Illegal Bog-cutting, no enforcement.

Sponge Bob · 09-06-2012 11:43AM

Most of these Article 6(1) Managemnet Plans should have been completed long before 2010.

OssianSmyth · 09-06-2012 12:21PM

Looking at 6(1) of the directive...

Habitats Directive wrote:

Article 6
1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish
the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate
management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into
other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or
contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements
of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II
present on the sites.

I don't see a requirement that the management plans be completed prior to SAC designation, rather that they shall be done at some point "if need be".

Maybe I am misreading this.

Sponge Bob · 09-06-2012 12:45PM

You have a point. There are unmanaged sacs designated originally as such. Not these bogs though so irrelevant.

The management plan is WHAT THEY ENFORCE and no plan=nothing to enforce = not illegal. The thread title is essentially a blatant lie.

Pete_Cavan · 09-06-2012 02:33PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have a point. There are unmanaged sacs designated originally as such. Not these bogs though so irrelevant.

The management plan is WHAT THEY ENFORCE and no plan=nothing to enforce = not illegal. The thread title is essentially a blatant lie.

Did you actually read the Article you keep bringing us back to or did you just stop at management plans? It says necessary conservation measures can be "management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures". Site specific management plans are not necessary, MANAGING NATURA 2000 SITES The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, in section 2.4.What form can the necessary conservation measures take?, states;

2.4.1. Management plans
The necessary conservation measures can involve ‘if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans’. Such management plans should address all foreseen activities, unforeseen new activities being dealt with by Article 6(3) and (4).

The words ‘if need be’ indicate that management plans may not always be necessary.

Sponge Bob · 09-06-2012 05:07PM

The words ‘if need be’ indicate that management plans may not always be necessary.

I already said that, eg an unhabited rock somewhere. Whats your point Pete ????

joela · 09-06-2012 05:16PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Did you actually read the Article you keep bringing us back to or did you just stop at management plans? It says necessary conservation measures can be "management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures". Site specific management plans are not necessary, MANAGING NATURA 2000 SITES The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, in section 2.4.What form can the necessary conservation measures take?, states;

Pete this is what I was trying to say last night but you did it much better with regard to Management Plans and Article 6(1). I also tried to point out a number of times that requirement for Turf Cutting cessation is not reliant on a management plan or development plans etc. but is due to the designation of the site.

Step 2: Advertise and notify intention to designate site
A list of activities that might damage the wildlife interests of the site, and measures required to protect the site is also provided. These potentially harmful activities are called the Activities Requiring Consent or Notifiable Actions.

from http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/publications/designations/Site%20Designation%20Process%2016%20Feb%202012.pdf

6 (2). Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.

Sponge Bob · 09-06-2012 05:31PM

You are all forgetting due process here. Lets go to the horses mouth shall we.???

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/conservationmanagementplanning/

Conservation Management Planning

Management planning for nature conservation sites has a number of aims. These include:

To identify and evaluate the features of interest for a site
To set clear objectives for the conservation of the features of interest
To describe the site and its management
To identify issues (both positive and negative) that might influence the site
To set out appropriate strategies/management actions to achieve the objectives

First you set out conservation OBJECTIVES then you set out conservation PLANS

They have 6 or 7 years to prepare a PLAN post OBJECTIVES. When preparing a PLAN they must consult widely with locals. When preparing objectives they need not.

If they don't then tough after 7 years.

The NPWS is NOT ENTITLED to leave stakeholders in limbo beyond the 7 year period stipulated in Article 6(1). They are entitled to some leverage for the first 7 years.

Thereafter, for a managed SCI/SAC/cSAC they must conserve and protect according to plan.

They have not produced the plans they said they would, so tough. Them is the rules in a constitutional democracy where the individuals rights are determined by law and due procedure and subject to judicial review.

The NPWS have no choice but to go through the entire process, per SCI/cSAC, and finish it.

Then they can enforce the plan. They have no legal entitlement to enforce OBJECTIVES save during the 6 - 7 years post initial notification to Brussels and almost all of the raised bogs are over the 7 year limit for that.

I was wrong about one thing, they have only prepared Management Plans for 40 out of 420 SACs, my my my we have a long way to go!

Here is what an enforceable plan looks like for the bewildered.

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/conservationmanagementplanning/conservationplans/

Pete_Cavan · 10-06-2012 10:45AM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I already said that, eg an unhabited rock somewhere. Whats your point Pete ????

My point is that your claim that SACs cannot be designated as such unless they have their own site specific Management Plans is not true, as I have proven to you. You use Article 6(1) as the basis for your argument but the documnet intended to facilitate the interpretation of Article 6 clearly states than your interpretation is wrong. And no, you have not already said that, you have been saying the exact oposite in fact. Please read my previous post again and stop making out that Management Plans are necessary when they are not.

sweeney1971 · 10-06-2012 10:52AM

We look after our two SAC bog's the best way can, we get no help whatsoever off the Government. The only help we have asked for is to put signs up to stop fly tipping and they cannot even do that.
We are replacing all the hedges running up to the bog's that have been ripped out by other people over the years and cleaning all the rubbish up.

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 12:22PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

My point is that your claim that SACs cannot be designated as such unless they have their own site specific Management Plans is not true, as I have proven to you.

The vast majority of SCI/cSACs were notified to Europe in the 1997-2001 period as MANAGED and therefore a management plan is REQUIRED. Very few were notified as UNMANAGED....and the latter are generally uninhabited rocks with a few gannets hanging off the side of them.

The 6-7 year preparation period started sometime between 1997-2001 and therefore the Management Plans should have been in place by 2008, latest.

Arguably it suited the NPWS not to bother. They prepared management plans for only 40 out of 420 cSACs now that I look at it. Where they have completed a Management Plan they can enforce within the parameters of that management plan.

The NPWS have not produced Managament Plans for most if not all of the Raised Bog cluster of cSACs. Consequently there is nothing to enforce.

Therefore turf cutting is not illegal no matter how much squealing the eco campaigners do....and my they do squeal a lot. In the FIE aerial photo dossier there is only one notable photo, one from Co. Westmeath, which would warrant an enforcement procedure to my mind.

I can think of a perfectly reasonable compromise solution but as nobody seems interested I won't bore anybody with it. Eco campaigner types don't do compromise anyway.

IrishHomer · 10-06-2012 12:38PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

My point is that your claim that SACs cannot be designated as such unless they have their own site specific Management Plans is not true, as I have proven to you.

The vast majority of SCI/cSACs were notified to Europe in the 1997-2001 period as MANAGED and therefore a management plan is REQUIRED. Very few were notified as UNMANAGED....and the latter are generally uninhabited rocks with a few gannets hanging off the side of them.

The 6-7 year preparation period started sometime between 1997-2001 and therefore the Management Plans should have been in place by 2008, latest.

Arguably it suited the NPWS not to bother. They prepared management plans for only 40 out of 420 cSACs now that I look at it. Where they have completed a Management Plan they can enforce within the parameters of that management plan.

The NPWS have not produced Managament Plans for most if not all of the Raised Bog cluster of cSACs. Consequently there is nothing to enforce.

Therefore turf cutting is not illegal no matter how much squealing the eco campaigners do....and my they do squeal a lot. In the FIE aerial photo dossier there is only one notable photo, one from Co. Westmeath, which would warrant an enforcement procedure to my mind.

I can think of a perfectly reasonable compromise solution but as nobody seems interested I won't bore anybody with it. Eco campaigner types don't do compromise anyway.

Sponge of you have stated the above comment numerous times here can you please change the record now?

You are incorrect re management plans from the moment a site is proposed for SAC it's then legally protected from then on!

I won't get into a point score with you over it but your wrong on the management plan issue now let's move on here?

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 01:06PM

It is legally protected for 6 or 7 years while a plan is PREPARED for a Managed SAC. One always assumed, as explained by many rangers over the years, that the cSAC would then become a full SAC.

Again I will rely on a link... many of those who say I am wrong seemingly eschew linkeage but I thoroughly recommend linkage myself.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_biodiversity/l28076_en.htm

Special areas of conservation are designated in three stages. Following the criteria set out in the annexes, each Member State must draw up a list of sites hosting natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. On the basis of the national lists and by agreement with the Member States, the Commission will then adopt a list of sites of Community importance for each of the nine EU biogeographical regions (the Alpine region, the Atlantic region, the Black Sea region, the Boreal region, the Continental region, the Macronesian region, the Mediterranean region, the Pannonian region and the Steppic region). No later than six years after the selection of a site of Community importance, the Member State concerned must designate it as a special area of conservation.

So Ireland designated cSACs many years ago. We all know that. However all these SCI/cSACs should have completed consultation with stakeholders and plan publication many years ago.

And they haven't. Therefore like I say there is nothing to enforce and it is up to the NPWS to prepare the Management Plans under which conservation and restoration principles are established.

This is what is called due process and Irish people are entitled to due process under Irish law most especially when habitual usage of land they are constitutionally entitled to hold is affected.

The shrill hysteria emanating from FIE and some other Eco bodies I never heard of until recently is no substitute whatsoever for due process.

I commend timely consultation with all stakeholders and proper completion of the management plans to the NPWS.

mikom · 10-06-2012 02:29PM

Looks like you are being shushed Sponge Bob.

Let's move on here.....

Galwayguy35 · 10-06-2012 02:34PM

The bogs where I live are protected but the turf cutters still cut on them.
They are in trouble now though as the guards have arrived to stop them in the last few days.
I presume it's a fine they will get but I don't know if they will be allowed to save the turf that was actually cut.

Uriel. · 10-06-2012 03:10PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It is legally protected for 6 or 7 years while a plan is PREPARED for a Managed SAC. One always assumed, as explained by many rangers over the years, that the cSAC would then become a full SAC.

Again I will rely on a link... many of those who say I am wrong seemingly eschew linkeage but I thoroughly recommend linkage myself.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_biodiversity/l28076_en.htm

So Ireland designated cSACs many years ago. We all know that. However all these SCI/cSACs should have completed consultation with stakeholders and plan publication many years ago.

And they haven't. Therefore like I say there is nothing to enforce and it is up to the NPWS to prepare the Management Plans under which conservation and restoration principles are established.

This is what is called due process and Irish people are entitled to due process under Irish law most especially when habitual usage of land they are constitutionally entitled to hold is affected.

The shrill hysteria emanating from FIE and some other Eco bodies I never heard of until recently is no substitute whatsoever for due process.

I commend timely consultation with all stakeholders and proper completion of the management plans to the NPWS.

The process you speak of does not negate the legal requirement to preserve the priority habitat under both EU and Irish law. If management plans haven't been put in place as required, then Ireland will ultimately face infringement action from the EU in the future. For now, the EU are concentrating, rightly, on other prioirty matters, such as the willful destruction of an annex 1 habitat. There is nothing in the law that negates the protection of an SAC on the basis of your argument.

In respect of specific activities, the Minister for Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht has the power to outline activities that cannot be carried out without his express consent. Turf cutting on raised bog SAC is one such activity. The Minister has not provided consent for cutting on these sites. It is an offence under law to carry out the activity without the required consent. Therefore, turf cutting is illegal on these 53 sites.

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 04:48PM

Uriel. wrote: »

In respect of specific activities, the Minister for Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht has the power to outline activities that cannot be carried out without his express consent. Turf cutting on raised bog SAC is one such activity. The Minister has not provided consent for cutting on these sites. It is an offence under law to carry out the activity without the required consent. Therefore, turf cutting is illegal on these 53 sites.

Section What? of What??. Enforceable how and by whom??

The Minister has the power to order that offences are prosecuted for certain activities in certain designated areas where an activity is in breach of a Management Plan, which is what I always said.

I do wish that people intent on shutting me up would provide links to back up their assertions. Serially shouting 'Sponge Bob Is Wrong' while constantly providing no backup evidence and no linkage to same..... does not a case make.

One cannot shout down inconvenient truths.

MadsL · 10-06-2012 05:48PM

Sponge Bob, you sound like someone advocating speeding because the Gardai cannot properly enforce speeding fines as they lack the budget to calibrate the radar guns.

The point is not if the NPWS got their act together, blatantly the whole protection of raised bogs has been a fiasco in Ireland, the revelant point is that individuals have received payments to stop an activity which they plainly are not stopping. That is a fraud perpetrated on the Irish people. That TDs like Ming openly encourage such a fraud is an absolute disgrace.

Your insistence that NPWS have not followed due process is an interesting sidebar, but are you arguing that despite payments to stop cutting, then cutting should continue on raised bogs?

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 06:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

Your insistence that NPWS have not followed due process is an interesting sidebar, but are you arguing that despite payments to stop cutting, then cutting should continue on raised bogs?

If everybody has been paid and if they agreed to accept the payment ON CONDITION that they stop cutting that then becomes a contract which has not been performed and the persons in breach of contract may be sued for non performance...and sued for handsome damages on top of that to focus their little minds on contract performance.

A decent blanket bog is worth around €25000 an acre and a raised bog is probably worth more per acre depending on how deep it is.

However if the landowners never accepted any payment on those terms there is no contract.

They may have been offered a payment that they did not accept ......which is not the same thing.

marknjb · 10-06-2012 07:07PM

MadsL wrote: »

Sponge Bob, you sound like someone advocating speeding because the Gardai cannot properly enforce speeding fines as they lack the budget to calibrate the radar guns.

The point is not if the NPWS got their act together, blatantly the whole protection of raised bogs has been a fiasco in Ireland, the revelant point is that individuals have received payments to stop an activity which they plainly are not stopping. That is a fraud perpetrated on the Irish people. That TDs like Ming openly encourage such a fraud is an absolute disgrace.

Your insistence that NPWS have not followed due process is an interesting sidebar, but are you arguing that despite payments to stop cutting, then cutting should continue on raised bogs?

about 60 people in the whole country have goy their money thats why they are still cutting

IrishHomer · 10-06-2012 07:14PM

marknjb wrote: »

about 60 people in the whole country have goy their money thats why they are still cutting

Eh what about all the people who signed up for turf delivered to the door or swap bogs? In the UK SAC bog owners got zilch but of course the IFA have huge clout here.

MadsL · 10-06-2012 07:15PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

If everybody has been paid and if they agreed to accept the payment ON CONDITION that they stop cutting that then becomes a contract which has not been performed and the persons in breach of contract may be sued for non performance...and sued for handsome damages on top of that to focus their little minds on contract performance.

A decent blanket bog is worth around €25000 an acre and a raised bog is probably worth more per acre depending on how deep it is.

However if the landowners never accepted any payment on those terms there is no contract.

They may have been offered a payment that they did not accept ......which is not the same thing.

I notice that you dodge the issue of IF the bogs SHOULD be cut.

the turf cutters who opted for relocation, many others decided to accept the compensation, which was increased last week from €1,000 per year over a 15 year period to €1,500 per year over the same time span.

http://www.roscommonpeople.ie/pdf/RSP_0203_Ed1_036.pdf

And yet...

8. As all discussions & negotiations have broken down, we hereby free our members from the request that they hold off exercising their rights while discussions continued. We believe that in honour of the 1916 rising, its leaders, its spirit of Irish Freedom and Independence, that Easter Week would be the ideal week to strike for freedom and exercise your Turbary Rights in the time honoured Irish tradition.

Disgracefully signed and issued by the TCCA PRO one Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan TD, who recently admitted he broke the law, Roscommon TD Luke “Ming” Flanagan, who is spokesman for the Turf Cutters’ and Contractors’ Association, said he had cut turf on the protected Cloonchambers bog. “I have most certainly cut my bog and we will have to see what happens with these court cases. The Government has been extremely successful in worrying people who are cutting their turf here but we are willing to fight them.”

...and who was also recently present as the law was broken at another Rosscommon bog. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0607/turf-cutting-is-halted-on-co-roscommon-bog.html

This ridiculous martyr mentality is doing more damage to the turfcutters cause.

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 09:26PM

MadsL wrote: »

I notice that you dodge the issue of IF the bogs SHOULD be cut

I don't think virgin raised bog should be cut myself. They are not doing so that I know of. Irrelevant that.

Disgracefully signed and issued by the TCCA PRO one Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan TD, who recently admitted he broke the law

Why, was he ever consulted about the NPWS Management Plan on his bog what he owns???

Did he sign a contract ( accept money) not to cut. ???

I cannot see how he can be convicted for anything in law absent a yes to either or both of those.

Bluster and spoof from environmental groups is no use at all, they can bluster all they want. I heard Gormley blustering and spoofing about blanket bog cutting derogations expiring over 3 years ago and I cut turf in each of the past four years despite Gormleys bluster and spoof. I cannot be convicted for having done so.

This tiresome bluster and spoof has been going on for years and and the Friends of the Irish Environment have to fly around in a plane with a camera sticking out the window nowadays, ecofriendly types that they are because most people are sick of them.

What specific section of what statute has been breached by Flanagan. ???

I am sick of listening to UNLINKED and UNREFERENCED hysteria in this thread accusing people of breaking some law....meaning I expect a Link or GTFO either from you or some other eco sock puppet who comes into this to squeal at me Madsl.

From what I can see the government tried to contract them out of there and failed.

MadsL · 10-06-2012 11:20PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

I notice that you dodge the issue of IF the bogs SHOULD be cut

I don't think virgin raised bog should be cut myself. They are not doing so that I know of. Irrelevant that.

Disgracefully signed and issued by the TCCA PRO one Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan TD, who recently admitted he broke the law

Why, was he ever consulted about the NPWS Management Plan on his bog what he owns???

Did he sign a contract ( accept money) not to cut. ???

I cannot see how he can be convicted for anything in law absent a yes to either or both of those.

Bluster and spoof from environmental groups is no use at all, they can bluster all they want. I heard Gormley blustering and spoofing about blanket bog cutting derogations expiring over 3 years ago and I cut turf in each of the past four years despite Gormleys bluster and spoof. I cannot be convicted for having done so.

This tiresome bluster and spoof has been going on for years and and the Friends of the Irish Environment have to fly around in a plane with a camera sticking out the window nowadays, ecofriendly types that they are because most people are sick of them.

What specific section of what statute has been breached by Flanagan. ???

I am sick of listening to UNLINKED and UNREFERENCED hysteria in this thread accusing people of breaking some law....meaning I expect a Link or GTFO either from you or some other eco sock puppet who comes into this to squeal at me Madsl.

From what I can see the government tried to contract them out of there and failed.

you may consider it bluster and spoof, the minister does not.

http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/Press%20Release%20-%20illegal%20Turf%20Cutting.pdf

Note the references to specific legislation under which prosecutions may be brought.

robp · 10-06-2012 11:27PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

If everybody has been paid and if they agreed to accept the payment ON CONDITION that they stop cutting that then becomes a contract which has not been performed and the persons in breach of contract may be sued for non performance...and sued for handsome damages on top of that to focus their little minds on contract performance.

A decent blanket bog is worth around €25000 an acre and a raised bog is probably worth more per acre depending on how deep it is.

However if the landowners never accepted any payment on those terms there is no contract.

They may have been offered a payment that they did not accept ......which is not the same thing.

€25000 an acre? You are kidding right? The celtic tiger is over. The average price of agricultural land in the country is about €10,000 at the moment. Considering bog is barely farm-able in the best of circumstances it surely is worth less, not double.

Uriel. · 10-06-2012 11:28PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I don't think virgin raised bog should be cut myself. They are not doing so that I know of. Irrelevant that.

Why, was he ever consulted about the NPWS Management Plan on his bog what he owns???

Did he sign a contract ( accept money) not to cut. ???

I cannot see how he can be convicted for anything in law absent a yes to either or both of those.

Bluster and spoof from environmental groups is no use at all, they can bluster all they want. I heard Gormley blustering and spoofing about blanket bog cutting derogations expiring over 3 years ago and I cut turf in each of the past four years despite Gormleys bluster and spoof. I cannot be convicted for having done so.

This tiresome bluster and spoof has been going on for years and and the Friends of the Irish Environment have to fly around in a plane with a camera sticking out the window nowadays, ecofriendly types that they are because most people are sick of them.

What specific section of what statute has been breached by Flanagan. ???

I am sick of listening to UNLINKED and UNREFERENCED hysteria in this thread accusing people of breaking some law....meaning I expect a Link or GTFO either from you or some other eco sock puppet who comes into this to squeal at me Madsl.

From what I can see the government tried to contract them out of there and failed.

Regulations 14 of the 1997 of Regulations:

14. (1) A person shall not carry out, cause to be carried out or continue to carry out, on any land included in a special area of conservation or a site placed on a list in accordance with Chapter I of this Part an operation or activity mentioned in a notice issued under Regulation 4 (2) unless the operation or activity is carried out, or caused or permitted to be carried out or continued to be carried out, by the owner, occupier or user of the land and—

( a ) one of them has given the Minister written notice of a proposal to carry out the operation, or activity, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out, and
( b ) one of the conditions specified in paragraph (2) is fulfilled.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows—

( a ) that the operation or activity is carried out with the written consent of the Minister, or
( b ) that the operation or activity is carried out in accordance with the terms of a management agreement provided for under Regulation 12.
(3) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) The provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to an operation or activity to which Regulation 15 (2) relates.

which is further upheld in the interpretation of the revised 2011 regulations:

"“activity requiring consent” includes any activity that has, before the commencement date of these Regulations, been notified pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, any activity listed in Regulations made under the Act of 1972 for the purpose of designating a site as a special protection area or as a special area of conservation, and any activity in relation to which the Minister has given a Direction pursuant to Regulation 28 of these Regulations, as being an activity that requires the approval of the Minister or is covered by the consent of a public authority;"

as all of these sites were designated prior to 2011.

As I said previously, management plan or not, unless you have the permission of the Minister to cut turf, then you are carrying out an unlawful activity

Uriel. · 10-06-2012 11:32PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

A decent blanket bog is worth around €25000 an acre and a raised bog is probably worth more per acre depending on how deep it is.

However if the landowners never accepted any payment on those terms there is no contract.
.

Where do you get those figures for valuation?

I can't burn rubbish on my land. I have to pay to have the waste collected. I have no contract with the State giving me money because I can't burn rubbish on my own land? Does that mean that I can't be prosecuted if I break this law because I have no contract? :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 11:41PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I can't burn rubbish on my land. I have to pay to have the waste collected. I have no contract with the State giving me money because I can't burn rubbish on my own land? Does that mean that I can't be prosecuted if I break this law because I have no contract? :rolleyes:

You cannot be prosecuted for not having a contract in place to collect your rubbish. .

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 11:48PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Regulation 14(2)( b) that the operation or activity is carried out in accordance with the terms of a management agreement

Ah HA! the Managment Plan eh!!!!

You omitted regulation 12. Where is THE LINK I ASKED FOR????

Uriel. wrote: »

As I said previously, management plan or not, unless you have the permission of the Minister to cut turf, then you are carrying out an unlawful activity

I amn't you know. Don't you dare accuse me of doing something illegal again and provide links for your assertions as I did for mine. :cool:

Uriel. · 10-06-2012 11:56PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You cannot be prosecuted for not having a contract in place to collect your rubbish. .

Exactly. But you can be prosecuted under waste management legislation, the Air Pollution Act and the Waste Management Regulations.

Similarly, in a site designated under the Habitats Regulations, you can be prosecuted for not gaining the relevant consents to carry out certain activities. In respect of the 53 Raised Bog SACs one such activity is turf cutting. You don't need to have entered into any "contract"

Sponge Bob · 10-06-2012 11:59PM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/Press%20Release%20-%20illegal%20Turf%20Cutting.pdf

Note the references to specific legislation under which prosecutions may be brought.

Thanks for the link. That is correct in the context of a management plan yes. Read one.

http://www.npws.ie/publications/archive/CP001107.pdf

The minister is not able to prosecute save in the context of the enforcement of a management plan....the exception being in the case of the operator of a "sausage machine" caught operating it in National Heritage sites.. This is fair enough, they destroy the tensile integrity of bogs, particularly blanket bogs.

Illegal Bog-cutting, no enforcement.

Comments