An interview with Variss Sīpols, BillerudKorsnäs Latvia
I often find myself thinking about the future of our forests. As a professional forester, the first thing I would like to emphasise is that a forest must be both economically viable and protected. We consider productive forests to be those that yield the highest income from a single productive hectare over a given period. Protected forests must be clearly identified (defined) and assessed, without basing these assessments on emotions, as is currently the case. Protected forests undoubtedly give us the ability to correctly understand the phenomena and processes in nature. Protected territories (forests) also existed during the so-called “socialist times”; I worked as a chief engineer at a forestry enterprise (MRS) at that time, and later as a director. There are too many schemes and systems that have been “constructed” for the supposed sake of environmental protection since Latvia regained its independence. We are not so wealthy that we can simply let wood rot in the forest just because of someone’s whim. Bans and nature reserves have been “constructed”, and the view that “the more nature reserves, the better!” is also a “constructed” (artificial) one.
For example, a protected lichen species was found in productive forests, which led to a ban on logging there. It turns out that this same lichen grows and can be found on building foundations in Old Riga. Over time, nature conservation has turned from real, serious protective measures into a business. This is how money intended for this “business” is acquired, and the process (the inflow of money) occurs in waves – when there is money, the recipients and beneficiaries are loud and diligent environmental advocates; when money is scarce or runs out, the former advocates are just as diligently silent.
It is important to know and understand that “nature conservationists” contribute very little money to the state budget, unlike land managers.
In connection with these developments, I would like to add that if we currently have approximately 1.8 million inhabitants in Latvia, the loudest shouters on environmental issues will be around 10,000, no more. As a company manager, I do not have time to “sit” on the internet to refute theses, speculations, or other nonsense posted by emotional individuals who have heard something or other. At the same time, this lack of time is the misfortune of us foresters, because if you do not debate emotional people, sooner or later they will prevail... This happens in matters regarding cutting ages, the conversion of productive forests into nature reserves, and also regarding habitats. In my opinion, a scenario for productive and sensible discussion could be simple: if the responsible state institutions agree, protected areas can be created in state forests, and this becomes their responsibility and problem at the same time – meaning responsibility and oversight! If restrictions are planned for private forests that owners have developed as productive, the solution is different: either the owner is fairly and honestly compensated for the presence of a protected habitat in their forest, or the owner continues to use the forest for economic purposes. Period!
There is a lot of discussion in the industry about “money grabbing” – why is it so rarely heard of and spoken about loudly outside the sector? Instead of the clinking of money, alarm bells are ringing publicly...
That has developed historically. Intelligent people who live and work in the forest are not yellers by nature. Foresters do not shout!
Back in the days of the MRS, a forest ranger was responsible for about 600 hectares in their district and did everything: prepared the felling fund, tended the forest, and planted trees. Currently, we have reduced the number of rangers within our budget, but the intelligence of industry people has remained, and imposing their views on others is not in the nature of foresters. I must repeat: in Latvia, many things and processes are based on emotions! You can achieve something by spreading information in a distorted way. Take our experience and story about wolves, for example. If we once hunted about 300 wolves on average per year (I am talking about those that were recorded) and wolf hunting was allowed all year round, now they have a set closed season, and we very quickly hunt the permitted 280 individuals. Do we need the wolf as a dominant predatory species in Latvia? I think not! Of course, the wolf as a species is necessary, and there is no talk of extermination, nor will there be! But!... the damage caused by wolves to farmers and foresters has increased. The roe deer, as well as red deer and elk calves torn apart by the “greys”, are also directly related to forestry. There must be a balance of species in forest habitats. In this regard, I must say that I have met advocates for wolves and lynx, but I have not had the chance to meet advocates for wild boars, red deer, or elk... Why does no one defend these animals? Foresters have often not overly emphasised or loudly expressed their scientifically based views; silence in this case is our mistake! One must talk to emotional and expansive people! Otherwise, it will not end well!
How is the hazel grouse, the bird of the year, faring in the forests of Sēlija?
The ornithologists' project for the protection of the hazel grouse does not stand up to criticism... Hazel grouse do not live everywhere; they need ditch edges, field margins, and deciduous trees. The population size of hazel grouse, as well as black grouse and capercaillie, undoubtedly depends on meteorological conditions in spring. People close to me, hunters, do not hunt hazel grouse, which does not mean at all that the bird should be excluded from the hunting list or that their numbers have decreased because of it. Perhaps one day in my life I will want to shoot one hazel grouse, have it stuffed, and have a trophy! Now they are trying to convince us that the hazel grouse is disappearing. Hunters would not be to blame for the disappearance of the hazel grouse... The species protection plan included studying the impact of the northern goshawk on the hazel grouse population. You would need an excellent nose to find the remains of a hazel grouse killed by a northern goshawk. By the way, there are few northern goshawks left in Latvia because domestic chickens are mostly kept in farms and are rarely let outside, so the hawk cannot get to them! In my forests, if you wish, I can show you five or six hazel grouse at once! I know where they live; they are there every year! Hunters, together with nature lovers, should think about how to combat the badgers and pine martens that have multiplied in recent years, which are the main threats to the hazel grouse's spring nesting! By worrying about human impact, the hazel grouse’s natural enemies are forgotten.
Is the increase in the number of martens and badgers also a result of the aforementioned loss of balance?
It is also related to posters on the streets: “ladies must not dress up in fur collars or hats.” Stupid! Is it better to leave a shot fox for the crows to have for lunch? Driving along country roads, we often encounter foxes with clear signs of mange... We see mangy wolves. The disease causes a certain amount of distress to wolves; they head to rural houses or villages and “snatch (tear apart) chained or domestic dogs”. This is not normal!
A hunter regulates the number of one species or another. Nature has a tendency to regulate the number of individual species through disease. This was the case with classical swine fever, not to mention African swine fever now. Nature “regulates” the number of foxes and raccoon dogs with mange.
If we set aside disputes, what are your thoughts on the future of Latvia’s forests?
In my view, the area of protected forests in Latvia could be around 10% – that would be enough! Which forests in which region should remain protected must be determined by specialists! 90% of forests must be available for economic use!
On the coast, we want to grow and produce pine in 0.2-hectare clearings. Pine will not grow there; it will not get enough light!
That was taught at university! The pine is a sun-lover!
Of course, that is what was taught! But there are people who want to “overturn” proven facts. A juniper might grow in a 0.2-hectare clearing, but a pine will not!
How is forest tidiness in the forests of Sēlija? Do the owners look after their forests?
About 20 years ago, the average forest area owned by a forest owner in Latvia was 7–10 hectares. Currently, most forests in Latvia are in the hands of large forest owners. From the perspective of forest management, this is to be considered positive because the owners have their own economic management programme for their forest, which is followed. If someone thinks that the smaller the forest property, the better – that view is wrong! Small forest properties once had problems with forest regeneration – if you have cut down pine, you are welcome to replant the area with pine or at least spruce! This did not always happen, and after a good pine forest, buckthorn, hazel, and at best, birch and aspen often grew in the plot! Birch (although even that is not ideal after conifers!) would be the best option; in private forests, we are “not allowed” to grow aspen due to damage by wild animals. The elk will find the aspen regardless of whether it is a few or a few thousand hectares. At the moment, we might not be acting quite correctly in our forests, but we do not tend to aspen plots for a while. As soon as the aspen bark starts to become corky (the tree will be about 15 years old), the damage from elk becomes less. What do I want to say with this? A serious mistake by those who drafted the legislative documents at the time was not to define species succession in forest plots.
Is there anything rare in the forests of Sēlija that you yourself are happy about? I doubt a bear would come from Estonia...
There is! There is a bear – two, in fact! Last August, wolves tore apart a red deer cow. We hunters were sitting and waiting for the wolves to return. The wolves returned, but on the fourth day, a bear crossed the field. Our young colleague in the hunting collective was even confused, thinking some drunk old man was crawling through the forest! The bear visited the field but did not approach the cow killed by the wolves. We got a good look at the guest. In Daudzeva, one apiary was damaged. Not long ago, near Jēkabpils, during a hunt, we surrounded wolves and also flushed a bear from the drive. There are bears in our area too! I assume there are more of them, and not just from Estonia!
Estonia has a different problem – wolves are allowed to be hunted there even less than necessary, and they are sometimes hunted illegally. That is not normal! The Scandinavians, on the other hand, have their own trouble – about 70% of elk cows there are without calves! Because two large predators – the wolf and the bear – simply “take the elk calves out of circulation”. Swedish hunters, logically, are protesting because their national hunt (elk hunting) is being distorted! Furthermore, the wolves there cause huge damage to so-called “elk dogs” (dogs used in elk hunting). Rarely will anyone be satisfied with a situation where a wolf kills a member of your family! Is it correct to say: “let the little wolf live, let’s feed him our dogs!” The inability to regulate the number of predators causes problems not only for us in Latvia...