Cap reform convergence

Bog Trotter99

But fella's the dog ain't the problem. The neighbour is the problem. Killing or dumping the dog won't ever solve the problem. Get the neighbours pocket big and they will soon cop on and think twice about messing with you again.

Grueller

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

But fella's the dog ain't the problem. The neighbour is the problem. Killing or dumping the dog won't ever solve the problem. Get the neighbours pocket big and they will soon cop on and think twice about messing with you again.

Do that and you better be very sure that your stock never get to the road and end up on a lawn or the likes.

Bog Trotter99

Grueller wrote: »

Do that and you better be very sure that your stock never get to the road and end up on a lawn or the likes.

Thats it make sure. Fix your fences and your insurance will sort any issue.

After all 'your' sheep are 'your' problem and responsibility and should 'never' interfere with anyone else.

What would you prefer your neighbour to do, use them as target practice on his lawn or give them a lift to the side of the nearest motorway?

Bog Trotter99

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Thats it make sure. Fix your fences and your insurance will sort any issue.

After all 'your' sheep are 'your' problem and responsibility and should 'never' interfere with anyone else.

What would you prefer your neighbour to do, use them as target practice on his lawn or give them a lift to the side of the nearest motorway?

A handy enough thing to ensure on a forum, but out on the farm stock escape from time to time. Goodwill is like money in the bank.

Bog Trotter99

Deleted User wrote: »

A handy enough thing to ensure on a forum, but out on the farm stock escape from time to time. Goodwill is like money in the bank.

Ahh I see 'goodwill'. Is this the same 'goodwill' you give to a neighbour when you shoot their dog or dump it miles from home for dumping on your grass and wandering around your house? Remember nobody has claimed the dog has worried sheep here.

Bog Trotter99

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Ahh I see 'goodwill'. Is this the same 'goodwill' you give to a neighbour when you shoot their dog or dump it miles from home for dumping on your grass and wandering around your house? Remember nobody has claimed the dog has worried sheep here.

No point getting testy with me of a Sunday morning. If you shoot your neighbours dog and tell them about it or bring them to court there will be bad feeling.

You're wrong to say the dog isn't the problem, the way our society and laws are we have allowed dogs to be weapons.

I'm firmly in the triple S solution camp.

I'm also in the not waiting to be a victim because my neighbour is an arsehole camp.

Bog Trotter99

Deleted User wrote: »

No point getting testy with me of a Sunday morning. If you shoot your neighbours dog and tell them about it or bring them to court there will be bad feeling.

I'm firmly in the triple S solution camp.

I'm also in the not waiting to be a victim because my neighbour is an arsehole camp.

But your triple 's' solution turns you into a criminal and open to all sorts.

The mindset is completely baffling.

Bog Trotter99

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

But your triple 's' solution turns you into a criminal and open to all sorts.

The mindset is completely baffling.

You've no understanding of the solution based on that.

It's not baffling at all, it just doesn't suit your ideals.

Bog Trotter99

Deleted User wrote: »

You've no understanding of the solution based on that.

It's not baffling at all, it just doesn't suit your ideals.

Thats correct but I always challenge head on. I always found that a bully backs down when you confront them head on. If they dont then it gets interesting and fun.

Besides today animals have chips which are trackers. Even so if a dog went missing everybody would assume the local farmer so the finger of suspicion is already pointing. That means they are just waiting or maybe even not.

MayoAreMagic

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

But your triple 's' solution turns you into a criminal and open to all sorts.

The mindset is completely baffling.

In fairness, the law also makes the dog owner a criminal, but they arent too bothered by the sounds of things. If the dog is routinely at lambing sheds at 3 in the morning then he is worrying sheep.
Truth be told wranglers only mistake was to say anything at all. The only issue there is that most people who have dogs like this will just get another one and repeat the action. The next one could be worse than the current one.

Bog Trotter99

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness, the law also makes the dog owner a criminal, but they arent too bothered by the sounds of things. If the dog is routinely at lambing sheds at 3 in the morning then he is worrying sheep.
Truth be told wranglers only mistake was to say anything at all. The only issue there is that most people who have dogs like this will just get another one and repeat the action. The next one could be worse than the current one.

Dog owner is only a crim if it worries sheep. But by law you have to try to capture/restrain the dog first.

Even so law or not somebodies dog should never be out alone without them. Let alone annoying others.

wrangler

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Dog owner is only a crim if it worries sheep. But by law you have to try to capture/restrain the dog first.

Even so law or not somebodies dog should never be out alone without them. Let alone annoying others.

Wrong, my neighbour is breaking the law, I can make tha dog warden enforce it.

''Under the 1986 Control of Dogs Act, all dog owners are obliged to have their dogs under "effectual control". This means that dogs don't necessarily have to be kept on the leash, but their owners must be able to control them at all times.''

MayoAreMagic

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Dog owner is only a crim if it worries sheep. But by law you have to try to capture/restrain the dog first.

Even so law or not somebodies dog should never be out alone without them. Let alone annoying others.

Im fairly certain that a dog regularly stalking around outside the enclosure of a flock of heavily pregnant ewes in the middle of the night would qualify as worrying them. They cant escape and he could be there all night. Plenty animals have aborted under a fraction of the stress.

As regards restraining him - call him once, if he doesnt come the dog couldnt be restrained and you are within your rights. I know that may be a bit glib, but the point is once the dog is there, the farmer can shoot the dog.

Bog Trotter99

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Thats correct but I always challenge head on. I always found that a bully backs down when you confront them head on. If they dont then it gets interesting and fun.

Besides today animals have chips which are trackers. Even so if a dog went missing everybody would assume the local farmer so the finger of suspicion is already pointing. That means they are just waiting or maybe even not.

I'm trying to figure if you're trying to kid a kidder here or talking about actual trackers. The chips inserted into dogs certainly are not trackers. An odd very responsible dog owner may have an actual tracker on their dog, those dogs tend not be allowed stray in the first instance.

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Dog owner is only a crim if it worries sheep. But by law you have to try to capture/restrain the dog first.

Even so law or not somebodies dog should never be out alone without them. Let alone annoying others.

A dog in my shed or on my land where my sheep are is most certainly worrying them.

You're on a losing bet with the attempted catch, I tried, I couldn't.

Laws, which are usually described as another farm animal, often don't paste directly and neatly into the field.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm trying to figure if you're trying to kid a kidder here or talking about actual trackers. The chips inserted into dogs certainly are not trackers. An odd very responsible dog owner may have an actual tracker on their dog, those dogs tend not be allowed stray in the first instance.



A dog in my shed or on my land where my sheep are is most certainly worrying them.

You're on a losing bet with the attempted catch, I tried, I couldn't.

Laws, which are usually described as another farm animal, often don't paste directly and neatly into the field.

At the end of the day they have to take the farmers version of events when he shoots. When I run him out of the yard I could direct him to make sure he goes through the sheep on the way. My patch of land is visible from three roads so taking any action mightn't be a great idea.
I'm friendly with the dog warden and have handed in a few dogs. It'll probably be the way I'd go if he comes back

Think we better pull this thread back ontrack before the mods get up

Bog Trotter99

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm trying to figure if you're trying to kid a kidder here or talking about actual trackers. The chips inserted into dogs certainly are not trackers. An odd very responsible dog owner may have an actual tracker on their dog, those dogs tend not be allowed stray in the first instance.



A dog in my shed or on my land where my sheep are is most certainly worrying them.

You're on a losing bet with the attempted catch, I tried, I couldn't.

Laws, which are usually described as another farm animal, often don't paste directly and neatly into the field.

I was wrong on the chip the tracker is a collar device. But my point was that it is tracked so when checked it will show up to the point it disappeared.....or more.

As regards what is legal or not that is for others to point out hopefully not to your cost and no I was not trying to wind anybody up.

My point is I do not understand why someone takes it out on other when in this case it is the neighbour who is at fault. By doing the actions listed by others will not remove any suspicion and may cost.

Regards 'your' animals getting out. Well just as with the neighbour, that is down to you and nobody else and what happens next is in the lap of the gods as they say.

Bog Trotter99

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I was wrong on the chip the tracker is a collar device. But my point was that it is tracked so when checked it will show up to the point it disappeared.....or more.

As regards what is legal or not that is for others to point out hopefully not to your cost and no I was not trying to wind anybody up.

My point is I do not understand why someone takes it out on other when in this case it is the neighbour who is at fault. By doing the actions listed by others will not remove any suspicion and may cost.

Regards 'your' animals getting out. Well just as with the neighbour, that is down to you and nobody else and what happens next is in the lap of the gods as they say.

At the end of the day, removing the dog removes the problem, despite any rights or wrongs.

The law is an ass in Ireland. It's too easy to own a dog, there's no enforcement of existing laws. You are on your own until thousands of euros damage and stress is inflicted.

As I said, SSS and I sleep well.

Donald Trump

I'm fairly sure there was a case recently where a man was found guilty/at fault in a court of shooting dogs. I was surprised when I saw it as the article didn't give any indication that he said the dogs were bothering his animals as a defence. I can't find the article with google though. Maybe someone else remembers it.

tanko

What has all this got to do with CAP reform?

wrangler

tanko wrote: »

What has all this got to do with CAP reform?

Nothing, but it makes a change when I agree with most of the posters on a thread.
I considered it discussed at post 526 if you look

Bass Reeves

kevthegaff wrote: »

I could have around 10 acres of furze and rough ground. Should I leave or clear for the new system

I would not clear it. I am not sure how heavily stocked you are as a dairy farmer but it may help you with access to greening. If it is not excluded at present it will not be excluded.im future. As well there may be an allowance where lad was excluded on maps for last few years to spread you payments over this area this would being you average payment down in 2023

Donald Trump

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I would not clear it. I am not sure how heavily stocked you are as a dairy farmer but it may help you with access to greening. If it is not excluded at present it will not be excluded.im future. As well there may be an allowance where lad was excluded on maps for last few years to spread you payments over this area this would being you average payment down in 2023

What about the possibility that you might get credit for converting "good" land to that use in future years, but that you might not get the same credits for keeping pre-existing?


As an example, lads who planted trees after a certain date are still allowed to claim their BPS on that land. But lads who had trees already before that change are not. At least as far as I understand it.

Danzy

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I was wrong on the chip the tracker is a collar device. But my point was that it is tracked so when checked it will show up to the point it disappeared.....or more.

As regards what is legal or not that is for others to point out hopefully not to your cost and no I was not trying to wind anybody up.

My point is I do not understand why someone takes it out on other when in this case it is the neighbour who is at fault. By doing the actions listed by others will not remove any suspicion and may cost.

Regards 'your' animals getting out. Well just as with the neighbour, that is down to you and nobody else and what happens next is in the lap of the gods as they say.

You are legally entitled to shoot a dog that is at your livestock.

That is well settled, worrying is anything that causes threat or distress to the animal.

The culpability is on the owner for neglecting to control the pet, not the Man who shot it.

This is so established again and again legally that there is no question over it.

Bass Reeves

Donald Trump wrote: »

What about the possibility that you might get credit for converting "good" land to that use in future years, but that you might not get the same credits for keeping pre-existing?


As an example, lads who planted trees after a certain date are still allowed to claim their BPS on that land. But lads who had trees already before that change are not. At least as far as I understand it.

Dairy farm will struggle a bit harder than drystock because of stockings.leveks with greening. By the look of it there will be a payment for land that is of high ecological value. Already talks of 350/ HA for wetland.

Why spend maybe 10-12 k clearing it and another 5-8k getting it back to what you suggest to maybe qualify for greening and and maybe a 1k in some sort of eco payment. Let it as is and you will collect for any scheme applicable

Danzy

I have an 5 acre Inse field, wet, rough and rushy.

An adviser who was out said that field will be your most valuable yet.

He is right, with bps, Glas waterfrontage and another local agri scheme, it is by a long margin.

ruwithme

Danzy wrote: »

I have an 5 acre Inse field, wet, rough and rushy.

An adviser who was out said that field will be your most valuable yet.

He is right, with bps, Glas waterfrontage and another local agri scheme, it is by a long margin.

Ya have me all excited now with this chat.be plenty like above round here,no more battling against the rushes with mowers & sprayers.

"SHOW ME THE MONEY "

green daries

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Dog owner is only a crim if it worries sheep. But by law you have to try to capture/restrain the dog first.

Even so law or not somebodies dog should never be out alone without them. Let alone annoying others.

No they are lawfully supposed to keep control on their dog at all times and to prevent straying

Young95

What the story so for 2023? If my unit value excluding greening is 180 will it go up or down or stay the same with convergence?

Bass Reeves

Young95 wrote: »

What the story so for 2023? If my unit value excluding greening is 180 will it go up or down or stay the same with convergence?

You will probably se a small climb in entitlements value of 6-10 euro/ entitlement. I actually bought the rag this week for the first time in 4-6 months.

It interesting to see the way they peddle the propaganda. That the new scheme cannot be a popularity contest. They are on a out Suckler farmers even though the vast majority of them will be better off with the new scheme.

The IBLA put the cat amoung the pigeon with there survey

kevthegaff

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You will probably se a small climb in entitlements value of 6-10 euro/ entitlement. I actually bought the rag this week for the first time in 4-6 months.

It interesting to see the way they peddle the propaganda. That the new scheme cannot be a popularity contest. They are on a out Suckler farmers even though the vast majority of them will be better off with the new scheme.

The IBLA put the cat amoung the pigeon with there survey

Who do ye reckon Bass will do well and not out of the new CAP?