The headline uses a classic question from a detective novel or modern politics. But that is not what this is about!

Members and leadership of various non-governmental organisations regularly and loudly complain that forestry, which provides jobs for thousands of people in Latvia, causes “enormous damage” to birds, and therefore, work in the forests should be banned for three months. The damage that would be caused in this way to people and the national economy is, of course, of no interest to these comrades living off European projects, who often refer to themselves as masters. Because comrade masters often receive money without earning it or working for it, simply by talking.

Landowners are against such a ban, and the Ministry of Agriculture also believes that balance is created by a targeted system of restrictions in forestry, not by a general three-month ban that would paralyse economic activity. Of course, those calling for the bans do not suggest or offer any compensatory or balancing mechanisms, believing that “those who ban must ban”, while workers must work to earn money even for those who ban. Balance? It made one wait a little... If we are talking about money at the expense of others' problems...

In Latvia, there are already plenty of restrictions in place that documentarily protect birds—seasonal bans, micro-reserve regulations, etc. Yet the ‘banners’ are still not satisfied—claiming that every year more than 50 thousand bird nests are destroyed due to forestry. How such data is obtained is known only to a narrow circle of comrades. The forest industry is not informed about the creation of such estimates...

Of course, bird protection can be improved. Like anything else... Perhaps there are places where a work ban could be set for a two-week period. But it is unlikely that a very wealthy Latvia (as a comrade of the comrades said: There is more money than ever before!) can afford the paralysis of a significant economic sector, as demanded by narrow-minded fellow citizens whose economic knowledge is limited to the text message: salary credited to account. Latvia already has many mandatory requirements in forest management that are stricter than elsewhere in Europe.

By disregarding people, we can end up in absurdity. Every year, thousands of birds and animals die on roads and railways. Shall we ban cars and trains? Oh, the comrade ‘banners’ would gladly say yes! Shall we ban aeroplanes that disturb migratory birds? Animals and birds die during haymaking and harvest time. Shall we therefore ban farmers from working the land with tractors and combine harvesters? And what about the bats that often crash into the glass windows of residential houses? Fears that a call could follow to live in branch huts or caves would be very believable. Of course, this applies only to those who work in the fields and forests... City dwellers will have done their part and will continue to enjoy the environment of ‘green asphalt’ or the green-decorated interiors of association rooms.

The activist comrades themselves could also contribute their share. To reduce the anthropogenic burden on birds, they should definitely not leave Riga in the spring—this would reduce the number of visitors in some protected areas by almost half. Who are the biggest disruptors of capercaillies during the mating season? The observers of the mating display! Does the black stork like it when a “researcher” stuffs it into a bag to weigh it? Are observation cameras not to blame for the poor nesting success of some lesser spotted eagles? Is this kind of “bird guarding” actually a well-paid hobby for a few individuals? And, forgive me, which comrade likes being weighed or having their own mating ritual observed?

The comrade masters of nature are always ready to experiment and protect, as long as they can acquire funds, impose restrictions, and act at the expense of others.

Who will pay for the losses caused to Latvia and its workers, and from what financial sources? It is conceivable that the comrades and ‘comradesses’, as well as the masters and mistresses of various funds, have saved up from some lucrative projects previously, but that will still be far from enough to compensate the true workers, landowners, and the state. Furthermore, it would be necessary to teach the comrades the Latvian word “to share”. It sounds foreign, of course!

Latvia does not have effectively exploitable resources of oil, gas, iron, or nickel ore. Our country's main resource is land, which we need and can productively use for agriculture and forestry. Spring is not the most intensive time for forestry work, as roads are soft, deciduous trees are in sap, and there is a price drop in the markets. We do not need new bans in Latvia! Since the 1990 Singing Revolution, we have become a country of bans and restrictions. The landowner is capable of deciding for themselves what to do on their own land. A good place for the ‘banners’ to live would be in one of Latvia’s reserves, where they could ban each other from doing anything to their heart's content. But! A real forester would not wish a horde of ‘banners’ upon any living creature in a Latvian reserve...

Paradoxically, the aforementioned “comrades and masters” mostly live in Riga. For them, the countryside is a place to go and relax. However, other people still live in the countryside, who work there and own the land (private property). If someone, for example, the state or a comrade delegated by the state, wishes to limit their rights to freely manage their property, the state must find and pay adequate compensation. Furthermore, it would only be fair and logical if the source of compensation were found by the ‘would-be banners’ before drafting a ban. If the “comrade banners” managed to achieve that, “forest owners would not protest so much, but would grow birds, lichens, and snails according to their instructions, while we could buy timber in Scandinavian countries or Russia”. The state has no money for such a ‘land of plenty’, which, unfortunately, does not prevent the creation of plans for new nature conservation areas throughout Latvia using budget money and funds financed by the Scandinavians. But! Maybe the ‘banners’ have the money after all???

It is interesting, though, why, for example, the Norwegians are so interested in nature conservation in our country? There are not many examples of the West just throwing money around. Who exactly would benefit from a significant restriction of economic activity, effectively not allowing forestry, trade, and transport to take place for three months? What, comrades? Who?