Intensive cattle farming causing severe damage to protected Wexford dunes

kilmuckridge

recedite wrote: »

Usually landowners own down to the high tide mark, and it does say in the Irish Times article that he owns it. However if you are sure that he does not, then maybe there is some fraud going on, given that he is claiming €100,000 a year in EU subsidies.

It looks like he has seen some pictures of the giant sandy "feed lots" they keep millions of cattle on in southern USA and South America, and decided to cash in on the subsidies with his own version.
The difference is they don't have the same rainy weather there, or the EU subsidies, or the SAC status.

It is true that it is often customary for landowners to own the land seaward of their official property. From that point of view the farmer would own about 50% of the site. For details, please see OS map: (click ortho 2005 to see the extent of the site)
http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,718585,640185,7
The farmer owns the field SouthWest of the centre crosshairs, and up to those crosshairs, bounded by lines running NW and SW from the crosshairs parallel to the nearby field boundaries. He owns no land further North. He may claim the new land seaward of his field and surrounding registered land, but has no title to the remainder of the site, as it is not seaward of his land.

[MODEDIT]Potentially sensitive information removed.[/MODEDIT]

The above is of very little relevance to the issue of restoration, as Bailey was occupying the land when he committed the destruction, and, contrary to what some maintain, there is no distinction between carrying out criminal activities on one's own land, someone else's land, or state land; a prosecution or restoration order would apply equally to all three.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service have again delayed any proposed resolution for at least a month. If anyone would like to help in any way could you message me please.

[MODEDIT]Link to petition/campaign removed.[/MODEDIT]

I_M

Why is there such a fuss over Brazilian and Argentinian beef when they are raised just like this? Not that I condone the actions of this farmer (what he has done is clearly a criminal offence )

recedite

Because they are foreign?
We can't really complain about the overcrowding of cattle or the rainforest destruction after this example of Irish farming practices.

LostCovey

blue5000 wrote: »

What this farmer did is wrong. But I wonder might there be a long term benefit from all the extra organic matter on the sand dunes? If it recovers the dunes might be able to support a much broader variety of wild life species. I think if the cattle are taken off now it will be interesting to see how the area recovers.

Extra organic matter destroys sand dunes - their ecosystem has adapted to relative poverty (in conventional soil nutrient terms). Adding organic fertiliser, in this manner converts sand dunes to weedy pasture, and God knows we have plenty of that.

No doubt it will eventually recover to some degree, but tremendous needless damage has been done.

LostCovey

kilmuckridge

The National Parks and Wildlife Service are proposing a plan in which the majority of the dung will be left on the site over the winter. This will be a complete disaster. Watch the six.one news on RTE 1 tonight for more detail.
National Parks and Wildlife have perhaps forgotten that wildlife protection (and thus habitat restoration) is in their remit.

kilmuckridge

NPWS have claimed in the Irish Times that they are following best practice in leaving the sh?t on the dunes for the winter. This is ridiculous as further leaching of nutrients, pollutants and pathogens will occur, and sand which accretes over the dung present will be contaminated and will require removal.

NPWS claim this is to prevent sand blow-outs. These could be prevented using geotextiles or sand fencing without continuing the pollution of the underlying sediment and water.

The NPWS also doesn't really care about blow-outs. NPWS sanctioned this:

Full size photo: http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/41395212.jpg

One of two plots over a Hectare each in size which have lain bare and subject to blow-outs since 2005 (Photo September 2010)

The only plausible reason for the delay is that the farmer doesn't have sufficient land on which to spread the dung and wishes to avoid the expense of storage, and the expense of additional sand fencing or geotextiles

kilmuckridge

Apologies for the bump, but this case has taken an outrageous turn:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0325/1224293045560.html

A Ministerial Order was issued, and now the order has been breached, blatantly so, and yet the supervising NPWS officer is "happy" with progress.

Is there any way of having such issues investigated, in the way that the Garda Ombudsman would investigate allegations of corruption about Gardaí

recedite

Contact the Minister?
Oddly enough, that seems to be the same NPW officer who declared that the Shell to Sea protesters who were camping on Glengad beach were damaging the machair dune system. That declaration opened the way for Shell to take a court case getting them evicted, and thus paved the way for the wanton mechanised destruction of whole area.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89962

edwinkane

recedite wrote: »

Because they are foreign?
We can't really complain about the overcrowding of cattle or the rainforest destruction after this example of Irish farming practices.

There is no logic in your argument. Of course we can. I am not responsible for this example of farming practices in ireland, and even if I were that doesn't disqualify me from making a complaint about farming practices in Brazil.

recedite

Fair enough, just saying that "we" as a country have lost some of the high moral ground.

kilmuckridge

recedite wrote: »

that seems to be the same NPW officer who declared that the Shell to Sea protesters who were camping on Glengad beach were damaging the machair dune system. That declaration opened the way for Shell to take a court case getting them evicted, and thus paved the way for the wanton mechanised destruction of whole area.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89962

Funny that, I heard she did consultancy work for Shell. There must be no requirement for officers to declare any conflicts of interest which may prejudice decisions made on behalf of the NPWS/State

I_M

kilmuckridge wrote: »

Funny that, I heard she did consultancy work for Shell. There must be no requirement for officers to declare any conflicts of interest which may prejudice decisions made on behalf of the NPWS/State

Seems like this 'dune ecologist' 's opinion changes depending on who is paying her

Shell certainly has a mercenary working within the NPWS for them (who is also being paid full time by us the tax payers)