An interview with Linda Dombrovska, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Medības”

In recent discussions regarding family traditions, hunting, young people, and firearms, it has been noticeable that in public exchanges, people “with opinions” but without knowledge are being called and invited as experts or professionals. Is there any idea why? We can say with humour that everyone knows the nuances of politics or medicine, but jokes and reality are two different things!

I don't know! It is a phenomenon I do not understand! If we talk about medicine, we talk to a doctor, not a welder. If we talk about schools and education, we listen to teachers, not street cleaners. I suppose, in some people’s opinion, hunting and forestry are sectors and topics where many consider their own opinion to be an expert one! As a result, from the podium of the Saeima, we hear assertions that sound like nonsense, absurdities, or lies to the ears of a professional. For example, when talking about the circulation of firearms, a member of the Saeima has not delved into firearm classification. When discussing the Law on the Circulation of Firearms in the second reading, it was said that Category A is the simplest and D is the most complex. We heard that pneumatic weapons belonging to Category D are something extraordinary and very dangerous! In reality, Category A weapons are not available to private individuals, and Category D is considered the least dangerous! An example of the absurdity of these discussions.

As civilization develops, hunting may have changed its form and style, but it has endured. Where can the reason for these current disputes be found?

Hunting cannot be considered a problem, but it is an issue that is easy to use for building political capital. For example, if we go to members of parliament and ask: “Is it right to kill animals?” The first answer will be: “No! Killing is bad!” If we then ask: “What did you have for breakfast or lunch?” Silence. For many people – including members of parliament – to eat well, animals are killed. How so? Is that good, or is it bad? It must be understood: one cannot talk about hunting in such categories. If we speak about death or killing in general, there are situations where it is not permissible and unjustifiable, for example, people killed as a result of political activities, or genocide, or war, etc. If we are talking about food or euthanasia, it is different. When looking at this issue, one must not forget the context or the motivation! Unfortunately, there are poachers who follow neither laws nor principles and, in the name of personal interests, illegally go to shoot animals. As a result, information about the number of animals hunted, the quality of trophies, and the state of animal health is lost. The actions of poachers are unjustifiable!

If hunting takes place legally, observing the basic principles of ethics, those who wish to do so may participate. Unfortunately, in discussions, various things are “thrown into one pot”, and everyone “pulls out” what they like best or what is advantageous to them!

In Latvia, hunting is to a certain extent linked to traditions – in the family, the lineage, or the hunting club. How correct is it for us to link this to the extreme cases of firearm use happening around the world?

A very broad question! Regarding the Law on the Circulation of Firearms, the USA was often mentioned in discussions. “As if young people in Latvia will now take shotguns, go to school, and shoot!” First of all, one must start with the fact that legally registered firearms are used very little in illegal hunting, terrorist acts, or attacks. A hunter is one of the most law-abiding people! We, as legal owners of firearms, must follow much stricter principles not only in Latvia but throughout the European Union compared to other citizens. If a hunter has a firearm securely stored in a gun safe at home and the hunter is caught driving under the influence, they will have the weapon taken away, regardless of its price or anything else... If I, as a firearm owner, threaten to shoot someone, even if only joking, I face criminal liability. I neither say such words nor direct them at anyone, unlike another citizen who is not a hunter and may freely threaten others while joking. A hunter is not allowed to joke that way, because they have the means to carry out the threat and an entirely different level of responsibility! It really irritates me when people say – “you can just take a shotgun and settle this or that issue, solve this or that problem!” No, I cannot! If I am seen with a weapon in a public place, it will be taken away and I will be put in prison as a threat to society. These issues must be separated! Terrorist acts in Europe are mostly carried out with illegal weapons, which, for the most part, were brought in from the former Yugoslavia, where there is a surplus of weapons following the military conflicts in the 1990s. If we talk about the incidents reflected in the media in the USA, it must be remembered that there are completely different principles of firearm circulation, and weapons are quite freely available; this is even set out in the Constitution. Shootings occur over issues of significance in society, for example, integration, unresolved political issues. A gun does not fire itself, a person fires it!

By comparison – would it be sensible to ban spoons in order to fight obesity? The problem is not the spoons, but the people who eat gluttonously!

Regarding traditions. Yes, hunting is often associated with them! I am a third-generation hunter! I know fifth-generation hunters. Knowledge, lifestyle, understanding of the world, love for nature... A hunter loves animals; for a hunter, animals are very important! If a hunter has a game roast on the table, it does not mean hatred for animals! It is coexistence, the transfer of energy from one cup to another... In the hunter’s understanding, there is a unity with nature, and by taking something, something is given back. It is a stable, beautiful cycle. One cannot pretend that death does not exist, that seasons do not turn; everything is simple and beautiful! Tradition is the way in which hunters pass on experience and knowledge, and love for nature, to each other. Nothing else is important in hunting.

When a discussion about hunting is underway in Latvia, the situation with large predators – wolves and lynxes – is often mentioned. Often, the hunter is “simply the bad guy” because some say – he is shooting the little wolf and the little lynx, while others are angry that a wolf or lynx, having visited an enclosure or barn, has killed a sheep, a kid, or…

This would be a topic for several days... What are our priorities? There are animal lovers who believe – “Everything should be left as it is! Nature will regulate events itself, the wolves will eat what they need, no more, and everything will be fine!” The problem is – humans have intervened in natural events and processes to such an extent that nature might seem able to cope with the situation itself, but people who live in the countryside or cities are not prepared to directly encounter a nature that “solves its own problems”. For example: the moment a group of wild boars arrives in a city and starts bustling about in the city forest or parks, complete bliss and enthusiasm for these neighbours do not ensue; on the contrary, anxiety and hysteria begin, as a result of which it is decided to take the wild boars away from Riga – the further away, the better. If we allowed nature to take over everything and events followed their natural course, wild boars would live in the Šmerlis and Biķernieki forests, and wolves would dwell there too. City dwellers would not be able to safely go for walks with their dogs. Problems will arise in the place and time where natural processes clash with human socio-economic interests.

Many conflicts are visible in Europe – because wolves have returned, their condition has improved, and the problems have become real. People who think that the wolf population should increase and that it does not need to be regulated do not encounter the problems created by predators in their daily lives! Just recently in Belgium, wolves tore apart a herd of alpacas; in France, there have been attacks on horses. I wish to emphasize that hunters do not think about and do not want to wipe out wolves! No one has the goal of eliminating the wolf population! There were times when there were no wolves in parts of Europe. Very little is said about this. The wolf population has managed to be restored; according to data from international organizations, at least one of the large predators (wolf, bear, lynx, wolverine) is found in 21 EU member states. This shows that the current nature conservation policy has been successful; we are at the next level, where the population must begin to be managed so that “the goat is alive and the wolf is fed”. If there are too many wolves, they will be well-fed, but we will be searching for the goats in the wolves’ stomachs! Control of the wolf population must be sustainable! Legal regulation of the wolf population will prevent cases where, for example, wolves are poisoned (Portugal), where people fight against wolves by all possible means, and we lose information about the state of the population. That must not happen! The wolf must exist, but the population must be reasonably and legally controlled!

The hazel grouse is the bird of the year. However – in talking to hunters, I heard that the issue of capercaillie and black grouse hunting, which is currently impossible, should be addressed... What is your view?

If we look at the hazel grouse... Reading the species conservation plan, one does not get the conviction that the data included in it is credible. It is essential to look at what threatens the hazel grouse the most. Hunting will not be the determining factor. Habitat change, the presence of other animals – those will be the threats. The hunter is definitely interested in the hazel grouse existing in Latvia! Logically – if there are no hazel grouse, there will be no hunting! If hazel grouse hunting is important to the hunter, he can make a significant contribution to the protection of the hazel grouse, for example, by controlling small predators or protecting nesting sites! If we look at experience elsewhere in the world (far from Latvia, but a clear principle) – there are about 350,000 elephants in Africa. In Botswana, they were on the verge of extinction because hunting was banned. When the country introduced a management plan, the money obtained from elephant hunting began to be used for animal protection. If previously about 50 elephants were killed annually by poaching in a region of Botswana, after the introduction of conservation plans, this number dropped to 4-5. The elephants are protected, a certain number are hunted, and the money is invested in protection. Hunting acts as a conservation instrument!

The same can be applied to felines, rhinoceroses, mountain goats. In places where regulated, controlled, sustainable hunting takes place, birds or animals are “assigned” (given) value. If there is a reasonable dialogue, if we are able to agree on certain measures that the hunter could implement, if the hazel grouse needs to be protected, hunting will not be in conflict with protection! Currently, there is no dialogue in Latvia because, for some reason, hunting is considered an “easy target”, since by banning it, one can tell society: “We have done a lot for the protection of the hazel grouse (or another bird)”, but there will be no real benefit from it.

Speaking of capercaillies and black grouse... Once, in a meeting where the banning of hunting (capercaillie) in the spring was discussed, I said: “If we ban it, representatives of several institutions will get up from the negotiating table and will not participate in the talks”. With a hunting ban, the capercaillie will no longer have the value it had before! There were times when it was possible to hunt 60 birds in controlled hunts during the spring! How did this value manifest? In the hunting clubs where the bird was hunted in the spring, the hunters guarded the capercaillie leks (micro-reserves), controlled the predator population, and did not set up baiting sites for wild boars near the leks – a whole complex of measures took place. By taking the value away from the bird, interest is lost, which is relatively logical. Hunting of capercaillies and black grouse does not even take place in the autumn because species conservation plans have not been developed. If hunters are reproached for not protecting birds voluntarily, why don't the ornithologists responsible for developing the species conservation plan write them for free? If someone truly cared about the birds, the plans would be updated without any remuneration. Everyone has their own interests – as long as they are not harmonized, as long as there is no dialogue, everything continues as it does!

In my ideal world, hunters and nature lovers would sit at one table to forge plans on how to promote the preservation and improvement of the population status, etc., of capercaillies, black grouse, woodcocks, snipes, or any bird or animal of the Latvian fauna. Many do not see it – our interests are similar, only they are achieved or pursued by different methods. A feeling of helplessness is caused by viewing hunters as villains or the root of all evil. If we devote our capabilities, knowledge, and energy to common goals, projects, and tasks, Latvia’s biodiversity will benefit. Constantly defending ourselves against groundless attacks will not get us very far!