Upon reading the shocking headline* about how 'Rīgas meži' is preparing to kill 42 red deer, including pregnant hinds, there was naturally a desire to read the article itself, as it is clear that such action is neither ethical nor supportable, but...
Unfortunately, it must be admitted that once again the fact is proven – incorrect, distorted, and biased information is being published in the media. Moreover, as is customary, the author of the article lacks an understanding of what is being depicted in the piece.
Completely setting aside the political machinations mentioned in the article, as a person who has spent more than 30 years in forests and hunting since childhood, as a person who has earned a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree in this field, who is a lecturer for the Hunting course at the LBTU Faculty of Forestry, and who is an author or co-author of several books and publications in this field, I would like to point out some facts that are presented with a bias in the Neatkarīgā publication, in order to once again divide society and turn it against hunting and everything associated with it.
Firstly, society as a whole should understand that it is the human population that, by continuously growing and developing, is gradually taking over natural ecosystems, therefore reducing the living space for the species inhabiting them. Simultaneously, as the economy develops, including agriculture and forestry (because people do want to eat, need timber for construction, and firewood for heating), anthropogenic ecosystems (fields, commercial forests) have been created, which unequivocally promote an increase in the populations of certain species. Respectively, if there are favourable conditions and enough food, populations, of course, increase. We feel this acutely when we talk about game animals. At one time, the wild boar population grew rapidly, causing, primarily, farmers' dissatisfaction with boars destroying fields. It was similar with beavers, which, by damming everything they could, flooded commercially used land areas and conquered even the Riga canal and green spaces. Such a situation, where we can already talk about overpopulation, currently exists with red deer. How should one act?
There are several scenarios.
1. Humans pack up their belongings and move somewhere else, giving back to nature what they have taken from it, and nature, over a shorter or longer period of time, sorts out the situation itself with its own strength. But this is hardly realistic.
2. We can wait for an epidemic like African Swine Fever to arrive, which quickly regulated the wild boar population. However, although African Swine Fever is not dangerous to humans (aside from its impact on the pig farming industry), another wildlife epidemic could be dangerous to humans as well, so, most likely, that is not what we want either.
3. The third scenario remains – to hunt wildlife populations in a controlled and reasonable manner, thereby not only ensuring an optimal number of animals but also creating a strong and healthy population. Moreover, this way we can balance the interests of the population, society, and the economy (agriculture and forestry). The average city dweller, of course, might claim that this doesn’t concern me, but by not regulating these populations, even city dwellers begin to feel their impact, whether through wild boar visits in Teika or foxes at apartment building bins, or through beautiful cars damaged in accidents with wild animals. And then many remember the hunters who have not shot those stupid roe deer, elk, and red deer that wander the roads at night... So, controlled hunting is and will remain one of the most effective means to manage large ungulate populations without causing them harm while ensuring stable sustainability.
Secondly, it must be acknowledged that hunting is a field that is well-regulated in Latvia, both from the perspective of safety, which is governed by the Hunting Law, the Hunting Regulations, and the Law on the Circulation of Weapons, and from the perspective of nature conservation and the preservation of biological diversity, as all our regulatory acts are developed in accordance with various international conventions and EU regulations, thus ensuring the sustainable management of game animal populations. And in Latvia, the uncontrolled management of any animal species population (except for moles, mice, and rats) is NOT permitted! Therefore, all those who are worried that the population of any species, whether game or non-game, is being purposefully subjected to extermination, can rest easy, because that is not the case.
The hunting legislation defines animal species, including provisions for limiting the hunting volume for certain species, and establishes hunting seasons to ensure population sustainability. Thus, the majority of game species are hunted outside of their breeding and nursing periods. Therefore, the statement mentioned in the article that pregnant red deer hinds will be killed is highly biased, as in this specific situation, the hunting period for hinds is provided for within the red deer hunting season established by the Hunting Regulations, even shortening it by a month – to 31 December instead of the permitted 31 January. In the period from 15 July, when red deer hind hunting is permitted, they are not pregnant, and they are fertilised during the rutting period in September (furthermore, not all hinds are).Thus, there is an opportunity to hunt these hinds before the rutting period, completely excluding the possibility of hunting even just-fertilised hinds. Killing hinds in the second half of winter or in spring, when the birth period is approaching, would be considered unethical.
Thirdly, we arrive at the shocking inhumane deer culling planned by “Rīgas meži”. It should be noted that in our country, all activities related to the hunting of game animal populations or the killing of these animals are regulated by the aforementioned legislative acts, and “Rīgas meži” has evaluated all aspects and conditions in order to address the deer park problem appropriately. Evaluating the specific situation,several aspects must be considered.
1. The deer park is not usable as part of educational infrastructure because, no matter how much a person avoids contact with the animals in the park, they become accustomed to people, and thus a moment may come when these semi-tamed animals endanger not only their keepers but also park visitors. Usually, the most dangerous period is the rutting season, when semi-tamed red deer stags can become dangerous to humans. In Latvia, a fawn once killed its keeper, a forester, at the Jēkabpils state forest district, and even in our times, more than one nature photographer, while catching shots of the rutting season in a deer park, has spent half the day on a hay bale, and not to take pictures, but to escape from a rutting, aggressive red deer stag.
2. Animals also breed in the deer park (in captivity), and there are two solutions for what to do in this situation. The park can be expanded, but it has a certain capacity, or the park's population can be reduced, which again can be done in two ways: surplus animals can be sold, but as 'Rīgas meži' experience proves, no one wants to buy them, or the surplus animals can be killed. Perhaps harsh, but it must be admitted that killing an animal by shooting it in an enclosed area is more humane than, for example, catching and euthanising it, because catching causes stress to the animal both at the moment of capture and during the further process. Furthermore, by using a weapon of appropriate calibre, the animal is killed instantly, without creating anystress, and the use of a silencer reduces the noise of the shot, and their use is a generally accepted practice in the civilised world. Hunting animals during feeding time provides an opportunity to make a precise, humane, and safe shot so that the animal is killed instantly, without endangering other animals.
3. Releasing red deer raised in captivity into the wild is also not permissible for several reasons.
a. a. The animals are accustomed to supplementary feeding, and no one would feed them in the wild. As Saint-Exupéry said, 'You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed' – it would be inhumane not to care for these animals anymore, especially during the winter period.
b. Released animals mostly stay in the vicinity of their former enclosure within a radius of several kilometres, which artificially increases the population density in a specific region, endangering public safety (mentioning, for example, collisions with transport), and can also negatively affect the gene pool of wild populations. One must also consider the aspect that park animals can form a herd which, while wandering in the vicinity of their former home and feeding, can cause significant damage to both farmers' fields and young growth in forest lands.
c. During the rutting season, semi-tamed stags that are not afraid of people can endanger people, especially children, as children usually have a special interest in the little deer that is friendly and doesn't run away, as well as domestic animals (for example, livestock in pastures).
In conclusion, I would still urge the media and other public opinion-makers, when creating publications about problematic situations, to first analyse the facts and, if necessary, clarify them, rather than dividing society with scandalous headlines and setting different groups of society against each other.
Comments