Last week Pádraig Walshe of the IFA and David Herman of Keep Ireland Open debated the question: Should farmers be paid to allow walkers access to their land? Here is an edited selection of some of your comments:
Why shouldn't rural landowners be paid for allowing access across their land? We have fought against absentee landlords for centuries for the right to own and till our own land. And now we face a new bunch of absentee landlords in the guise of urbanite eco-communists who think that they can take our land without compensation, to use as they see fit - land which we must manage for their pleasure.
That is not "a right to roam", but colonial imperialism at its worst. This is totally alien to the concept of a republic and to what our patriots fought for. Farmers must record all animal movements across their land, and record all fertilisers and slurries spread. They must secure their fields with strong fences and gates to prevent animals from wandering. Failure to perform these tasks will result in severe penalties from power-crazed clipboard-wielding DAF inspectors. Now urbanite commies want the right to wander wherever they like, bringing diseases on their boots, upsetting livestock, wrecking crops, and leaving behind their rubbish for us to collect.
Rural people can only take so much from urbanites, but the right to trample over our land, our rights, and our livelihood is a step too far. If skangers want to walk over hill and dale, why don't they stick their hand in their pocket and buy the land? Then they can do with it whatever they like. Hill walkers are nothing but a bunch of mean-fisted cheapskates who want everything for nothing. But nothing is all they will ever get from me. - Kevin Byrne, Ireland
I agree with Mr Herman that the amount sought (€5,000 per km) is excessive. I doubt that all farmers would make such a noble effort to ensure the walkways were kept to the correct standard, as Pádraig Walshe asserts, and I rubbish the notion that any land has "rights". Rights, no matter how they are derived, belong to people and people only. When we say that a car has "right of way" what we really mean is its human driver.
I would say Ruairí Quinn's legal rights as a property owner to derive income from his garden are far more limited than any farmer. Perhaps Mr Quinn ought to station a herd of goats, flock of sheep or ostriches in his front garden and then await either the neighbourhood watch or residents' association to further inform him and Pádraig Walshe. If that doesn't work, maybe Mr Quinn could try selling strawberries over his garden hedge or erect a haystack or rick of more than four metres.
Land ownership includes different rights according to its location and traditional nature . . . I live in Catalonia, within a short commute of mountain ranges and natural parks and a very extensive network of walking paths. Their very existence owes as much to history as any legal codification. We generally term that "common law" in English. Thus the pilgrims' pathways remain - not because of statute but because no landowner would dare usurp such divinely athletic routes. - Iosaf MacDiarmada, Spain
My farm is my place of work and, like any other workplace, safety has to be a priority. If others were to access my property without my permission, their safety and mine would be compromised. Landowners in a position to provide a service to the public who wish to enter lands for recreation purposes will provide this service provided they are paid for it, and rightly so. - Padraic Divilly, Ireland
The right to public access to the wilderness, also called freedom to roam, or allemannsrätten (every man's right to roam) is an ancient customary practice in all Nordic countries, and is now enshrined in law in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Of course, the right is to be exercised responsibly. The principle of, "do not disturb, do not destroy" is paramount. Sweden is a modern democratic country and also an EU member. It has a thriving agricultural sector. Why should the Irish people pay for access to the countryside when our neighbours in Scotland, England and the Nordic countries enjoy the same access for free?
The demands of Pádraig Walshe on behalf of the IFA are outrageous, and bordering on ludicrous. As the founders of our state declared in 1916 in the Proclamation, "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland". I think that the IFA should be ashamed of this scandalous attempt to extort money from the public for the right of access to the open countryside. - Brian Ó Cathán, Ireland
Wake up Irish farmers and begin to differentiate between the price and the value of what you have been given stewardship of!
The more enlightened and humanitarian among you will not need convincing that with your privilege of ownership comes a civic responsibility to allow city-dwelling walkers the freedom to walk the fields and to enjoy nature. You have little to fear since such walkers are usually decent people who will leave your fields as they find them. - M Gamble, New Zealand
The right to roam to enjoy the bountiful beauty of the earth in your vicinity should be as much a presumption as the right to breathe. The assumption that we pander to a group of farmers who are paid by the taxpayer is one which we inherited . . . We are now almost unique in Europe in preventing people access the beauty of the countryside. - Don MacNamara, Ireland
Absolutely not. As long as it does not impact on their business directly or interfere with their (or their families') privacy, farmers should not be allowed to hold to ransom the people of Ireland, who should be allowed to enjoy a healthy walk in their own country. Farmers in this country are sponsored through grants by Europeans as it is . . . If they are living off the fat of the land at least let the rest of us walk on it. - P O'C, Ireland
I would agree to a small sum being paid to farmers to provide stiles and direction signs. However, maybe this should be done directly by the Office of Public Works, or the tourism/health departments. - John Hand, Ireland
I think they should be paid for access, or at least have the right to refuse to have the public walking on their land. The public can walk on a farmer's land, but if someone was to walk into their own back yard they would throw them out for trespassing. If a farmer's land is to be walked on, they should get some funds, as they own the property and also there may be damage done. Who is going to pay for that or for the collection of rubbish that some individuals throw around fields on their walks? - Triona Flavin, Ireland