New Commonage Rules....

IrishLad2012

Just reading in the Journal about the new commonage rules they are proposing.Basically we are been told that our mountains are undergrazed and we will have to increase numbers.I can't see it working,I know in our own situation,there is 10 shareholders on our mountain and can't see us all coming to an agreement as to how many units each farmer stocks.Also we would have to fence our commonage in,as other farmers are currently grazing it.Any opinions on it?

http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/collective-penalties-proposed-in-new-commonage-rules-3259598.html

Conmaicne Mara

This wont work, and I'd encourage any farmer on any commonage not to sign any document relating to it.

My biggest gripe is how every shareholder gets punished for the actions of one or a few. That is unjust and should be challenged. I have no control over what my neighbour does, neither does my neighbour control me. We all know full well that there is a "bollix" in every townland who hasn't, doesn't, and will never give a sh1t about how things should be done. Yet again under these proposals his neighbours will end up paying for him.

The Department have previous form on actions like this. Punishing responsible farmers who had responsible levels of stocking because their irresponsible neighbour was a "cheque in the post" farmer who never looked at his sheep, just threw as many bodies onto the hill to claim their grants. Beware.

"Collective agreement" won't be possible on many commonages and will cause a lot of ill feeling. Particularly if Farmer X loses sheep so that Farmer Y can increase his flock.

My neighbour can wreak havoc on my farm by deciding to activate or stop farming their share, I must either take or give them slack.

The lead in time is stupidly short.

What allowances have been made for people stocked at AEOS or other rates who can't adjust without penalty?

I haven't seen reference to fencing commonages. It's something I would agree with in principal to stop the plain thieving of grazing that goes on. However, anyone visiting a hill sheep mart in the West this year will be only too well aware of the collapse of sheep prices here. So it is unrealistic to expect shareholders to fence entire commonages certainly under current circumstances.

Another cock up in the making.

drive it

With the lack of a market for hill lamb its hard to see anyone increacing numbers or getting back into them.
Have heard of lads not letting rams out this year as they cant get rid of this years lambs and others putting the ram lambs back to the hill.

Also when the destocking came in first wasnt the so called "expterts" told that hills would get over grown and sheep wont eat it when it gets strong thus leaving the mess we have now .
unless you dont get on withyour neighbour its going to drive people against each other

Conmaicne Mara

One addition to my previous rant.

In regards to fining farmers for the actions of their neighbours, or destocking farmers for the actions of their neighbours.

The Department have more information available to them on my farm than I probably have myself. That also applies to other farmers.

It's high time they took it upon themselves to actually go after the culprits doing the damage instead of constantly side swiping the genuine farmers on the hills of Ireland. And leave the rest of us be to get on with our farming.

I am sick to the back teeth of that cowardice.

IrishLad2012

Definitely agree with you here.Our mountain was overstocked in the late 90's and this was because of two big shareholders absolutely dotting the place with sheep.They are very hard men to agree with,so can see loads of problems if these rules come into affect.

supersean1999

any final word on the changes, the journal had a piece last week, im wondering has anyone got any letters out,?? it all comes down to getting farmers off the hills, and no better way than to turn farmers against each other, what a stupid idea to make one man responsible for another,

Bodacious

supersean1999 wrote: »

any final word on the changes, the journal had a piece last week, im wondering has anyone got any letters out,?? it all comes down to getting farmers off the hills, and no better way than to turn farmers against each other, what a stupid idea to make one man responsible for another,

I reckon it will be murder.. boys that dont talk to each other for decades being a)responsible for each others actions and having to sit around the table and agree for once!!... recipe for disaster IMO

IrishLad2012

Bodacious wrote: »

I reckon it will be murder.. boys that dont talk to each other for decades being a)responsible for each others actions and having to sit around the table and agree for once!!... recipe for disaster IMO

Exactly me sediments.We have trouble getting our neighbour to repair the boundary fence between us,can't see us agreeing with him on commonage.

Bodacious

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

Exactly me sediments.We have trouble getting our neighbour to repair the boundary fence between us,can't see us agreeing with him on commonage.

:mad: " you or the likes of you or no department will tell me what to do!!":mad:

supersean1999

im of the belief the npws have not a clue not even an idea of how to farm hills, there was not one bit of imput from the people who farm the hills, they have no idea how many sheep were actually on a hill, so how do they know what it will take to keep it grazed properly now, its all guess work,

supersean1999

how did ye fair out, our hill is now a max of 1.55 sheep per hec, means one guy will have to come from 300 down to 70 and a few more will have to put sheep to the hills, let the fun begin

Conmaicne Mara

supersean1999 wrote: »

how did ye fair out, our hill is now a max of 1.55 sheep per hec, means one guy will have to come from 300 down to 70 and a few more will have to put sheep to the hills, let the fun begin

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :eek:

How or where did ye find out that rate?

NPWS are not to be trusted.

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :eek:

How or where did ye find out that rate?

NPWS are not to be trusted.

it was all over the journal and on the dep website, you can download it under grazing plans, its going to be a disaster for a load of people, sorry most people

Conmaicne Mara

Would you have a link? All I can find on the Dep website is "commonage grazing plans" which brings me to a page about AEOS?

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Would you have a link? All I can find on the Dep website is "commonage grazing plans" which brings me to a page about AEOS?

thats the right link hold on ill check, your on right page, its under aeos documentation , grazing plans, file size 726 kb, im no good at links and all that crack sorry

Conmaicne Mara

That's grand, I'll find it, thanks

Rovi

Here's the link:
Commonage Grazing Plans (xls 726Kb)

It's an XLS spreadsheet document.

Conmaicne Mara

How did ya work out the stocking rate Sean? I've found my local commonages now on that file, are the min and max densities the min and max number of sheep on those commonages?

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

How did ya work out the stocking rate Sean? I've found my local commonages now on that file, are the min and max densities the min and max number of sheep on those commonages?

ya its for the hill, , take into account not all shares might be used and the hill will prob still have to carry them total of sheep, im actually spot on for the number of shares i have so not going to complain about that , but the problem where i am is 5 farmers kept the hill in good shape, now the ones who took the payments without stocking the hills will be prob re stocking,so not sure how it will work, also the whole taking responsibility for another man is crazy stuff ,im wondering if challenged would it be even legal,

Conmaicne Mara

I would examine the fine print very carefully. They've probably cooked it up in the agreement somewhere that you accept the rules & regs they've developed, if you don't accept then they'll probably go after SFP etc.

Am off to a meeting tomorrow night, hopefully it'll be discussed there.

I saw one commonage where, if they even put a quarter the number of sheep listed onto it they'll destroy it - again.

kevthegaff

is it hard to buy a comonage, and if one does will it be classified back to ordinary grazing land

Conmaicne Mara

I think if it's designated, then it's designated (SAC, NAH etc), but could well be wrong on that. Years ago we were given the option of excluding fenced land from SAC but didn't which was the right thing to do at the time, with REPS around, but when it's all stick and no carrot not it's wrong.

Flor McCarthy, IFA Rural Development Chairman, was at a meeting in Clifden last night. He said IFA were telling them making up these rules that common agreement between shareholders wouldn't work and there should be a natural stocking of the hills if you will, if the price for lambs is there then there'll be no need to tell lads to increase stock. But, when the price isn't there you'll be spending a lot of money to lose money. They were trying to get the two year lead in time changed to ten years. He said there wasn't much/any movement shown from the other side.

I was talking to another IFA man who's name I forget who was telling me he was getting calls from farmers who had 100 ewes and under this new thing would have to have 800. Then there was Mr McCarthy himself who would be put from 200 ewes to 46. There were various theories whether people in REPS/AEOS would be allowed to amend their plans upwards, but no definite answer I could find.

It's scandalous how the 67 farmers in the Maumturks are being treated. I know a lot of them all my life and didn't know they were getting it this bad. A lot will be down to single figure sheep numbers, that's actual sheep number across entire commonages and not LU's or head per hectare.

One farmer said how there were 25 shareholders on their commonage, he did tell what the hectare number was but I forget - it was in the hundreds anyway. Under the new rules each shareholder would be reduced to three single sheep each. They'll be lonely.

There was also talk about the Dept changing the goalposts on the same farmers and breaking a contract with them, in effect leaving them with no money, no stock, and no way of making a living.

There's something else I really do want to say, a piece that was read out from the IFJ concerning a particular individual but I'm unsure whether it'll get me in bother or not so I won't. But it's the epitome of the saying "That's very Irish".

IrishLad2012

Just had as look there and I have to keep a minimum of 13.78 units,does this mean I have to keep 1.92 ewes or have I done my figures wrong?

supersean1999

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

Just had as look there and I have to keep a minimum of 13.78 units,does this mean I have to keep 1.92 ewes or have I done my figures wrong?

cant figure that out , did you get a letter, 13.78 would be roughly 90 sheep .
maybe thats 1.92 per hec depending on your land,

IrishLad2012

supersean1999 wrote: »

cant figure that out , did you get a letter, 13.78 would be roughly 90 sheep .
maybe thats 1.92 per hec depending on your land,

Sorry didn't give you much detail,our mountain is 65 hectares,I have 1/8 of a share.The minimum allocated is 110.24(overall rate),taken directly from the link posted here. Didn't receive the letter yet.

supersean1999

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

Sorry didn't give you much detail,our mountain is 65 hectares,I have 1/8 of a share.The minimum allocated is 110.24(overall rate),taken directly from the link posted here. Didn't receive the letter yet.

your min sheep is 14 on the hill, your max id imagine would be 18apx judging by national figures,, i hope you dont put a lot to the hill, thats low numbers

IrishLad2012

supersean1999 wrote: »

your min sheep is 14 on the hill, your max id imagine would be 18apx judging by national figures,, i hope you dont put a lot to the hill, thats low numbers

We use to put 50 ewes to it.Will be interesting to see who is active shareholders when the letter comes out,only two of us ever stocked it but I'm sure they all have it on their SFP.

supersean1999

i was at a meeting few days ago, the dep are adament they want this shared responsibility, which is rubbish, every share holder in every hill should refuse and stick together, as for the min, max numbers, they will be here to stay thats my opinion anyway, i hope they have the common sense to listen a bit more to the farmers who actually farm them, i have no problem weeding out the armchair farmers

Conmaicne Mara

supersean1999 wrote: »

i was at a meeting few days ago, the dep are adament they want this shared responsibility, which is rubbish, every share holder in every hill should refuse and stick together, as for the min, max numbers, they will be here to stay thats my opinion anyway, i hope they have the common sense to listen a bit more to the farmers who actually farm them, i have no problem weeding out the armchair farmers

Armchair farmers aren't on commonages, AFAIK designated commonages require stock for you to get subsidy on them. Where as other lands perhaps out of those areas don't have a stocking requirement, yet still get subsidy.

With this and that there are a lot of farmers not being allowed the chance to farm on commonages.

It was a point made very strongly in Clifden on Monday night.

I am probably explaining it badly.

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Armchair farmers aren't on commonages, AFAIK designated commonages require stock for you to get subsidy on them. Where as other lands perhaps out of those areas don't have a stocking requirement, yet still get subsidy.

With this and that there are a lot of farmers not being allowed the chance to farm on commonages.

It was a point made very strongly in Clifden on Monday night.

I am probably explaining it badly.

you prob are ,our hill has 6 that use it and 4 more who claim to have been using it was years and collect payments ,noboby has stopped them using it, there what i call armchair farmers,

Conmaicne Mara

supersean1999 wrote: »

you prob are ,our hill has 6 that use it and 4 more who claim to have been using it was years and collect payments ,noboby has stopped them using it, there what i call armchair farmers,

That's a system failure though. If it's not being farmed then it shouldn't be claimed. Apply for a piece of designated land you don't farm, tell them you don't farm it, see how far you get in regards to being paid on it.

What I heard is that designated lands need to be stocked to be paid on.

Where as other lands, I am not trying to start a row, but it was said to be in other parts of the country, don't need to be stocked but can still be claimed on legally and officially.

That's where the armchair farmer saying came from AFAIK. People claiming what they have no right to I would call fraudsters.

paddington bear

Hi, im just wondering what the numbers on that site mean it says 170 for our commanage but is that between every farmer sharing the commange or each farmer? thanks

IrishLad2012

paddington bear wrote: »

Hi, im just wondering what the numbers on that site mean it says 170 for our commanage but is that between every farmer sharing the commange or each farmer? thanks

That's between you all,so your number will be based on your number of shares.

supersean1999

paddington bear wrote: »

Hi, im just wondering what the numbers on that site mean it says 170 for our commanage but is that between every farmer sharing the commange or each farmer? thanks

every commanage should have a min and a max number,so you should have two numbers, so that number is for every farmer, divide total shares to get yours, letters with exact details will be out soon. i was expecting them by now

IrishLad2012

supersean1999 wrote: »

every commanage should have a min and a max number,so you should have two numbers, so that number is for every farmer, divide total shares to get yours, letters with exact details will be out soon. i was expecting them by now

how many cattle will you be allowed compared to these figures?

supersean1999

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

how many cattle will you be allowed compared to these figures?

well a sheep is classed as .15 and a cow as 1 livestock unit, so 20 sheep= 3 cows

IrishLad2012

supersean1999 wrote: »

well a sheep is classed as .15 and a cow as 1 livestock unit, so 20 sheep= 3 cows

So lets say a stocking rate of 137.84,means 68 ewes?

Bodacious

i put 4 heifers out onto hill today 193 acres in total, first cattle on there in must be 15 years, no sheep either just old man has a couple of old retired ponies on it

seriously undergrazed, impassable areas with thick furze up through the heather

IrishLad2012

Bodacious wrote: »

i put 4 heifers out onto hill today 193 acres in total, first cattle on there in must be 15 years, no sheep either just old man has a couple of old retired ponies on it

seriously undergrazed, impassable areas with thick furze up through the heather

Get Maguire and Paterson to sort it...;)Down with that sort of thing,Careful Now...

Bodacious

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

Get Maguire and Paterson to sort it...;)Down with that sort of thing,Careful Now...

there is probably E80,000 worth of water pipes in it plus the labour to replace them all it doesnt bear thinking about

Conmaicne Mara

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

That's between you all,so your number will be based on your number of shares.

I'm not sure if that's the case or not as the minimum stocking rate would need to be met, so in some instances share might not come into it if there are only a small % of shareholders grazing.

I have heard it's been put off for a year, but that very well could be mart talk.

It's a cluster**** in the making either way.

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I'm not sure if that's the case or not as the minimum stocking rate would need to be met, so in some instances share might not come into it if there are only a small % of shareholders grazing.

I have heard it's been put off for a year, but that very well could be mart talk.

It's a cluster**** in the making either way.

the new min max numbers are being used by some if not all planners for the new aeos 3

Conmaicne Mara

Check it out, but I've heard again today (from a reliable source) that it's been delayed - not forgotten about, just delayed.

If there's any meetings going on in ye're areas be at them.

supersean1999

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Check it out, but I've heard again today (from a reliable source) that it's been delayed - not forgotten about, just delayed.

If there's any meetings going on in ye're areas be at them.

irish indo today, its been delayed alright, but your right it wont be forgotten

Conmaicne Mara

Anyone in a hill area should now start thinking of saner alternatives to what has been proposed, as we'll be facing it again soon enough. No point in being taken by surprise a second time.

Conmaicne Mara

I've not had a chance to read the Journal yet so sorry if ye know all this and more already.

Seems the threat of penalty on one farmer for another farmers actions will be dropped.

Collective agreement is being changed also I think.

There will be some type of review board set up to deal with commonages, various interests on it from NPWS, Dept., IFA, someone else I can't remember and an independent chairman.

It seems the massive hurry to rush this in due to the EU was BS.

For the life of me I can't remember all the details from last night.

Lots of horse trading to happen yet.

supersean1999

any updates on this anyone,

berlingo22

Hi I not sure of the new rules for commonage , i am right to say you must have show your are using the commonage from April to October but you not allow to fence it. If that the case you have no control of your animals,

IrishLad2012

Yes as far as I know that is it exactly. We got a letter last week to tell us what stocking rates we had to put to the mountain.

berlingo22

Thanks for the reply other Question, If you have 2 commonage in different townlands do you need seperate commonage plan for both?

IrishLad2012

berlingo22 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply other Question, If you have 2 commonage in different townlands do you need seperate commonage plan for both?

No I did both of my townlands on the one plan.