Dissident turfcutters

OpenYourEyes

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I spent all my summers as a kid working in the bog saviing turf as well, difference was we had to do it because we needed the fuel for the winter, unlike you middle class Dublin kids.

If you're cutting on an SAC now you get either €1,500 a year, a load of turf every year, or an alternative bog to cut - so thats fair enough if you needed the fuel, but thats no excuse now given that the compensation on offer is more than adequate.

Theres also a trial project on in one locality where turfcutters are helped switch to more sustainable energy and heating in their homes, which will be rolled out over a larger area if it proves successful.

Uriel.

The EU should just go ahead and fine us and then stop the flow of EU money into these places. That would soften the cough.

There really are no excuses anymore. It's been going on long enough now.

B0jangles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I spent all my summers as a kid working in the bog saviing turf as well, difference was we had to do it because we needed the fuel for the winter, unlike you middle class Dublin kids.

You poor wee things

FYI I spent my entire childhood living in a house with just 1 heated room (open fire), if the weather was cold, you know what we did?

Put on another juimper.

Hondo75

and a press release from IWT
http://iwt.ie/2013/07/press-release-minister-deenihan-needs-to-explain-why-turf-cutting-is-continuing-on-so-called-protected-bogs/

end of the road

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

If you're cutting on an SAC now you get either €1,500 a year, a load of turf every year, or an alternative bog to cut - so thats fair enough if you needed the fuel

whatever amount you get in a load of turf should be doubled to make sure that they definitely have enough for the year, people want the bogs protected so have to pay for the privilege

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

but thats no excuse now given that the compensation on offer is more than adequate.

it is an excuse, they need fuel as cheeply as possible and if this means cutting the bogs thats how it has to be, the compensation is to little, the amount should be trippled or more to subsidise the loss of access to this vital source of cheep fuel, all the other fuels are expensive unless you have access to timber but even then their are restrictions in relation to cutting trees.

hatrickpatrick

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.
2: Any such laws should come from the Irish government. I object to local matters being dictated to us by the EU which was supposed to be about economics and not politics.

end of the road

Uriel. wrote: »

The EU should just go ahead and fine us and then stop the flow of EU money into these places.

or just subsidise in full the cost of other fuels or other sources of energy, a few tree huggers in the EU want to protect the bogs so maybe they should pay for it

Uriel. wrote: »

That would soften the cough.

and make people there even more determined to cut the turf.

Uriel. wrote: »

There really are no excuses anymore.

yes their is, turf is extremely cheep and is a vital source of fuel for these people who's incomes probably aren't as good as the people who are so obsessed about protecting bogs they will never visit.

Uriel. wrote: »

It's been going on long enough now.

well thats how it has to be

B0jangles

Ah yes, the old "He's MY child and I'll beat him if I want to" defence.

Ownership, like guardianship comes with responsibilities, not just rights.

OpenYourEyes

end of the road wrote: »

whatever amount you get in a load of turf should be doubled to make sure that they definitely have enough for the year, people want the bogs protected so have to pay for the privilege

it is an excuse, they need fuel as cheeply as possible and if this means cutting the bogs thats how it has to be, the compensation is to little, the amount should be trippled or more to subsidise the loss of access to this vital source of cheep fuel, all the other fuels are expensive unless you have access to timber but even then their are restrictions in relation to cutting trees.

Thats complete bull - you don't even know how much is on offer - it could be ten times whats needed for all you know - they shouldn't be allowed hold the country to ransom If a bucket of turf or 500euro was on offer originally and they eventually agreed to a truckload of turf or 1500euro (i.e. whats on offer now) the illegal turfcutters would be more than happy! Pure greed on behalf of some people!

This doesn't necessarily mean cutting bogs! Remember the compensation package you have no clue about?!? And turfcutting is still allowed under one of the compensation packages! And no it shouldnt be tripled - it should be enough to make sure nobody is stuck for fuel each winter- and thats what it is, if not more than that! One turfcutter said on Pat Kenny last week that most people cut 400-500euros worth of turf every year -they're offerred 1500euro a year - no brainer, nobodies being hard done by!

your argument that these people should be as greedy as possible helps nobody!

OpenYourEyes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.
2: Any such laws should come from the Irish government. I object to local matters being dictated to us by the EU which was supposed to be about economics and not politics.

Irish government helped come up with the Habitats Directive and signed it into law - this did come from the Irish government, not dictated by EU!

Biodiversity contributes well over 3.4 billion euros to the Irish economy every year - so this is about economics!

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.

No, you won't. Try building a house without planning permission, see where that gets you.

Dostoevsky

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.
2: Any such laws should come from the Irish government. I object to local matters being dictated to us by the EU which was supposed to be about economics and not politics.

"Dictated" indeed. You really need to stop reading/listening to Europhobic soundbites from the British media. At any rate, if your proposed stupidity were to be embraced, there goes most of the environmentally and socially progressive legislation in the Irish state since 1973.

Without EU policy this state would still be a backward anglocentric post colonial state where every piece of legislation aped British legislation and there was no higher aspiration for the Irish people. No recycling, no cycle paths, no human rights watchdogs or courts, and so on ad infinitum.

M three

B0jangles wrote: »

Ah yes, the old "He's MY child and I'll beat him if I want to" defence.

Ownership, like guardianship comes with responsibilities, not just rights.

So you're now equating cutting turf with child abuse???

Are you that woman off the simpsons?
You know the one who shrieks "will someone please think of the children?"

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.

And f*ck future generations? Time was when landowners had a sense of stewardship for their kids and the next generation. But hey, f*ck them and f*uck us right?

2: Any such laws should come from the Irish government. I object to local matters being dictated to us by the EU which was supposed to be about economics and not politics.

Best scrap the farm payments then so, pesky EU.

You do know that EU Directives are then transposed into Irish law I take it? I bet you couldn't even be bothered to vote in the European elections though.

And local matter? Try a global environmental matter affecting everyone on the planet.

MadsL

M three wrote: »

So you're now equating cutting turf with child abuse???

Whooooshhh!

The sound of that analogy going straight over your head.

bodice ripper

its like poachers, except poaching the whole habitat rather than just one animal or species. taze those eejits.

M three

MadsL wrote: »

Whooooshhh!

The sound of that analogy going straight over your head.

Mr anti turfcutting himself and his thanks chums wades in again.

You probably believe that hoards of Indonesian children are secretly flown in every year to cut turf.
Sorry to disappoint you but they're not. They're busy as it is making clothes for you and me in sweat shops.
No doubt you protest outside penneys day and night?

But you're mister sustainable right? You're getting a solar panel. No doubt manufactured just next door to you. And not carted from germany, or maybe it's one of those cheap chinese ones. Both of which do wonders for the environment. Btw ever tried to recycle a solar panel? Not long now before theres a tax on older, inefficient, solar panels. And a levy for disposing of same.

Tone down the hysteria, otherwise this is just another city v rural sh*t slinging fest.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Rad! wrote: »

A lot if people need to realise that bogs which have been economically exhausted are still capable of being beautiful, diverse natural ecosystems.

Yes the ecosystem won't be as extensive, but that's just where the balance between environmental and local interests us struck.

I live beside a 'spent' bog... Gorgeous place.

I disagree. Go for a walk in Lough Boora Parklands. Its a lot more interesting than a wild bog
http://www.loughbooraparklands.com/

OpenYourEyes

Aaliyah Rough Footlocker wrote: »

I disagree. Go for a walk in Lough Boora Parklands. Its a lot more interesting than a wild bog
http://www.loughbooraparklands.com/

Not as functional and requires more management and a bigger investment of resources than just not cutting a bog though - and its a different ecosystem, although it has many bog like qualities.

Lough Boora is a great example of what can be done to make the best out of a bad situation (i.e. the wasteland left by cutaway bogs). A similar idea has been floated for the banks of the Shannon near where I live in Roscommon - hope it goes though!

goose2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: My land, my turf. I'll do what I want with it.

That's not how land ownership works.

2: Any such laws should come from the Irish government. I object to local matters being dictated to us by the EU which was supposed to be about economics and not politics.

??? The EU is an economic, cultural and political union. Not a hand-money-to-landowners-for-no-reason club.

end of the road wrote: »

wrong and delusianel, take away any money they get and they will have to cut even more turf to stay a float

And shure if you take heroin off the dealers they'll have to sell even more heroin.

Uriel.

M three wrote: »

Mr anti turfcutting himself and his thanks chums wades in again.

You probably believe that hoards of Indonesian children are secretly flown in every year to cut turf.
Sorry to disappoint you but they're not. They're busy as it is making clothes for you and me in sweat shops.
No doubt you protest outside penneys day and night?

But you're mister sustainable right? You're getting a solar panel. No doubt manufactured just next door to you. And not carted from germany, or maybe it's one of those cheap chinese ones. Both of which do wonders for the environment. Btw ever tried to recycle a solar panel? Not long now before theres a tax on older, inefficient, solar panels. And a levy for disposing of same.

Tone down the hysteria, otherwise this is just another city v rural sh*t slinging fest.

You do realise that the Habitats Directive is not about sustainability or the more general/broader environmental principles, right?

It is about the protection and conservation of rare and endangered habitats and species, of which ACTIVE raised bog is one (and considered a priority Habitat under the Directive as well).

Of course, there are also a multitude of other benefits that come with preservation of bogs generally - intact carbon sinks, reduced carbon emissions , flood attenuation etc...

mikom

Hope this rain clears up shortly............ I've 20 hoppers to foot.

Uriel.

end of the road wrote: »

or just subsidise in full the cost of other fuels or other sources of energy, a few tree huggers in the EU want to protect the bogs so maybe they should pay for it

"They" do.

It's so funny how people remain tight lipped when EU money flows in, and are so vocal when the EU request something in return.

yes their is, turf is extremely cheep and is a vital source of fuel for these people who's incomes probably aren't as good as the people who are so obsessed about protecting bogs they will never visit.

Are you suggesting we destroy or encourage the destruction of the Egyptian pyramids? Niagra Falls? The Polar Caps? The Rainforests of the Amazon? just because "we" may never visit them?

Sofiztikated

When did we become so fúcking selfish and self serving?

end of the road

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

they shouldn't be allowed hold the country to ransom

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, sweet suffering jesus, holding the country to ransom, over a bog, one couldn't make it up, its a bog, its doubtful you will ever visit any of the protected bogs, so nothing to get on your high horse about.

Sofiztikated

end of the road wrote: »

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, sweet suffering jesus, holding the country to ransom, over a bog, one couldn't make it up, its a bog, its doubtful you will ever visit any of the protected bogs, so nothing to get on your high horse about.

It's not about who doesn't fúcking visit them.

It's about the harm that the ones that do visit them every fúcking year, until they are empty, causing a fúckton of unrecoverable damage.

But hey, if you get cheap turf, in fact you even get paid to NOT cut the damn stuff, fúck everyone else, right?

OpenYourEyes

end of the road wrote: »

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, sweet suffering jesus, holding the country to ransom, over a bog, one couldn't make it up, its a bog, its doubtful you will ever visit any of the protected bogs, so nothing to get on your high horse about.

*sigh*, I'm dealing with a real intellectual here!

I think holding the country to ransom is perfectly acceptable language for the situation you proposed- just because the country can afford to pay them more doesn't mean they should, and if everyone demanded stupid amounts of money for every little thing the country would be bankrupt (again) in a week!

I will visit plenty, but obviously not all. And whether or not I visit them doesn't matter - they still provide several benefits to our air, water, biodiversity etc. whether I go visit them or not!

So I'm not on a high horse - you on the other hand appear to be on a piebald pony...sitting backwards...good luck with that!

MadsL

M three wrote: »

Mr anti turfcutting himself and his thanks chums wades in again.

You probably believe that hoards of Indonesian children are secretly flown in every year to cut turf.
Sorry to disappoint you but they're not. They're busy as it is making clothes for you and me in sweat shops.
No doubt you protest outside penneys day and night?

But you're mister sustainable right? You're getting a solar panel. No doubt manufactured just next door to you. And not carted from germany, or maybe it's one of those cheap chinese ones. Both of which do wonders for the environment. Btw ever tried to recycle a solar panel? Not long now before theres a tax on older, inefficient, solar panels. And a levy for disposing of same.

Tone down the hysteria, otherwise this is just another city v rural sh*t slinging fest.

You should take your own advice.

I do what I can as far as being less damaging to the environment, and that includes being aware of the issues you raise - but where I buy my clothes is pretty irrelevant to the issue of turfcutters wanting taxpayers to stump up €9m in fines so they can have a bit of turf. And expect the rest of us to turn a blind eye to the environmental damage.

Now you can scream all you want about how my latte is produced using the sweat of 100 ophaned war children force fed heavy metals who then **** mercury into the rainforest which then kills nursing female orangutans for all I care - it doesn't change this issue one little bit.

So, let me just note that the anti side here has produced links and facts backed up by sources, whereas the pro-side has slung everything including the Dublin Bus Nitelink into the soup of "oh, quick look over here and not at us".

You claim your fuel source is sustainable - please tell me by what measure of sustainable you arrrive at that conclusion?

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, sweet suffering jesus, holding the country to ransom, over a bog, one couldn't make it up, its a bog, its doubtful you will ever visit any of the protected bogs, so nothing to get on your high horse about.

OK, then. Here's a compromise. How about the turfcutters pay the fines then?

This works out at €9m/year over 128 protected bogs, or about €70k per year per bog. Let's do that for 5 years and see how f*cking fast the idiots who care so much about "tradition" get up out of the chair to get a modern heating system in.

mikom

All fines are being sent by western union to Gaia, the goddess of nature.