Support for protecting a measly 5% of an almost completely destroyed natural habitat is not fundamentalist in any way.

Support for protecting a habitat that would reduce rural flooding, improve water quality, improve biodiversity and add to Irelands ‘green’ tourist image is not nonsense.

The first two words in your sentence were correct but you went badly off track from there! ;)

More neo-religious green-wash Brian.

Supported by science FMan – and if you have the evidence to prove it all wrong, fire ahead!

Greenwashing would be us saying we’re protecting habitats like we should, but instead letting Ming and MF pick and choose the places we’re protecting, without giving any heed to the scientific evidence. Thats what they want – and that’s greenwashing!

@FMan – Brian’s dogmatic position as the sole holder of all correct scientific evidence on Eco matters means, that apparently it’s the job of all who oppose him to prove him and his ilk wrong first.

Paul – go google the term ‘ad hominem’ argument, and then realise that it’s obvious to everyone reading your comments (even those who are on your side) that that is all you’re capable of.

I’m not always right, but you have never responded to any of my facts or figures with your own facts or figures – you’ve just taken digs at me. I have well-supported arguments, you have namecalling and cheap digs at me for having well-supported arguments – good for you!

@Brian Burke – point taken, but of course you labelling me a conspiracy theorist on another article is not in any way an ad hominem attack! Yes I believe in good stewardship where our environment is concerned – however I oppose the radical ideological driven climate greenism which is not driven by science, but by the lust for social engineering across all strata of society. (Including the restriction on private property rights as in the habitats directive). By the way, you previously claimed that there is no religious connection to the Eco movement. I beg to differ – environmentalism is deeply rooted in Hinduism actually. Regards.

Paul I’m not going to address anything else other than your comments on restriction of “private property rights” and to do so I’m going to point you to the Irish constitution.

Fundamental rights are not absolute – they can be limited or restricted by the Oireachtas on the grounds, for example, of the common good or public order.

and
The Constitution declares that the State will vindicate the property rights of every citizen. This means that you have a right to own, transfer and inherit property. You also have the right to bequeath property upon your death. The State guarantees to pass no law to abolish these rights.

Article 43 acknowledges that these rights ought to be regulated by the principles of social justice. This means that the State may pass laws limiting your right to private property in the interests of the common good. If the state passes a law that restricts your property rights, it may be required to compensate you for this restriction.

Examples of restrictions or limitations on your right to own property include town and regional planning, protection of national monuments, compulsory acquisition of land and property taxes.

Now Paul, can you provide hard evidence to say that protection of habitats and species under the Habitats Directive, first transposed into Irish law into 1997, is not in the common good? You must also be aware that many of the affected turf cutters do not own their plots rather they have turbary rights? The Habitats and Birds Directives do not remove private property rights rather they require certain activities to be stopped, curtailed or undergo assessment for permission in line with our constitution. The greater good is best served by protection of habitats such as raised bogs.

@Irish Peatlands – thank you for educating me on the constitution and the ‘common good’.

However the Irish government has been working to make the Irish constitution subservient to the UN invoking social justice any any other Marxist term you wish to quote. The U.N. Conference on Human Settlements states:

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

I. E. Abolition of private property rights including the right to USE that property as the owner deems appropriate.

You’re welcome Paul although you seem to have still missed the bit about no rights being absolute as per our constitution, Indeed you haven’t actually addressed my question either, can you provide evidence that conserving our biodiversity is not for the common good of all Irish citizens?

@Irish Peatlands – my position is as follows seeing you asked or at least implied that… Conserving habitats is certainly fine… As long as it does not impinge on another person’s private property rights. If you, government or any person are behind a move to restrict another person’s property or use thereof, regardless of what cause you invoke or law you create in the name of that cause, then that is in fact not a right in the true sense, but rather a claim on another person’s life, as property in essence represents the fruit of someone else’s labour – and a person’s labour is finite in this life.

@ Paul Creedon. So what you are saying is a person can do whatever they want with their land. Would it be OK for a person to pour slurry into a river flowing through that person’s land? Level any native hedgerows on the land? Basically do what ever you want?

@Feargal – No Feargal, that’s what you are saying in your question. Common sense should tell you that if a person did that, they are impinging on another’s property rights through which that river is flowing. Also, the other commenters keep invoking the so called ‘common good’ – by which they mean ‘the common good’ as they the invokers see it should be, and all others have to give up their rights and give way to their claims for this so called ‘common good’.

The common good is preventing the extermination of species like red grouse, curlew. Although you seem to fail to see that. Sure tis’ alright a handy profit by the turf contractors was made (tax free).

Feargal – go open an avery so! The common good according to you leftists always consists of restricting the liberties of others and stealing their wealth through devices such as the carbon tax – a scam if ever their was one.

@ Paul Creedon. The old people used to have a great respect for nature. They used to love to hear the call of the male corncrake at night or the call of Red Grouse up on the heather. The illegal turfcutters like fitzmaurice/Minger/Lavin and their followers like yourself have no respect for wildlife. To them the bogs are there to be destroyed for profit and if much treasured wildlife is destroyed then so be it. People have lost touch with the land.

@Feargal – if you look at some of my previous comments, you should clearly see that I am not against conserving anything. However I am in favour of the use of ones own private property which has been done for generations on this land. The ownership and use of private property is the foundation stone of a free society (as opposed to a feudal one) and any attack on that, such as what is coming now from the UN through habitats directive and so forth – is a direct assault on our liberties, hidden behind the green mask. As far as profit is concerned, what about all the tonnes of turf exported annually to holland by bord na mona? I don’t hear you whining about that!

Bord na Móna are as greedy as Fitzmaurice/Flanagan/Lavin, but at least they are NOT cutting on any of the SAC’s. You couldn’t care less about conservation. Illegal Turfcutting is a major cause of the decline of the species I mentioned, but if they come in the way of profit feck them you say.

I also think we should keep our nonrenewable resources for future generations.

Mind you, that’s “keep” in the peculiar sense of “not destroy” that we use up here in The Pale.

Keep for what exactly? Future generations will laugh at us for not utilising a natural resource at a time when the country is on its knees, oil/gas prices through the roof, windturbines that require fossil fuel stations to back them up and our electricity coming from the same! Yet a person wants to cut their own turf and it’s an abomination. Please don’t pontificate while you use imported fossil fuel to heat your home. Your electricity also comes in part from peat fired stations! One acre of bog lasts 300 years when used as fuel source for a family. Maybe if our sham of a government treated the people who own these bogs with a bit of respect and not try to steal and bully them off their bogs, we wouldn’t be even be here. We are. The thick boggers stood up and said no! Pity the people in charge of this fiasco didn’t listen to Luke and Fitz….if they did most of those bogs would be sorted! But then again I’m sure you’re an expert on the whole thing.

The only people disrespecting individual turfcutters are the contractors (and relatives of contractors) who are pretending that this is an issue negatively impacting on poor familes and rural people, when in fact they’re using them as a screen to hide the fact that they are only concerned with the money they rake in every year. That fact is the only thing that convinces me that MF is well suited to a life of greed and politics, though it would be to the detriment of the constituency if he did get in.

And let’s not forget that a) it affects 5% of bogs, b) compensation in the form of another bog, annual turf deliveries, and money are all available, and c) a lot of those affected are cutting on bogs that they don’t own.

@Martina Lavin – best comment on this article.

Brian Burke, the journal’s green police monitoring all comments that oppose all green propaganda across all articles.

Keep for what exactly? Trying to protect endangered species like Red Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover. But to you our natural heritage is worthless. Better to destroy the last of the raised bogs for profit, like what your brother/father do with their Turf Contracting Business. The fact that only 2% of Raised Bog is supposed to be protected does not matter to your kind. Ye want all of it destroyed.

More like the Logic Police Paul ;)

Martina – for starters a mere 5% of all peatlands are designated protected habitat; 95% can be harvested commercially or domestically. Secondly I can only assume that you refer to Rambo Burke giving exploration licenses out during the early 1990′s for free; no-one in their right mind supports that decision from one of the most discredited politicians Ireland has ever produced.

The extraction of turf from commercial bogs using mechanical equipment will destroy these habitats for the gain of a few local contractors who know they are breaking the law and costing the country significant sums in EU fines. Those fines have an opportunity cost which is the ability of government to invest money in rural regeneration; the absence of which is exactly why less homes need heating because they are emigrating or moving to Irish cities.

Please consider the fact that 95% of turf can be removed and that no-one has a problem with it; it is merely the 5% that act as important habitats that requires protection, sadly from contractors quite happy to see rural regeneration funds diverted to the EU in the form of entirely avoidable fines. .

Lavin’s comment is the usual propaganda from the Turf Cutting Contractors.

@Martina, I’d like to pass on the country and its genetic inheritance to the next generation in roughly the same or maybe even better condition than I got it as a child.

You want to burn the lot.

I’m glad that there are more people on my side of this debate than there are on yours.

Ah Paul, I’m used to it, there’s only a small handful of those type and they spend all day roaming the internet around looking for an argument, can’t see beyond they’re own arrogant ignorant noses when it comes to the issue. Water off a ducks back at this stage and they’re opinions are just that, opinions. Flies on a certain excrement comes to mind! :)

Never any actual evidence or a real argument. Why are you so entrenched in your determination to keep your head in the sand? Why do not give a damn about the common good? What about the wider community who will impacted by the ongoing damage of these bogs through water pollution, flooding, biodiversity loss, loss of archaeological and historical records and so much more. Are you so selfish and blind that you truly cannot see that one of the reasons Roscommon has such serious issues with water pollution is due to wetland drainage and peat run-off. Very sad that you think you are representing some sort of majority when in truth you are betraying the interests of the Irish people of today and tomorrow for the short term greed that has brought this country to its knees in recent times. Wake up please, without biodiversity, without ecosystems there will be no future generations. These ecosystems are part of what supports keeping humanity fed and watered.

That’s all well and good but the fact remains the bog owners in question are been told to hand over 100% of their bogs. It might be a small % of the total bogs in Ireland but expecting someone to hand over 100% of their property is a different matter. 49 replacement bogs were found by TCCA so the problem we have now wouldn’t arise, nothing was done by those in charge of this fiasco, so here we are still trying to find a solution. People who were willing to take compensation have found themselves with one or two payments and nothing since. Replacement bogs promised have also not been found. You really expect these people to trust the government and those in charge to look after their best interests?? Easy to say hand it over when it doesn’t affect you personally.

Martina, people are not being asked to hand over their bogs. This is a typical example of the scaremongering perpetuated by Michael Fitzmaurice and the TCCA. The 49 extra bogs that were identified by whom? How were they assessed as of scientific interest? People have been willing and have accepted compensation, unfortunately we never hear from those people as we only from the loud minority who will never engage because they’re short term thinkers who can’t see how they will personally gain from habitat protection. Sad reality is that the turf contractors are driving this, they aren’t eligible for compo and aren’t happy about it. It is all about money and short term gains rather than any tradition or love of heritage.

Tell me something Martina, what exactly did the turf contractors association do for their supporters during the 10 + years derogation they sought and received in the late nineties. They were given the derogation to allow them time to phase out cutting and look into alternatives. What did Michael Fitzmaurice and Flanagan do to seek alternatives and help people transition during that period? I tell you what they did, nada, nothing. They’re the ones who have let their supporters down. The government gave a derogation, illegally, to give them more time to adjust and they did absolutely nothing and now they’re expecting the government and the rest of us to pay for and sort out a mess overnight. At least have the honesty to face the fact that it is your own representatives that have messed this up the most.

@Robin – Quote “….more people on my side of the debate than yours…” – I suppose that would explain all the thumbs down you’ve gotten!

@Kerry – Dominic is commenting on an article he read 3 months ago!

Why is that a stupid comment? I absolutely reckon Ming will run for the Dail and let his sub fill his MEP seat. You know there’s no by-elections for the European Parliament, right? If you leave, you get to pick your replacement. Same as what happened with Joe Higgins and Paul Murphy.

Spot on, Firas.