Commonage/hill farmers issues thread, GLAS, GAEC, etc etc

rangler1

supersean1999 wrote: »

.
Does the hill rep have a vote at national level????. You mention 500 ewes id imagine you would be expecting to sell 1.5 lambs a ewe. Thats 750 lambs. And did you say you get e40 a lamb in sfp.Thats serious money.

Serious work too at the moment, look up the net margins on sheep production on teagasc and see if you'd bother doing it.

I think the only vote I saw while I was on Nat Exec was for National treasurer.....if that's important to you, I don't think a new farm organisation will be much help

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

look up the net margins on sheep production on teagasc and see if you'd bother doing it.

That's not the row I remember you having with Prof Michael Diskin at a sheep event in Athenry, was it in 13, a very hot June day? If I remember right you were telling him his top figures were too low.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

That's not the row I remember you having with Prof Michael Diskin at a sheep event in Athenry, was it in 13, a very hot June day? If I remember right you were telling him his top figures were too low.

doubt it was me

Connemara Farmer

supersean1999 wrote: »

.
Does the hill rep have a vote at national level????.

No official position, the Hill Committee is actually just a "working group", it's not a proper committee at all.

The Hill Chairman gets an invitation to NC but has no vote or importance. When I was sec of the Connemara branch we put forward a motion through the county to give the Hill Committee formal status like any other committee.

That was the last I heard of that.

It was also asked of John Bryan, and Eddie Downey (when he was deppidy president) at the Hill Farming Forum in Tuam in 2013.

So ye can see the importance of hill farmers within IFA, plenty of lip service, and little else.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

doubt it was me

It was you, we hadn't met at that stage but I knew your face from the IGA walk photo. Your good wife was in attendance with you that day. You had a good look at an alstrong (?) aerator.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

No official position, the Hill Committee is actually just a "working group", it's not a proper committee at all.

The Hill Chairman gets an invitation to NC but has no vote or importance. When I was sec of the Connemara branch we put forward a motion through the county to give the Hill Committee formal status like any other committee.

That was the last I heard of that.

It was also asked of John Bryan, and Eddie Downey (when he was deppidy president) at the Hill Farming Forum in Tuam in 2013.

So ye can see the importance of hill farmers within IFA, plenty of lip service, and little else.

Livestock only have one vote covering maybe 80000 farmers, You resolution came into the last meeting alright, but a lot more than that wasn't dealt with, if you read agriland at the time, there was a lot of hassle and everyone was glad to get out....keep on to pat dunne, thankfully I'm finished with it

supersean1999

rangler1 wrote: »

Serious work too at the moment, look up the net margins on sheep production on teagasc and see if you'd bother doing it.

I think the only vote I saw while I was on Nat Exec was for National treasurer.....if that's important to you, I don't think a new farm organisation will be much help

I dont doubt it. Id love to have a 1000 ewes. Its all about setup. There is lads with land all over the place and there flat put with 100-200 ewes. And another with all his land in one block and better setup can manage 5 times that . Its the calm before the storm here.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

It was you, we hadn't met at that stage but I knew your face from the IGA walk photo. Your good wife was in attendance with you that day. You had a good look at an alstrong (?) aerator.

Found it, this is the board from the day,
I queried how it was possible to have a lambing percentage of 1.26 and a gross margin that worked out €90 per lamb...we'd all be in sheep if that was the case.
The lambs on that board would have to average near €130.
It obviously should've been a lambing percentage of probably 1.76 which would've equated to a price of €91/lamb

Capture.JPG

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

thankfully I'm finished with it

I am out of it also.

Capercaillie

rangler1 wrote: »

....and your supporting a group taking SFP from productive farmers
Each to their own I suppose

400 million euro which was given by EU to DAFM has gone missing. It was earmarked for Natura 2000 farmers. DAFM/IFA will not say where it went? IFDL and most conservation groups strongly believe it was diverted to so called more productive intensive farmers.

rangler1

Capercaillie wrote: »

400 million euro which was given by EU to DAFM has gone missing. It was earmarked for Natura 2000 farmers. DAFM/IFA will not say where it went? IFDL and most conservation groups strongly believe it was diverted to so called more productive intensive farmers.

I'd imagine Ireland is well enough audited by EU to not allow funds go to schemes it wasn't applied for.
It's a wonder the indo/agriland isn't on to it if it's not more pub talk

Capercaillie

rangler1 wrote: »

I'd imagine Ireland is well enough audited by EU to not allow funds go to schemes it wasn't applied for.
It's a wonder the indo/agriland isn't on to it if it's not more pub talk

Not audited enough, that Coveney refuses to say where funds went.

rangler1

Capercaillie wrote: »

Not audited enough, that Coveney refuses to say where funds went.

I wish I got some of it, there was feck all available for intensive farmers for the last five years apart from SFP, which is covered by pillar1. Got no REPs and €2per ewe for the last few years so it wasn't me that got it

Capercaillie

rangler1 wrote: »

, feck all available for intensive farmers for the last five years apart from SFP, which is covered by pillar1.

Your SFP.

Connemara Farmer

€528m was allocated, €93m spent.

The Department say that farmers in Natura areas "didn't want the money". Horse****.

The problem is farmers in Natura areas got screwed when the land was designated. Because, a designated land scheme/payment wasn't got. Instead an Environmental scheme was got.

The trouble with that is, if you have a designated land scheme, and a budget for it of €528m then that money could only be spent in a Natura area.

But, when it's allocated to and environmental scheme, it can be spent anywhere, and as we see caps etc can be imposed to limit the amount of money farmers in those Natura areas can draw down.

Essentially, by hook or by crook, the money was diverted by small print and spin.

While the designations and restrictions remain to this day.

djmc

rangler1 wrote: »

I'd imagine Ireland is well enough audited by EU to not allow funds go to schemes it wasn't applied for.
It's a wonder the indo/agriland isn't on to it if it's not more pub talk


http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/taisce-challenges-reallocation-e400m-cap-funds/
The IFA never said a word about the injustice being put on farmers with degesnated land until they set up ifdl and went to Europe themselves and highlighted the issues to the press and public.

Farmer Pudsey

The issue with SFP is that at present it is unfair that farmers coming into to farming have no access to it. By 2020 the reference period will be 18-20 years previous. Those with high payments will have had 15 years to restructure there farms. It is always very well to talk about buying SFP but with decent levels of payment costing 2-3 times there face value and if you have lowe value payments there worth in general was once time value.

So a lad with 100/HA could sell at 100 euro but it would cost him 1000-1200 to buy 400 euro value entitlements. therefore to rise his entitlement by 300/HA would cost him 3-4 times the extra value. Most buying and selling was on naked land and was by lads buying small numbers of entitlements. If a lad wanted to buy 20 units @400/HA it would cost 20K at least and this was not tax deductable.

The issue with active farmers is a red herring I know as may part time lads with large payments as full time and as many full time with small payments as part time. The real issue is that it is unfair to expect that this system will continue beyond 2020 without a large restructuring of the system

Connemara Farmer

Land eligibility is the big issue at the moment. In my view, the legal route should be taken on this as if 5 people were grabbed off the street and had it explained to them from the time of premia on ewes to today, none of them would side with the Dept.

Less well off farmers are getting kicked about going up to €149, but if a large swathe of hectares are being made ineligible thanks to the Department running away from their responsibility of updating Commonage Framework Plans, then that increase will be very small for many.

I know there is already a fund being gathered for a legal challenge, I think more should be done to support this. I know I am fed up to the back teeth trying to deal with people who are just bare faced out to screw me.

I still predict, but won't be involved in, that there will be large, illegal, uncontrolled fires started out of fear. Remember the BPS is based on the eligible area declared in 13 or 15, which ever is lesser.

Fires are no good for the animals nor the environment, but people will be pushed into doing things like it. My fear is fire brigades will get tied up and may end up being far away from something serious like a car crash or house fire.

IF the Dept were to take on the correct interpretation of land eligibility, and allow farmers to manage that issue in the time frame of the Commonage Management Plans, while problems would still remain, real dangers to man and beast would be avoided.

The system, and inflexibility they are pushing is pure madness.

MIKEKC

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The issue with SFP is that at present it is unfair that farmers coming into to farming have no access to it. By 2020 the reference period will be 18-20 years previous. Those with high payments will have had 15 years to restructure there farms. It is always very well to talk about buying SFP but with decent levels of payment costing 2-3 times there face value and if you have lowe value payments there worth in general was once time value.

So a lad with 100/HA could sell at 100 euro but it would cost him 1000-1200 to buy 400 euro value entitlements. therefore to rise his entitlement by 300/HA would cost him 3-4 times the extra value. Most buying and selling was on naked land and was by lads buying small numbers of entitlements. If a lad wanted to buy 20 units @400/HA it would cost 20K at least and this was not tax deductable.

The issue with active farmers is a red herring I know as may part time lads with large payments as full time and as many full time with small payments as part time. The real issue is that it is unfair to expect that this system will continue beyond 2020 without a large restructuring of the system

The reason there are so many low value entitlements is that the fathers of the young people entering now failed to grasp the opportunity to build up payments. We had sheep subsidy, 12 month,22 month, slaughter premium, extensification. People didn't take the opportunity

ihatewinter

A new farmer shouldn't have to suffer from what the previous generation did on the farm. They maybe inherited from an old relative who dodged along with 50 ewes/5 suckler cows on about 40 hectares who was not interested in premiums or subsidies.

So you're basically saying, it's my old fault that I have no proper subsidy. I inherited land in 2013 with nothing attached to the land. No DAS, SFP, environmental scheme, grassland scheme, NOTHING. I should have as much right to payments as any other farmer. I'm actively farming with good sheep numbers, ability to stock commonages,open to environmental schemes.

I had to fight to get the DAS this year as I wasn't on any system with the department of ag, only when I threatened them was it allocated to me, so I owe the department nothing.

Another thing about National Reserve/YFS is to get oul farmers to start signing over responsibility of the farm to younger people. Many are working for pittance, hoping in vain with the top up, that their father will allow them to farm in conjunction with them. In my area, there are many people in their 20's farming all weekend with their parents after doing a full week's work hoping to get it someday. I'm in the minority, 25 and female with full ownership of land. If it helps the likes of me to become established and productive, then it is not a waste.

rangler1

Capercaillie wrote: »

Your SFP.

That €400m would have had nothing to do with SFP

rangler1

djmc wrote: »

rangler1 wrote: »

I'd imagine Ireland is well enough audited by EU to not allow funds go to schemes it wasn't applied for.
It's a wonder the indo/agriland isn't on to it if it's not more pub talk


http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/taisce-challenges-reallocation-e400m-cap-funds/
The IFA never said a word about the injustice being put on farmers with degesnated land until they set up ifdl and went to Europe themselves and highlighted the issues to the press and public.

There's a press release from 2010, wonder how many farmers affected 'made it an election issue''
A lot of good guys put a lot of effort into it, just shows where the support was in 2010
http://www.ifa.ie/news-article-4134/#.VPOb8E1yaM8

rangler1

MIKEKC wrote: »

The reason there are so many low value entitlements is that the fathers of the young people entering now failed to grasp the opportunity to build up payments. We had sheep subsidy, 12 month,22 month, slaughter premium, extensification. People didn't take the opportunity

Unfortunately that little fact is going to cost us now

Farmer Pudsey

rangler1 wrote: »

Unfortunately that little fact is going to cost us now

How do you make that out.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

djmc wrote: »

There's a press release from 2010, wonder how many farmers affected 'made it an election issue''
A lot of good guys put a lot of effort into it, just shows where the support was in 2010
http://www.ifa.ie/news-article-4134/#.VPOb8E1yaM8

That's good looking turf.

Birdnuts

rangler1 wrote: »

djmc wrote: »

There's a press release from 2010, wonder how many farmers affected 'made it an election issue''
A lot of good guys put a lot of effort into it, just shows where the support was in 2010
http://www.ifa.ie/news-article-4134/#.VPOb8E1yaM8

From that link

" said that it is unacceptable that the livelihoods of up to 20,000 farmers and landowners are being affected without having proper recourse to fair procedures for appeals and compensation."

But nearly 500 million euros was provided in compensation by the EU. The matter at hand is what happened to 400m of it??

rangler1

Birdnuts wrote: »

rangler1 wrote: »

From that link

" said that it is unacceptable that the livelihoods of up to 20,000 farmers and landowners are being affected without having proper recourse to fair procedures for appeals and compensation."

But nearly 500 million euros was provided in compensation by the EU. The matter at hand is what happened to 400m of it??

It seems you're referring to the RDP, all those schemes in the last 10 years (aeos and reps) were passed by the EU same as we're waiting for GLAS to be now....It's a bit late to be changing their minds now, if there was something wrong with the schemes, EU should have reviewed it then. The Dept. and indeed IFA were working to the guidelines and rules and regulations laid down by the EU then.

djmc

Maybe its time the department or EU were taken to court on this issue as its no better than what oliver Cromwell did in Ireland stealing people's land and livelihoods
I don't expect the IFA will take on that challenge though as they just seem to be another wing of the department of agriculture and Larry Goodman.

rangler1

djmc wrote: »

Maybe its time the department or EU were taken to court on this issue as its no better than what oliver Cromwell did in Ireland stealing people's land and livelihoods
I don't expect the IFA will take on that challenge though as they just seem to be another wing of the department of agriculture and Larry Goodman.

As far as I can see at the present beef/lamb/grain price, the EU is keeping unviable farmers in business at the moment.
Nothing wrong with working with Dept of Agriculture, a lot of farmers have benefited from the relationship the development officers around the country have with department in sorting cross compliance issues, same with other departments, finance, environment,etc It's one area that I see that negotiation works and they see us not just rising problems but providing solutions as well.
You can't be always throwing the toys out of the pram just cos you don't get your own way you know.
As soon as you start legal challenges, the whole thing could be locked up for years., only fools go to court

djmc

I don't have lamb beef or grain I'm a dairy farmer that can't farm the land I have due to restrictions, can't sell it because its worthless due to restrictions, can't plant forestry like a lot of farmers around here did but now can't due to restrictions.
When you are backed into a corner and your representatives turn a blind eye to it then it eventually gets to the stage when you have to throw the toys out of the pram and come out fighting
My land has already been locked up for years since 2007 when the degesnation was put in place

patjack

There is a big difference between being not being productive and not being allowed to be productive. The dept of Ag pursued a policy of cutting income to farmers farming difficult conditions in difficult areas, didn't show them an ounce of respect. Wanted them to put up and shut up. The dept were helped by the IFA in this regard. I don't know but I really genuinely hope the IFA have been hit in the coffers for their lack of representation of hill farmers, commonage farmers and those farming land with environmental designations.
They made it very difficult, restricted their production through stocking limits and various other constraints, and did not compensate.
This led to a serious devaluation of land as DJMC rightly stated, it didn't even have forestry value.

Some people on here have their rose tinted IFA glasses on combined with a set of blinkers.

Ye have to realise that farming in these type of areas is a different kettle of fish to farming areas that don't have such restrictions. There is a serious lack of understanding here. But some people like to take the view, "ye are not as productive as I am, so ye don't deserve any more funds allocated to ye, they should be mine"

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

There is a big difference between being not being productive and not being allowed to be productive. The dept of Ag pursued a policy of cutting income to farmers farming difficult conditions in difficult areas, didn't show them an ounce of respect. Wanted them to put up and shut up. The dept were helped by the IFA in this regard. I don't know but I really genuinely hope the IFA have been hit in the coffers for their lack of representation of hill farmers, commonage farmers and those farming land with environmental designations.
They made it very difficult, restricted their production through stocking limits and various other constraints, and did not compensate.
This led to a serious devaluation of land as DJMC rightly stated, it didn't even have forestry value.

Some people on here have their rose tinted IFA glasses on combined with a set of blinkers.

Ye have to realise that farming in these type of areas is a different kettle of fish to farming areas that don't have such restrictions. There is a serious lack of understanding here. But some people like to take the view, "ye are not as productive as I am, so ye don't deserve any more funds allocated to ye, they should be mine"

And where were the hill farmers in all of this story, probably sitting back at branch meetings refusing to take rep jobs, don't be blaming the whole organisation for inactivity of one sector, it is expected that individual sectors drive on the issues in that sector....don't expect dairy farmers, sheep farmers, livestock farmers to do the work for yous.
In 2001 just 250 farmers kicked off an action that changed the guidelines of land aquisition for roads, maybe you lot could learn a lot from them on doing it for yourselves.....but it might take work:eek:

patjack

rangler1 wrote: »

And where were the hill farmers in all of this story, probably sitting back at branch meetings refusing to take rep jobs, don't be blaming the whole organisation for inactivity of one sector, it is expected that individual sectors drive on the issues in that sector....don't expect dairy farmers, sheep farmers, livestock farmers to do the work for yous.
In 2001 just 250 farmers kicked off an action that changed the guidelines of land aquisition for roads, maybe you lot could learn a lot from them on doing it for yourselves.....but it might take work:eek:

IFA hat on again Rangler, well I think it showed a lot of work and determination to separate from the IFA and pursue the issues by themselves and get a result.
Your "might take work" comment isn't very relevant, but rather a cheap generalisation which doesn't contribute much to the argument except to show your lack of regard and respect for your fellow farmers. Although you don't view us as that because we are not as productive as you we shouldn't be farming.
I also believe that the reps that were in place did highlight the plight of hill farmers and people farming with designations, I just believe they weren't listened to because as a collective we are a disparate group spread out sporadically throughout the country so it wasn't easy for voice to be heard.

I'll ask you one question Rangler, what would you do as a productive farmer, if a designation was slapped on your entire holding which meant you had to reduce production and therefore income and also meant your land was devalued and in some cases worthless?

This is the reality some people cannot actually sell their land because of the designations in place. I think you just have you heels dug in at this stage and you are not willing to accept that farmers with designations were badly and even wrongly treated.
If the entire IFA have the same attitude as you do then it's easy to see how Hill farmer reps might not have had their voice heard.

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

IFA hat on again Rangler, well I think it showed a lot of work and determination to separate from the IFA and pursue the issues by themselves and get a result.
Your "might take work" comment isn't very relevant, but rather a cheap generalisation which doesn't contribute much to the argument except to show your lack of regard and respect for your fellow farmers. Although you don't view us as that because we are not as productive as you we shouldn't be farming.
I also believe that the reps that were in place did highlight the plight of hill farmers and people farming with designations, I just believe they weren't listened to because as a collective we are a disparate group spread out sporadically throughout the country so it wasn't easy for voice to be heard.

I'll ask you one question Rangler, what would you do as a productive farmer, if a designation was slapped on your entire holding which meant you had to reduce production and therefore income and also meant your land was devalued and in some cases worthless?

This is the reality some people cannot actually sell their land because of the designations in place. I think you just have you heels dug in at this stage and you are not willing to accept that farmers with designations were badly and even wrongly treated.
If the entire IFA have the same attitude as you do then it's easy to see how Hill farmer reps might not have had their voice heard.

You're the guys who think that farmers in other sectors should do the work for you, blaming all around you, that is everyone but yourselves, responsibility for this lies mainly with the hill committee, look at the work henry burns puts in, and he publicly stated that responsibility for beef problems was his only and for people not to blaiming president, etc etc
How can a dairy farmer be worried about lamb price......plenty of sheep farmers out there if something has to be changed.
Commitees have any facilities, have anything they want available to them, all they need is initiative to use it.
It was me that led those 250 farmers, and at the start it wasn't with the blessing of farm centre

On productivity, while you think my SFP income is fair game, I'll play the productivity card in defence, because I believe that we're giving good value to the country in terms of raw material for one of our major industries

Connemara Farmer

I'm not buying into your argument rangler.

You've consistently said things like farmers drive the issues etc. That you didn't have blessing of farm centre in the roads thing etc.

Then, you say things like INHFA won't work, only fools go to court, why? That IS farmers driving issues, that IS farmers taking the risk.

Other organisations have failed certain sectors. Perhaps not yours, but certainly mine. That is why farmers just simply aren't bothering with those organisations any more.

One organisation in particular claims to speak for X numbers of farmers, but call a spade a spade, most join for the insurance via direct debit, which is whipped out of their account each year at which point they go, ara sure may as well stick with it cos I have the tractor insured.

If you actually realised what's involved here, what I have had to do in the past ten days because of GLAS, what will be done on land I own due to negligence by the Department of Agriculture which I will have to pay for. You do not want to be in my situation as a farmer.

Open invite to you, come down and I'll show you.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I'm not buying into your argument rangler.

You've consistently said things like farmers drive the issues etc. That you didn't have blessing of farm centre in the roads thing etc.

Then, you say things like INHFA won't work, only fools go to court, why? That IS farmers driving issues, that IS farmers taking the risk.

Other organisations have failed certain sectors. Perhaps not yours, but certainly mine. That is why farmers just simply aren't bothering with those organisations any more.

One organisation in particular claims to speak for X numbers of farmers, but call a spade a spade, most join for the insurance via direct debit, which is whipped out of their account each year at which point they go, ara sure may as well stick with it cos I have the tractor insured.

If you actually realised what's involved here, what I have had to do in the past ten days because of GLAS, what will be done on land I own due to negligence by the Department of Agriculture which I will have to pay for. You do not want to be in my situation as a farmer.

Open invite to you, come down and I'll show you.

Court cases take years.....plenty of law and no justice, etc etc.
I've always wished you luck with the new organisation, don't think I said it wouldn't work, human nature will leave the work to a few, if that's not the case you'll probably work.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Court cases take years.....plenty of law and no justice, etc etc.
I've always wished you luck with the new organisation, don't think I said it wouldn't work, human nature will leave the work to a few, if that's not the case you'll probably work.

They do indeed take years, however my own personal opinion is that the legal route is the one to take. Court is a funny place, and don't be thinking it's my first option, often time a lot of cases are settled on the steps before anyone enters the room. I've seen it happen where Govt's caved in on the threat of a case. I've had personal experience of sending a letter to the Dept a long time ago, and that worked when nothing else did.

It comes down to one thing, are the conditions farmers were forced into now their responsibility to pay for?

Because I sure as hell didn't voluntarily destock myself 30% of my flock, then have my business frozen in time of my own free will. Nor did I let my commonage become undergrazed because I didn't want to stock it, nor did I let another commonage get over grazed by grazing it - all because I was not allowed to have stock, I wasn't allowed to farm properly. I had conditions imposed on me and my land by this state.

And I am godamned sure I am not willingly going to end up paying for that situation.

patjack

rangler1 wrote: »

You're the guys who think that farmers in other sectors should do the work for you, blaming all around you, that is everyone but yourselves, responsibility for this lies mainly with the hill committee, look at the work henry burns puts in, and he publicly stated that responsibility for beef problems was his only and for people not to blaiming president, etc etc
How can a dairy farmer be worried about lamb price......plenty of sheep farmers out there if something has to be changed.
Commitees have any facilities, have anything they want available to them, all they need is initiative to use it.
It was me that led those 250 farmers, and at the start it wasn't with the blessing of farm centre

On productivity, while you think my SFP income is fair game, I'll play the productivity card in defence, because I believe that we're giving good value to the country in terms of raw material for one of our major industries

You've a lot of generalisations thrown in their again rangler, I or I don't think anyone on here has said that they want others to work for them, where you draw this inference from isn't very clear. There is blame to be apportioned here, we don't "blame everyone" around us, again a generalisation. It seems you make up the argument to suit yourself.

Any organisation is steered from the top, that's why they are at the top. What could the hill committee have done better or what did they not do in your opinion in this particular scenario? As far as I am aware the hill committee don't have a decision making role. They can only decide what they present and how they present it to those who have decision making roles, so absolving the top rung of the IFA from any responsibility for lack of representation doesn't hold true.

Where did I even mention SFP never mind yours or the fact you believe I am out to pick your pocket!!

Absolutely ridiculous statement, and again doesn't add anything to the argument except you will draw inference from any source whether relevant or irrelevant.

I for one don't want anyone else's SFP, all I want is that my land's value or my ability to do what I wish with my land is not negatively impacted by Dept of Ag decisions. And you seem to take umbrage with that fact.

I can understand that you want to protect your SFP, and I can assure you that I don't want it. But I hope you can understand that the main thing farmers like me want to be able to farm without restriction on our income or assets.

It looks like you've your back up over people coming for your SFP, i.e. your income. We are the same, so why do you feel you're income is more important to you than ours is to us.

Asides from our income our assets are seriously devalued which has an effect on our borrowing capabilities.

I agree Rangler farmers like you are good value in terms of raw material produced. But I am glad that the EU realise the role farmers play in farming and managing designated areas.
Like I've said Rangler, it's a different kettle of fish. It's not the same, it's not like with like.
I understand your predicament Rangler, but it seems you believe that your loss of SFP is more important than our loss of productivity and decline in income and land value.

They are both very different, valid perspectives, but I fail to see how you are trying to link our fight for basically an equal footing, as an attempt to steal your SFP

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

You've a lot of generalisations thrown in their again rangler, I or I don't think anyone on here has said that they want others to work for them, where you draw this inference from isn't very clear. There is blame to be apportioned here, we don't "blame everyone" around us, again a generalisation. It seems you make up the argument to suit yourself.

Any organisation is steered from the top, that's why they are at the top. What could the hill committee have done better or what did they not do in your opinion in this particular scenario? As far as I am aware the hill committee don't have a decision making role. They can only decide what they present and how they present it to those who have decision making roles, so absolving the top rung of the IFA from any responsibility for lack of representation doesn't hold true.

Where did I even mention SFP never mind yours or the fact you believe I am out to pick your pocket!!

Absolutely ridiculous statement, and again doesn't add anything to the argument except you will draw inference from any source whether relevant or irrelevant.

I for one don't want anyone else's SFP, all I want is that my land's value or my ability to do what I wish with my land is not negatively impacted by Dept of Ag decisions. And you seem to take umbrage with that fact.

I can understand that you want to protect your SFP, and I can assure you that I don't want it. But I hope you can understand that the main thing farmers like me want to be able to farm without restriction on our income or assets.

It looks like you've your back up over people coming for your SFP, i.e. your income. We are the same, so why do you feel you're income is more important to you than ours is to us.

Asides from our income our assets are seriously devalued which has an effect on our borrowing capabilities.

I agree Rangler farmers like you are good value in terms of raw material produced. But I am glad that the EU realise the role farmers play in farming and managing designated areas.
Like I've said Rangler, it's a different kettle of fish. It's not the same, it's not like with like.
I understand your predicament Rangler, but it seems you believe that your loss of SFP is more important than our loss of productivity and decline in income and land value.

They are both very different, valid perspectives, but I fail to see how you are trying to link our fight for basically an equal footing, as an attempt to steal your SFP

A lot of points, starting at the bottom, my SFP is more important than your issues TO ME, I've given up representing other farmers,
Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed. blaming others goes no where, Your big boys now, take responsibilty

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

why not push the same within the organisation

Ah now. You know that was done, for years, and no heed taken.

One example outside of the hills, the motion of no confidence put down against Coveney by the RDP committee. Where the chairman of that committee tore up the motion without consulting his own committee.

Farmer Pudsey

Rangler you continually like SFP to production. In reality production supports are illegal under WTO agreements. What they are now is income supports. The other reality is that the reference years are away in the past. you make the point that you cannot produce with out these supports. However the other reality is that the reference years exclude anyone fron entering farming. The point is also made about full time farmers needing it more however this excludes any younger farmers that has no paynment from going fulltime.

Comming up to 2020 the nest round of reorginisations will be totally different. First off smaller farmers will be orgainsed, they will not sit down and let themselves be side lined. As this round was being set up west of Ireland designated land holders and lads with smaller payments were told that pillar 2 was for them. But it is spread so thing and especiall lads that are on designated land have little or no hope of being compensated for there loss of production.

You not belittle a new organisation when it looks like it will be the main fulcrum for change coming up to 2020. You do not ask the question why they left IFA however we all know the answer, just like we know the answer to the IFA's ability to adress issue regarding beef and competition. This goes back to Stokholm syndrome most lads become too close to those around them and those they deal with and forget about those outside the circle.

Your big thing a few months ago was the new orgainstion was doomed to fail. Now you make the point about there ability to represent. In reality GLAS is still not approved by the EU. It may completely change by the time we get to the middle of the year. The SFp will change come 2020 by the way it is not your money it is EU taxpayers money.

patjack

See rangler there is point arguing with you because, look at what you have just said......
"Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed"

Are you oblivious to the fact, I am sure you are not, that it didn't work within the organisation, they left and it worked. Does that not tell you anything?
Yet you ask them to push the same from within!!!

Well I did ask you what the Hill Committee could have done better or what they didn't do, but you don't seem to be able to tell me.

You have also failed to answer how your reduction in SFP directly or indirectly relates to farmers like me seeking to either have designations lifted or compensation for designations.

I believe your SFP bears no relevance to the thread title or purpose. I do believe that you link to the IFA is relevant and your opinion on what the Hill Committee could have done better might be relevant if you'd care to answer.

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

See rangler there is point arguing with you because, look at what you have just said......
"Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed"

Are you oblivious to the fact, I am sure you are not, that it didn't work within the organisation, they left and it worked. Does that not tell you anything?
Yet you ask them to push the same from within!!!

Well I did ask you what the Hill Committee could have done better or what they didn't do, but you don't seem to be able to tell me.

You have also failed to answer how your reduction in SFP directly or indirectly relates to farmers like me seeking to either have designations lifted or compensation for designations.

I believe your SFP bears no relevance to the thread title or purpose. I do believe that you link to the IFA is relevant and your opinion on what the Hill Committee could have done better might be relevant if you'd care to answer.

What is achieved by the new organisation more than what coveney commited to us last july

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

See rangler there is point arguing with you because, look at what you have just said......
"Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed"

Are you oblivious to the fact, I am sure you are not, that it didn't work within the organisation, they left and it worked. Does that not tell you anything?
Yet you ask them to push the same from within!!!

Well I did ask you what the Hill Committee could have done better or what they didn't do, but you don't seem to be able to tell me.

You have also failed to answer how your reduction in SFP directly or indirectly relates to farmers like me seeking to either have designations lifted or compensation for designations.

I believe your SFP bears no relevance to the thread title or purpose. I do believe that you link to the IFA is relevant and your opinion on what the Hill Committee could have done better might be relevant if you'd care to answer.

You asked why I highlighted my productivity above yours as it seems to annoy you and I told you, economy gets good value out of my SFP in term of supplying one of our bigger industries

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

economy gets good value out of my SFP in term of supplying one of our bigger industries

Yet it is the EU, not Ireland, which pays that SFP.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Ah now. You know that was done, for years, and no heed taken.

One example outside of the hills, the motion of no confidence put down against Coveney by the RDP committee. Where the chairman of that committee tore up the motion without consulting his own committee.

It came before the Nat exec and was voted out, sheep committee offended joe walsh years ago and he never gave anything to sheep farmers after, we weren't going to do the same again. Always better to be at the table with them than outside the door.
You can spin every move that's made to support your argument,

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Yet it is the EU, not Ireland, which pays that SFP.

Even better value for the economy so, I could just as easy produce 100 lambs as 700 and still get the same SFP
I'd imagine that's why Coveney was so amenable to our proposals....

Farmer Pudsey

rangler1 wrote: »

You asked why I highlighted my productivity above yours as it seems to annoy you and I told you, economy gets good value out of my SFP in term of supplying one of our bigger industries

Tourism depends on the west of Ireland, it depends on farmers all along the west coast keeping a setting in place that benifits the economy. There land is often designated or limits put in place that reduces production. it is only your opinion that the economy gets good value from your SFP. it is questionable if lamb is as much benefit as you presume as most carcass's are exported whole with little processing. Lamb exports are worth only 200 million to the economy, tourism is worth 6 billion. On most promotional literiture for west of Ireland tourism there will be pictures of hill sheep.

rangler1 wrote: »

Even better value for the economy so, I could just as easy produce 100 lambs as 700 and still get the same SFP
I'd imagine that's why Coveney was so amenable to our proposals....

Yes but there is no limit put on your production there is on lots of commonages, natura, SAC and hen harrier land.

patjack

rangler1 wrote: »

You asked why I highlighted my productivity above yours as it seems to annoy you and I told you, economy gets good value out of my SFP in term of supplying one of our bigger industries

Doesn't annoy me at all, it puzzles me as I fail to see the relevance in the context of this thread. I have already stated that this thread has nothing to do with SFP, yet you keep arguing this point.

You also asked what have they achieved outside of the IFA that Coveney hadn't committed to, well to quote your earlier post:

"Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed. blaming others goes no where, Your big boys now, take responsibilty"

You have admitted that they are able to drive issues outside of the IFA and not within.

To be honest your attitude towards hill farmers if it is prevalent throughout the IFA organisation would be enough reason to leave.
Your condescending comments like "your big boys now, take responsibility" show your absolute abhorrence for hill farmers.

In your next attempt to validate your position on this please answer this (I feel like Vinny B dealing with a politician who simply won't answer a question).
What has your productivity or SFP got to do with farmers seeking an equal an footing on designated lands?

It's all very well coming on here lauding your productivity and SFP, and having a go at Hill Farmers because they are according to you out to take your SFP.

You're a great farmer with with great productivity, and a good SFP which from your commentary looks likely to be reduced. So you should pat yourself on the back, but I still feel that you have failed to make a valid argument that has relevance to the thread or it's purpose.

rangler1

patjack wrote: »

Doesn't annoy me at all, it puzzles me as I fail to see the relevance in the context of this thread. I have already stated that this thread has nothing to do with SFP, yet you keep arguing this point.

You also asked what have they achieved outside of the IFA that Coveney hadn't committed to, well to quote your earlier post:

"Hill farmers seem able to drive the issues outside of IFA, why not push the same within the organisation, all due respects I should know how forceful or not the issue was pushed. blaming others goes no where, Your big boys now, take responsibilty"

You have admitted that they are able to drive issues outside of the IFA and not within.

To be honest your attitude towards hill farmers if it is prevalent throughout the IFA organisation would be enough reason to leave.
Your condescending comments like "your big boys now, take responsibility" show your absolute abhorrence for hill farmers.

In your next attempt to validate your position on this please answer this (I feel like Vinny B dealing with a politician who simply won't answer a question).
What has your productivity or SFP got to do with farmers seeking an equal an footing on designated lands?

It's all very well coming on here lauding your productivity and SFP, and having a go at Hill Farmers because they are according to you out to take your SFP.

You're a great farmer with with great productivity, and a good SFP which from your commentary looks likely to be reduced. So you should pat yourself on the back, but I still feel that you have failed to make a valid argument that has relevance to the thread or it's purpose.

Isaid they were able to drive issues, never said they were able to deliver,
spinning again I see,,,,,,you're not a politician are you

As for this line
To be honest your attitude towards hill farmers if it is prevalent throughout the IFA organisation would be enough reason to leave.
Your condescending comments like "your big boys now, take responsibility" show your absolute abhorrence for hill farmers.

Exactly, take responsibility for yourselves, it's not a schoolyard out there.