Lugnaquilla zig zag route closed due to assault by dog owner

How does this poster get away with trolling all the time????

This is a beautiful part of the country and this not about people’s agendas, this is about a sound man who has given a access point to the hill and is a traditional hill farming family for generations and is all for hill walkers, the eco system and his local area. His family hill farm sheep and do it well and are protective of the hill in all seasons of the year. A uncle of ours had hill rights up there and years ago on Sunday visits we would go to hill to see his sheep in usually the same place and back then very few walkers would be seen, his younger family gave up sheep to the hill due to the hard work involved. Now on the weekends it is blitzed with visitors from all over to see the beautiful glenmalure the majority of people respect what they see, but then you have the entitled who the world has to revolve around. As for getting sheep and farmers off the hills is a crazy knee jerk, they manage and protect wildlife’s and as for over grazing the true facts are it’s under grazed due to young people not putting sheep to the hill any more. Sheep on the hills is seasonal and not all year around. Final point to see the damage dogs do to sheep, nesting birds when off the leash and then talk about the damage to the eco system. This man was helping people enjoy Wicklow like so many others through out the country and got assaulted for it.

I have to laugh at some posters saying that farming sheep is bad for the environment. Look at wintering in the Burren. The Burren uplands has over 70% of Ireland’s native flora and it depends on farming activity to sustain it. Without sheep and cattle in the Burren, it would be a desolate wasteland of rocks and weeds.

As for taking the lands off the farmers to make into national parks, this is nonsense on so many levels. Would you hand over the keys to your home without a fight if there was a compulsory purchase order? More importantly, do you allow people to traipse through your gardens as they wish... perhaps have a picnic on your front lawn and leave their rubbish and dog crap for you to pick up?

This land is owned by the farmers, they look after the land and they are the best custodians as many have been raised on that land. It has been in their family for generations and they know exactly how to maintain it. Most have no issues with walkers as long as they're respectful. If they were government-owned, we would have to pay for their upkeep. We would also lose a source of revenue and food. Some mention planting forests... great idea except that forests require a lot of management and can actually do a lot of damage to the land - especially Sitka spruce which stupidly seems to be the choice of tree for Irish forests. Sitka Spruce smothers the landscape, driving out hen harriers and curlews, birds that are on the verge of extinction. They are also a significant fire risk - just look at the gorse fires and think how bad it would be with trees.

The solution is quite simple, be respectful. This, however, seems to be lost on some people and they would rather blame the farmer (the irony is that they're probably the same people who blame the gubberment, yet they feel that our land should be entrusted to them).

Without context that map is pointless. Ecologically degraded from what starting point?

Obviously.

My FIL is a cattle farmer with a small herd. His land is pristine and has tons of wildlife - it's even protected for the hen harriers that can be found there. There are tons of wildflowers and the place is literally buzzing with bees and insects in the spring/ summer. The land is extremely well maintained as it has been in his family for generations. He looks after ensuring the land is adequately drained and the river that runs through it is unpolluted. He maintains the hedgerows, trims the trees, and ensures the land isn't overgrazed. He works bloody hard to maintain the land.

Bordering his land is a forest held by the state in the form of Coiilte - this is as desolate as Mordor with Sitka Spruce suffocating the ground with their needles. There is literally nothing growing except the Sitka, reeds, and moss - feck all wildlife and nothing but midges.

That is my view of a good environment.

There is also quite a lot of people who recognise stupid pointless rules/laws when they see them.

I have plenty of friends/family in the UK, and if you were to obey every dumb rule they have over in that nanny state you would barely be able scratch yourself without breaking a rule. And we are starting to go the same way in this country too!

Dog walkers are one of the largest groups in most countries using outdoor spaces. And they have a genuine need for outdoor amenities. So making up stupid rules that try to prohibit or curtail these people from enjoying their outdoor activities, is both pointless and also blatant discrimination. I'm not surprised many people ignore this nonsense and get on with enjoying their time in the outdoors. And good luck trying to police them with your nanny state nonsense... it will never work considering the huge numbers of dog owners. You're fighting a losing battle.

And again, I'm not defending bad dog owners. Your dog should be well behaved and under your effective control. But blatant discrimination against an entire group of people is wrong, based on the bad behaviour of a minority.

Firstly, trail access was available. It was revoked as a result of an assault. If everyone behaved and was courteous, this wouldn't be a discussion.

Secondly,

'I think that's the fundamental difference between state subsidised private land and a personal garden etc which receives no subsidy from the taxpayer'.

I agree, but there are plenty of social houses and people getting benefit payments or HAP. Does it make it open season in their gardens? I'm not saying it should be the case, just pointing out that just because you receive state subsidies doesn't mean your property is the property of the masses. Farmers should, and do, give access, until something like this happens.

I love to walk, and I regularly walk through farms and always have a chat with the farmer (if they have time). If this was revoked I would be annoyed. If it was revoked due to an assault, or because the land wasn't being respected, I would be annoyed with those responsible. I absolutely understand the farmer's view - this is his land and livelihood. He is the person who has to maintain the land and pay for the damage to his land or livestock. Fencing isn't cheap, vets are not cheap, feed is not cheap, and so forth.

Lol, 'discrimination', you should be on the Woke thread!!

Yeah no, we are not going the 'same way', Paddy tries to sneak around rules, they are for other people. Maybe a colonial hangover, a blow agin' the govt, or officialdom or whoever.

Maybe, just maybe if every dog owner did what they were supposed to do, you know be RESPONSIBLE for their pet and not be a thundering selfish arsehole, everything would be fine, we wouldn't need these rules. Selfishness and stupidity MUST be called out by decent owners, or you will ultimately be the losers here, don't circle the wagons and go down the deflection and whataboutery rabbit-hole. The facilities on private property are a privilege, NOT a right and can be withdrawn.

You are also talking out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand 'not defending' bad dog owners but at the same time saying people with dogs can bully others and do whatever they damn well feel like, on public and private property due to weight of numbers.

Judging by the amount of dog sh1t I see plastered everywhere, bags hanging off trees, it may be a 'minority' but they are making their presence felt. Not a month goes by than there's articles about dog fouling problems.

As an aside, it's very funny the comments that land should be taken over by the state, bet the very same people would whinge if a bus corridor took a scelp off their front garden. It's fine to take property off other people, but not me.

I couldn't care less if people want to have a moan about dogs. The usual hateful types.

If some people had their way, they would quite happily ban dogs from all outdoor amenities. Despite the fact, like I said above, dog walkers have a genuine need for these spaces and are one of the largest groups of people engaging in outdoor activities. It is blatant discrimination, and you wouldn't get away with it against any other large groups. Effectively tarring all dog owners with the same brush.

I know lots of people who simply ignore this nonsense, as they consider it to be highly discriminatory and unfair. Their dogs don't bother anyone and don't harass any livestock, so from their perspective why should they be discriminated against because of the actions of a minority? They mind their own business, enjoy the outdoors with their dogs. And their dogs are not causing problems for anyone.

Well here the rule is if you want to walk this route then fine but you can't take a dog. This isn't a place in the middle of a council estate where you can walk down the road to it its somewhere you drive out to. If you don't like the rules then drive somewhere else with your dog.