Cap reform convergence

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Don't fool yourself, the extra subs are now going to doctors, solicitors, radiologists. The farmers taking over the good Payments are teh guys that are probably going to farm properly and these are the ones that you are looking to be penalised.
The farms were there in the nineties, but too many were like Herduitter.....didn't want to be beholden to anyone..... Trying to be cute hoors, that worked out well.
We had to farm properly because we had repayments to meet, I can assure you one beast sold, with or without subs, wouldn't be worth a damn, We needed the subs. we didn't have the luxury of trying to be a cute hoor at the time.

Is there a yawn emoji?

As you well know, since we've talked about it in person, in DM's and on this forum, I didn't start farming until the very late 1990's. Because of production based subsidies, headage, which had zero regulation and was cheered on by IFA, hills and mountains became horrifically over grazed. All to claim a "production subsidy".

Anyone starting in those times - who had no input to overgrazing - were disallowed by the Department from expanding, there was a compulsory 30% reduction in stock, then further reductions on some hills.

I began with 18 ewes, I went to 55. I had quota for 30. I applied to the National Reserve for extra quota to bring me to 60. Not only was I refused, I got a letter saying I had to cut down to 22 ewes. I got a further letter from Joe Walsh saying I could have 3 blackface ewes back and go up to the dizzying heights of 25 blackface ewes. Due to no flock in the state being allowed to be below 25 sheep, so the letter stated.

From that time, until the end of my REPS 3 contract I was held down at 25 blackface ewes.

When I went into Teagasc for something, I got the strong arm to apply for AEOS 1. I said no ****ing way, as I'm being kept down in numbers and that'll see me stay down longer. There were conversations to and fro between two Teagasc advisors and the Department. I was allowed to set the world on fire by going to 40 blackface ewes.

That was the case until GLAS1 arrived and the Department were moaning farmers weren't grazing commonages. No wonder, we weren't allowed to by THEIR dictations.

Go build a payment on that.

So, to be honest wrangler, you're a decent fella when talking sheep but you turn into something quite different talking CAP or should that be talking CrAP.

Here we are with you still wanting everyone to accept your world view. Insulting other farmers, their lands, their situations and thinking everyone had the breaks you had. An awful lot of farmers had your problems but hadn't deep mineral soils, kinder weather, short supply routes, large subsidies and a motorway pay off.

That's about as polite as I'm going to be saying that.

MayoAreMagic

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

In essence, this is free money - so there will always be ways to play it, and lads will try that...
Your comment of it becoming a pension, surely that could be applied to anyone in receipt of BPS?

We hear of rural decline. We hear of places being empty during the day when everyone leaves to go to work, and full in the evenings and weekends. We hear of local shops closing, cos when everyone is commuting they buy in the Dunnes/Tesco they are passing in the urban centres...
My full time farmer dream is based on trying to reverse this trend - maybe naively...
But if a lad/lads wants to farm full time, let the government support them. If they earn over a certain amount the support goes down. It puts a base in place so full time farming could be a viable option for people...
Imagine if land all over the country was wanted by young people from all backgrounds that wanted to try farming, new people moving to the area, more kids in rural schools, more money in the local economy...
Yes, there are lots of loop holes in this, you could pick a million holes in it - but it’s fantasy anyways and won’t happen...

My point is instead of moving the money around to take from some and give to others, to make it seem more fair - we should ask ourselves what the point of the BPS is. Rather than looking it as a ‘those guys are getting more for ages so I deserve more’ or ‘it’s my money’ - see what we can do to improve things for farming and the country...

Edit - I am dragging this way off topic now, given the thread is convergence. So I’ll leave it at this maybe

Well no, the BPS isnt free money. The point is the guy getting handed a bigger payment than another guy, for no reason, is free money. It is like a game of football where every goal you score is worth 6 while the rest are cut down to 1, (and with designations, sometimes to 0).

Re making it seem more fair? No it is more fair, no seem about it. It is currently unfair. They are 'getting more for ages' unfairly, and what they are getting should be going to those who are getting f all, so it has a knock-on effect on things like expansion, where the guys getting more are using the extra money to outbid those who are being shortchanged, and leaves them with no chance at all. Sure it is ludicrous.
Nobody is going to look past that until it is put right, nor should they. Do you not see that fixing that IS improving things for farming in the country. 80% of farmers get helped at once.

amacca

So when do we find out what the final shape of the deal will look like or will there be a long way to go still before its finalised?

Just to add after reading the back and forth here I have to say I know plenty of people on low payments through little fault of their own unless of course you want to blame the sins of the father/grandfather on the child.

In my own case some misfortune was simply down to bad timing and some bad advice or lack of advice that my father trusted....the bad advice was more ignorance from a solicitor and possibly from my father in depending on him (although with everything my father had on his plate at the time hes not to blame at all imo and tbh who knows what the solicitor had going on either)...

The one big lesson I took from it is whoever you pay to do these things for you ...... you have to make sure you have the job done yourself beforehand and then you go into the office and unfortunately you still have to pay them to rubber stamp it.

amacca

amacca wrote: »

So when do we find out what the final shape of the deal will look like or will there be a long way to go still before its finalised?

Final? Next year!

Dinzee Conlee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well no, the BPS isnt free money. The point is the guy getting handed a bigger payment than another guy, for no reason, is free money. It is like a game of football where every goal you score is worth 6 while the rest are cut down to 1, (and with designations, sometimes to 0).

Re making it seem more fair? No it is more fair, no seem about it. It is currently unfair. They are 'getting more for ages' unfairly, and what they are getting should be going to those who are getting f all, so it has a knock-on effect on things like expansion, where the guys getting more are using the extra money to outbid those who are being shortchanged, and leaves them with no chance at all. Sure it is ludicrous.
Nobody is going to look past that until it is put right, nor should they. Do you not see that fixing that IS improving things for farming in the country. 80% of farmers get helped at once.

Will farming be better off after this latest round of CAP?
Individual farmers may be better off, others may not.
I don’t know if farming overall will be better off, but again, it’s easy for me to talk when I am not directly affected. If you stand to gain, them I imagine you will take the view farming will be better off. If you stand to lose, then I imagine you will think farming will be worse off...

But, as I said above, what I put up is all fantasy stuff... convergence is the thread. No matter what way it goes it won’t affect me directly too much as I have only low acreage anyways...

amacca

Deleted User wrote: »

Final? Next year!

Have to love the IFJ ads telling us what new CAP will mean a year out. I thought we were going to get an fairly concrete idea soon of what it should look like

MayoAreMagic

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Will farming be better off after this latest round of CAP?
Individual farmers may be better off, others may not.
I don’t know if farming overall will be better off, but again, it’s easy for me to talk when I am not directly affected. If you stand to gain, them I imagine you will take the view farming will be better off. If you stand to lose, then I imagine you will think farming will be worse off...

But, as I said above, what I put up is all fantasy stuff... convergence is the thread. No matter what way it goes it won’t affect me directly too much as I have only low acreage anyways...

Everyone getting a fair chance is surely a positive for all farmers?

MIKEKC

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a yawn emoji?

As you well know, since we've talked about it in person, in DM's and on this forum, I didn't start farming until the very late 1990's. Because of production based subsidies, headage, which had zero regulation and was cheered on by IFA, hills and mountains became horrifically over grazed. All to claim a "production subsidy".

Anyone starting in those times - who had no input to overgrazing - were disallowed by the Department from expanding, there was a compulsory 30% reduction in stock, then further reductions on some hills.

I began with 18 ewes, I went to 55. I had quota for 30. I applied to the National Reserve for extra quota to bring me to 60. Not only was I refused, I got a letter saying I had to cut down to 22 ewes. I got a further letter from Joe Walsh saying I could have 3 blackface ewes back and go up to the dizzying heights of 25 blackface ewes. Due to no flock in the state being allowed to be below 25 sheep, so the letter stated.

From that time, until the end of my REPS 3 contract I was held down at 25 blackface ewes.

When I went into Teagasc for something, I got the strong arm to apply for AEOS 1. I said no ****ing way, as I'm being kept down in numbers and that'll see me stay down longer. There were conversations to and fro between two Teagasc advisors and the Department. I was allowed to set the world on fire by going to 40 blackface ewes.

That was the case until GLAS1 arrived and the Department were moaning farmers weren't grazing commonages. No wonder, we weren't allowed to by THEIR dictations.

Go build a payment on that.

So, to be honest wrangler, you're a decent fella when talking sheep but you turn into something quite different talking CAP or should that be talking CrAP.

Here we are with you still wanting everyone to accept your world view. Insulting other farmers, their lands, their situations and thinking everyone had the breaks you had. An awful lot of farmers had your problems but hadn't deep mineral soils, kinder weather, short supply routes, large subsidies and a motorway pay off.

That's about as polite as I'm going to be saying that.

All. Commonage farmers were in the same position. You had a certain number of ewes per acre. You must have a small amount of commonage. If this is correct did you expect to graze someone else's share?. A long time ago so hope my memory is correct

Bass Reeves

MIKEKC wrote: »

All. Commonage farmers were in the same position. You had a certain number of ewes per acre. You must have a small amount of commonage. If this is correct did you expect to graze someone else's share?. A long time ago so hope my memory is correct

You are not right. When they reduced stocking rates on commages because of over stocking they reduced it by a set rate accross the board. If you had 4 shares and 100 ewes if the reduction was 20% you had to reduce by 20ewes, if you had 6 shares and 50ewes you had to reduce by 10. As well lads that had sheep on there own land were impacted as well AFAIK. If you only had 50 ewes on your commage and theses were the o ly ewes you had you reduced by 10 but if you had 50 ewes on commage and 50 at home you had to reduce by 20.

They really rewarded the lad acting the bollax

MIKEKC

MIKEKC wrote: »

All. Commonage farmers were in the same position. You had a certain number of ewes per acre. You must have a small amount of commonage. If this is correct did you expect to graze someone else's share?. A long time ago so hope my memory is correct

It's not correct.

Overgrazing was followed by compulsory de-stocking, then get got Commonage Framework plans which it was promised would be reviewed every 5 years. They weren't reviewed. It took argument for nearly 15 years to grudgingly get anything done with them.

Back to my 55 ewes. I got destocked 30% of my quota figure which was 30. Don't ask me who did the maths but that put me down to 22 quota sheep, then I got 3 back, so I'm at 25.

In the same village I had more land than a neighbour who had close to 1,000 sheep. He got destocked 30%.

Compulsory destocking was a blunt instrument drawn up in haste due to the Irish Govt sitting on their hands until the EU forced them to act, then it had to be done yesterday. It was an instrument wielded by people of even blunter thinking.

So no, every commonage farmer was not in the same position of having to have X# of ewes /acre or hectare.

That regime then stuck around for about a decade and a half. People who don't want to understand that fact call farmers like me lazy and idle, when we were by law not allowed to go up in numbers, regardless of the commonage condition, why? Because they wouldn't review them!

I don't much care either for the dig that I must have been grazing other peoples land. Quit while you're behind on being a commonage expert.

MIKEKC

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You are not right. When they reduced stocking rates on commages because of over stocking they reduced it by a set rate accross the board. If you had 4 shares and 100 ewes if the reduction was 20% you had to reduce by 20ewes, if you had 6 shares and 50ewes you had to reduce by 10. As well lads that had sheep on there own land were impacted as well AFAIK. If you only had 50 ewes on your commage and theses were the o ly ewes you had you reduced by 10 but if you had 50 ewes on commage and 50 at home you had to reduce by 20.

They really rewarded the lad acting the bollax

4 shares of what?. A person could have 4 shares of 500 ac while another person could have 4 shares of 1000 ac My recollection is you were allowed a number of ewes per acre (depending on the commonage framework plan). If you had over the amount you sub was cut accordingly. The upside to this was when decoupling was introduced the ewes you were cut were added back as this happened during the reference years

amacca

amacca wrote: »

Have to love the IFJ ads telling us what new CAP will mean a year out. I thought we were going to get an fairly concrete idea soon of what it should look like

Don't take it as Gospel but from what I understand, the stuff in Europe has to be agreed first between the Council of Ministers and European Parliament mostly.

When that's done, the fun starts at home, where there will be an internal member state "debate", or bloodbath on what's fair or unfair or whatever. That will be started I think in July and run to September.

But, timing and dates are important here because business is done behind closed doors, artificial time pressures can be conjured up that an important document just HAS to be sent to Europe by a particular date. It was a con pulled the last CAP so it's something to be watched again this time.

I believe the Commission has to get all the member states homework in before Christmas, then they go through it all with a fine tooth comb. If ye remember they sent back a couple of hundred RDP questions before that there was quite a bit of excitement over - due to ner'do well troublemaking paupers getting hold of the document and finding their questions were matching the commissions questions on Irelands, shall we say, creativity in barriers to entry and other stuff.

The thing to remember is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Commas, omissions and additions to sentences and paragraphs can all be very important and totally change meanings and intentions.

MIKEKC

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not correct.

Overgrazing was followed by compulsory de-stocking, then get got Commonage Framework plans which it was promised would be reviewed every 5 years. They weren't reviewed. It took argument for nearly 15 years to grudgingly get anything done with them.

Back to my 55 ewes. I got destocked 30% of my quota figure which was 30. Don't ask me who did the maths but that put me down to 22 quota sheep, then I got 3 back, so I'm at 25.

In the same village I had more land than a neighbour who had close to 1,000 sheep. He got destocked 30%.

Compulsory destocking was a blunt instrument drawn up in haste due to the Irish Govt sitting on their hands until the EU forced them to act, then it had to be done yesterday. It was an instrument wielded by people of even blunter thinking.

So no, every commonage farmer was not in the same position of having to have X# of ewes /acre or hectare.

That regime then stuck around for about a decade and a half. People who don't want to understand that fact call farmers like me lazy and idle, when we were by law not allowed to go up in numbers, regardless of the commonage condition, why? Because they wouldn't review them!

I don't much care either for the dig that I must have been grazing other peoples land. Quit while you're behind on being a commonage expert.

I didn't mean it as a dig ,on every commonage only a percentage of owners use it so other people's sheep roam over the area. It happens everywhere I have no problem with that. See my other reply

Bass Reeves

MIKEKC wrote: »

4 shares of what?. A person could have 4 shares of 500 ac while another person could have 4 shares of 1000 ac My recollection is you were allowed a number of ewes per acre (depending on the commonage framework plan). If you had over the amount you sub was cut accordingly. The upside to this was when decoupling was introduced the ewes you were cut were added back as this happened during the reference years

I was talking about the one piece of commonage in both examples I gave not different commonages. If you were caught in the wrong part of the cycle you were royally screwed

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

When I went into Teagasc for something, I got the strong arm to apply for AEOS 1. I said no ****ing way, as I'm being kept down in numbers and that'll see me stay down longer. There were conversations to and fro between two Teagasc advisors and the Department. I was allowed to set the world on fire by going to 40 blackface ewes.

Remembered why I went into Teagasc, it was to get the SFP forms sent in. How I got talked into AEOS1 was, due to the # of hectares I owned vs the paltry # of livestock I was told I could keep, I had to be in an environmental scheme to qualify for Area Aid. I remember having to send in the flock register for review each year and instead of getting that payment in Stptember or October time it came to me the next March or April.

MIKEKC

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I was talking about the one piece of commonage in both examples I gave not different commonages. If you were caught in the wrong part of the cycle you were royally screwed

Are you saying that farmers were treated differently on the same commonage because they had different numbers at the time?. As in my other reply you were allowed a certain number per acre. Everyone on that commonage were treated the same .If you had twice the number of shares as your neighbour you were allowed twice the number of sheep. It worked out ok in the end for those that had to destock as the old numbers were used after decoupling and people are still benefiting in the BP

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a yawn emoji?

As you well know, since we've talked about it in person, in DM's and on this forum, I didn't start farming until the very late 1990's. Because of production based subsidies, headage, which had zero regulation and was cheered on by IFA, hills and mountains became horrifically over grazed. All to claim a "production subsidy".

Anyone starting in those times - who had no input to overgrazing - were disallowed by the Department from expanding, there was a compulsory 30% reduction in stock, then further reductions on some hills.

I began with 18 ewes, I went to 55. I had quota for 30. I applied to the National Reserve for extra quota to bring me to 60. Not only was I refused, I got a letter saying I had to cut down to 22 ewes. I got a further letter from Joe Walsh saying I could have 3 blackface ewes back and go up to the dizzying heights of 25 blackface ewes. Due to no flock in the state being allowed to be below 25 sheep, so the letter stated.

From that time, until the end of my REPS 3 contract I was held down at 25 blackface ewes.

When I went into Teagasc for something, I got the strong arm to apply for AEOS 1. I said no ****ing way, as I'm being kept down in numbers and that'll see me stay down longer. There were conversations to and fro between two Teagasc advisors and the Department. I was allowed to set the world on fire by going to 40 blackface ewes.

That was the case until GLAS1 arrived and the Department were moaning farmers weren't grazing commonages. No wonder, we weren't allowed to by THEIR dictations.

Go build a payment on that.

So, to be honest wrangler, you're a decent fella when talking sheep but you turn into something quite different talking CAP or should that be talking CrAP.

Here we are with you still wanting everyone to accept your world view. Insulting other farmers, their lands, their situations and thinking everyone had the breaks you had. An awful lot of farmers had your problems but hadn't deep mineral soils, kinder weather, short supply routes, large subsidies and a motorway pay off.

That's about as polite as I'm going to be saying that.

Don't they say that the harder you work the luckier you get.
Unfortunately the motorway payout didn't come until I had the farm on an even keel and I certainly wasn't going to to start expanding again.

Bass Reeves

MIKEKC wrote: »

Are you saying that farmers were treated differently on the same commonage because they had different numbers at the time?. As in my other reply you were allowed a certain number per acre. Everyone on that commonage were treated the same .If you had twice the number of shares as your neighbour you were allowed twice the number of sheep. It worked out ok in the end for those that had to destock as the old numbers were used after decoupling and people are still benefiting in the BP

Yes they were the destocking was a percentage of the stock you had at the time( claimed headage- ewe premium on) not on land area associated with shares

It did not work that way. It made a load of lads that were behaving themselves uneconomical to keep ewes on the commonage.

I think you may be getting mixed up, some lads that were in REPS had there stocking rates set by there plans which took a count of there commonage shares. But destocking was a set percentage. As even commonages which were not overgrazed was impacted as these were destocked to the same percentages in that area

orchard farm

As the Op of this thread ive taken a deep interest in convergence and although i posted this over a year ago now is the crunch time for decessions which will effect us all over the next decade.I dont want to make this too long but firstly i must state basing payments on a historic reference period 20 years ago is wrong and has to stop. Im in my late 30s,a good worker and a love of farming and a deep sence of belonging to a place i love in the north west of rural ireland.I wasnt farming 20 years ago and am on the minimum payments and have struggled to build up my herd while keepin food know the table but i do it cause im in my prime and want to work the family farm unlike some who want to keep there pension pot going for another 20 years . Obviously im all for 100%convergence at the minimal as its fairer for all farmers. Just because me and my neighbour farmers wernt born in the golden vale shouldnt leave us treated as second class citizens.a hectare of agricultural land is a hectare of agricultural land so everbody should be paid the same to keep that ha in gaec.if your gettin above average payments you've done well from the old cap but its time to reform. Like i said i for one wasnt farming 20 years ago im not the only one.
As a ifa member ive seen the light about them in these negotiations as others have pointed out,the spin and propaganda by them,there paper and there media and dept influence is unbelievable just to protect the minority elite. This culture has to stop if farming in Ireland is to continue.I believe in what the INHFA are sayin fairness not favoritism.This notion that farmers on poor land are not as active is rubbish, we have our place in the food chain, running our farm business to the best of our land and weather restrictions and we all should be treated equally.Also the Ifa says it wants to protect small farmers with high entitlements? Lies. If it had any interest in the small farmers why does it reject front loading? Its all about the big fat cats with them that much is obviously true after this week. I hope over the next few weeks the majoritity of farmers who will benefit from convergence speak out and let the Minister know what really is best for rural ireland.Examples Leitrim 85% will benefit from convergence, Donegal 80 % etc and no longer let us be intimated by the elite who want to keep the status quo.Ifa says 30%farms viable 100% convergence might actually make 100% farms viable. Sorry for the long post but this bias has to stop or else theres no future just plant the west as government really wants.Thanks to all who contribute to this post and please continue the discussion until we hopefully have a new fairer cap in place for all farmers, big and small good land and poor.With regards to eco schemes i find it funny on one hand the eu talks of climate change and on the other they want the minimal enviromentally friendly farming whats that all about?

MIKEKC

MIKEKC wrote: »

Are you saying that farmers were treated differently on the same commonage because they had different numbers at the time?. As in my other reply you were allowed a certain number per acre. Everyone on that commonage were treated the same .If you had twice the number of shares as your neighbour you were allowed twice the number of sheep. It worked out ok in the end for those that had to destock as the old numbers were used after decoupling and people are still benefiting in the BP

Farmers on the same commonage were treated differently YES.

HOW? Take a made up example. You & I have one share each on the same commonage. I have been established for years, and I am keeping way in excess of a sustainable number of ewes on my share - due to there being sfa correlation between land area of the farmer and stock numbers. There should have been, but there just wasn't.

You, on the other hand are only recently established, OR you may have been established as long as me, but you run considerably less ewes on your share.

What happened next?

Destocking, I got a 30% destocking, and so did you.

But.

My destocking was to destock from a wildly unsustainable irresponsible number of ewes down to only a lesser wildly unsustainable irresponsible number of ewes.

You, who may already have been at a responsible sustainable number of ewes also had to destock 30% of your flock!

I could have gone from 600 down to 420, you may have had 100 and been forced down to 70 - despite it clearly being ME causing the damage.

Blanket compulsory destocking of commonages, failed, on purpose, to identify which shareholder, or shareholders were the ones causing the damage and destock them proportionally to the damage being caused.

Therefore farmers were treated differently by penalising everyone for the damage, and not proportionally, and the farmer with the right ideas got screwed.

MIKEKC

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes they were the destocking was a percentage of the stock you had at the time( claimed headage- ewe premium on) not on land area associated with shares

It did not work that way. It made a load of lads that were behaving themselves uneconomical to keep ewes on the commonage.

I think you may be getting mixed up, some lads that were in REPS had there stocking rates set by there plans which took a count of there commonage shares. But destocking was a set percentage. As even commonages which were not overgrazed was impacted as these were destocked to the same percentages in that area

Must look up the information if it's not dumped by now, was in reps so maybe getting mixed up but don't think so.

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes they were the destocking was a percentage of the stock you had at the time( claimed headage- ewe premium on) not on land area associated with shares

Add to that the worst offenders might be claiming X number of ewes on headage BUT keeping X + 100 or 200 due to so many of them dying.

MIKEKC

Deleted User wrote: »

Add to that the worst offenders might be claiming X number of ewes on headage BUT keeping X + 100 or 200 due to so many of them dying.

Found a letter that came with the commonage framework plan in 2003. It is titled Recalculation of Ewe premium rights. It lists the area of all my rights and totals them. It then calculates the stocking density ewe equivalents per Ha. It then shows the Stock reductions specified in each townland. Next it shows further reductions due to prescription In commonage in each townsland. Reduction in numbers would have been about 25%. I would have had a good number of ewes at the time. Basically what you are saying is that if a person had a small number of ewes they would have to reduce by the same percentage even though they were causing less damage.

Bass Reeves

MIKEKC wrote: »

Found a letter that came with the commonage framework plan in 2003. It is titled Recalculation of Ewe premium rights. It lists the area of all my rights and totals them. It then calculates the stocking density ewe equivalents per Ha. It then shows the Stock reductions specified in each townland. Next it shows further reductions due to prescription In commonage in each townsland. Reduction in numbers would have been about 25%. I would have had a good number of ewes at the time. Basically what you are saying is that if a person had a small number of ewes they would have to reduce by the same percentage even though they were causing less damage.

Yes

MIKEKC

MIKEKC wrote: »

Found a letter that came with the commonage framework plan in 2003. It is titled Recalculation of Ewe premium rights. It lists the area of all my rights and totals them. It then calculates the stocking density ewe equivalents per Ha. It then shows the Stock reductions specified in each townland. Next it shows further reductions due to prescription In commonage in each townsland. Reduction in numbers would have been about 25%. I would have had a good number of ewes at the time. Basically what you are saying is that if a person had a small number of ewes they would have to reduce by the same percentage even though they were causing less damage.

Exactly.

lab man

How is the forward payments going to work have ye any idea of it

MIKEKC

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly.

And then got their numbers restored still benefiting to this day. Farmers in Glas now have to stock the commonage to keep it grazed.

MIKEKC

MIKEKC wrote: »

And then got their numbers restored still benefiting to this day. Farmers in Glas now have to stock the commonage to keep it grazed.

No.

Because, there was a very Irish thing called the "Polluter Pays" principle, where by the farmer got paid each year for sheep he had destocked.

This was more bollocks, because, and to be blunt about it, the lads doing the damage were farming wooly rats. She'd be so much at risk of malnourished if she went in lamb death was likely.

The other farmer, the one with the right ideas and who was trying, but wasn't farming for the cheque in the post, or at least not solely for it. Men like my father, who were selling lambs (& beef) to two local butchers for over £50/lamb in 1990 (iirc). As opposed to **** stained rats of lambs that could slip out through the gaps in pallets. That farmer, as reward for destocking 30% of his good flock (and I remember my Dad in tears, selecting *any* 30% of the flock as he'd already sold what he didn't want previously) lost genuine income from his farm which he never recovered.

So, farmers on the same hill, got treated differentlty.

Let me enlighten you about GLAS. Each commonage had to pick a Department of Agriculture approved commonage planner. I, by chance, happened to meet the young lad my planner sent out to assess two of my commonages. It was evening and he hadn't an hour of daylight left. It would take him a few hours just to walk the place - not counting any assessment.

He looked up at the hill, ara I suppose it's all like that. I told him no, actually it's quite diverse and that he didn't have time to walk it properly.

That was the crock of **** my plan is based on.

And the best part! I'm liable for it, because the Department don't nor didn't want to know that once that particular planner got money, he knew he had ALL of the power over the farmer and acted that way.

Sacrolyte

If a lad had 20 entitlements on 20 ha a few years ago but now has 20 entitlements but is claiming 40 ha would he be entitled to extra entitlements now or does it not work like that?

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Because, there was a very Irish thing called the "Polluter Pays" principle, where by the farmer got paid each year for sheep he had destocked.

This was more bollocks, because, and to be blunt about it, the lads doing the damage were farming wooly rats. She'd be so much at risk of malnourished if she went in lamb death was likely.

The other farmer, the one with the right ideas and who was trying, but wasn't farming for the cheque in the post, or at least not solely for it. Men like my father, who were selling lambs (& beef) to two local butchers for over £50/lamb in 1990 (iirc). As opposed to **** stained rats of lambs that could slip out through the gaps in pallets. That farmer, as reward for destocking 30% of his good flock (and I remember my Dad in tears, selecting *any* 30% of the flock as he'd already sold what he didn't want previously) lost genuine income from his farm which he never recovered.

So, farmers on the same hill, got treated differentlty.

Let me enlighten you about GLAS. Each commonage had to pick a Department of Agriculture approved commonage planner. I, by chance, happened to meet the young lad my planner sent out to assess two of my commonages. It was evening and he hadn't an hour of daylight left. It would take him a few hours just to walk the place - not counting any assessment.

He looked up at the hill, ara I suppose it's all like that. I told him no, actually it's quite diverse and that he didn't have time to walk it properly.

That was the crock of **** my plan is based on.

And the best part! I'm liable for it, because the Department don't nor didn't want to know that once that particular planner got money, he knew he had ALL of the power over the farmer and acted that way.

Haven't I often told you about teh competence of the civil (dis)service
Listening to The week in Politics there now it looks as if the IFA have the support of the minister.
He says the budget is increased by 11% so fair dues to IFA for pushing that.
It's in the lap of the Gods now and still could go anyway