Know I am asking this question as I am not sure of the answer (For now) as opposed to stirring things up.
After last week's bad snow storms, I note that Stormont is giving the farmers affected £5 million to help them out. Why?
We all had a good gripe when the banks got bailed out. What's different now?
Farmers' incomes, I'd guess, would be in the mid to top range of people in the country, and I know they work hard for it, but why do they get a bail out from the government? What makes them special?
Do you eat anything?
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 10:53:02 AM
Know I am asking this question as I am not sure of the answer (For now) as opposed to stirring things up.
After last week's bad snow storms, I note that Stormont is giving the farmers affected £5 million to help them out. Why?
We all had a good gripe when the banks got bailed out. What's different now?
Farmers' incomes, I'd guess, would be in the mid to top range of people in the country, and I know they work hard for it, but why do they get a bail out from the government? What makes them special?
Sure aren't the builders getting a bail out as they couldn't build in the snow?
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 10:53:02 AM
Know I am asking this question as I am not sure of the answer (For now) as opposed to stirring things up.
After last week's bad snow storms, I note that Stormont is giving the farmers affected £5 million to help them out. Why?
We all had a good gripe when the banks got bailed out. What's different now?
Farmers' incomes, I'd guess, would be in the mid to top range of people in the country, and I know they work hard for it, but why do they get a bail out from the government? What makes them special?
You must be joking.
When dividing out what they make by hours spent, it wouldn't be even minimum wage that they earn
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2013, 10:57:15 AM
Do you eat anything?
I do. I also use banks, but people objected to their bail out.
I guess its part of the whole subsidies which farmers get from both government and the EU. The idea behind this is that if farmers didnt get such support, then they would have to sell their animals, milk etc for a much higher fee to shops and supermarkets in order so they are not operating at a loss due to cost of animal feed, diesel, fertiliser etc-then its people like Norf who would be crying "those bloody farmers, look how much I am paying for a pint of milk, or a fillet of steak-they must be bloody loaded!"
If they weren't "bailed out" as Norf so elequently puts it, it wouldnt just be the farmer who is left out of pocket but, the ordinary man on the street who would have to pay a much higher price for their food!
Surely Norf Tyrone you aren't that naive not realise this given the nature of your locality??
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 10:53:02 AM
Farmers' incomes, I'd guess, would be in the mid to top range of people in the country, and I know they work hard for it, but why do they get a bail out from the government? What makes them special?
Conclusion made, data to follow.
I grew up on a farm and I don't know where this myth of wealthy farmers comes from, at least when it comes to places like Donegal. Sure, you have assets in the form of land and whatever buildings and machinery you put yourself in debt for, but the income is barely (and not always) sufficient to just keep your nose above the water.
A couple of things:
a. Relative quantum - £5m is less than the policing cost of the flag protest
b. Control - banks conducted reckless lending which drove property prices up and the inherent greed/ambition of those in control of the funds directly contributed to the financial mess. No wonder rolling heads are called for. The farmers, for all their percieved (and perhaps real) lack of preparation, could not control the weather and its impact, nor could they control the lack of resources in the public sector to get to their animals and help. It was a freak period of weather. I would tend to hold people accountable for things they could reasonably control, which in my mind doesn't fit the snow circumstances, so I'm happy enough with the support they are getting.
Quote from: Rois on April 10, 2013, 11:44:16 AM
A couple of things:
a. Relative quantum - £5m is less than the policing cost of the flag protest
b. Control - banks conducted reckless lending which drove property prices up and the inherent greed/ambition of those in control of the funds directly contributed to the financial mess. No wonder rolling heads are called for. The farmers, for all their percieved (and perhaps real) lack of preparation, could not control the weather and its impact, nor could they control the lack of resources in the public sector to get to their animals and help. It was a freak period of weather. I would tend to hold people accountable for things they could reasonably control, which in my mind doesn't fit the snow circumstances, so I'm happy enough with the support they are getting.
+1
Thats your answer there Guys, debate closed.
All that's fair enough. Just curious as much as anything, and perhaps a tad ignorant.
Would they not be insured for such events?
Given Ireland's weather, I can't imagine insuring a farming operation against it would be cheap, if even possible.
I believe insurance companies do not provide cover for instances of severe weather like snow as it is regarded as an act of God or something like that
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
Quote from: Bearly on loose on April 10, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
I agree, but can you imagine what the prices we pay for said foods would be like without government and EU subsidies if farmers put their prices up to operate without a loss?
There's also a general point to be made about subsidising farmers in terms of maintaining a critical mass of people in rural areas. Services like schools and hospitals become proportionately more expensive as people leave rural areas to move to urban areas where the work is, which means they're the first thing to get cut in bad times which leads to more people leaving rural areas and so on in a vicious downward spiral. Admittedly this isn't the primary reason for farm subsidies, but the sooner we get some joined-up thinking with respect to rural policy, the better.
They should be able to get insurance for the collapsed outbuildings and livestock. I have no doubt that the majority are decent folk, but there are a number of farmers who feel society owes them something when it comes to such events.
Quote from: bogball88 on April 10, 2013, 11:16:47 AM
I guess its part of the whole subsidies which farmers get from both government and the EU. The idea behind this is that if farmers didnt get such support, then they would have to sell their animals, milk etc for a much higher fee to shops and supermarkets in order so they are not operating at a loss due to cost of animal feed, diesel, fertiliser etc-then its people like Norf who would be crying "those bloody farmers, look how much I am paying for a pint of milk, or a fillet of steak-they must be bloody loaded!"
If they weren't "bailed out" as Norf so elequently puts it, it wouldnt just be the farmer who is left out of pocket but, the ordinary man on the street who would have to pay a much higher price for their food!
Surely Norf Tyrone you aren't that naive not realise this given the nature of your locality??
Farmers don't sell their produce to shops for you and me to buy from, they sell them to meat processors, etc, etc where they're royally screwed and we the consumer for these products buy at the butchers at highly inflated prices due to the cartel of the meat producers who after the horse meat scandal really need taken to task if there was enough political will to do so.
I would not like to imagine that! I see what your saying and don't disagree, my point is to simply highlight that many people associate the price they pay for products reflects what farmers receive. This in no way is true. Anyway, i may get back to the slurry! :P
Quote from: johnneycool on April 10, 2013, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 10, 2013, 11:16:47 AM
I guess its part of the whole subsidies which farmers get from both government and the EU. The idea behind this is that if farmers didnt get such support, then they would have to sell their animals, milk etc for a much higher fee to shops and supermarkets in order so they are not operating at a loss due to cost of animal feed, diesel, fertiliser etc-then its people like Norf who would be crying "those bloody farmers, look how much I am paying for a pint of milk, or a fillet of steak-they must be bloody loaded!"
If they weren't "bailed out" as Norf so elequently puts it, it wouldnt just be the farmer who is left out of pocket but, the ordinary man on the street who would have to pay a much higher price for their food!
Surely Norf Tyrone you aren't that naive not realise this given the nature of your locality??
Farmers don't sell their produce to shops for you and me to buy from, they sell them to meat processors, etc, etc where they're royally screwed and we the consumer for these products buy at the butchers at highly inflated prices due to the cartel of the meat producers who after the horse meat scandal really need taken to task if there was enough political will to do so.
Agree wholeheartedly
Quote from: Bearly on loose on April 10, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
I am honestly not on the wind, but perhaps haven't articulated my question very well. Just wishing to hear people's views on the topic. Some are what I already knew, and some enlightening.
Most of my question has arisen from the weekend's events.
The farming community getting a bail out to help them and their industry, and the same community being able to put a stick in the wheels of other industries with their hijacking of the road investment here in the North West. I appreciate that there are different farmers involved in either issue, but as a collective it's hard to swallow.
The A5 alliance were formed due to the impact on their livlihood, but then we learn that they are getting a fair sum for a livlihood that is just north of 'minimum wage'.
Back to one of the earlier posts. What about other businesses affected by inclement weather - where is their bailout? They don't get 10s of thousands in government and EU subsidies every year before they even get out of bed. In private enterprise they just have to suck it up.
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: Bearly on loose on April 10, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
I am honestly not on the wind, but perhaps haven't articulated my question very well. Just wishing to hear people's views on the topic. Some are what I already knew, and some enlightening.
Most of my question has arisen from the weekend's events.
The farming community getting a bail out to help them and their industry, and the same community being able to put a stick in the wheels of other industries with their hijacking of the road investment here in the North West. I appreciate that there are different farmers involved in either issue, but as a collective it's hard to swallow.
The A5 alliance were formed due to the impact on their livlihood, but then we learn that they are getting a fair sum for a livlihood that is just north of 'minimum wage'.
Two completely different issues. The farmer's getting reimbursed for their dead livestock are in the mountains of Mourne, Antrim glens and the Sperrins, not in the dairy production along the A5 corridor. You said "the farming community getting a bailout" thats off the mark, only a small percentage of farmers are being reimbursed for the loss of livestock.
Secondly the A5 opposition group and it's actions can not be blamed on all of the North's farmers. That's like me abusing the local cleaner or clerk at my Ulster Bank for destroying the banking sector.
Thirdly you can't singularly blame the farmers for the failure of the A5 to go ahead. There are some farmers who stand to lose a farm that has been in their family for 3 generations, men with 2 sons at greenmount who hope to return home and fufill their lifelong ambition of farming in the footsteps of their family. Some farms will be all but wiped out, some will be divided, destroying the potential for grass-based milking and others will be curtailed. You can't blame these men for opposing the A5 by all legal means. They haven't killed anyone or set fire to anyone's machinery.
If as a businessman you feel cheated by the delaying of the A5 then you need to redirect some of your anger at the courts who sided with the farmers or the roads department who failed to close the loop-holes or properly appease the farmers during this process.
Quote from: trileacman on April 10, 2013, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: Bearly on loose on April 10, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
I am honestly not on the wind, but perhaps haven't articulated my question very well. Just wishing to hear people's views on the topic. Some are what I already knew, and some enlightening.
Most of my question has arisen from the weekend's events.
The farming community getting a bail out to help them and their industry, and the same community being able to put a stick in the wheels of other industries with their hijacking of the road investment here in the North West. I appreciate that there are different farmers involved in either issue, but as a collective it's hard to swallow.
The A5 alliance were formed due to the impact on their livlihood, but then we learn that they are getting a fair sum for a livlihood that is just north of 'minimum wage'.
Two completely different issues. The farmer's getting reimbursed for their dead livestock are in the mountains of Mourne, Antrim glens and the Sperrins, not in the dairy production along the A5 corridor. You said "the farming community getting a bailout" thats off the mark, only a small percentage of farmers are being reimbursed for the loss of livestock.
Secondly the A5 opposition group and it's actions can not be blamed on all of the North's farmers. That's like me abusing the local cleaner or clerk at my Ulster Bank for destroying the banking sector.
Thirdly you can't singularly blame the farmers for the failure of the A5 to go ahead. There are some farmers who stand to lose a farm that has been in their family for 3 generations, men with 2 sons at greenmount who hope to return home and fufill their lifelong ambition of farming in the footsteps of their family. Some farms will be all but wiped out, some will be divided, destroying the potential for grass-based milking and others will be curtailed. You can't blame these men for opposing the A5 by all legal means. They haven't killed anyone or set fire to anyone's machinery.
If as a businessman you feel cheated by the delaying of the A5 then you need to redirect some of your anger at the courts who sided with the farmers or the roads department who failed to close the loop-holes or properly appease the farmers during this process.
All fair points, and I don't mean to generalise.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 10, 2013, 01:10:50 PM
Back to one of the earlier posts. What about other businesses affected by inclement weather - where is their bailout? They don't get 10s of thousands in government and EU subsidies every year before they even get out of bed. In private enterprise they just have to suck it up.
I would say the difference is that other industries have low barriers to entry and exit. Take tourism, the most obvious example of another industry affected by inclement weather. When the business is bad, you lay off staff. When it's good, you take them on. Businesses go bust, but they're replaced pretty quickly when things improve. You can't say that about farming. The employees of most farms, in Ireland anyway, are their family. They head off to the smoke for employment and don't return. The average age of a farmer is 54 (http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/irelands-farmers-getting-older-cso-28891852.html), and they're only getting older. When a farmer retires with no one to replace him, his land either lies fallow or is bought up for buttons by a neighbour. There's no extra employment, just greater productivity. It's much the same story if there is a bad harvest which causes the farm to go to the wall. Good weather in tourism, people flood in to serve the tourists. Good weather in agriculture, try sending it back to the spring when the sowing was taking place or the autumn when you were trying to harvest a crop destroyed by rain. Farming is different to other industries. If you don't think it should be subsidised to the extent it is, or even at all, fine. I'm all ears for market-driven solutions. But I suspect there isn't one.
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on April 10, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: Bearly on loose on April 10, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Agreed Rois. Points well made. I do feel however, despite claims made to the contrary, Norf is indeed on the wind up!
To digress somewhat from the topic at hand and to expand briefly on Bogball's sentiments - there already is a massive disparity between what a farmer is paid for milk/meat etc and what consumers pay for said products in shops/butchers etc. Obviously there are numerous costs to be considered from when the product leaves the farm premises to it reaches the store. But my point is the money you may pay for your litre of milk, or your fillet steak is in no way even close to what the farmer receives.
Farmers incomes may not be what you think Norf!
I am honestly not on the wind, but perhaps haven't articulated my question very well. Just wishing to hear people's views on the topic. Some are what I already knew, and some enlightening.
Most of my question has arisen from the weekend's events.
The farming community getting a bail out to help them and their industry, and the same community being able to put a stick in the wheels of other industries with their hijacking of the road investment here in the North West. I appreciate that there are different farmers involved in either issue, but as a collective it's hard to swallow.
The A5 alliance were formed due to the impact on their livlihood, but then we learn that they are getting a fair sum for a livlihood that is just north of 'minimum wage'.
That is disingenuous. The A5 is a separate issue and the A5 alliance does not only include farmers.
If there are GAA members on the A5 alliance are you going to give out about GAA getting funding for the new Casement Park?
There are plenty of farmers who hope the A5 does go ahead.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 10, 2013, 01:10:50 PM
Back to one of the earlier posts. What about other businesses affected by inclement weather - where is their bailout? They don't get 10s of thousands in government and EU subsidies every year before they even get out of bed. In private enterprise they just have to suck it up.
This is what I don't get either
Thousands of people were affected by the bad weather and aren't getting any "compensation"
These include:
1) Anyone snowed in and not able to get to work - they may have lost up to a weeks wages which considering how hand to mouth a lot of people live the loss of a weeks wage could be very bad, they could be arrears with the mortgage now etc.
2) Self Employed - take someone in construction for example - if they were meant to be building something in one of the worst hit areas, they will have massive delays on it and as a result might have lost more work as the projects they were to do in the coming weeks may want the work done quicker
3) Rural shops - think of the amount of perishable goods that may have had to have been destroyed if the shop couldn't open.
Farming is already heavily subsudised, and I do not really object to compensation if is also available to others that have lost income due to the snow.
Also Compensation payments should be made on the average number of lambs per birth to avoid claims for doubles or triples when it was actually a single birth.
Quote from: Lazer on April 10, 2013, 04:32:09 PM
Thousands of people were affected by the bad weather and aren't getting any "compensation"
These include:
1) Anyone snowed in and not able to get to work - they may have lost up to a weeks wages which considering how hand to mouth a lot of people live the loss of a weeks wage could be very bad, they could be arrears with the mortgage now etc.
2) Self Employed - take someone in construction for example - if they were meant to be building something in one of the worst hit areas, they will have massive delays on it and as a result might have lost more work as the projects they were to do in the coming weeks may want the work done quicker
3) Rural shops - think of the amount of perishable goods that may have had to have been destroyed if the shop couldn't open.
As I said in my previous post, there are low barriers to entry and exit in retail and construction. All other things being equal (which they are not in retail thanks to the rapacious cartels that are modern supermarkets, but that's another story), a shop/builder copes with adverse weather by making staff redundant and re-hiring when things improve. If the business does not survive, others will so there is no net loss to the industry as a whole. But when a farm goes under, that's it. You don't see new farms opening to replace it. Now, you can argue that the loss of those farms is no big deal, that it leads to larger, leaner farms. Personally I think the loss of population in rural areas is not a price worth paying - and no organisation knows that better than the GAA. But that's what the policy debate is about.
Due the inclement weather since November, Portavogie fishermen have been asking for assistance to keep their livelihood and their families, requests which have fallen on deaf Stormont ears.
On another topic but made me think about this bailout, and I know control was mentioned earlier, however - I was shown a copy of the inventory of businesses who were out of money due to the collapse of one certain construction company.
Over fifty businesses were owed a total of £58m. Ranging from big contractors to one man bands. Some small suppliers were owed over £100k.
What got me thinking was, where is the assistance for the companies that went to the wall over this collapse? And I know there are many cases of this scenario throughout Europe.
The men and women who owned companies and went working every day, buying supplies & materials, employing local staff, all in good faith, as their contract was with a reputable company - do they not deserve some sort of compensation?
This sort of fallout, in my eyes, is a lot more damaging to a society already heavily burdened with unemployment and emigration.
As a footnote, there was some money left in the company when it folded. You know who got it? Thats right - the banks, and when they had finished there weren't even scraps to fight over.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on April 10, 2013, 05:30:30 PM
Due the inclement weather since November, Portavogie fishermen have been asking for assistance to keep their livelihood and their families, requests which have fallen on deaf Stormont ears.
On another topic but made me think about this bailout, and I know control was mentioned earlier, however - I was shown a copy of the inventory of businesses who were out of money due to the collapse of one certain construction company.
Over fifty businesses were owed a total of £58m. Ranging from big contractors to one man bands. Some small suppliers were owed over £100k.
What got me thinking was, where is the assistance for the companies that went to the wall over this collapse? And I know there are many cases of this scenario throughout Europe.
The men and women who owned companies and went working every day, buying supplies & materials, employing local staff, all in good faith, as their contract was with a reputable company - do they not deserve some sort of compensation?
This sort of fallout, in my eyes, is a lot more damaging to a society already heavily burdened with unemployment and emigration.
As a footnote, there was some money left in the company when it folded. You know who got it? Thats right - the banks, and when they had finished there weren't even scraps to fight over.
Spotlight followed a few of Patton's direct employees and subbies and there are tilers etc owed lots of money for work done and stock bought for jobs that then got pulled. They are left owing suppliers as well as out of pocket for work done and having to pay their men out of savings etc. Loads of boys will go to the wall over the Pattons collapse.
firstly not all farmers are in receipt of subsidies. secondly the guys who do recieve single farm payment only handle the money. they simply couldnt have any money left over when the bills are paid. so in effect its the processers who get the farmers money... they will tell you that the supermarkets screw them... them the supermarkets will tell you how competative the market is and how the house wife screws them! (which we know is a lie) so unless the farmers margin can be increased somehow he needs a leg up, otherwise he'll have to quit and there'll be nothing to eat.
so in effect we are paying more for our food but the cost is hidden and then out of that subsidy comes the cost of administration and its more than the farmer gets.unless we embrace full-on market conditions with all the gluts and scarcities and the boom bust that will come with that sceneario. we are stuck with pumping money into the system thats hoovered up by supermarkets and administration. heres an interesting stat. for every £7 that is spent in the uk £1 pound of it is spent in tesco. how do you fight with a monster like that?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 10, 2013, 07:13:30 PM
One wonders just how quickly some farmers were in bringing livestock indoors or lower down away from the worst of the snow that fell. While the amount was very heavy, it wasn't levels that haven't been seen in recent times and there was reasonable warning that higher ground areas were going to be hit with a lot of snow around 24 hours in advance. Arguably the time of year close to lambing caught some off guard, but how many were negligent either deliberately or passively? The rumours I heard (and if very wrong deserve to be shot down) was that many of the hill farmers in the Antrim Glens didn't take much if any action whereas most of those in the Mournes and Sperrins were quicker to react and as a result suffered less livestock loss.
IMO the Dept. Agriculture should have offered to cover the cost of the disposal of dead stock by waiving the normal fee, but no more unless there was an exceptional circumstance on a case by case basis.
Fionntamnach, I would say you would know a lot about taking animals down from the mountains, a couple of hours should take them down from the top of the sperrins, mournes or the glens and have them housed no bother, eh?
Quote from: lawnseed on April 10, 2013, 08:51:57 PMthe supermarkets will tell you how competative the market is and how the house wife screws them! (which we know is a lie)
You sound bitter.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 11, 2013, 09:14:01 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 10, 2013, 07:13:30 PM
One wonders just how quickly some farmers were in bringing livestock indoors or lower down away from the worst of the snow that fell. While the amount was very heavy, it wasn't levels that haven't been seen in recent times and there was reasonable warning that higher ground areas were going to be hit with a lot of snow around 24 hours in advance. Arguably the time of year close to lambing caught some off guard, but how many were negligent either deliberately or passively? The rumours I heard (and if very wrong deserve to be shot down) was that many of the hill farmers in the Antrim Glens didn't take much if any action whereas most of those in the Mournes and Sperrins were quicker to react and as a result suffered less livestock loss.
IMO the Dept. Agriculture should have offered to cover the cost of the disposal of dead stock by waiving the normal fee, but no more unless there was an exceptional circumstance on a case by case basis.
Fionntamnach, I would say you would know a lot about taking animals down from the mountains, a couple of hours should take them down from the top of the sperrins, mournes or the glens and have them housed no bother, eh?
Depends on a number of factors. But I'm only going by what others with far more knowledge and experience than myself have been talking about.
So basically what you are saying is that your basing your arguements on rumours and what somebody else was talking about? ???
Come on Fionntamhnach, you are so much better than that
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 10, 2013, 07:13:30 PM
While the amount was very heavy, it wasn't levels that haven't been seen in recent times and there was reasonable warning that higher ground areas were going to be hit with a lot of snow around 24 hours in advance.
I'd disagree there, the consistency of this snow (strange as it sounds) was a lot different than we've had in other recent years - I compared it to the snow in a ski resort that packs so heavily that it can build up quickly and withstand days of sunshine before it materially shifts. Losses may have been significantly less had the snow melted quicker but in my very unlearned opinion, the density of the snow made that far from possible.
Taking livestock down from high ground is ok if you have low ground to move them too, not all farmers do.
It's not often that there is snow in Ireland that causes buildings to collapse, but many did this time.
You would think having your stock inside would be safe for them, well not with the snow this time. Farmers didn't have too many options here.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 11, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 11, 2013, 09:14:01 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 10, 2013, 07:13:30 PM
One wonders just how quickly some farmers were in bringing livestock indoors or lower down away from the worst of the snow that fell. While the amount was very heavy, it wasn't levels that haven't been seen in recent times and there was reasonable warning that higher ground areas were going to be hit with a lot of snow around 24 hours in advance. Arguably the time of year close to lambing caught some off guard, but how many were negligent either deliberately or passively? The rumours I heard (and if very wrong deserve to be shot down) was that many of the hill farmers in the Antrim Glens didn't take much if any action whereas most of those in the Mournes and Sperrins were quicker to react and as a result suffered less livestock loss.
IMO the Dept. Agriculture should have offered to cover the cost of the disposal of dead stock by waiving the normal fee, but no more unless there was an exceptional circumstance on a case by case basis.
Fionntamnach, I would say you would know a lot about taking animals down from the mountains, a couple of hours should take them down from the top of the sperrins, mournes or the glens and have them housed no bother, eh?
Depends on a number of factors. But I'm only going by what others with far more knowledge and experience than myself have been talking about.
So basically what you are saying is that your basing your arguements on rumours and what somebody else was talking about? ???
Come on Fionntamhnach, you are so much better than that
As I said originally, if there's evidence to suggest that what I've been reliably informed can be easily shot to pieces, I'm willing to listen.
1. The farmers probably didn't have lowland ground to move them too.
2. The farmer's shed's I'd say were already full, we don't have acres of roofed construction lying empty for the craic of it.
3. Some of these herds could be 2000 strong roaming over several hundred acres. If you can explain the logistics of herding and moving them at short notice I'll listen. The labour alone involved is a problem, what do they do, take their sons of of school or work?
4. Having moved several hundred sheep into shed how do you intend to feed them? Given that by mid March your fodder supplies are, as you expected, nearly exhausted where do you get the surplus?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 11, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
So basically what you are saying is that your basing your arguements on rumours and what somebody else was talking about? ???
Come on Fionntamhnach, you are so much better than that
As I said originally, if there's evidence to suggest that what I've been reliably informed can be easily shot to pieces, I'm willing to listen.
Given your usually robust line of reasoning, I must confess to being surprised at the tone of your argument here, particularly this latest bit. You've heard that some farmers are blagging it, and it's up to others to demonstrate that no one is blagging it?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2013, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
Quote from: bogball88 on April 11, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
So basically what you are saying is that your basing your arguements on rumours and what somebody else was talking about? ???
Come on Fionntamhnach, you are so much better than that
As I said originally, if there's evidence to suggest that what I've been reliably informed can be easily shot to pieces, I'm willing to listen.
Given your usually robust line of reasoning, I must confess to being surprised at the tone of your argument here, particularly this latest bit. You've heard that some farmers are blagging it, and it's up to others to demonstrate that no one is blagging it?
I guess I should revisit my original post on this thread. When I said "many" farmers in the Glens, I should have said "some". Have I concrete proof of what I've been told (personally I've no reason not to believe them, but that's not a firm footing for debate) well the answer is no. To disprove it is also near impossible. However my experience is that a small minority of ALL farmers do try and rip the piss out of public assistance and subsidies to them and that the £5 million costs over this has an element of political manoeuvring attached to it. Not as much as the farce that was the fine the Assembly was hit with by the EU over the overpayment of Single Farm Payments and the then minister claiming that no-one was really to blame, but the roots in both cases are not entirely separate from each other IMO. In the end this is hurting the big majority of honest farmers who stick to the rules and take a lot of pride not only in their vocation but also the surrounding countryside and environment. The current SFP subsidies are not really the problem. Indeed without them many small farmers would give it up because without it it's not enough to make a living off not to mention that their expertise of keeping local land in good shape is important lest it were abandoned along with countryside depopulation. But it is these kind of financial interventions that can allow some farmers - especially the less honest ones - to think that any major loss that hits them will be reimbursed from the public purse which allows complacency to set in. To me it is certainly worthwhile to ask as to why such an element of the industry gets such backing whereas if your business premises in a town or your home gets flooded you only get asked "Did you have insurance?" and tough luck if you didn't. Rois' answer I believe has been the best so far.