refusal...

crackcrack30 · 12-03-2013 10:10AM #1

Applied for forestry grant on several peices of land last year...was granted most of what i wanted but was refused or excluded by the wildlife service from planting on one plot of approx 2 acres which was described as a fen....

AS far as im concerned its not a fen but rather an area of ground that was left idle the drain has blocked and grown over and an area that i may yet sort out.....rushes appear to be the biggest issue NO ponds or flashes.

If i were to plant on this 2 acre site at my own expence would I FIND MYSELF IN TROUBLE.

& if i were to redrain and reseed this area would i be in trouble.?

cannotdisplay · 12-03-2013 11:32AM

crackcrack30 wrote: »

If i were to plant on this 2 acre site at my own expence would I FIND MYSELF IN TROUBLE.

& if i were to redrain and reseed this area would i be in trouble.?

question 1,
yes if they spotted you plant it you would be up the creek. bare in mind there is a real chance of them noticing especially if you go ahead with the rest of the planting.

question 2,
you could get away with this, id reccommend going to an ag advisor and getting some sort of plan from them and it'll mean you have someones name to the plan of action for it

robp · 13-03-2013 01:10PM

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Applied for forestry grant on several peices of land last year...was granted most of what i wanted but was refused or excluded by the wildlife service from planting on one plot of approx 2 acres which was described as a fen....

AS far as im concerned its not a fen but rather an area of ground that was left idle the drain has blocked and grown over and an area that i may yet sort out.....rushes appear to be the biggest issue NO ponds or flashes.

If i were to plant on this 2 acre site at my own expence would I FIND MYSELF IN TROUBLE.

& if i were to redrain and reseed this area would i be in trouble.?

Fens don't necessarily have open water ponds. Dense vegetation can obscure the groundwater. Even if it is not like like a fen maybe it was a was one before the drain was originally put in. The process of reverting back might be happening. As an ecosystem type fens are very rare and often tightly regulated.

periodictable · 15-03-2013 01:12AM

And how are you supposed to live if you cannot make money from this piece of ground? A compensation scheme needs to be out in place for such refusals.

robp · 15-03-2013 04:48PM

periodictable wrote: »

And how are you supposed to live if you cannot make money from this piece of ground? A compensation scheme needs to be out in place for such refusals.

And should property developers receive compensation when they are denied permission for developments?

Whatever about the right to plant trees, no one has a right to receive money from the State for planting trees. State support is why forestry is affordable. As far as I am concerned if agriculture/forestry is to subsidised, it must be on the taxpayer's terms.

periodictable · 15-03-2013 07:34PM

robp wrote: »

And should property developers receive compensation when they are denied permission for developments?

Whatever about the right to plant trees, no one has a right to receive money from the State for planting trees. State support is why forestry is affordable. As far as I am concerned if agriculture/forestry is to subsidised, it must be on the taxpayer's terms.

Nonsense.
Forestry has historically given a rate of return of at least 4% and on average 6% when land is afforested.
The reason for the current generous grants was as a response to overproduction of milk/beef/butter in the 1980s, and it was seen as cheaper in the long term to grant aid forestry rather than pay farmers to produce food, and the upside was to gain self sufficiency in timber.
Landowners who make a living from the land do just that- they try to make a living as opposed to developers who speculate.
To have someone come along and designate your land as protected for some reason, and often by questionably educated and qualified people is fundamentally wrong.
If turf cutters can get a compensation package because the state has decided they can no longer cut turf because of a designation, or people whose land use is circumscribed due to the hen harrier get a compensation package, why not someone denied the ability to eke a living from their land simply because someone decides it is a fen?
As for your point about rights to receiving money, one could argue that no one has the right to get child benefit from the State just because they decide to produce children.

robp · 16-03-2013 12:24AM

periodictable wrote: »

Nonsense.
Forestry has historically given a rate of return of at least 4% and on average 6% when land is afforested.
The reason for the current generous grants was as a response to overproduction of milk/beef/butter in the 1980s, and it was seen as cheaper in the long term to grant aid forestry rather than pay farmers to produce food, and the upside was to gain self sufficiency in timber.
Landowners who make a living from the land do just that- they try to make a living as opposed to developers who speculate.
To have someone come along and designate your land as protected for some reason, and often by questionably educated and qualified people is fundamentally wrong.
If turf cutters can get a compensation package because the state has decided they can no longer cut turf because of a designation, or people whose land use is circumscribed due to the hen harrier get a compensation package, why not someone denied the ability to eke a living from their land simply because someone decides it is a fen?
As for your point about rights to receiving money, one could argue that no one has the right to get child benefit from the State just because they decide to produce children.

There is no absolute freedom to do what you please with your land, our constitution is quite clear. Developers are human too, they have kids to feed too. All businesses involve speculation. Farmers do it to choose what crops to grow or what land to buy. The only difference is their type of business. the turf cutters were not entitled to compensation under law or even under European norms. they got it through political clout and nothing else. Likewise no parent in this country has a right to cash child benefit. Our constitution guarantees the child's right to provision and that could be provided by direct provisioning. Interesting that you brought it up that example up as we will see much more direct provisioning and less cash in hand in the future. At the end of the day our rights are constitutional. Land designation is entirely constitutional.

periodictable · 16-03-2013 09:57AM

I never said there was absolute freedom to do as one chooses with one's land.
Growing trees or crops is significantly less risky than property development/speculation-has the farming community bankrupted the state?
Tell me- is a fen less ecologically important than a raised bog?
Tell me, are you self employed or do you work for the state, protected, cossetted and unaccountable?

robp · 16-03-2013 01:11PM

periodictable wrote: »

I never said there was absolute freedom to do as one chooses with one's land.
Growing trees or crops is significantly less risky than property development/speculation-has the farming community bankrupted the state?
Tell me- is a fen less ecologically important than a raised bog?
Tell me, are you self employed or do you work for the state, protected, cossetted and unaccountable?

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to blame farmers or defend developers but rules are rules and they apply to everyone rich and poor. I don't know the details in this case but I presume the refusal is at the point of ministerial consent. It sounds like there was no designation as such.
Tree plantations have their own risks. They can harm valuable salmon fisheries, rare fish like the Arctic char or the endangered pearl mussel. From my amateur understanding that is why ministerial consent is required.
I work in a public sector field but for me that has meant temporary contracts in Germany so spare me the talk of protected, cossetted and unaccountable people as I know none.

On the otherhand if someone's livelihood is threaten by an environmental designation its different. Also personally I think farmers who farm ethical and protect the environment should be rewarded (through REPS or whatever) but they don't have an inherent right to it.

periodictable · 17-03-2013 08:26PM

Tree plantations have their own risks. They can harm valuable salmon fisheries, rare fish like the Arctic char or the endangered pearl mussel.
True,but be aware that there is a mindset out there which is vehemently against forestry and which uses legislation subjectively to further an agenda which is to stop afforestation, among other things. It is a betrayal of the ideas of public service and has got to be stopped. These particular people are public servants who are not accountable to anyone, and their superiors will instinctively close ranks when complaints are made.
Take the water acidity regulations- statistically untenable, questionable science, no common sense or discretion employed and results in huge areas of surface water gleys supporting a thriving community of rushes.
On the other hand if someone's livelihood is threaten by environmental designation its different.
Land which is neither ecologically nor environmentally suited to cattle rearing has now been sterilized because of this acidity regulation and forestry is no longer allowed. So, how will farmers make a living from this land?

robp · 20-03-2013 08:07PM

periodictable wrote: »

Tree plantations have their own risks. They can harm valuable salmon fisheries, rare fish like the Arctic char or the endangered pearl mussel.
True,but be aware that there is a mindset out there which is vehemently against forestry and which uses legislation subjectively to further an agenda which is to stop afforestation, among other things. It is a betrayal of the ideas of public service and has got to be stopped. These particular people are public servants who are not accountable to anyone, and their superiors will instinctively close ranks when complaints are made.
Take the water acidity regulations- statistically untenable, questionable science, no common sense or discretion employed and results in huge areas of surface water gleys supporting a thriving community of rushes.
On the other hand if someone's livelihood is threaten by environmental designation its different.
Land which is neither ecologically nor environmentally suited to cattle rearing has now been sterilized because of this acidity regulation and forestry is no longer allowed. So, how will farmers make a living from this land?

Maybe the research on acidification in Irish rivers isn't flawless but something is gravely effecting the mentioned species, and in the case of charr and pearl mussels its happening on land. Forestry is perhaps the biggest change in these catchments so it would seem to culpable in many cases.

I know there are people in the environmental powers-at-be that are very cautious about planting forestry on acid areas but there is some progress in the area. For instance the expansion of the Native Woodland scheme to acid sensitive areas. Native woodland is inherently safer to water catchments.

Threats to livelihood are serious thing but as I understand it, it can only relate to a traditional land use. In Ireland blocks of conifer trees are simply not a traditional landuse.

periodictable · 20-03-2013 10:22PM

robp wrote: »

Maybe the research on acidification in Irish rivers isn't flawless but something is gravely effecting the mentioned species, and in the case of charr and pearl mussels its happening on land. Forestry is perhaps the biggest change in these catchments so it would seem to culpable in many cases.

I know there are people in the environmental powers-at-be that are very cautious about planting forestry on acid areas but there is some progress in the area. For instance the expansion of the Native Woodland scheme to acid sensitive areas. Native woodland is inherently safer to water catchments.

Threats to livelihood are serious thing but as I understand it, it can only relate to a traditional land use. In Ireland blocks of conifer trees are simply not a traditional landuse.

What's a traditional land use? In the 1840s 9 mi,llion people made a living from the land. They grew potatoes wherever they could and defecated everywhere. Then they died or emigrated for the next 150 years and the landlords made parkland and landscaped the countryside.
Your comment about blocks of conifers and use of the word traditional shows an underlying dislike of progress and a bias against what you believe not to be native to Ireland. You want to grow native woodland....what quality timber will be produced?
One fine tradition in Ireland was the annual burning of upland and heather. The ash fertilized the impoverished soil and provided summer grazing for farmers. Now with the restrictions on burning, a decent burn, if a burn at all, is achieved perhaps every 5 or 6 years, allowing heather to grow waist high, allowing the spread of scrub into the cutover bogs, the smothering of smaller bog flowers and preventing the fresh growth of young heather for red grouse.
For 40 years I know of land where otters live along a couple of miles of drains. The farms have been sold and afforested over the years, yet the otters thrive. No fisheries damage there.
I've grown up on the land and worked in forestry most of my life. The dire predictions of the environmentalists re. afforestation have yet to come to pass.

robp · 21-03-2013 03:49PM

periodictable wrote: »

What's a traditional land use? In the 1840s 9 mi,llion people made a living from the land. They grew potatoes wherever they could and defecated everywhere. Then they died or emigrated for the next 150 years and the landlords made parkland and landscaped the countryside.
Your comment about blocks of conifers and use of the word traditional shows an underlying dislike of progress and a bias against what you believe not to be native to Ireland. You want to grow native woodland....what quality timber will be produced?
One fine tradition in Ireland was the annual burning of upland and heather. The ash fertilized the impoverished soil and provided summer grazing for farmers. Now with the restrictions on burning, a decent burn, if a burn at all, is achieved perhaps every 5 or 6 years, allowing heather to grow waist high, allowing the spread of scrub into the cutover bogs, the smothering of smaller bog flowers and preventing the fresh growth of young heather for red grouse.
For 40 years I know of land where otters live along a couple of miles of drains. The farms have been sold and afforested over the years, yet the otters thrive. No fisheries damage there.
I've grown up on the land and worked in forestry most of my life. The dire predictions of the environmentalists re. afforestation have yet to come to pass.

My attitude to progress or the like has no bearing on what I was explaining about exceptions to environmental regulations. I was referring to the Habitats directive and why there are very occasional exceptions to it. I am not a lawyer so don’t quote me on it. Yet is clear its very very strict.

In 2010 Ireland produced just 191 m3 of sawn hardwood while in the same year Ireland imported 37,000m3 of hardwood from all over the world (source). There is no reason whatsoever why more could not be produced in Ireland, under the general scheme or the Native Woodland scheme. In fairness much hardwood has been planted and sooner or later we will see improvement in the figures. Its something I would very much like to do myself eventually.

There are plenty of examples of causalities to water pollution. A third of the 70 Irish populations of char have disappeared, and with char each population is isolated so it represents a unique genetic lineage. In the north they are now confined to single lake. That is not okay.

Birdnuts · 21-03-2013 07:12PM

robp wrote: »

In 2010 Ireland produced just 191 m3 of sawn hardwood while in the same year Ireland imported 37,000m3 of hardwood from all over the world (source). There is no reason whatsoever why more could not be produced in Ireland, under the general scheme or the Native Woodland scheme. In fairness much hardwood has been planted and sooner or later we will see improvement in the figures. Its something I would very like to do myself eventually actually.

.

Its very unfortunate that we lag far behind many parts of Europe in terms of community forests and small scale farm forestry which would have lended itself to a more vibrant hardwood industry in this country. Some progress has been made in that regard in recent years but unfortuntly many decades were wasted since the foundation of the state in confining forestry to the poorest quality(and othen totally unsuiteable sites) sites.

refusal...

Comments