Comment from zemeunvalsts.lv

Those responsible for nature conservation rarely deny that their sole objective is preservation, pointing to other thinkers and officials when it comes to the interests of owners and the state. For example: "I will find a nest, which I will name as a lesser spotted eagle nest, so that another predator can live there, but compensation for the officially deceived owner is none of my business." The problem is that, unfortunately, Latvian society is actively fed specific, narrow, and purposeful information, which leads many to think that a landowner has only one goal: either to over-fertilise, mow, and disappear, or to log, collect, and leave.

Understandably, this is complete nonsense, but it seems that the corridors of power in Peldu and Baznīcas streets remain fond of the 90s and the thinking style of those years. Of course, one cannot forget the year 1917, when activism without education was also highly regarded.

“I do not understand why a spruce should even be grown for 80 years,” Guntars Klūga explains when asked about the new felling ages. “If it hasn't been eaten by insects, it is certainly damaged by root rot. It’s rotten. The trees are blown over by the wind.

For spruces browsed by forest animals, the first and otherwise most valuable section is at best only pulpwood… You don't get sawlogs out of that. A spruce has already reached its prime at 50 years, and growing it longer will not provide any benefits. Sawlogs from such a spruce can be sold for much more than those from a much older, damaged spruce.”

The forester states that he fully supports the amendments because they provide greater options. Forest owners have learned how to manage their land and are not in such a hurry to log. “I, for example, have many stands that could have been logged according to the previously applicable norms, and of course, still can be now. But if the trees are healthy and are still capable of putting on growth, why cut them down?” In his view, far more than the new felling ages, the forests are threatened by the growing desire to create new protected areas and designate micro-reserves where economic activity is restricted or even prohibited.

“You just receive a letter, and that’s it… The stand is left to rot… If only the management of these restricted areas were reasonable and you could at least log something in the winter, but that is not the case. It is a form of hidden nationalisation of the forest, removing it from economic circulation.

Are we so rich that we can afford this?” Guntars Klūga expresses his bewilderment. “It is precisely the suspicion that restrictions could be imposed on a property that pushes owners to reach for the saw. Otherwise, they risk losing the time and resources invested, as the restrictions are not adequately compensated. Look, this is the biggest problem, not the reduction in the felling diameter, which is what public organisations and environmental activists should be worrying about!”