Commonage Shareholders.

ihatewinter

Hey I have a quick question. I have access to commonage and wanted to clarify my query before all the paperwork starts.

On my commonage, there are 6 shareholders (including myself) who are historically registered with the Land Commission on an old Vesting Order and Map for grazing rights. But was talking to the only elderly friendly farmer and he said there are 10 shareholders. He said they have a right to graze, but not registered. Is this true and what legal right have they to the commonage under the new planned schemes.

There are only grazing rights on the commonage, not ownership.

mallethead

As far as i know your rights should be on the vesting order or they can be on the land registery deed of the land these rights are linked to, it, is usually on both
if you re not no the vesting order you have no rights to graze
The only person who can give rights to graze is the owner ie OPW or former landlord

ihatewinter

Great thanks

Bodacious

mallethead wrote: »

As far as i know your rights should be on the vesting order or they can be on the land registery deed of the land these rights are linked to, it, is usually on both
if you re not no the vesting order you have no rights to graze
The only person who can give rights to graze is the owner ie OPW or former landlord

I'd like to find out who actually has rights to a piece of commonage I graze .. Can I contact the land registry or who can give me the exact names as in a few cases one person was left the house and another the land.. Who got the rights to the commonage?

Yourcommonage .ie wouldn't have this kind of info ?

Connemara Farmer

Bodacious wrote: »

I'd like to find out who actually has rights to a piece of commonage I graze .. Can I contact the land registry or who can give me the exact names as in a few cases one person was left the house and another the land.. Who got the rights to the commonage?

Yourcommonage .ie wouldn't have this kind of info ?

They can get it I'd say.

Bodacious

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

They can get it I'd say.

hi con




the land registry or yourcommonage.ie which would you think would be handier

Connemara Farmer

Bodacious wrote: »

hi con




the land registry or yourcommonage.ie which would you think would be handier

Wouldn't be sure there bod been a long time since I bought lands or looked into bits and pieces. My think is likely one is easier and the other cheaper?

MayoAreMagic

ihatewinter wrote: »

Hey I have a quick question. I have access to commonage and wanted to clarify my query before all the paperwork starts.

On my commonage, there are 6 shareholders (including myself) who are historically registered with the Land Commission on an old Vesting Order and Map for grazing rights. But was talking to the only elderly friendly farmer and he said there are 10 shareholders. He said they have a right to graze, but not registered. Is this true and what legal right have they to the commonage under the new planned schemes.

There are only grazing rights on the commonage, not ownership.

I have heard that one before, more than once. Don't rule out the 'friendly farmer' being even better friends with these extra lads with sheep grazing the area... There are numerous lads around my area grazing commonage for years and no share to their name.
Check it out yourself and then you know for sure.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I have heard that one before, more than once. Don't rule out the 'friendly farmer' being even better friends with these extra lads with sheep grazing the area... There are numerous lads around my area grazing commonage for years and no share to their name.
Check it out yourself and then you know for sure.

Yup, I was "told" one of mine had 8 shares, not 6, sure everyone knows there's 8 shares in it!

Everyone is wrong :cool:

foxylock

33 shares on my commonage, about 5 being farmed ......all being claimed on.

some joke!

MayoAreMagic

That is the thing foxylock. The truth is there are serious flaws with the way commonage is handled. By right, guys should only have the use of commonage when they have been proven to be actively using it, and to a certain standard. There is no requirement to own commonage shares, they should be awarded to farmers who are using it. When they stop using it they should lose the use of the share.

foxylock

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That is the thing foxylock. The truth is there are serious flaws with the way commonage is handled. By right, guys should only have the use of commonage when they have been proven to be actively using it, and to a certain standard. There is no requirement to own commonage shares, they should be awarded to farmers who are using it. When they stop using it they should lose the use of the share.

agreed. The other side of that is we now have lads preparing to stock the hills and they have no idea what's involved. One local has two hundred ewe lambs ready to go and never had sheep before

we gonna be busy next year clearing carcasses

Connemara Farmer

foxylock wrote: »

33 shares on my commonage, about 5 being farmed ......all being claimed on.

some joke!

Actually it's not.

EU don't mind once the land is kept in good condition. So all could claim with a few doing the most of the farming. The majority may need to do some activity on it but that could be managed or agreed with the few also.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That is the thing foxylock. The truth is there are serious flaws with the way commonage is handled. By right, guys should only have the use of commonage when they have been proven to be actively using it, and to a certain standard. There is no requirement to own commonage shares, they should be awarded to farmers who are using it. When they stop using it they should lose the use of the share.

Don't agree with that at all, I bought and paid for most of my commonage.

ganmo

foxylock wrote: »

agreed. The other side of that is we now have lads preparing to stock the hills and they have no idea what's involved. One local has two hundred ewe lambs ready to go and never had sheep before

we gonna be busy next year clearing carcasses

are they a hill breed atleast?

freedominacup

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Yup, I was "told" one of mine had 8 shares, not 6, sure everyone knows there's 8 shares in it!

Everyone is wrong :cool:

Everyone never has a clue. That said he's often quoted by bullies to justify acting the maggot.

Charliebull

what is classification of commonage share

lets say for example a piece of bog owned on a commonage, does that give one a share to the commonage

wasnt the old rule of thumb that the right to the bog came with the deeds of the house and not the land

Bullocks

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That is the thing foxylock. The truth is there are serious flaws with the way commonage is handled. By right, guys should only have the use of commonage when they have been proven to be actively using it, and to a certain standard. There is no requirement to own commonage shares, they should be awarded to farmers who are using it. When they stop using it they should lose the use of the share.

Do you mean if I rocked up to your commonage and started actively grazing it that I should be awarded a share ? There are alot of lads who would take advantage of that

MayoAreMagic

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Don't agree with that at all, I bought and paid for most of my commonage.

But what does buying a share prove, besides that you have a few pound to spend? The people with stock on the commonage should be the only ones who profit from it. If you can just buy a share and never go near the commonage then how is that fair on the guys who are doing your work as regards keeping the heather down, and how does that aid the goal put in place from Brussels for designated areas? Shouldn't they in fact be getting paid for all the work they do, while the guy doing nothing should get nothing? That is why ownership of shares in a commonage system isn't really a good fit. They should be awarded to people who are looking to utilise them. Once they aren't doing so then someone else who is in a position to do so should get it.

Don't get me wrong, I bought my shares in the same fashion you did, my point is the system is flawed.

MayoAreMagic

Bullocks wrote: »

Do you mean if I rocked up to your commonage and started actively grazing it that I should be awarded a share ? There are alot of lads who would take advantage of that

It there is room for them then yes. If there isn't room then no. But of course they should have to apply for it through an official channel.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But what does buying a share prove, besides that you have a few pound to spend? The people with stock on the commonage should be the only ones who profit from it. If you can just buy a share and never go near the commonage then how is that fair on the guys who are doing your work as regards keeping the heather down, and how does that aid the goal put in place from Brussels for designated areas? Shouldn't they in fact be getting paid for all the work they do, while the guy doing nothing should get nothing? That is why ownership of shares in a commonage system isn't really a good fit. They should be awarded to people who are looking to utilise them. Once they aren't doing so then someone else who is in a position to do so should get it.

Don't get me wrong, I bought my shares in the same fashion you did, my point is the system is flawed.

There may be a commonage with X amount of shareholders on it. It's often the case that if all of X were to farm to their share, there would be none of them viable farm units.

Once the ground is kept in good condition then what does it matter who owns the stock? Once it's a suitable situation for all of the concerned shareholders. The paymaster, that being the EU, are happy with that situation.

I've always said a farmers right should be to stock their % share of the commonage should they so wish. If not, and they agree for another, or others to run that stock then it's the same difference.

Remember, you do not get paid for production, it's against WTO rules.

There are plenty who over farm their share of the commonages, and who continued to do so after the SFP came into being.

The guy doing nothing isn't doing nothing, he has made a voluntary agreement for someone else to graze his share of the commonage.

The flaws in the system come from the Irish Government. The EU are quite flexible, and it's flexibility that is the key to well managed land.

MayoAreMagic

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

There may be a commonage with X amount of shareholders on it. It's often the case that if all of X were to farm to their share, there would be none of them viable farm units.

Once the ground is kept in good condition then what does it matter who owns the stock? Once it's a suitable situation for all of the concerned shareholders. The paymaster, that being the EU, are happy with that situation.

Let's look at that for a second. In any other walk of life, if a man wanted to get paid for the work of another man, he wouldn't get it. Why is that different here? I don't believe it is a suitable situation, the guy not using the commonage might, but if the guy maintaining both his own and the other guys does then he is a fool. This is the reason a young lad coming through cannot buy a share. Old lads wont sell them to them because they are a handy few pound for guys who are not actually farming the commonage any longer. This offers nothing to the actual maintenance of the commonage and blocks the path of those that will.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I've always said a farmers right should be to stock their % share of the commonage should they so wish. If not, and they agree for another, or others to run that stock then it's the same difference.

Remember, you do not get paid for production, it's against WTO rules.

But this isn't payment for production, it is payment for maintenance of the commonage, which they are not doing themselves.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

There are plenty who over farm their share of the commonages, and who continued to do so after the SFP came into being.

The guy doing nothing isn't doing nothing, he has made a voluntary agreement for someone else to graze his share of the commonage.

What say should this guy have on what happens on the commonage, when he isn't farming it himself? The idea of a commonage is it is a shared tract of land for farmers in a position to maintain it. Why should a guy not in a position to maintain it get to decide what happens with it?

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Let's look at that for a second. In any other walk of life, if a man wanted to get paid for the work of another man, he wouldn't get it. Why is that different here? I don't believe it is a suitable situation, the guy not using the commonage might, but if the guy maintaining both his own and the other guys does then he is a fool. This is the reason a young lad coming through cannot buy a share. Old lads wont sell them to them because they are a handy few pound for guys who are not actually farming the commonage any longer. This offers nothing to the actual maintenance of the commonage and blocks the path of those that will.

But this isn't payment for production, it is payment for maintenance of the commonage, which they are not doing themselves.

What say should this guy have on what happens on the commonage, when he isn't farming it himself? The idea of a commonage is it is a shared tract of land for farmers in a position to maintain it. Why should a guy not in a position to maintain it get to decide what happens with it?

The farmer running most of the stock, remember SFP is in a fair while now and he's still doing it, is doing so for a reason. He's making money from it. So quite far removed from the fool he's made out to be.

The farmer farming the lowland but maybe not the commonage to his or her share has by voluntarily agreeing to let the other farm the land, contributed to the management of that land.

Now, in a case where the land isn't being managed properly, either over grazed with too much stock, or undergrazed with too few, those farmers will be in a penalty situation.

If young lads got off their arse and done a days work they'd be well able to buy commonage shares, they're not overly expensive and several young lads in this area have done so in recent years.

Maintenance by mutual agreement, as said above.

S/he is a shareholder who has rights, more than grazing rights now, legal rights. That is one of the issues there is with the farmer and planner owning the commonage masterplan, there is a liability there for both of them if they do something another shareholder outside of the masterplan disagrees with.

MayoAreMagic

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

The farmer running most of the stock, remember SFP is in a fair while now and he's still doing it, is doing so for a reason. He's making money from it. So quite far removed from the fool he's made out to be.

The farmer farming the lowland but maybe not the commonage to his or her share has by voluntarily agreeing to let the other farm the land, contributed to the management of that land.

Now, in a case where the land isn't being managed properly, either over grazed with too much stock, or undergrazed with too few, those farmers will be in a penalty situation.

If young lads got off their arse and done a days work they'd be well able to buy commonage shares, they're not overly expensive and several young lads in this area have done so in recent years.

Maintenance by mutual agreement, as said above.

S/he is a shareholder who has rights, more than grazing rights now, legal rights. That is one of the issues there is with the farmer and planner owning the commonage masterplan, there is a liability there for both of them if they do something another shareholder outside of the masterplan disagrees with.

But you have just repeated the same thing again. First off, the guy getting paid for using the commonage shouldn't get to agree with the other guy, because the guy not using the share shouldn't have that say. Secondly if he is doing the other guy's work then he should probably be getting his payment too, that is why I say he is a fool.

The crux of the issue is this, a man not maintaining the commonage, shouldn't be allowed to dictate as regards what happens on it. There should be no ownership. Once a guy has the right to use it, he gets all legal rights too.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But you have just repeated the same thing again. First off, the guy getting paid for using the commonage shouldn't get to agree with the other guy, because the guy not using the share shouldn't have that say. Secondly if he is doing the other guy's work then he should probably be getting his payment too, that is why I say he is a fool.

The crux of the issue is this, a man not maintaining the commonage, shouldn't be allowed to dictate as regards what happens on it. There should be no ownership. Once a guy has the right to use it, he gets all legal rights too.

Lol sure that's ridiculous, the shareholders own the land, of course they have a say, and not just a say but legal rights. That's direct from a barrister, not a bar stool. You may wish to tread on the land mine, I'll be keeping well away from it.

They tried no ownership in Russia, it didn't work so well.

MayoAreMagic

But that was my point. They should only hold the rights of ownership when they are using it. When they are not using it, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep it and the share should be made available to someone who wants to use it. If they can just keep it and get paid for it then it prevents people who might actually be good at this type of farming from driving on and making a living from it. They are carrying these guys when in truth they should be getting more money themselves.

Because of the ownership system, many commonages have become very stagnate. People don't know how many shares there are, nevermind who owns them or how they might get hold of one. To me, it is clearly a flawed system.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But that was my point. They should only hold the rights of ownership when they are using it. When they are not using it, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep it and the share should be made available to someone who wants to use it. If they can just keep it and get paid for it then it prevents people who might actually be good at this type of farming from driving on and making a living from it. They are carrying these guys when in truth they should be getting more money themselves.

Because of the ownership system, many commonages have become very stagnate. People don't know how many shares there are, nevermind who owns them or how they might get hold of one. To me, it is clearly a flawed system.

You're talking of making huge changes to land ownership in this country that would have implications beyond commonages. Good luck trying to get that past the starting post, it wouldn't be a runner. Someone decides you're doing the wrong thing with some of your land, you're not farming it in enough of an environmental fashion, or you're not planting wind turbines on it, then they push for a law to take it from you, don't think you'd be a bit happy. Once something like that would be enshrined in law you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be all types of land and property grab attempts in the courts.

The Government intervention in the current system is what's made a hames of it. Destocking, outdated Commonage Framework Plans, removing cattle at their most beneficial time of the year.

You're ignoring the point that there are already many farmers over farming their commonage share, with payments on just their own share. I have never heard one of them ask for anything like that. In fact the biggest gripe some have is they will have had to reduce their own numbers to accommodate others under the now defunct 1 ewe to 1.5 hectares. They're making money, or they'd be only too delighted to see their stock level decrease.

Walk into any capable solicitors in that commonages locality and a person won't be long finding out what's what, or go to land registry, or advisers like yourcommonage.ie. It's nothing someone with a bit of get up and go can't discover for themselves rather than be handed someone elses asset.

Bullocks

Any idea how much are shares for commanage per acre roughly ?
Would it be possible that lads could use commanage in a nitrates plan if their own farm is over stocked ? Maybe that is why some people are happy enough to leave someone else graze their share so long as as their own name is still on it to dilute there stocking rate

Connemara Farmer

Bullocks wrote: »

Any idea how much are shares for commanage per acre roughly ?
Would it be possible that lads could use commanage in a nitrates plan if their own farm is over stocked ? Maybe that is why some people are happy enough to leave someone else graze their share so long as as their own name is still on it to dilute there stocking rate

Controversial issue. There was a piece in the Farming Independent, which was quite vague at the time about dairy cattle and inspectors looking for them 530 meters up a mountain. I'm not going to go into the detail of it, but I don't think you're too farm off the mark. I wouldn't go buying commonage to do that plan because it's been flagged as a problem now I think.

It's a bit of a nonsense too when you think about it, if farm A have too much nitrates and buys commonage B (which is designated), then says we're spreading nitrates out over all land? Well, like, ya can't physically at least, not even sure that's a kosher paper exercise?

MayoAreMagic

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

You're talking of making huge changes to land ownership in this country that would have implications beyond commonages. Good luck trying to get that past the starting post, it wouldn't be a runner. Someone decides you're doing the wrong thing with some of your land, you're not farming it in enough of an environmental fashion, or you're not planting wind turbines on it, then they push for a law to take it from you, don't think you'd be a bit happy. Once something like that would be enshrined in law you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be all types of land and property grab attempts in the courts.

I don't buy into this to be honest, it is overly defensive from the outset. Isnt it also possible that employing a more suitable system would streamline commonage farming, and give those that are genuinely good at it, room to make a decent living out of it as opposed to being part time for eternity, carrying lads who are only after a soft few pound?


When did wind turbines come into it? I don't see how they are specific to my scenario. And I never said that guys making a decent effort at it would be forced out either, I stated that guys not using the commonage and still claiming on it shouldn't get money for work they are not even attempting. Surely commonage should be for farmers who farm on the hills, not farmers who can buy shares in hills, right?

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

The Government intervention in the current system is what's made a hames of it. Destocking, outdated Commonage Framework Plans, removing cattle at their most beneficial time of the year.

That is more to do with the method employed rather than the fact that it was the government... If they employ the correct method then I don't see an issue with intervention. Im sure there are plenty ideas farmers had that didn't turn out so well also...

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

You're ignoring the point that there are already many farmers over farming their commonage share, with payments on just their own share. I have never heard one of them ask for anything like that. In fact the biggest gripe some have is they will have had to reduce their own numbers to accommodate others under the now defunct 1 ewe to 1.5 hectares. They're making money, or they'd be only too delighted to see their stock level decrease.

I never stated that all shares had to be of the same size. A simple percentage system could be worked out among shareholders and if people were not fulfilling it then the others could make that known. The reality is some guys can go way over their numbers because it is run poorly at present. In a proper system the commonage could be evaluated and increases in numbers, if required could be handled in an organised means. This would be possible is a streamlined system where people were well informed on the details of their commonage. In truth, in a shared system, each person should know what the others should have, right? How can you work together otherwise? Do you know what the people you share with have? Because I don't. It undermines the entire thing.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Walk into any capable solicitors in that commonages locality and a person won't be long finding out what's what, or go to land registry, or advisers like yourcommonage.ie. It's nothing someone with a bit of get up and go can't discover for themselves rather than be handed someone elses asset.

You see there it is again 'someone elses asset'. My point is it shouldn't be owned out-right, but rather only when the person fits a certain criteria. When they no longer fit it (i.e. choose to not put sheep on the commonage) then give it to someone else who does. That way you own it when you are active, when you aren't you don't have a say. It is a far more suitable system than simply buying them and sitting on them for payments, while leaving the actual upkeep to someone else. This method doesn't serve the commonage in any way.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I don't buy into this to be honest, it is overly defensive from the outset. Isnt it also possible that employing a more suitable system would streamline commonage farming, and give those that are genuinely good at it, room to make a decent living out of it as opposed to being part time for eternity, carrying lads who are only after a soft few pound?

When did wind turbines come into it? I don't see how they are specific to my scenario. And I never said that guys making a decent effort at it would be forced out either, I stated that guys not using the commonage and still claiming on it shouldn't get money for work they are not even attempting. Surely commonage should be for farmers who farm on the hills, not farmers who can buy shares in hills, right?

That is more to do with the method employed rather than the fact that it was the government... If they employ the correct method then I don't see an issue with intervention. Im sure there are plenty ideas farmers had that didn't turn out so well also...

I never stated that all shares had to be of the same size. A simple percentage system could be worked out among shareholders and if people were not fulfilling it then the others could make that known. The reality is some guys can go way over their numbers because it is run poorly at present. In a proper system the commonage could be evaluated and increases in numbers, if required could be handled in an organised means. This would be possible is a streamlined system where people were well informed on the details of their commonage. In truth, in a shared system, each person should know what the others should have, right? How can you work together otherwise? Do you know what the people you share with have? Because I don't. It undermines the entire thing.

You see there it is again 'someone elses asset'. My point is it shouldn't be owned out-right, but rather only when the person fits a certain criteria. When they no longer fit it (i.e. choose to not put sheep on the commonage) then give it to someone else who does. That way you own it when you are active, when you aren't you don't have a say. It is a far more suitable system than simply buying them and sitting on them for payments, while leaving the actual upkeep to someone else. This method doesn't serve the commonage in any way.

Off you go and have at it, there's not a soul here trying to stop you push the idea on.