kilo. And have fetched prices as much as £500. That's as more than 600.00c/Kg. Whose the fetchin backward eejit?

Ramblers. There's millions of them in England and Germany. B&B is a lot less effort than trying to squeeze milk out of thirteen half starved beasts.

The small holders could be bringing wealth to themselves and the country - but no instead they want to pretend it's a hundred years ago. In fairy land. Marchin' around in their wellington boots.

A solid kick up the arse is what they need. Backwardness.

The old ways are the best.......If it's 1930.....eejits

nuac

KRD

I am not a farmer, but lke nearly eveyone in the West of Ireland my granparents were raised on farms, and in my own profession I have worked with farmers all my life. Most of them are progressive and innovative. They have to be.

You are being rather offensiver here.

Certainly there are income possibilites from tourism. Small farmers I know have been very progressive in developing these.

E.g. in the Westport - Achill area the farmers who own parts of the old Westport/Achill railiway line cooperated with the County Council and tourism ajuthorities in developing the old railway line as a cycling and walkway, bringing a lot of tourists to the area. This access has been provided without charge.

krd

nuac wrote: »

I am not a farmer, but lke nearly eveyone in the West of Ireland my granparents were raised on farms, and in my own profession I have worked with farmers all my life. Most of them are progressive and innovative. They have to be.

Myself too. My grandfather owned a farm. My father had no interest in farming so it was sold. I wouldn't mind having had the farm myself.

I'm from the east of the country. The farms tend to be a lot bigger and different from the west of Ireland. I'm used to hearing farmers with hundreds of acres bellyaching. I've been down in Kerry and seen people farming land, that in the east they just wouldn't bother.

Farmers have to be progressive and innovative. Farming has changed so radically in the last 50 years. The economies of scale have radically changed. It used to be viable for a small holder to raise a few pigs on the side - not nowadays, you'd be working for the pigs. At the same time, it's not viable for a large producer to raise micropigs - because of economies of scale. Or even mini cattle. Mini-cattle aren't pets. Though they could be. Since they're small their meat is extra tender. There are some farmers doing specialist beef, where they bypass the factories and go straight to the customer.

Produce to scale, and if that means mini-pigs and mini-cattle that's your scale.


There is a mentality though - backward is best. My granduncle resisted getting a milking machine until the 1980s - it had to be forced on him as a gift. His farm really was like something out of the 1930s.

You are being rather offensiver here.

I'm not roaring and shouting for anyone to get off my land.

Certainly there are income possibilites from tourism. Small farmers I know have been very progressive in developing these.

Yeah, some really have. There really is a market for it. I know someone who's retired, and they have a big farm house. The farm is leased out, but they run B&B. They have a website. It's a nice farm. They only have to accept bookings when they feel like it. These are the ramblers Dont be daft turns his nose up at.

E.g. in the Westport - Achill area the farmers who own parts of the old Westport/Achill railiway line cooperated with the County Council and tourism ajuthorities in developing the old railway line as a cycling and walkway, bringing a lot of tourists to the area. This access has been provided without charge.

But the farmers can make money from that tourism too. And if it brings in money, some of that money will come to them, either directly or indirectly.

And even if they don't want to make money from tourism. They really have no right to be stopping anyone else. It's not like they own the place. A handful of fishing tourists could be bringing in thousands into the local economy. Putting the run on them is destroying other peoples livelihoods. And in the long run shooting themselves in the foot.

Dont be daft

Ok KRD, here it goes. If you dont get it after this I'm not very good at explaining things.

Economies of Scale
Your talking about economies of scale, very valid point in most industries but not of such importance in agriculture. Larger farms dont have the bullying power that you would associate with large companies like for example Tesco.
Some of the best farmers around in terms of profit and productivity are small scale single worker farms with very little debt.

What keeps farms running at a loss is the fact that they are price takers instead of setters. They have no input to price they get for their product and have been continually squezzed by retailers for the last 30 years irrespective of their scale.

Subsidies
If subsidies were removed its not the small scale low debt farmers that will be put out of business overnight, its the ones that have borrowed the most (these invariably being the larger or expanding farms).
Production would slump as more and more would go out of business or downsize and within a year production would slump to an all time low across the EU (as all EU farmers recieve subsidies, something you seem to be confused about)[note also that Irish farmers recieve less per acre than many of their European counterparts despite being more productive/efficient per acre].
Then the price of food would not only rise to meet production costs but supply having been diminished it would rise even further.
At anyone time in the year the planet as a whole is only something like 40 days away from complete famine. Thats to say if food production stopped worldwide for 40 days there would be no food left on the planet.
So even small slumps in production can have serious consequences for the pricing of food. For example Ireland is the 4/5 largest exporter of beef in the world. If Irish production alone slumped there would be a huge price jump on the shelves.

I hope I'm explaining this clearly to you because you seem to be of the belief that subsidies are a tax on the urban and a charity to the farming community. If you get what I've just outlined you'd see that what they infact are is charity to the urban. They keep the pricing of food artificially low. They also keep the price of food stable which is possibly even more important.

Yes there are agrifoods industries outside the EU operating without subsidies but only doing so at the expense of
- Animal welfare (ever heard of dead holes/induced labour/the faith of bull calves on New Zealand dairy farms?)
-environmental (deforestation in South America/ huge carbon footprint in Asia)
-quality (use of growth promoters and absolutley no traceability in North America)
-unsustainablity

Diversification/Eco-tourism
The irony is you're talking about, on one hand, economies of scale and effeciency, and eco-tourism on the other. The first thing this brilliant large scale progressive farmer you wish for would do is rip up every ditch on his farm and pipe all the open drains destroying natural habitats and our countryside. Then he'd shoot every badger he saw. If you think he wouldnt, again look to New Zealand pasture or US/Eastern European cereal plains.

Ramblers and eco-tourism is not the sector you seem to think it is. Granted it is something Ireland does very well but in terms of revenue its not even close to the agrifoods industry in actual or potential income. There just is not the potential there to encourage most farmers or land owners to invest. Very few farmers are lucky enough to live beside a lake or other attraction. A lot that do, have invested but you must realise that this isnt an option for the vast majority.

Its like saying "4 million tourists visited Dublin last year and you didnt put one up in your flat for the week. Your an idiot, you cant complain about not having enough money, you could have made a fortune"

As for micropigs, they're pets. They're not bred for food. Its like breeding puppies. Micro-cattle are the same. The market for tender beef is already filled by slaughtering "ordinary" cattle younger. As for those who sell straight to the consumer, its a very niche market has taken a serious kicking in the recession. I know of several farms that have reverted to mainstream production because of this. Equally the farmers market/organic sector is in decline both here and across Europe.

As for other industries small scale Irish farmers could diversify into, many do. You seem to be mistaken farm income to total income. If for example a farmer had a puppy breeding enterprise or an eco-tourism business it would not be included in the farm income figures I quoted earlier. In fact its this ingenuity that has allowed most small farm families to make ends meet.

Now thats a lot to take in but if you have any questions just ask.

krd

Dont be daft wrote: »

Economies of Scale
Your talking about economies of scale, very valid point in most industries but not of such importance in agriculture. Larger farms dont have the bullying power that you would associate with large companies like for example Tesco.

No, they don't have the bullying power of Tesco. And Tesco gouges suppliers.

The thing is with economies of scale, someone with a large easy farm, may not require that much man power. Doubling the livestock, doesn't necessarily double the work.

Some of the best farmers around in terms of profit and productivity are small scale single worker farms with very little debt.

Yes, I imagine that would be true.

What keeps farms running at a loss is the fact that they are price takers instead of setters. They have no input to price they get for their product and have been continually squezzed by retailers for the last 30 years irrespective of their scale.

And that is an incredibly bad position to be in. If you have a limited choice of customers you're screwed. Tesco, in fact, in England now, they're getting into the business of buying their own super farms for production. They've also been dealing individually with farms, where they dictate the price - and the profit margins are virtually non-existent.

Subsidies
If subsidies were removed its not the small scale low debt farmers that will be put out of business overnight, its the ones that have borrowed the most (these invariably being the larger or expanding farms).

Yep, debt is a dangerous thing.

Production would slump as more and more would go out of business or downsize and within a year production would slump to an all time low across the EU (as all EU farmers recieve subsidies, something you seem to be confused about)[note also that Irish farmers recieve less per acre than many of their European counterparts despite being more productive/efficient per acre].
Then the price of food would not only rise to meet production costs but supply having been diminished it would rise even further.
At anyone time in the year the planet as a whole is only something like 40 days away from complete famine. Thats to say if food production stopped worldwide for 40 days there would be no food left on the planet.
So even small slumps in production can have serious consequences for the pricing of food. For example Ireland is the 4/5 largest exporter of beef in the world. If Irish production alone slumped there would be a huge price jump on the shelves.

But this kind of disruption already goes on. In many cases, only a small fraction of the supermarket price of food goes to the farmer/supplier.

There was a huge grain price spike a few years back. Most people in Ireland didn't even notice it. Where it was noticed, was in places like Egypt, where they had food riots. The civil unrest and eventual revolution in Egypt, tracked the grain prices. But most people here didn't even notice.

I would say the subsidies do not hugely effect the supermarket price - and if they do, those subsidies are going into the pockets of Tesco. When the grain prices quadrupled, Tesco's bread only went up in price by not more than 50c. Cooking oil matched the bio-diesel price. But still it only went from something like 70c, to a peak of near 2 Euros. And people really didn't notice. Except in Egypt - where many people would only earn enough to eat - and not that well. In Mexico there were food riots. In Haiti, people were reduced to eating pies made of mud.

I hope I'm explaining this clearly to you because you seem to be of the belief that subsidies are a tax on the urban and a charity to the farming community.

The whole subsidies business is complicated. For most people I don't think it really worked out.

And probably the way it's working, the supermarkets are gouging the benefit of the subsidies out of the suppliers. To the consumer it may not make a huge difference. If they're price concious they tend to make substitutions. If meat goes up in price - more bread, potatoes and vegetables. But the way Tesco price food, I don't think the prices are near where most people would pay attention.

If you get what I've just outlined you'd see that what they infact are is charity to the urban. They keep the pricing of food artificially low. They also keep the price of food stable which is possibly even more important.

I don't think the subsidy is much of a factor in the supermarket price. Tesco relabel their meat products at wildly varying prices - and a lot of the time the only difference in the product is the label. And most people, in the supermarket would not be able to identify the quality of meat by looking at it.

Yes there are agrifoods industries outside the EU operating without subsidies but only doing so at the expense of
- Animal welfare (ever heard of dead holes/induced labour/the faith of bull calves on New Zealand dairy farms?)
-environmental (deforestation in South America/ huge carbon footprint in Asia)
-quality (use of growth promoters and absolutley no traceability in North America)
-unsustainablity

I have seen poor animal welfare in Ireland. There's certain parts of the country if you go for a drive, you'll see it pretty quickly.

And the carbon footprint - if no cattle eat the grass, it will die anyway and become carbon dioxide.

Diversification/Eco-tourism
The irony is you're talking about, on one hand, economies of scale and effeciency, and eco-tourism on the other. The first thing this brilliant large scale progressive farmer you wish for would do is rip up every ditch on his farm and pipe all the open drains destroying natural habitats and our countryside. Then he'd shoot every badger he saw. If you think he wouldnt, again look to New Zealand pasture or US/Eastern European cereal plains.

We don't have cereal plains in Ireland....Unless someone comes up with a grain that grows in bogs. ....we have bog plains.

Ramblers and eco-tourism is not the sector you seem to think it is. Granted it is something Ireland does very well but in terms of revenue its not even close to the agrifoods industry in actual or potential income. There just is not the potential there to encourage most farmers or land owners to invest.

Then they should be given money to invest. Even if the vast majority of projects were complete failures - the successes would pay off. Instead of ghost estates, which were a complete failure.

Very few farmers are lucky enough to live beside a lake or other attraction. A lot that do, have invested but you must realise that this isnt an option for the vast majority.

People can be driven around to things.

Its like saying "4 million tourists visited Dublin last year and you didnt put one up in your flat for the week. Your an idiot, you cant complain about not having enough money, you could have made a fortune"

If I had room, I would have. And people do put these people up. People are running small B&Bs all over Dublin. Though that eejits built too many hotels things are not as good as they were - there are plenty of people who do part-time B&B.

As for micropigs, they're pets. They're not bred for food. Its like breeding puppies. Micro-cattle are the same. The market for tender beef is already filled by slaughtering "ordinary" cattle younger.

What's sold as tender beef in Ireland is rubbish. If there is high quality tender beef being produced, it's definitely not turning up in Tesco.

As for those who sell straight to the consumer, its a very niche market has taken a serious kicking in the recession. I know of several farms that have reverted to mainstream production because of this. Equally the farmers market/organic sector is in decline both here and across Europe.

To break the strangle hold of supermarkets over suppliers, niche markets need to be developed - new distribution networks. If you walk into Tesco in Dublin, there's very little choice of product. You have the funny dyed stuff, which could be anything - and then 24 euro Angus steaks in very fancy wrapping. If lamb producers were getting half of what Tesco charge for their product - they'd be riding in stretch limos and smoking big cigars.


And the public are uneducated. Many will think there's something wrong with frozen beef. They think lean beef is good. They don't even know what marbling is.

As for other industries small scale Irish farmers could diversify into, many do. You seem to be mistaken farm income to total income. If for example a farmer had a puppy breeding enterprise or an eco-tourism business it would not be included in the farm income figures I quoted earlier. In fact its this ingenuity that has allowed most small farm families to make ends meet.

And money should be thrown at small farmers to try these things.

But not at big farmers to make more funny pink mystery meat for Tesco. I do know a farmer who under the old system used to apply for different grants and get them for the same shed over an over again.


And I know micro-pigs aren't for eating. But if I was producing them...I'm sure there might be people interested in trying one....left over stock and all ...smoked... Though you'd need a separate website to the pets site.