A conversation with Egils Ozols, Director of the “LVM Recreation and Hunting” unit at the joint-stock company “Latvijas valsts meži”
It is quite common to hear farmers complaining that deer have been eating their crops again. Foresters are worried about young pine stands. What is the situation?
Speaking of wild boar, not long ago I met several deer park owners in Latvia and heard an interesting story: in deer parks where owners raised wild boar alongside deer, the number of the latter decreased. Why? The boar ate the young deer! A surprise? No, the wild boar is, after all, also a predator, an omnivore, and it does not turn down meat! A boar’s food is “processed” into its own “meat volume”; that is how this animal is biologically “designed”. Currently, African swine fever has been raging in many places across Latvia.
Turning to the question of deer: at one time, there were too many of them in some parts of Latvia; with the number of wild boar decreasing and considering the current hunting intensity, the already excessive “abundance” has increased even further. In many places, it has become problematic to grow a forest (pines, aspens), and this situation should not be considered acceptable!
For example, in Kurzeme there are 1,500 hectares of forest, an overabundance of deer, and a set limit on hunting. You cannot hunt as much as you should... What is to be done?
That is the problem! I think the solution to the situation lies not in just one place – in numbers or limits – but also in the hunters themselves and in a common (unfortunately!!!!) human inability to reach an agreement! One person “pouts”, another gets offended, someone else gets up and leaves, while the deer meanwhile multiply and are not hunted as they should be... I am an active hunter myself, I work in several clubs, and where there are more people, reaching an agreement is not easy! One person in the collective thinks: “Look, he is hunting too much!” Another gets angry: “A club member is hunting too little and rarely, do we even need such a person in our club?” There are many, various, and opposing views, etc. There is also the term: “Rigas residents”, who, in the opinion of the locals, arrive to hunt too rarely or – “why does he have to come to our region, let him hunt near Riga...” In small hunting grounds, these issues, which are not very important for game management, create division. This is not right! I do not think the situation is much different in large hunting grounds. This should definitely be corrected! The Civil Law also states: “Hunting rights belong to the landowner.” In Estonia, it is a little different; there, hunting grounds have been established, and that is that! In Latvia, the (land) owner can choose whether or not to sign a contract with hunters; it is their choice.
The Hunting Law stipulates that if one owner has, for example, 1,500 hectares and there is a second owner next door with 1,000 hectares, and the territories are adjacent, it is possible to reach an agreement and hunt together on 2,500 hectares, where there is an opportunity to hunt all large game animals. But – once again, the aforementioned inability to reach an agreement!
An inability to reach an agreement is perhaps typical of humans as beings, not just hunters. What about hunters and society? Hunting, hunters – a significant number of people in Latvia, people who do a lot for the balance in nature, know the forests and animals well...
At the moment, there are attempts to give hunters a bad reputation in various ways. Unfortunately, this is the case! A “bad” image of the hunter is deliberately cultivated, especially among the part of society that is ignorant and far removed from the forest. City dwellers, who see something through a window or on some screen, neither understand nor know the situation outside populated areas. This is a modern-day affliction – many discussions take place between people who know nothing about the subject being discussed! And – the chain continues – many, in many places, already perceive such “discussions” (“the ignorant and the ignorant”) as the opinion of a segment of society, without analysing the understanding and knowledge of this part of society (involved in the conversation) regarding the topic. As I have observed: if a discussion about hunting issues is organised publicly, it usually moves in one direction – “the hunter is the bad one after all, but the others are the ‘good ones’”! Absurd!
In fairy tales, the hunter is often a good character!
Yes, and not only in fairy tales!
What is the situation with poaching in Latvia?
It is difficult for me to judge; I can be guided by feelings or the information available to me! Currently, poaching is not a major problem. There are isolated cases where a game hide or other remains are found in the forest, but it cannot always be said that they were left by a poacher. It happens that one of the “official” hunters, on the way home, throws something into a strange ditch or leaves it in another forest. Unfortunately, if we are used to seeing tyres or bottles in the forests or bushes, occasionally we also come across “hunting leftovers”. Nothing has been heard or read about poaching gangs for a long time. The last period when people were worried about such things was at the turn of the last century...
The capercaillie or the black grouse, in many people's opinion, should be huntable, but they have no species protection plan. To what extent does bureaucracy dictate hunting?
The capercaillie and black grouse are huntable! They have a set hunting season (in autumn) in the hunting regulations, but there are no hunting permits! This is “thanks to” the lack of species protection plans! You are allowed to hunt, but there are no permits! A species protection plan is created to allow hunting while conserving. For the capercaillie, for example, hunting is guided by the size of the lek. How to determine the number of capercaillie in autumn, when hunting is now permitted, is something no one knows. In my opinion, the solution would be simple: to look at how this is solved in neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, that does not happen!
The hazel grouse, a relative of the capercaillie and black grouse...
Looking at the hazel grouse’s species protection plan, we see prose and lyricism! Nothing else! An important place in the hazel grouse’s life is occupied by the wild boar discussed at the beginning of the conversation, which is the hazel grouse’s natural enemy. In essence – when there were many boar, the hazel grouse “experienced” plenty of unpleasant moments. Now there are few or no boar at all – the number of grouse should increase! Is that the case?
If you are in the forest (in a territory) where the hazel grouse lives, you see that they are there! They are! Undoubtedly! It is important to add: “If you are in the forest!” If you are sitting in Riga, in an apartment or an office, clattering away on a computer, you will not see a hazel grouse!
In essence, a species protection plan is an important (very important!!!!) document, which must be created based on long-term, professional research. In Latvia, there are none! Instead of research, there are emotions, which in this case are the worst advisors.
Every species has specific places where they live! The capercaillie, black grouse, or hazel grouse will never live on agricultural land or in shrubbery! These are not the territories of these species! There are as many individuals of a species as there is space in their niche, for example in Latvia, and to the extent that these species can occupy the relevant niche! There cannot be more birds than is possible!
To a person who follows these issues, it does not seem understandable – to be worried about the huge decline in the number of hazel grouse and at the same time leave it on the list of huntable birds... That does not add up!
The desire to remove the hazel grouse from the list of huntable species existed... The basic idea of the species protection plan was to achieve the possibility of not hunting and to protect... Of course, not all huntable species have such a protection plan, nor is it necessary! If a species is found in large numbers and in many places in Europe, and the population is not threatened, such a plan is not needed! For some reason, it seems to me that it is a peculiarity of some Latvian ornithologists to believe that there are few species and few individuals: “there is little of everything – everything must be protected”! Because – in their opinion, “everything” must “increase”! Does the number of individuals of every species necessarily have to increase? For example, do we need an increasing cormorant population? A precise and understandable overall picture and a broader vision are needed.
Another example – black storks. If their numbers are decreasing (apparently)... they are immediately and hastily blamed on forest management... But!!!! The number of black storks has also decreased in the Ķemeri National Park, where there is no economic activity! There are many other factors affecting (regulating) population size that must definitely be taken into account! For example, the number of white-tailed eagles is increasing. It has been proven that the white-tailed eagle also feeds on black storks... Which of the two birds should be considered “better”?
The lesser spotted eagle also eats other birds. This species, however, is more dependent on another food base (it is not an omnivore) and requires frogs. Agricultural crops, which we know by the melodic word “rapeseed”, occupy quite large areas in Latvia. And the lesser spotted eagle cannot get to food in rapeseed fields, because it is physically impossible for the bird!
Bears, fluffy ones. The latest information my colleagues told and showed me – a bear visited near Saulkrasti. The fluffy ones are approaching Riga!
Riga too! And not just near Saulkrasti! The population here is the same Estonian and Russian bear population with one difference: in Estonia, bears have never disappeared, but in Latvia, they have! Historically, it has turned out that the bear has been in Latvia and is included in the “Red Data Book”. Currently, the population of this predator has increased, quite noticeably, and – it looks like – soon we will have to take action so that...! We can even say: now there are many bears!
The conclusion is simplified – but – if bears are returning, settling down to live, “posing for photographers”, inspecting bee apiaries – they surely have favourable enough conditions in Latvia!
Of course! The bear is a predator and an omnivore, and a quite ruthless one at that. Here I would like to mention – as long as a local population of a species is hunted – its representatives fear humans. That is genetics. If we stopped hunting wolves, I assume they would soon turn on humans because they would lose their fear of them. “Humans are easily accessible, encountered in many places, they have listened to the beautiful fairy tale about the wolf and are not afraid...” There are enough berry and mushroom pickers in the forests! And wolves too!
A solution for the bear population should be sought together with the Estonians. Unfortunately, we do not do that! State borders do not exist for the bear. Of course, legislation in neighbouring countries may differ, but everything can be agreed upon if there is a will!
How is it with foreign hunters at the moment?
They exist, but I would assess the situation as complicated, because in other parts of Europe they are afraid of African swine fever! It is still raging here, and elsewhere there is a certain misunderstanding of the situation. Unfortunately, we cannot say that this plague is not present elsewhere; cases of the disease were recently discovered in the Czech Republic, although they believe they have managed to cope with the disease. As far as I know, the disease “is limited” in a specific area there (the Czechs themselves think so). The disease is raging in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and there are also cases of the disease in Belgium. A commercial hunting participant or enthusiast, knowing this story, is cautious – they want to hunt as they would like, but you never know if they might “take the plague” home along with all the game! The second thing, which is well understood and “follows” the plague – the number of pigs is now significantly lower! In commercial hunting, it is also possible to hunt deer and roe deer, but fundamentally, hunters who came for driven hunts came for “pigs”. “They say, we can hunt deer in Europe”, and there it traditionally takes place as stalking hunts. The moose remains interesting for commercial hunters. The number of hunters has therefore decreased, but we cannot complain about an acute shortage! Finns, Danes, Norwegians, and Poles are coming.
The reasons for commercial hunting are varied – one – they come to hunt what they cannot hunt at home because it is prohibited or the animal does not exist in that country, another – many travel because of the trophies obtained by hunting in different countries. To see the land, hunting traditions, etc. In recent years, many descendants of Baltic Germans from Germany have been visiting us! Their grandparents were born and raised here, the grandchildren come hunting, and at the same time visit Latvia, old manors, or even the family cemetery!
Predator attacks on pets, young stands being eaten, collisions with traffic... Flexibility in thinking and problem-solving. How to act?
I do not think there would be a major problem with hunting limits, the forest service is quite accommodating! In my opinion: roe deer should not be limited, and at one time neither should wild boar! Unlimited hunting will not do any harm to the population! And as we have talked about several times – we must learn to reach an agreement! If, due to disputes, say, 1,000 hectares remain unmanaged by hunters, that is not good!