An interview with Jānis Baumanis, Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Hunters Association
Should hunting be banned?
No! Hunting must be regulated, which is already being done in Latvia. The “Hunting Law” and “Hunting Regulations” are the main regulatory acts describing where, how, and who is allowed to hunt, and what and when one is permitted to hunt. If this word can be used – these regulatory acts are “good” for hunters! If necessary, they can of course be changed, because processes in the world and in nature are unstoppable, and a time may come when hunting for certain species should be suspended.
How do Latvian hunters understand environmental protection or “green issues”?
Variously! If objections are well-founded, we have never taken the position: “No! We won’t do it and we won’t comply!” We have been taught and have learned to look for solutions and compromises. If the objections are unfounded, or if the reproach is “you dare to eat meat” or “you kill animals, you’d better buy meat at the store (which someone else killed anyway)” – we do not take those into account.
In an interview, Parliamentary Secretary of the VARAM Jānis Eglīts emphasised the need for a balance between nature conservation and economic interests. In the hunters' view, is there such a balance in Latvia?
We hunters observe the processes; we have to! We are often “hit” from two sides – we are like grain between the millstones. Several years ago, while driving, I was listening to Latvijas Radio 1. Within about fifteen minutes, in two different broadcasts, it was said: one person was explaining energetically, with foam on their lips, that there were few animals left in Latvia, that the majority had been shot out (that was the individual's claim). Right there in another programme, a representative of farmers' organisations was complaining that farmers could grow very little because wild animals come and eat or trample everything, and the hunters do nothing and provide no help!
Many things and events depend on a person's education and the quality of information received. We are undoubtedly facing a problem that foresters and farmers know well – the level of people’s knowledge about natural processes is extremely low and is continuing to drop. People from rural counties and parishes are moving closer to centres or cities, the countryside is becoming emptier, and people in cities are less connected to processes in nature. How professional and knowledgeable is the natural sciences teacher, or do people have relatives or grandparents living in the countryside – that person sees, learns, or picks up something. But if the summer in the countryside is spent with a smartphone or tablet, what is going on around you – it’s no big deal! In the city, by donating a sum of money to environmental protection once a year, a view arises: “I am saving the world too!” That is how “militant environmentalists” emerge regarding matters they neither know nor understand! Here we can talk about a conditional “delegation of authority” – I don’t know what is happening myself, I lack the education or conviction, so I pay and trust someone else to act!
In many places around the world, the issue of species extinction is being updated through campaigns – rhinos, Tasmanian devils, Ussuri (Amur) tigers. Has anything similar been observed here?
It is known that the goal of various campaigns is to collect funds, some of which go to the intended causes, while the other part is consumed by the campaign organisers. That is their salary, and they are interested in problems existing, in expressing them as loudly as possible so that donations are made, and – it happens – the solution to the problem is neglected, is of minor importance, or no one really wants the solution. If the problem disappears (is solved), the organiser becomes redundant! I have no doubt that quite a few people are interested in keeping problems alive.
In Latvia, there have been no direct, crude attempts to update such things; our tradition of donating is not yet that developed. But a desire to present something that is not problematic as an urgent problem is noticeable. Currently, such a situation can be seen regarding large predators. New organisations are forming that are ready to protect wolves and lynx with loud slogans – saying – “Wolves and lynx are being wiped out in Latvia!” “We are also destroying the Estonian and Lithuanian populations! Facts about wolf and lynx damage are being falsified! Latvian regulations contradict European norms!” That is unfortunately a reality that, it seems, will only intensify!
What is the reality with wolves and lynx? Hunters' observations...
In my opinion, everything is fine! For lynx, as confirmed by the authors of the species protection plan, we are observing the best population status in the last hundred years! The “weak point” – studies have so far highlighted information about animals that have been hunted – species advocates try to use this because there is a lack of information about the living population. This opens an opportunity for hunters – to collect and submit data, which we also regularly call for! If you want to prove something, you must have data! Our advantage – researchers have good, high-quality data on lynx and wolf populations, while opponents of hunting have no data – only phrases and unfounded (empty) claims.
Is there any game species in Latvia that has gone extinct, or whose numbers have drastically decreased, over the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, for example?
We have had one species go extinct due to climate change – the ptarmigan. While the bird was both present and hunted at the beginning of the 20th century, climate change took its toll.
There are some migratory duck species that we no longer hunt. The fault there lies in the loss of habitats in duck nesting areas. These species migrate through Latvia, and are usually found in the coastal zone or coastal lakes late in the autumn! The state of these species is poor across the entire European Union, which is why they are protected.
The capercaillie and black grouse are no longer on the list of game birds due to legal misunderstandings, as the state of the population would allow them to be hunted in limited numbers. The capercaillie lacks an approved species protection plan, which was attempted to be coordinated and approved three times, but in the end, the plan disappeared... Meanwhile, for the black grouse, the principles for setting limits in the species protection plan are not really clear.
The other game species are the same, and for almost all major game species, the number of individuals is increasing according to observations. Game species are those that are “worked” with and which people are interested in.
Hazel grouse. How are things for hunters with the hazel grouse?
The hazel grouse is a relatively frequently encountered bird. I personally have encountered it regularly over a 30-year period during my time as a hunter. Judging by personal observations, my feeling is that there are no fewer of these birds than there were 30 years ago! However, this species is much less common in hunters' bags than before, as it is hunted much less. There is a very simple reason for this. Hazel grouse are hunted either individually, by calling the bird with a whistle, or during drive hunts. In the early 90s, when I started hunting, most hunters used smoothbore weapons. If a grouse flew over, you put in a shell with fine shot and you could shoot. Currently, about 50% of hunters hunt with rifled weapons, with which you won't shoot a grouse, no matter how close it sits, because there will be nothing left of the game! Often a grouse flies over, but the hunter is waiting for a wild boar, red deer, or elk. As I mentioned, there are very few of this species in hunters' bags. On one hand – the hunting pressure is decreasing, which is beneficial for the birds! From another point of view – the fact that the birds haven't been hunted is used as an argument for the claim – there are no grouse, the numbers are decreasing! Saying: “Do you see how many were hunted 20 years ago and how many there are now? The number of grouse is decreasing!” Hunting hazel grouse is still permitted, but changes in the situation and hunter interests have created this state! A game with information is taking place.
Has this situation changed hunting habits for other small birds? For example, woodcock.
Undoubtedly! Woodcock hunting in Latvia traditionally took place in the spring. Latvia has never had popular hunting with bird dogs that find birds in bushes or forests and “flush” them into the air on the hunter’s command. Since joining the EU, spring hunting has been banned. If several thousand woodcock were hunted before then, now in the autumns, when hunting is permitted, guest hunters arrive and get a few dozen head of game with bird dogs. That’s it! If we look at the game data, the numbers are different, but it is not true to say that the species (woodcock) is numerically decreasing.
What about beavers?
Hunters are being involved in regulating the situation because simply breaking down the dams created by the animals yields no results. Beavers created major problems about 15-20 years ago when they had settled in drainage systems. I believe the beaver is part of our fauna, is a game species, and is certainly not to be specifically restricted or exterminated, but it should not inhabit a drainage system, because that (drainage) is intended for something else. The problems in the time period I mentioned arose from human activity (the creation of drainage systems), followed by prolonged inaction (the systems were left neglected). In Soviet times, drainage systems stretched for hundreds of kilometres, but by the end of that era, they ceased to be maintained and monitored. Many became overgrown and clogged, creating ideal conditions for the beaver to live and feed without leaving the drainage ditch. In state forests, the issue was solved by renovating, cleaning, and maintaining the drainage systems, removing overgrowth, restoring drainage, and paying hunters a symbolic sum for inspecting and maintaining it all. If a beaver dam is 30-40 years old, it will be very difficult to get the beavers out of it. If there is no outflow for the body of water, catching the beavers changes nothing, because the water does not flow away. If the drainage system is kept in order, I believe it is the hunter’s duty not to let the beaver settle there. It is not complicated. As far as I understand and can see, the system in state forests has been organised; problems are still observed in places on agricultural lands, although the situation is gradually normalising there too.
What has been the biggest surprise for your organisation in the last few years? An unexpected catch, a rare species, some event...
It was not a single incident that surprised me, but a long-term process! Namely – the events of the last four years with and regarding wild boar due to African Swine Fever. We had heard something before that, but the information reached us in a very fragmented way... If something happens elsewhere, there is a hope that “it won’t reach us...” If the veterinarians are just worrying in vain or some interested party had hoped for something by misleading us... When the plague appeared in Latvia, and seeing now how everything has developed over the four years, how significantly these events differed from what was expected, and still – after four years – we don’t know enough about the disease... That is a surprise, because nowadays medicine is developed, and connections exist between countries. But – such a plague is still unexpected, takes us by surprise, and we don’t know how to deal with it. Within the state, incomprehensible events began; instead of everyone uniting in a common fight against the disease, one service started fighting with another. The Food and Veterinary Service bought a mobile crematorium to burn dead pigs in Daugavpils, the State Environmental Service decided to shut it down, starting a dispute – whether the slaughterhouse is mobile or not... The Ministry of Transport found other paperwork violations in the transport of dead pigs... We saw not a fight against the disease, but battles between state institutions...