Fintan O'Toole and fencing the hills

Conmaicne Mara

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/why-fencing-in-our-high-mountain-pastures-is-really-the-height-of-folly-1.1591190

I don't know how many hills Fintan has been on? I may well be doing the man a disservice, he may be an accomplished hillwalker. But, I smell me an agenda. In fact I read it in black and white, it's all about hill walkers.

This is a dangerous topic for farmers, you know, the people who actually own the land in question, with any type of open unfenced grazing. We are looking at the prospect of losing of our right to control our animals and the resource that allows us keep them.

Fencing large tracts of land is an expensive business, there's no doubt about it. However I see it as an option that, if it suits the shareholders, could be considered. Particularly in light of Dept Ag Inspector comments at the recent Hill Farming Forum. I am not saying all upland commonages should be fenced as a matter of practice.

The term "Good agricultural and environmental" was uttered many times in Tuam. It was, if you want to put it bluntly, a shot across the farmers bows. Keep your upland land in good nick, or you'll be fined. We all want to do that, but it is not a simple goal to achieve.

So what does this have to do with fences on hills, a lot in my view, likely an unpopular view. In fact I know it to be so.

Of the two proposed Argi Environmental schemes I believe both included the phrase "results based". There were three levels of payment, the first was based on the condition of the land scored from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). On a lower score you would draw down practically no money per hectare on payment 1, where as on a high score you could draw down a lot more money per hectare. This money goes into the farmers pocket

The second level of payment concerned specific works to be carried out to improve the condition of upland land. Among other works they included such things as removing sheep from the land in Winter time, shepherding, and scrub control. A portion of the cost of these options was to be funded by the farmer, 25% I think, and not through the scheme. All of these options cost money, to be paid by the farmer to someone else. You don't keep this money, but it is there to increase the condition of your resource, which I see as a good thing and long overdue.

The third payment concerned Natura 2000 areas.

Imagine this scenario, and it will happen, where under Payment 2 say you remove your sheep from your upland and feed them over Winter in the hope of increasing your land score under Payment 1. Then imagine someone without rights to graze your upland at all, through accident or design, lets his flock Winter on your upland. Your land score in all likelihood will not increase that year, in fact it may decrease depending on the number of sheep. You will be left in the position where you are effectively drawing down money from a scheme, to pay out to a merchant or contractor, to effectively keep the other mans sheep in Winterage. To any sensible mind that is objectionable.

Of course sheep flocks should be hefted, that is to say they should know their area of a hill and stick to it. But in some cases, either through brass neck, old age, or lack of interest some flocks are left roam where they have no right to be. It is a thorny subject in the hills and one I'm told my opinion will not earn me any friends. Not an unreasonable assumption, to my dismay.

Fencing would also allow farmers, common shareholders on the one commonage, to better keep their land, I repeat, their land, in GAEC. Something that feeding the neighbour's sheep not only could see their Agri Environmental payment at risk, but also a part of their SFP.

(As well as the added bonus of keeping those pesky Holsteins from 530 meter heights).

I am therefore of the opinion that farmers should always have the right to fence their land, both to protect their resource and their animals. It is after all, the business of farming which has shaped our magnificent landscapes, and keep them in good condition.

That's the view from my hill, or maybe I'd be wiser to descend into the bomb shelter.