- A significant volume of literature has been analysed within the scope of the plan, which is to be commended.
- At the same time, the plan is saturated with assumptions that lack scientifically verified facts.
- A disproportionate amount of space is taken up by criticism of various institutions and the quality of the data they maintain.
- The plan is saturated with emotional phrases; such a style is unacceptable in an official document.
- Some of the measures are worth supporting, and some of the proposed measures are logically justified but unrealistic. There are also measures that will once again unnecessarily escalate relations between hunters and non-hunters. For instance, the proposal to reduce the hunting quota for lynx and wolves with the aim of thereby reducing the number of raccoon dogs, foxes and martens does not show sufficient competence in understanding the predator-prey relationships of these species. Furthermore, I do not support shelterwood cutting in pine forests with the aim of preserving bilberries. Forestry practice has proven that shelterwood cutting in pine forests achieves the opposite - in conditions of insufficient light, the pine stand does not regenerate; on the contrary, undergrowth and shrubs uncharacteristic of pine forests begin to grow, and as a result, bilberries are suppressed or disappear. Conversely, clear-cutting in pine forests is the only felling method that ensures regeneration with pine and, consequently, the restoration of the characteristic forest floor, including bilberries and cowberries.
LATMA comments:
Upon reviewing the latest version of the hazel grouse conservation plan, it is unfortunately not convincing as an argued and well-founded document that could contribute to the future growth of the hazel grouse population. Many of the assumptions expressed in the plan are subjective, are not based on scientific facts, and are sometimes mutually contradictory.
1) Page 7 - the concept - STRONGLY ENDANGERED: not only does this not correspond to Latvian language stylistics, but this term has not been seen in any international regulatory acts when describing the status of a population; furthermore, the English translation does not correspond to the term expressed in Latvian. The Birds Directive uses the terms - vanishing, or particularly threatened, or endangered; the term - strongly endangered - is not mentioned.
2) Page 7 “During this time, the wild boar became the main game animal, and its population growth was encouraged in every way. As a result, in 2015, more than 50,000 wild boars were in Latvia (were hunted), and a decrease in their numbers is expected only due to the African swine fever virus, which has become increasingly widespread since 2014. The attitude of hunters has also influenced the number of other medium-sized predators – raccoon dogs, foxes and pine martens. The raccoon dog as a valuable fur animal was introduced to Latvia in the 1950s, while hunters intensively hunted martens and foxes until the middle of the century and in the 1980s, when good money could be earned from the acquired furs. In other periods, when there was no economic interest, hunting intensity decreased significantly.”
Firstly, until ASF reached Latvia, hunting volumes were determined by the State Forest Service as they have been to this day, and these volumes could not be exceeded; therefore, the statement expressed in the plan is false, is based on a subjective and unfounded opinion, and the result arises from state policy rather than the attitude of hunters;
Secondly, the number of wild boars has not only decreased due to the impact of ASF, but because of intensive hunting by hunters, which has taken place in accordance with the instructions of state institutions. In the second half of last year alone, about 17,000 female wild boars were hunted;
Thirdly, hunters were not the ones who introduced the raccoon dog; that was state policy, therefore it has nothing to do with the attitude of hunters.
The assumptions expressed in this plan are subjective, not based on facts and are partially false! Moreover, on page 14, the northern goshawk is mentioned as one of the greatest enemies of the hazel grouse, which is not controlled in any way. For the assumptions that foxes, raccoon dogs and martens threaten the hazel grouse because of hunters, there should be intensified research on the impact of each specific predator species on the hazel grouse population.
Furthermore, I would like to know how much damage is caused to the hazel grouse by wild boars - in numbers in Latvia.
3) Page 20 - "For the status of the hazel grouse to be considered favourable, at least 50 thousand pairs should nest in Latvia.” On what specific data is this assumption based? Why, when determining the population size in Latvia, are only Birdlife calculations taken into account, and not newer numbers - the table on page 18? How can it be determined that, for example, 43 thousand hazel grouse pairs are insufficient, while 50 thousand is already enough?
4) Page 23 - “The author expresses the assumption that the main reason for the decline in numbers is incorrect (hazel grouse) hunting policy, which facilitates the destruction of their nests.” What is meant by “incorrect hunting policy”? According to what criteria does the author classify hunting policy as correct or incorrect? In this specific context, I would like to emphasise the time period during which the census was carried out. In 1940, Latvia was occupied, so it can be assumed that not all foresters continued to carry out the counts. I would like to point out that the statements made in this context are also very subjective and based on assumptions.
5) Page 29 “When preparing information for the European Breeding Bird Atlas in 1991–1993, the population sizes of all bird species in Latvia were assessed. At that time, when assessing the number of galliform birds, and without realising the extremely poor quality of the census data, these counts were nevertheless taken into account (Strazds et al., 1994). In this work, it was estimated that 10–12 thousand pairs of hazel grouse nested in Latvia, but even then, a significant (at least 50% of the total population size) decline in numbers since 1970 was noted.” In the summary, it is mentioned that the authors of the plan have established that there are more than 10 thousand hazel grouse pairs in Latvia. If 25 years ago the size of the hazel grouse population was estimated to be the same as today - about 10-12 thousand pairs, how can it be claimed that the population is endangered? It is rather STABLE! The decline since the beginning of the last century can be explained by various factors. According to what is written in the plan, it can be concluded that a decline was observed after the introduction of raccoon dogs in Latvia, but the hazel grouse population has ultimately learned to coexist with them. If there has been no rapid decline in the number of birds over the last 25 years, then it can certainly be concluded that the population is stable!
6) Page 30 - "Due to them, the structure of the forests changed greatly and the intensity of forestry work increased. At the same time, due to the hunting policy actually implemented in the country, the number of wild boars increased greatly." There is no basis for the assumption that the number of wild boars increased rapidly until 1990; likewise, it cannot be claimed that this negatively affected the number of hazel grouse! VMD wild boar census data: https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/00/85/05/MezacukuskaitadinamikaLatvija.jpg I point out that in the 1996/1997 hunting season, the estimated number of wild boars was slightly more than 15 thousand. If wild boars really affected hazel grouse, then by 2001, when the number of wild boars was still low, the number of hazel grouse should have increased rapidly. Likewise, the number of wild boars has only increased since 2002, and based on that, the number of hazel grouse should have decreased rapidly. Therefore, the claim that the hazel grouse is endangered because of the attitude of hunters is absolutely false.
7) Page 31 “The increase in the number of hunted birds in recent years could be explained by the intensification of hunting tourism.” Absolute nonsense! People come to Latvia for hunting tourism to hunt red deer, moose and roe deer! There have been a few cases where foreign hunters have hunted woodcock in Latvia.
8) Page 35 “The most popular hunting method in Europe is attracting hazel grouse with a special whistle in the spring and autumn.” Total nonsense! The Birds Directive prohibits bird hunting in the spring! Such hunting does not happen - at all, neither in Scandinavia, nor in Latvia, nor anywhere else in the European Union!
9) Page 35 "Direct and indirect destruction. This group of factors includes hazel grouse hunting. The hazel grouse is (or has been) a popular hunting object throughout its range.” I would like to point out that the European Commission has acknowledged: The Birds Directive fully recognises that the hunting of wild birds, as a form of sustainable use, is legal. Hunting is an activity that makes a significant contribution to social, cultural, economic and environmental protection in various regions of the European Union. Only specific species listed in this directive can be hunted, which also specifies a number of ecological principles and legal requirements related to this activity that must be implemented by the laws of the member states. This is how the basis for hunting management has been established. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/hunting_guide_lv.pdf Therefore, to consider legal hunting as a form of destruction is unfounded and also incorrect. Illegal hunting could be put into this category. Furthermore, at the intensity at which hazel grouse have been hunted over the last 15 years, hunting has no impact on their population!
10) Page 73 “Control of predator numbers. It is necessary to reduce the hunting quota for wolves and lynx so that their numbers increase, and accordingly, the impact on medium-sized predators – the raccoon dog, foxes and (to a lesser extent) the marten.” Wolves and lynx are not even mentioned in the plan itself until now. It is possible that wolves affect the number of raccoon dogs, but the same cannot be said for foxes and martens. This proposal is absolute nonsense, which is more like a populist attempt to ingratiate oneself with a small part of society. The proposal should rather be - to develop a programme within which hunters could be attracted to the eradication of small predators, especially raccoon dogs. The fact that such a programme could work is proven in relation to wild boars. When a special programme was introduced in connection with ASF, 17 thousand female wild boars were hunted in a short time. To an even greater extent, hunters were not motivated in any way to participate in such types of activities to date, especially in relation to bird protection.
11) Page 74 “Regarding the impact of wild boars on birds that nest on the ground and changes in this impact (if such occur in connection with the spread of African swine fever). Implement a complete register of permanent wild boar feeders (those where the spilled food (potatoes, beets, maize grains, etc.) has created an area different from the surrounding vegetation larger than 10 m2, or where fixed feed dispensers/salt licks are placed and in their immediate vicinity are stationary hunting towers) (accessible publicly or restricted, e.g., in the Ozols system).” I would like to point out that feeding wild boars on the ground is currently prohibited! Furthermore, I see no connection between baiting wild boars to increase hunting opportunities and the increase or decrease in the number of hazel grouse.
12) Page 75 “In order to preserve the hazel grouse as a game species even after the end of this plan's operation, it is necessary to regularly publish the number of birds hunted annually. To assess the status, it is also necessary to publish a reliable annual population assessment of animals affecting the hazel grouse (martens, badgers, foxes, raccoon dogs, American minks, polecats and wild boars) and the precise annual number of individuals hunted.” This information is available regardless of the development of the plan.