At a time when such a powerful process as the 'nature census' is taking place in Latvia because it is not 'truly' known what European-scale values are hidden in our land, the question arises: how much, in fact, and what exactly is in this small patch of land... Only all sorts of 'regressives' are frightening everyone with some kind of invented future horrors.

Let us not be naive - against the backdrop of an industrialised and chemicalised Europe, Latvia possesses many natural values that do not exist in other bloc countries. Of course, from the side of landowners, concerns have been constantly voiced over the last year and a half about what will happen after the nature auditors have finished their work and the millions of euros have been 'absorbed'. Among these people are both pessimists, who predict that 'everything and everywhere' will be prohibited—so, axe over the shoulder and off to the forest—but there is also no shortage of optimists, who believe, 'they will count them; so what, what will they do with it all?' The optimists' perspective has its strengths: it will not be possible to prohibit economic activity everywhere, because then there will be no one left to pay taxes. Moreover, tax money will be needed for the compensation of the landowners who receive these restrictions, and as such, it has not been possible to 'squeeze' such funds out until now, so it is unlikely that the next government's most important task could be finding money for the granting of such compensations.

The pessimists, in turn, have their own 'pillbox'; namely, our local leaders could 'show the whole of Europe how nature values should truly be protected'—economic activity allowed, but only with a wooden plough; no tractors, no harmful emissions, no noises that frighten the living creatures, for whom 'their hearts stop' because of them. Furthermore, if the number of people living in rural areas has decreased since the post-Soviet period and the lack of jobs continues to empty them, then why couldn't this empty niche be filled by wildlife? The wildlife is already successfully doing so. It seems that the nature-lovers' group will object to this conclusion. But at the same time, it is unclear where to find OBJECTIVE – TRUE – data on exactly how many specific forest animals and birds there are in Latvia. Just one strange example—I happened to be in a territory affected by African swine fever, and consequently, according to the annals of data, such creatures as wild boars simply do not exist there because those that lived there have moved to better 'feeding grounds', and some have been shot by hunters. BUT, who then 'ploughed' the sown grassland here? Officially, there are no wild boars, but in fact, they are there. Perhaps the grass-ploughers are some kind of mutant moles?! Funny?! No!

In previous years, from time to time, small-scale farmers were frightened by the EU Birds Directive and the fact that it had not been properly implemented here. It was claimed that the local inhabitants treated birds badly—threatening their living space. But in Latvia, unlike some other small country where birds are almost only found in the zoo, birds are found both in the thickets of the forest and in the urban jungle; some of them try to stay close to humans, others, quite the opposite, further away from the hustle and bustle of people. At the same time, the question is how many birds of each specific species there are in Latvia! Why such a question? To be able to answer the sensational question—ARE bird numbers in Latvia declining, staying the same, or increasing? And here, please, give me specific figures for each specific bird species! That would be a great opportunity to end the dispute between small farmers and nature defenders over whether some bird is becoming fewer or more numerous! Then one could also try to find answers to the question: why? Are there many storks in Latvia? One answer will be 'many', another that there could be more! Who is right? Both answers are correct because things are the way they are with credible data. But there could also be a question of how many storks live in total in the entire EU, broken down by each member state? Who can provide such answers? At the same time, regarding these same storks, especially their population size, it should be understood how many of those that hatch here in Latvia and reach migration age are subsequently eaten in Africa, and how many do not survive the migration to and from Latvia. Nature has arranged it this way, but that is no reason for Latvia to heap ashes on its head and beat its breast, claiming that local landowners have caused this bird species any significant harm and that their numbers are declining. Another interesting fact: what happens if the concentration of storks in one small area exceeds sensible limits? That's right—frogs and other amphibians become a rarity, so there is a lack of a food base, and as a result, immature chicks 'fly out' of the stork nests. Of course, one can object that the food base for the stork is shrinking as a result of human activity. But there is a BUT: how much food does that same stork 'gather' after a grain combine or grass mower has passed over the field, which has, so to speak, 'cleared the space'? Oh, and then there is the question of swallows. Like it or not, human economic activity—livestock farming, especially dairy farming—promotes the number of birds because if there are animals, there are flies and midges, and there are also swallows and other insect hunters—consumers—eaters. If anyone is interested, they can take a peek under the eaves of the abandoned former Soviet-era farms found on more than one roadside, where there are plenty of swallow nests, but no birds. Why not? The farm is empty; what are they supposed to feed on? No cows—no fly-catchers—in other words, it is not because of human activity, but because of inaction. I can already hear the roar of objections and see the angry glares, but the questions remain the same! How many birds, how many animals, how many insects, how many amphibians? It is one thing to constantly talk about the fact that there is less and less wildlife, without true numbers, without analysis of how one species affects another nearby, but it is quite another thing to understand and correctly assess these processes. Then it will not be the case that a stork's nest, which has stood empty for 10 years, is 'protected', but there is no bird there because it has nothing to eat, or simply because the Africans 'do not know that these birds are protected and simply consume them as a meal.'