Turfcutters to run in elections

MadsL

Turf cutters will take out their anger at Fine Gael by contesting local elections

Galway bog owners – already primed to step up their campaign against ‘illegal’ turf cutting on protected bogs – are now threatening to run candidates in the next local elections.

The Irish Turf Cutters and Contractors Association said that their election threat would both highlight their frustrations over the impasse and impact on Fine Gael, who they blame for the failure to solve the problem.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28455-turf-cutters-will-take-out-their-anger-fine-gael-contesting-local-elections

Great, more clueless popularist single-issue councillors. Just what the country needs. No doubt they will be voting for repeal of environmental controls in the next development plan.

I'm expecting more "Irish traditions" codology and garbage about "tekken aur freedom" in the run up.

Iwasfrozen

MadsL wrote: »

Turf cutters will take out their anger at Fine Gael by contesting local elections



http://www.galwaynews.ie/28455-turf-cutters-will-take-out-their-anger-fine-gael-contesting-local-elections

Great, more clueless popularist single-issue councillors. Just what the country needs. No doubt they will be voting for repeal of environmental controls in the next development plan.

I'm expecting more "Irish traditions" codology and garbage about "tekken aur freedom" in the run up.

They'd need to run as MEPs not TDs.

BlaasForRafa

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They'd need to run as MEPs not TDs.

They need to start using coal or home-heating oil/gas instead of inefficient turf to heat their homes.

BOHtox

Why can't they cut turf again? some EU law saying it's environmentally unfriendly is it?

Fr Tod Umptious

But surely that's what local elections are for.
To elect local people on local issues.

You would have a valid point if they were running for national or European positions but I don't see a problem with someone like that running for local government

Scofflaw

BOHtox wrote: »

Why can't they cut turf again? some EU law saying it's environmentally unfriendly is it?

Essentially - the Member States agreed to offer a certain level of protection to areas of particular scientific interest (Special Areas of Conservation) sufficiently scientifically valuable to be of 'European' interest. Ireland, like the rest, signed up, and produced a list of sites to be protected, which included the bog sites (that being a largely unique landscape/ecosystem of ours) - the EU legislation was transposed here in 1997, under the last Fine Gael government.

The prohibition on cutting those areas of bog designated SACs came in once the list was complete (which was a foot-dragging process itself), but Ireland sought, and received, a ten year delay on applying that, during which successive governments essentially did nothing about it. There was a compensation scheme, but poorly taken up and not adjusted to a level that promoted takeup, despite the money thrown around the place during the Tiger. The REPS payments for your land including a SAC, as far as I know, have been paid anyway, although I'm open to correction there.

The 10-year derogation from the cutting moratorium then expired in 2010,and a further one-year extension was sought by Gormley. That expired just in time to land the whole mess back on the plate of another Fine Gael government, which is kind of amazing, given how rare those are.

So, yes, EU legislation, signed up to and put into Irish law by an Irish government 15 years ago, and only just beginning to be implemented and enforced. It would probably have been more honest not to designate any bogs - shameful, yes, but more honest, since there's little or no political will to enforce it properly. I'm sure the government wanted the kudos of having such sites, but they didn't, I'm sure, want the headache of turf-cutters protests - unluckily for them, the criteria for choosing sites were purely scientific, so the government didn't get to limit the designation to public lands only (where, to be fair, the state and semi-state companies have observed the cutting ban all along and done restoration work as well).

cordially,
Scofflaw

MadsL

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But surely that's what local elections are for.
To elect local people on local issues.

You would have a valid point if they were running for national or European positions but I don't see a problem with someone like that running for local government

Turf cutting isn't a local issue - if anything it is a global one.

Fr Tod Umptious

MadsL wrote: »

Turf cutting isn't a local issue - if anything it is a global one.

Ah come on now.

The people we are talking about cut turf on a small scale for their own use and local sale, we are not talking and industrial level peat harvesting here.

I commend them for keeping this issue in the local sphere.

goose2005

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on now.

The people we are talking about cut turf on a small scale for their own use and local sale, we are not talking and industrial level peat harvesting here.

Just like I like to dump bags of litter in the local stream on a small scale. Or the small-scale way I use illegal pesticides on my own farm. Or the endangered species I kill - sure I only shoot one or two a year.

View

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on now.

The people we are talking about cut turf on a small scale for their own use and local sale, we are not talking and industrial level peat harvesting here.

I commend them for keeping this issue in the local sphere.

It would appear to be slightly more than small scale as this report shows and the scale doesn't alter the illegality of it anyway.

Remember, all this will end up in the courts sooner or later either here or in the ECJ in Luxembourg. Who would you prefer to see fined? The State (I.e. all the tax-payers here) or those carrying out the illegal cutting?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It would appear to be slightly more than small scale as this report shows and the scale doesn't alter the illegality of it anyway.

Remember, all this will end up in the courts sooner or later either here or in the ECJ in Luxembourg. Who would you prefer to see fined? The State (I.e. all the tax-payers here) or those carrying out the illegal cutting?

And the cutting that is taking place on the designated bogs will mean either restoration work or designation of other bogs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bbam

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on now.

The people we are talking about cut turf on a small scale for their own use and local sale, we are not talking and industrial level peat harvesting here.

I commend them for keeping this issue in the local sphere.

Your talking about lads with 20-30Ton track machines excavating large swathes bo bog into machines called hoppers that mill it up and lay it out in rows...



I think they should be allowed work away on some bogs, but with no mechanical equipment allowed at all... Turf spades, wheel barrows, plastic bags. that would be small scale and traditional.

Fr Tod Umptious

goose2005 wrote: »

Just like I like to dump bags of litter in the local stream on a small scale. Or the small-scale way I use illegal pesticides on my own farm. Or the endangered species I kill - sure I only shoot one or two a year.

I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I do not know enough about the facts to build an informed opinion on it.

I am however arguing the following points

1. The OP refers to 'clueless popularist single-issue councillors. Just what the country needs', I am arguing that is something the country can live with, as opposed to having ''clueless popularist single-issue TDs or MEPs',

2. That the cutting of turf in these cases is not a global issue, as a poster has said it is.
The building of coal burning power plants by China is a global issue, the proiliferation of motor cars in India is a gloabal issue etc etc.

MadsL

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I do not know enough about the facts to build an informed opinion on it.

I am however arguing the following points

1. The OP refers to 'clueless popularist single-issue councillors. Just what the country needs', I am arguing that is something the country can live with, as opposed to having ''clueless popularist single-issue TDs or MEPs', [/Q

How do you rate Ming's performance so far? Or Wallace's?

Having clueless councillors means that significant planning decisions will be in the hands of (excuse me) a bunch of gob****es with an agenda. Which means more gombeenism and parish pump politics. They would overule every one-off house objection (because it is traditional) and wreck anything chance of bringing in proper environmental controls in rural areas.

Simply, they are the last thing the country needs.

2. That the cutting of turf in these cases is not a global issue, as a poster has said it is.
The building of coal burning power plants by China is a global issue, the proiliferation of motor cars in India is a gloabal issue etc etc.

How is it NOT a global issue since the cutting of bogs destroys valuable carbon sinks as well as releasing stored CO2? Why so you think the EU banned it?

These people are just (to paraphrase DeVore) holding a cocked gun at the head of Ireland.

Scofflaw

MadsL wrote: »

How do you rate Ming's performance so far? Or Wallace's?

Having clueless councillors means that significant planning decisions will be in the hands of (excuse me) a bunch of gob****es with an agenda. Which means more gombeenism and parish pump politics. They would overule every one-off house objection (because it is traditional) and wreck anything chance of bringing in proper environmental controls in rural areas.

Simply, they are the last thing the country needs.

How is it NOT a global issue since the cutting of bogs destroys valuable carbon sinks as well as releasing stored CO2? Why so you think the EU banned it?

These people are just (to paraphrase DeVore) holding a cocked gun at the head of Ireland.

I'm not sure they will have those planning powers, fortunately:

THE POWER of councillors to overturn the decisions of planning officials will be abolished in a massive overhaul of local government to be announced tomorrow.

The biggest reform of local government since the current system was instituted in 1898 is due to be unveiled by the Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan.

The decision to curtail the planning powers of local councillors has been taken in the light of evidence given to the Mahon tribunal regarding corruption in the planning process.

As part of the reform package, section 140 of the Local Government Act will be abolished so that councillors will no longer be allowed to direct officials in respect of planning functions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

MadsL wrote: »

How do you rate Ming's performance so far? Or Wallace's?

Having clueless councillors means that significant planning decisions will be in the hands of (excuse me) a bunch of gob****es with an agenda. Which means more gombeenism and parish pump politics. They would overule every one-off house objection (because it is traditional) and wreck anything chance of bringing in proper environmental controls in rural areas.

Simply, they are the last thing the country needs.

While I agree with you, in many ways it would be no different from the current Councillors in office who all helped fuel the property boom and bust with no regard for the environment whatsover.... and these are the ones that have a clue?

MadsL

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure they will have those planning powers, fortunately:
cordially,
Scofflaw

Hmm. Not actually sure whether this is a good or bad thing. In DCC's case, councillors are wrapped around the finger or management with mistruths and promises that are never fulfilled.

Councillors will still vote and set the Development Plans though.

Scofflaw

MadsL wrote: »

Hmm. Not actually sure whether this is a good or bad thing. In DCC's case, councillors are wrapped around the finger or management with mistruths and promises that are never fulfilled.

Councillors will still vote and set the Development Plans though.

Sure - that's a debate in itself. The Development Plans, though, to be legally watertight, would have to comply with such things as SAC legislation. Of course, that requires that someone keep an eye on those and challenge them if required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MadsL

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - that's a debate in itself. The Development Plans, though, to be legally watertight, would have to comply with such things as SAC legislation. Of course, that requires that someone keep an eye on those and challenge them if required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, and there is a special venom reserved for activists in that particular area. They are still wiping the salvia off the walls of the Council chamber in Meath after the years of fulminating about those that point to the law when councillors are making insane planning decisions.

meglome

MadsL wrote: »

Turf cutters will take out their anger at Fine Gael by contesting local elections

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28455-turf-cutters-will-take-out-their-anger-fine-gael-contesting-local-elections

Great, more clueless popularist single-issue councillors. Just what the country needs. No doubt they will be voting for repeal of environmental controls in the next development plan.

I'm expecting more "Irish traditions" codology and garbage about "tekken aur freedom" in the run up.

Good grief. We'll never learn.

Death and Taxes

meglome wrote: »

Good grief. We'll never learn.

They have very little chance of being elected with the new Local Government plans decimating the number of councillors and the number of local Authorities.

meglome

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They have very little chance of being elected with the new Local Government plans decimating the number of councillors and the number of local Authorities.

That's a good point. We may need campaigners on many issues but not on this one.

Sponge Bob

They will be elected nevertheless, remember the Cavan pothole councillors or misc.hospital types who made the dáil. Sure why not find a pothole in a bog and stick a hospital in it for value.

Uriel.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially - the Member States agreed to offer a certain level of protection to areas of particular scientific interest (Special Areas of Conservation) sufficiently scientifically valuable to be of 'European' interest. Ireland, like the rest, signed up, and produced a list of sites to be protected, which included the bog sites (that being a largely unique landscape/ecosystem of ours) - the EU legislation was transposed here in 1997, under the last Fine Gael government.

The prohibition on cutting those areas of bog designated SACs came in once the list was complete (which was a foot-dragging process itself), but Ireland sought, and received, a ten year delay on applying that, during which successive governments essentially did nothing about it. There was a compensation scheme, but poorly taken up and not adjusted to a level that promoted takeup, despite the money thrown around the place during the Tiger. The REPS payments for your land including a SAC, as far as I know, have been paid anyway, although I'm open to correction there.

The 10-year derogation from the cutting moratorium then expired in 2010,and a further one-year extension was sought by Gormley. That expired just in time to land the whole mess back on the plate of another Fine Gael government, which is kind of amazing, given how rare those are.

So, yes, EU legislation, signed up to and put into Irish law by an Irish government 15 years ago, and only just beginning to be implemented and enforced. It would probably have been more honest not to designate any bogs - shameful, yes, but more honest, since there's little or no political will to enforce it properly. I'm sure the government wanted the kudos of having such sites, but they didn't, I'm sure, want the headache of turf-cutters protests - unluckily for them, the criteria for choosing sites were purely scientific, so the government didn't get to limit the designation to public lands only (where, to be fair, the state and semi-state companies have observed the cutting ban all along and done restoration work as well).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just one correction scoflaw, Ireland never sought a derogation. It granted itself one(Sile de Valera, then minister & Eamon O Cuiv junior minister) , unapproved by the Commission.

Uriel.

MadsL wrote: »

How do you rate Ming's performance so far? Or Wallace's?

Having clueless councillors means that significant planning decisions will be in the hands of (excuse me) a bunch of gob[SIZE="2"]****es[/SIZE] with an agenda. Which means more gombeenism and parish pump politics. They would overule every one-off house objection (because it is traditional) and wreck anything chance of bringing in proper environmental controls in rural areas.

Simply, they are the last thing the country needs.



How is it NOT a global issue since the cutting of bogs destroys valuable carbon sinks as well as releasing stored CO2? Why so you think the EU banned it?

These people are just (to paraphrase DeVore) holding a cocked gun at the head of Ireland.

They didn't ban turf cutting on these SACs due to environmental concerns/issues. Turf cutting is prohibited on these sites due to the conservation of an endangered priority European habitat - active raised bog - that's the only reason (Habitats Directive).

Other benefits such as emissions, carbon sinks, flood attenuation etc are all important and a nice consequence but not the legal reason for the prohibition on turf cutting in these places

Macha

Uriel. wrote: »

Other benefits such as emissions, carbon sinks, flood attenuation etc are all important and a nice consequence but not the legal reason for the prohibition on turf cutting in these places

Not directly, true. But Ireland does have greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations.

Uriel.

Macha wrote: »

Not directly, true. But Ireland does have greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations.

Oh very true, I don't disagree. Keeping our bogs intact and functioning properly as bogs, has many other benefits, but the only legal reason the prohibition on cutting in this instance is the Habitats Directive.

CatFromHue

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Sure why not find a pothole in a bog and stick a hospital in it for value.

:pac::pac:

I did laugh out loud to this!

eth0

bbam wrote: »

Turf spades

You mean a "slean"

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They need to start using coal or home-heating oil/gas instead of inefficient turf to heat their homes.

Nothing inefficient about it.

Sponge Bob

Nobody who opted for a replacement bog has been offered a suitable one yet (within 20 miles) and those who chose a cut turf allowance rather than a bog have received notably inferior turf in the main.

Thank God that blanket bog is not a priority habitat and even bettrr that one can cut in peace without having low flying eco types buzzing the bog.

View

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody who opted for a replacement bog has been offered a suitable one yet (within 20 miles) and those who chose a cut turf allowance rather than a bog have received notably inferior turf in the main.

Well then, they have a potential case against the government if it has failed to meet its side of the agreement.

The validity of that case is up to the Courts to decide - it does not excuse breaking the law in the meantime though.

joela

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody who opted for a replacement bog has been offered a suitable one yet (within 20 miles) and those who chose a cut turf allowance rather than a bog have received notably inferior turf in the main.

Thank God that blanket bog is not a priority habitat and even bettrr that one can cut in peace without having low flying eco types buzzing the bog.

Active Blanket Bog is a priority habitat 'Priority habitat (7130) under the EU Habitats Directive'

Turf cutting will also eventually have to stop on Natura 2000 blanket bogs and us eco types will enjoy "buzzing" you in the bog with our Cessna plane :rolleyes:

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody who opted for a replacement bog has been offered a suitable one yet (within 20 miles) and those who chose a cut turf allowance rather than a bog have received notably inferior turf in the main.

Thank God that blanket bog is not a priority habitat and even bettrr that one can cut in peace without having low flying eco types buzzing the bog.

Once again you come onto these boards spoofing your complete bullcrap

The turf being supplied comes from a bog in Portarlington which is generally regarded as being of high quality. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that the turf is "inferior"

Paul Connaughton Snr speaking on deliveries of turf:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0604/world/turf-compo-deal-starts-to-deliver-196149.html

"The turf came from Portarlington in Laois from a private contractor and we wouldn’t have accepted it if it wasn’t good quality. We would be used to good turf here," he said.


"We went up to see it last week to inspect in and make sure it was up to standard. But in fairness we signed the contracts and it has been stuck to verbatim so far."

In the same piece speaking of being given a relocation bog, Paul Connaughton outlined:

"As we didn’t cut turf this year on our own bogs we have been given some bogs close by which were owned by Bord na Móna.

"As we speak, the machines are in there draining and preparing the land for cutting turf next year.

Which dispels your "nobody has received an appropriate" replacement bog completely

In addition, Clara Bog turf cutters were the first to be successfully relocated earlier this year:
http://www.offalyindependent.ie/news/roundup/articles/2012/06/08/4010795-clara-turf-cutters-are-first-to-relocate-to-new-bog/
One of the cutters stating:

We started cutting turf last Thursday," Mr Boland told the Offaly Independent. Work was stopped by the recent inclement weather after about 20 hoppers - or enough turf for two and a half families - was cut, but Mr Boland said cutting will resume as soon as the weather allows.

Latest figures show that €2.28m paid out this year in Compensation and over 3,000 tonnes of turf delivered.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2012/10/deenihan-updates-dail-eireann-on-turf-issues-and-compensation-payments/


I'd call that a fairly big delivery on commitments to be honest. Not sure if you are trying to fool other posters here or just yourself.

MadsL

eth0 wrote: »

Nothing inefficient about it.

Just unsustainable then.

eth0

MadsL wrote: »

Just unsustainable then.

No less sustainable than oil, gas or coal.

MadsL

eth0 wrote: »

No less sustainable than oil, gas or coal.

So that's OK then. If it were true.

A. Bogs are Carbon sinks so a double whammy on draining them and releasing CO2 and destroying future CO2 absorbing potential.

B. Bogs are a living habitat. Coal, oil and gas are generally extracted from rock.

Macha

eth0 wrote: »

No less sustainable than oil, gas or coal.

Peat is the worst of them, when you look at lifecycle carbon emissions. Yes, it's worse than coal.

eth0

Macha wrote: »

Peat is the worst of them, when you look at lifecycle carbon emissions. Yes, it's worse than coal.

Only cause we're throwing it into power stations like there's no tomorrow

MadsL

eth0 wrote: »

Only cause we're throwing it into power stations like there's no tomorrow

And Bord na Mona know that isn't sustainable either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/23/us-ireland-peat-idUSTRE59M3MI20091023

That's still no excuse for mechanised cutting on raised bogs. "Saving turf" has to be the world's greatest oxymoron.

eth0

MadsL wrote: »

And Bord na Mona know that isn't sustainable either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/23/us-ireland-peat-idUSTRE59M3MI20091023

That's still no excuse for mechanised cutting on raised bogs. "Saving turf" has to be the world's greatest oxymoron.

Just as well they know their days are numbered. Still there is enough turf left to keep lads with sleans going for many more years. If the slean was a requirement from day 1 we wouldn't have had this problem.

MadsL

eth0 wrote: »

Just as well they know their days are numbered. Still there is enough turf left to keep lads with sleans going for many more years. If the slean was a requirement from day 1 we wouldn't have had this problem.

JCBs are generally the requirement, no?

"footing turf" another piece of codology by the turfcutters.

eth0

MadsL wrote: »

JCBs are generally the requirement, no?

"footing turf" another piece of codology by the turfcutters.

No the yokes they put onto the back of the tractor that looks like a chainsaw and sh1ts out the sods of turf at the side, dunno the name for them now. Fantastic piece of engineering really a pity there won't be use for them for much longer.

MadsL

eth0 wrote: »

No the yokes they put onto the back of the tractor that looks like a chainsaw and sh1ts out the sods of turf at the side, dunno the name for them now. Fantastic piece of engineering really a pity there won't be use for them for much longer.

Sausage machine?

Uriel.

eth0 wrote: »

Just as well they know their days are numbered. Still there is enough turf left to keep lads with sleans going for many more years. If the slean was a requirement from day 1 we wouldn't have had this problem.

the thing to remember in respect to this issue is that it refers to nature conservation from a habitat preservation point of view and not general environmental issue. Although the environmental benefits are not to be underestimated

Sponge Bob

this issue (so far) is about habitat preservation AND RESTORATION....both. None of my relatives have a suitable alternative bog....yet.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

this issue (so far) is about habitat preservation AND RESTORATION....both. None of my relatives have a suitable alternative bog....yet.

and....?

Sponge Bob

and what "environmental benefits" were you on about anyway.??

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

and what "environmental benefits" were you on about anyway.??

Preservation of Carbon Sinks would be one. Hasn't this been explained to you over and over?

Sponge Bob

Avoidance of freezing thanks to all those green party carbon taxes is a far more tangible 'environmental benefit' to my mind. Those taxes can be used to buy bogland at market value in order to effect preservation if required of course....instead of this ludicrous ban. After all they pull in well north of €100m a year.

You are aware that the turfcutter candidates WILL be elected.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You are aware that the turfcutter candidates WILL be elected.

In the same way that "alternatives" like Michael Lowry, the Healy-Raes, Mick Wallace, Boyd-Barret and Ming are/were really useful TDs. :rolleyes:

Here's some platitudes for you. You get the Government you deserve. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


As to buying the bogs - you will have the same vested interests painting this as "evictions" and trying to up the prices.

Sponge Bob

They are evictions....or had you not noticed when flying past?

The state has chosen to raise a large carbon tax...which can easily fund purchase at market prices. I value my Blanket bog at €25k an acre so a raised bog would easily be worth twice that.

Fortunately the money is there....the greens insisted on carbon tax and sure it can be put to use buying carbon sinks.