This turf cutting row - will Europe ever know?

Chinasea

As ususal Ireland can't work out all by itself that turfing cutting is a dum ass thing to do - or maybe we can use the big holes left by the raped bogs to dump all our abandoned:

• Children
• Horses
• Dogs
• Cats
• Coke bottles
• JP Blue cigarette boxes
• notions of actually caring about the environment and even
• The Future

Thank goodness for the EU.

Feathers

Shenshen wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

What if you bought the forest specifically so you'd have firewood & were then banned from getting it?

If the government doesn't want people cutting turf, they should buy their land off them for what's worth.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that there is no restriction on how much wood you can take from any piece of forest you own, and no legislation forcing you to re-plant the trees you cut down?

I didn't mention forestry as a shining, perfect analogy (though I admit I'm ignorant about laws on replanting, wouldn't mind seeing your links on those, thanks), the previous poster mentioned it & I was expanding on this.

When the bog was purchased, it was understood that all of the turf in it could be used/sold. If the government brings in a law to change that, I don't think it's unreasonable that people should be properly compensated. Twas a simple point, I thought - sorry if it lacked clarity for you.

MagicSean

Feathers wrote: »

I didn't mention forestry as a shining, perfect analogy (though I admit I'm ignorant about laws on replanting, wouaaldn't mind seeing your links on those, thanks), the previous poster mentioned it & I was expanding on this.

When the bog was purchased, it was understood that all of the turf in it could be used/sold. If the government brings in a law to change that, I don't think it's unreasonable that people should be properly compensated. Twas a simple point, I thought - sorry if it lacked clarity for you.

Forget about forests. it's even illegal to chop down a tree in your own backyard if it's been there a while.

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

Forget about forests. it's even illegal to chop down a tree in your own backyard if it's been there a while.

It is not illegal once you obtain a felling licence.
It also depends on the variety and distance from the house as to whether you will even require a felling licence.
There are many variables as to what trees are fair game without a felling licence.

2 stroke

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Fuck Europe lads. I say we take the loan and put it towards a giant fan to be built along the East Coast. Then we default on our loans, turn the fan on which will propell us over to America. Our neighbour can then be America and our island can just be off Boston and New York. They'll look after us :cool:

Shhhh. What do you think all of those windmills are for. When we have enough of them built, the plan is to power them up with electricity from our turf fired power stations and America here we come.

Cookie_Monster

Pedant wrote: »

What gives you the right to dictate what people can do with their own land?

it's not me dictating, it's a law that is being implemented by an elected government.

OpenYourEyes

bastados wrote: »

A lot of countries openly refuse to go along with EU regulations...do we have to play the model example of shining bureaucratic bullshiite?

We're actually the second worst country in the EU for environmental regulations!
The worst country (can't remember exactly what one it is) is one of the 10 countries that are only a part of the EU in the last decade or so - basically we'd be the worst if we didnt have a 30year head start on them! And theres 9 countries that we did have a 30year head start on and they're still better than us!

fasttalkerchat

MagicSean wrote: »

Forget about forests. it's even illegal to chop down a tree in your own backyard if it's been there a while.

Found this out the hard way but we had a solution! Neighbours tree was annoying us for years. After they sold the house but before someone moved it we "almost" cut it down. Allowing it to fall naturally during the night.

OpenYourEyes

• The bogs are being protected because they are a avery rare habitat that are home to some very unique species of plants/animals/birds/etc, I recommend some research into the benefits and necessity of biodiversity if you havnt already. They also hold huge amounts of carbon and water
• The bogs protected are only a small proportion of the country's total, the ones protected were chosen based primarily on the scientific evidence, not parish politics or any kind of favouritism or any kind of grudge against rural people or anything like that - objective science!
• Descriptions of turfcutting that refer to it as a tradition conveniently ignore the fact that large scale machinery is used for the vast majority of turfcutting these days!
• The majority of turfcutters will not be pushed over the poverty line by not being able to cut turf - and compensation in the form of fuel and money are available anyways! Having paid attention to press coverage on this for the last few years, the turfcutters tend to flip-flop between "its not about money" and "the money isnt good enough" in every second press release!
• Talking to a guy I know, his Father paid around 600euro for a decent patch of bog and is now being offerred a lot more than that by the government to stop cutting on it - he said to his father he should take their arm off when he was offerred it!
• From what I can tell there has actually been very good uptake for the compensation packages! Only a minority are left and causing the current problems, and they're supposedly mostly the contractors who make a healthy profit every year from it - nothing to do with tradition or cold winters!

Also:

• Ireland was one of the countries who helped draw up the Habitats Directive!
• We're the 2nd worst country for enforcing it!
• As of around 1996 there was the opportunity for the turfcutters to be proactive about this and reach a solution they might be happier with - and as of 10years ago they knew what bogs were designated - Ireland was given 10years extra to sort it out and nothing was done until now!
• We're going to be fined for every day we dont enforce the ban, and it'll probably be backdated as far back as that 10years too!

MagicSean

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Found this out the hard way but we had a solution! Neighbours tree was annoying us for years. After they sold the house but before someone moved it we "almost" cut it down. Allowing it to fall naturally during the night.

That's illegal in so many ways

fasttalkerchat

MagicSean wrote: »

That's illegal in so many ways

Indeed it is. Although to be fair, we could have got the tree removed legally because of its size.

Rasheed

Ok, I can see both points.
I'm from 'bog country', we own a bog, we are going for the compensation, which I think is fair but I'll miss the turf.
Are the government going to pay for airplanes every year?
I dont really see how they are going to stop every bog owner cutting turf. They might do it ths year because of all the media etc but what about next year and year after?
Are we going to have a 'neighbours snitching on neighbours job'?

OpenYourEyes

Rasheed wrote: »

Ok, I can see both points.
I'm from 'bog country', we own a bog, we are going for the compensation, which I think is fair but I'll miss the turf.
Are the government going to pay for airplanes every year?
I dont really see how they are going to stop every bog owner cutting turf. They might do it ths year because of all the media etc but what about next year and year after?
Are we going to have a 'neighbours snitching on neighbours job'?

Surely the same could be said for any law and its enforcement?

Eventually iI'd assume it'd come down to a combo of the majority people accepting and abiding by the law, and then some monitoring by authorities and maybe some reporting by other people yeah.

And paying for airplanes is hardly a major issue given that the alternative is a fine of thousands of euro per day. I think the fines are €25k a day? So as long as the cost of aerial monitoring is less than that it makes sense to do it until the problem has largely been resolved, then relying on less intensive monitoring to ensure there's no more turfcutting after that!

Rasheed

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Surely the same could be said for any law and its enforcement?

Eventually iI'd assume it'd come down to a combo of the majority people accepting and abiding by the law, and then some monitoring by authorities and maybe some reporting by other people yeah.

And paying for airplanes is hardly a major issue given that the alternative is a fine of thousands of euro per day. I think the fines are €25k a day? So as long as the cost of aerial monitoring is less than that it makes sense to do it until the problem has largely been resolved, then relying on less intensive monitoring to ensure there's no more turfcutting after that!

Ya makes sense what you re saying. Just wondered if they had any long term plan in place to make sure people didn't start cutting when the hype died down!

OpenYourEyes

Rasheed wrote: »

Ya makes sense what you re saying. Just wondered if they had any long term plan in place to make sure people didn't start cutting when the hype died down!

The way things are going they seem to barely have a short term plan! But yeah I'd assume it'd be a mix of occassional checking-up by NPWS etc., and some reporting by concerned locals and NGO's then too!

fasttalkerchat

I get the feeling that we will see donedeal ads offering bags of turf delivered cheaper than the stuff in the shops no questions asked in a few months.

MadsL

You mean like this?

http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/machinery/3533650
http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/heating/3493216

Pedant

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's not me dictating, it's a law that is being implemented by an elected government.

Should you have the right to kill someone just because the law says so?

OpenYourEyes

Pedant wrote: »

Should you have the right to kill someone just because the law says so?

Depends! Should you have the right to make completely irrelevant comparisons just because the law says so?

fasttalkerchat

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Depends! Should you have the right to make completely irrelevant comparisons just because the law says so?

There's a law for that? That's like putting chicken in lasagne!

allanpkr

im from london ,moved to country,EU is good but must be controlled .to all those " save the envirement save the fauna" persons how many times are you going to come to bog to look at the special fauna growing there.and will you drink water tap water if a license for fracking is given near you. EU save "natural habitats" but allow millions of chemicals and sludge force pumped into ground. excuse my spelling just couldnt be *+*
to check it.

allanpkr

P.S also remember when we talk about " EU" we really mean merkal, and german government .they want to control europe , then ze world.

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

im from london ,moved to country,EU is good but must be controlled .to all those " save the envirement save the fauna" persons how many times are you going to come to bog to look at the special fauna growing there.and will you drink water tap water if a license for fracking is given near you. EU save "natural habitats" but allow millions of chemicals and sludge force pumped into ground. excuse my spelling just couldnt be *+*
to check it.

That refers to only one of the many many values of biodiversity!

And re: fracking - no idea why you're jumping onto that topic? Nothing to do with bogs! And you seem to imply that people that are pro-habitats directive are pro-fracking, which isnt the case for a substantial, if not a majority, of people!

I'm not against turfcutting because I'm pro-EU, I'm against it because all of the scientific evidence says its bad, unsustainable, and not worth the long-term consequences!

(also you'd watch flora grow, fauna are animals etc!)

ScumLord

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I'm not against turfcutting because I'm pro-EU, I'm against it because all of the scientific evidence says its bad, unsustainable, and not worth the long-term consequences!

Plus turf gives off terrible heat. The whole love of the smell of burning turf (which is the only reason to want to burn turf other than it comes free out of the ground) could be solved by throwing tiny bits of turf into an open fire.

Paparazzo

Sure turf is free anyway. If you drive around a bog area there's always bags of it just lying around. I always fill the boot with it. No need to buy a bog.

jonon9

I may sound abit mad but I reckon the EU gov are doing this law is because eventually oil will run out so what next?.... they turn to the bogs and cut it to sell to people thats what. Its all about money money money. They way I see it is were getting raped right up the back side. why not take from this country and cut turf them greedy b*****ds are getting enough as it is. The only way to stop turf cutting is the simpliest answer 'DROP FUEL COST'

ScumLord

jonon9 wrote: »

I may sound abit mad but I reckon the EU gov are doing this law is because eventually oil will run out so what next?.... they turn to the bogs and cut it to sell to people thats what. Its all about money money money. They way I see it is were getting raped right up the back side. why not take from this country and cut turf them greedy b*****ds are getting enough as it is. The only way to stop turf cutting is the simpliest answer 'DROP FUEL COST'

How is turf going to help with the oil crisis? Your car won't run on turf.

jonon9

I'm talkig about home heating oil. Someday the gov will have no choice but to go back to the bogs. Now dont get me wrong I prefer home heating oil than turf but the cost of it is a massive joke but until it comes down in price I be burnng turf, fair dues I havent cut any this year so...

ScumLord

There's no need to be using oil in a house, there are tons of alternatives. Wood chip burners being a great use of modern technology making the most efficient use of fuel.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

How is turf going to help with the oil crisis? Your car won't run on turf.

They did that during the way.

just have a small "producer gas" generator, car then runs on water and turf.

You can gassify most fuels coal , turf, wood

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no need to be using oil in a house, there are tons of alternatives. Wood chip burners being a great use of modern technology making the most efficient use of fuel.

Or you could insulate the house and reduce fuel usage, far more sustainable.

Taken to the extreme a passive house would need no heating, running on waste heat from people and things.

OpenYourEyes

jonon9 wrote: »

I may sound abit mad but I reckon the EU gov are doing this law is because eventually oil will run out so what next?.... they turn to the bogs and cut it to sell to people thats what. Its all about money money money. They way I see it is were getting raped right up the back side. why not take from this country and cut turf them greedy b*****ds are getting enough as it is. The only way to stop turf cutting is the simpliest answer 'DROP FUEL COST'

Yeah - and following that logic, the rest of the Habitats protected under the habitats directive must be protected for a similar reason yeah? Coastal Lagoons, estuaries, reefs, sandbanks, atlantic and inland salt meadows, around 10 different types of dunes, lakes, turloughs, different types of heathland, different types of scrubland, loads of different types of grasslands and meadows and many many many more habitat types!

So do you think all those habitats are protected so they can eventually be burned by the EU when the oil runs out too?

Or maybe they're only being protected so the protection of raised bogs looks less suspicious?

:rolleyes:

Can't say this enough:- if you can't see a reason to protect the bogs, do some research into the benefits, both economic and otherwise, of biodiversity and it will become clear that stopping turfcutting in a few bogs is a small price to pay!

fasttalkerchat

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Can't say this enough:- if you can't see a reason to protect the bogs, do some research into the benefits, both economic and otherwise, of biodiversity and it will become clear that stopping turfcutting in a few bogs is a small price to pay!

My issue is that stopping turf cutting on 5% of bogs makes a tiny difference in terms of biodiversity but impacts on many families. I would prefer to see turf usage limited to a few months of they year and subsidies for using another fuel for the rest of the year.
Wood for the same price as turf for 3 seasons and turf used only in the winter (when a hot fire is needed)

OpenYourEyes

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

My issue is that stopping turf cutting on 5% of bogs makes a tiny difference in terms of biodiversity but impacts on many families. I would prefer to see turf usage limited to a few months of they year and subsidies for using another fuel for the rest of the year.
Wood for the same price as turf for 3 seasons and turf used only in the winter (when a hot fire is needed)

With a habitat as rare as intact raised bogs, and when the protected ones are chosen to maximise the biodiversity benefits, then it makes a big difference in terms of biodiversity though!

I think Ming suggested that the TCCA be allowed pick the bogs that would be protected, and that it'd be slightly more than the 5% picked already, but then we'd be protecting areas that have already been significantly damaged or that are too small to sustain populations of species - so we'd be saying "yeah we have loads of bogs protected", but it'd just be a token gesture and it'd be pointless! Surely picking a small % of bogs based on the scientific evidence is the best way to do it? It means that the protection should actually conserve what its meant to conserve, and it means that the bogs protected were done independantly and not because they're far away from certain politicians or not in the stronghold area for a certain lobby group!

I don't think limiting turf usage to certain seasons would be in any way police-able?
Also if you're still allowed cut turf, even if the cutting period is also reduced to a certain time period, it seems probable that the same amount of turf will be cut but those cutting it will put more effort into selling it to other people!
Finally, its when the bog is drained a few years before cutting that the killer blow is essentially landed in terms of biodiversity and a pristine habitat - as long as cutting is still allowed, draining will continue and the same damage is being done!

Dont forget that we dont have loads of raised bog - we have a small amount of it and only a tiny proportion of that hasn't been significantly damaged! If we dont cop on now it'll be too late soon!

Edit: And turf is a pretty poor fuel to the best of my knowledge? It's not the fuel you'd want when a hot fire is needed!

christmas2012

The bog cutting thing is ridiculous,theres very little left in ireland,let it time to naturally produce more bog over time,it needs to be protected,and not cut to within an inch of its life..

Its like the overfishing thats going on across the world,pretty soon there will be too many people and not enough food,or animal produce or foliage because of what were doing,this is why we are going to have an oil crisis in less than 20 years..

TeddyTedson

what bull****. its only a bit of turf for **** sake. i dont see why people shouldny be allowed use it to heat their homes.
the worlds gone mad.

christmas2012

the world is gone mad because we are overusing our resources,which will drive the price of everything up!

fasttalkerchat

In Dublin there is a ban on coal fires and its not often you see smoke coming from chimneys in estates there so it would be somewhat enforceable.

OpenYourEyes

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

In Dublin there is a ban on coal fires and its not often you see smoke coming from chimneys in estates there so it would be somewhat enforceable.

That did come to mind alright. The fact that turf burning would be over a much wider scale and plenty of the houses doing it would be in fairly remote areas would make it much harder to police imo though. And even if it was enforceable, I don't think its a feasible idea for the other reasons I outlined anyway.

Ddad

Having worked (hard) on bogs as a child I can see where people get the affection for the traditions of cutting turf.

But what this all boils down to is the lack of planning and foresight that we have as a nation. The % of bogs involved is minimal. If any kind of a decent plan had been made in the last 10 years by the government and the people affected by this ruling there wouldn't be a problem. But no, arra shure twil be grand. There was a chap in the paper the other day moaning about his huge overheads on his loans and equipment for processing the turf. Well it wasn't any secret to him or anyone else that this was coming.

Personally, I'd like to see what little bits of wild habitat we have left preserved but because we can't see the benefit of it when we open our wallets it doesn't happen. Land ownership isn't just about what can be taken from the land, it's about stewardship and duty. We have a duty to pass on the land to the next generation in good health.

Have a wee look around at the utter mess that happens when decisions are made for the short term gain. We end up here with a broken economy, broken families, towns emptied of our young.

But you know what; no matter how many points are being made as to why it's a good idea to hold onto a tiny piece of these incredible places many of us will ignore them because they are inconvenient. The realities presented by these arguments must be ignored because the alternative would be change. Times change though and this is one of the new realities, maybe people should think about how to deal with it rather than butting heads against hard scientific evidence.

laoch na mona

the government should make compulsory purchases like they did for motorways

Ddad

It all comes out of the one pot. What is more important. That we as a country buy theses lands or we build the schools, pay the dole, keep the hospitals open.

The goverments coffers aren't limitless, never have been, never will be. I'll lay odds that this bogland would fetch a lot more under CPO than its worth economically.

intbn

Chucken wrote: »

Its one thing to stop machine cutting,but they're trying to stop hand cutting too in some areas.

I say we take to cuttin with our feet, it might take a while to catch on but what can they do then? oh yeah ban that too

Burt Lancaster

You can rob billions from the Irish taxpayer, and laugh all the way to your tax free caymen islands bank account, but god help you if you dare cut some turf on your bog.

ScumLord

christmas2012 wrote: »

The bog cutting thing is ridiculous,theres very little left in ireland,let it time to naturally produce more bog over time,it needs to be protected,and not cut to within an inch of its life..

Its like the overfishing thats going on across the world,pretty soon there will be too many people and not enough food,or animal produce or foliage because of what were doing,this is why we are going to have an oil crisis in less than 20 years..

We're not really talking about the same thing here though. Your comparing intensive industrialised farming of resources to localised and annual resource gathering.

A local taking 30ft of turf once a year isn't the same thing as bord na mona stripping bogs with custom made machinery year round. The same way a guy fishing off a pier isn't doing any damage compared to a fleet of ships drag netting in unison.

robp

ScumLord wrote: »

We're not really talking about the same thing here though. Your comparing intensive industrialised farming of resources to localised and annual resource gathering.

A local taking 30ft of turf once a year isn't the same thing as bord na mona stripping bogs with custom made machinery year round. The same way a guy fishing off a pier isn't doing any damage compared to a fleet of ships drag netting in unison.

It may surprise you that a third of the raised bogs designated since the 90s are now irreparably damaged. These are not Bord na Mona sites. They are the 'domestic' turf cutter sites. The fact is you simply can't take out 30ft of turf out of a raised bog without draining and affecting a much larger area.

allanpkr

to OPENYOUR EYES. the reason i mentioned FRACKING cause like raised bogs , its an EU directive,but fracking unlike turfcutting will harm humans, so thats ok. double standards i think
but hey lets save our raised bogs cause we dont want to harm the fauna( life) .i.e small insects.plant life( flora) but lets poison our water supply. why MONEY...CLEAR ENOUGH

runawaybishop

allanpkr wrote: »

to OPENYOUR EYES. the reason i mentioned FRACKING cause like raised bogs , its an EU directive,but fracking unlike turfcutting will harm humans, so thats ok. double standards i think
but hey lets save our raised bogs cause we dont want to harm the fauna( life) .i.e small insects.plant life( flora) but lets poison our water supply. why MONEY...CLEAR ENOUGH

Clear as mud alright.

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

to OPENYOUR EYES. the reason i mentioned FRACKING cause like raised bogs , its an EU directive,but fracking unlike turfcutting will harm humans, so thats ok. double standards i think
but hey lets save our raised bogs cause we dont want to harm the fauna( life) .i.e small insects.plant life( flora) but lets poison our water supply. why MONEY...CLEAR ENOUGH

.....right.....

Turfcutting will have consequences that are bad for humans actually, but you're obviously only concerned with the very short term so good luck with that!

I'm against fracking (or FRACKING as you so elloquently put it), at least until more research is done on it and the scientific evidence is conclusive that it doesnt cause damage, or until sufficient safety and mitigation measures are developed and legally required to ensure the risk is similar to the probabilities of winning the lotto, if not lower! But if you want to talk/rant about it then maybe find a more relevant thread

Oh and Fauna means animal life, not life in general!

pawrick

Most of the people I know who have turf have cash in hand type businesses selling it on to other people either in bags or letting them cut some them selves...I'd imagine a lot of people are doing this. Often it's not just the owner of the bog getting turf from it so the impact can be a lot bigger then made out.

I've nothing against it being used for personal use by the owner but it is something which should be phased out if you want to keep the bogs. The government needs to properly compensate the owners.