When assessing the growth of wild animal populations, Latvia does not need to repeat the mistakes made in other countries; instead, it should learn from their errors and use its own experience, while simultaneously promoting public knowledge and understanding of processes in nature.
This conclusion emerged from the discussion “The burden of nature conservation requirements – an indicator of management changes in Latvia”, organised by the magazine “Dienas Bizness” and the portal for forestry and related industries zemeunvalsts.lv. Unfortunately, people who have an opinion on the specific issue are not always informed about the reality. Furthermore, rarely does anyone read informative and educational articles, as attention is more easily captured by loud headlines that do not always correspond to the truth.
Predators have increased in number
“In nature, a vacuum does not exist – if there are fewer people in the countryside, as living space becomes vacant, there are more forest animals,” says Haralds Barviks, Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Hunters Association, describing the situation. He points to a significant increase in the number of small predators, adding that it is up to scientists to evaluate how good this is. “The number of wolves is also increasing; this problem is already known at the Saeima level. It is not the right time to talk about other animals, especially ungulates and their overpopulation, because, in the case of moose, for example, we are on the eve of a critical abyss,” explains H. Barviks.
Meanwhile, Linda Dombrovska, Vice-President of the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), founder of the Latvian Ladies' Hunting Club and editor-in-chief of the magazine “Medības”, emphasises that we are living in an interesting time: “The directives introduced by the EU at the end of the last century are ‘working’ – animals in Europe are doing well, as there is no country to which some of the large predators have not returned. For example, wolves are once again found in countries where they have not been for 150–200 years, and the number of bears has also increased,” says L. Dombrovska, highlighting the situation.
She reminds us that during the drafting of the relevant regulations, both at the EU and national level, the most important and serious goal was to improve the state of animal populations; however, now that this goal has been achieved in many places, the number of animals is causing problems for farmers and foresters, for which there is at least currently no solution. “The wolf population in Europe has increased, yet it is strange to hear that the situation is bad because the number of populations with an unfavourable status has increased,” points out L. Dombrovska. Māris Liopa, director of the forestry and related industries portal zemeunvalsts.lv, recalls an example in Latvia where various activities are restricted due to the European roller, even though elsewhere in Europe it is considered a common bird. “The most essential question is – what is the number of individuals of a certain animal or bird species in a specific territory, region, or country that would satisfy everyone?” believes M. Liopa.
Society's double standards
“It seems this problem should be viewed from the perspective of a modern society, where the control of animal populations to ensure the balance necessary for agricultural or forestry activities in a given territory is considered aggressive and unacceptable,” explains L. Dombrovska. She reiterates that the idea has never been to destroy anything, but rather there is a clear necessity to find the maximum level for a specific population that would ensure the safe co-existence of both local residents and tourists. “Does any holidaymaker, while sleeping in a tent, want to wake up to the noise caused by a bear trying to open a bag or thermos left behind?” asks L. Dombrovska.
In turn, M. Liopa points out that in 2023, the known extent of damage caused by animals in forestry alone exceeded 5,200 ha, therefore, there is a question about the future impact of specific populations on land management sectors, especially as new requirements “emerge” in various offices, for example, in regulations on nature restoration and the preservation of biological diversity.
“Most seem to want to live green – for example – to use more wood products in construction that have sequestered CO₂, but at the same time, significantly reduce timber harvesting through new restrictions, supporting the removal of large forest areas from economic use. A similar dual situation exists with wild animals and the size of their populations, as hunting is often perceived as something terrible, evaluating the situation in nature only from the perspective of ‘cute and heartwarming’ cartoons,” M. Liopa is critical. H. Barviks considers the balance (finding it, determining it) between the rural population and animal populations and their diversity to be a necessity.
“If we fall into the ditch, experience shows it leads to big trouble – the farmer or forester will be unable to do their job and will be ruined, while ‘friends of nature’ will continue to believe that nature solves everything itself and will not be interested in finding a balance,” H. Barviks describes the situation. Linda Dombrovska reminds us that there is a clear hypocrisy visible in society's morals: if a person humanely removes individuals from animal populations, it is bad, but cruel self-regulation of species is evaluated as good.
“I don't understand why it is better for lynx males to eat their young than for hunters to remove a certain number of specimens from this animal population in limited amounts during the hunting season,” reasons L. Dombrovska. Haralds Barviks points out that one often encounters “city park” experts who know what should be done in the countryside and how, but as soon as animals enter the city and one has to live alongside them, their opinion becomes completely the opposite.
Nature’s harsh self-regulation
“Nature solves overpopulation with its own means. If animal populations become very or too large, the first question is about the food base; diseases also appear, for example, bird flu or African swine fever, which resolve the animal population count quite radically, though it is people who suffer from this,” explains H. Barviks. L. Dombrovska reminds us that in the case of the aforementioned self-regulation scenario, projects have to be written and everything must be done to restore the specific animal population. “Projects seem to be the most pleasant moment in nature conservation,” ironically adds H. Barviks.
M. Liopa draws attention to the fact that one of the criteria by which the quality of human life is evaluated is the bird index. “In Latvia, the bird index (farmland and forest) is determined according to a contract with the Nature Conservation Agency by the Latvian Ornithological Society, which often raises an alarm about the poor state of birds. Although explanations should be sought from scientists, data on the increase in the number of small predators and birds of prey (hawks, buzzards, eagles) and the increase in forest-covered land area is being ignored,” points out M. Liopa, indicating the need to look for correlations between various processes in nature and their reflection in data.
He acknowledges that the bird index is used as an indicator at the European level, but according to H. Barviks, it can be one of the indicators, but not the only one. “Small predators significantly affect the state of birds and, consequently, the bird index, which will be taken as a basis for conclusions in the future,” says H. Barviks. He points out that many are surprised by the decline of the hazel grouse population, forgetting that the hazel grouse is a food base for the goshawk, whose population will also decrease along with the decline in the number of grouse.
“Another example is black storks, which are ‘harvested’ from their nests by white-tailed eagles. As a result, the black stork population is shrinking, which has nothing to do with human economic activity – forestry, agriculture, micro-reserves, or a potential desire to drive these birds from their usual habitats,” H. Barviks is critical.
The blood argument
“Until something loudly shocking has happened, until people have suffered or died, we will not see a reaction,” H. Barviks replies to the question about the necessity of changing attitudes. M. Liopa hastens to point out that a part of society perceives the approach of wild animals, especially predators, to human dwellings as a consequence of logging work: “Saying, the little animals have nowhere left to go,” ignoring other circumstances, for example, the driving away of fellow species members from a given territory carried out by a dominant individual of the same animal group, or even easier access to food. “The new generation of lynx, wolves, and bears is forced to look for new living space,” concludes L. Dombrovska.
Haralds Barviks explains that animals much prefer to live in managed forests, where there are young stands, where there is a food base, where they can hide and feel much more comfortable than in a mature or old forest. “Since 2018, when bear hunting was stopped in Romania, allowing the removal of an individual from the population only in special cases, the number of bears has increased to approximately 8,000. The animals reside in populated areas, including cities, especially near waste containers, and do not go into hibernation. In rural areas, bear attacks on people have been recorded,” L. Dombrovska illustrates the consequences of thoughtless actions.
As another example, she mentions Switzerland, where a few years ago a referendum took place on whether to allow the hunting of wolves, the number of which had increased in recent years. “Animal rights advocates launched a huge campaign, spent millions of Swiss francs, as a result of which 51% of referendum participants voted against wolf hunting. A few years passed... wolf attacks were increasingly recorded and reported, including animals following children and even adults. In the autumn of 2023, the Swiss parliament passed a new law that determined the maximum permissible number of wolves in the country,” L. Dombrovska explains the experience of other countries. In her opinion, a logical question is about the best solution – whether to first ban wolf hunting and then simply liquidate a large part of the predators, or to carry out reasonable regulation of the wolf population.
You cannot lump everyone into one bag
“In 2008, guidelines were developed on how to implement exceptions to the Habitats Directive; the system existing in Latvia at the time was considered the best in Europe because it was mentioned in these guidelines. With the change in the EU's political direction, our success story was removed from these guidelines, and infringement proceedings were launched against Latvia, even though the number of lynx here had increased over 15 years, but... there were no conflicts between humans and animals, which was the reason for destroying the existing system,” L. Dombrovska recalls the unfortunate Latvian experience. H. Barviks reminds us that many problems start in Brussels, because regulations are created in EU structures, while it is almost impossible to promptly implement the necessary changes dictated by life in accordance with existing procedures. “The currently functioning evaluation system is obsolete; it is time to change it throughout Europe. You cannot lump everyone into one bag, as is currently the case, because the situations in Southern Europe and Northern Europe are different; they cannot be evaluated by the same criteria,” H. Barviks is convinced.
Discussion video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D28qPHxkcZc