The leadership of the Latvian Ornithological Society (LOB) regularly complains that forestry, which provides jobs for thousands of people in Latvia, causes “enormous damage” to birds, and therefore, they argue, work should not be permitted for a period of three months. The damage that would be inflicted upon people and the national economy in this way is of no interest to these gentlemen, who live off European project funding. Landowners are against such a ban, and the Ministry of Agriculture also believes that balance is achieved through a targeted system of restrictions in forestry rather than a blanket three-month ban that would paralyse economic activity.

There are already various restrictions in force in Latvia that protect birds—seasonal bans, micro-reserve regulations, and so on. However, the LOB is still not satisfied, claiming that more than 50 thousand bird nests are destroyed every year due to forestry. How such data is obtained is known only to a narrow circle of the society's members.

Of course, bird protection can be improved. It is possible that there are areas where a work ban could be imposed for a two-week period. However, it is doubtful that Latvia can afford to paralyse an important sector of the economy. Latvia already has many mandatory requirements in forest management that are stricter than elsewhere in Europe.

Disregarding people can lead to absurdity. Every year, thousands of birds and animals die on roads and railways. Should we ban cars and trains? Should we ban aeroplanes that disturb migratory birds? Animals and birds also perish during harvesting and mowing. Should we therefore ban farmers from working the land with tractors and combine harvesters?

Ornithologists themselves could also make a contribution. To reduce the anthropogenic load on birds, they could choose not to leave Riga in the spring—that way, the number of visitors in some protected areas would drop by nearly half. Are ornithologists and other “friends of nature” not the biggest disturbers of capercaillies during the mating season? Does the black stork like it when a “researcher” stuffs it into a sack to weigh it? Are observation cameras not to blame for the poor nesting success of some lesser spotted eagles? Is this kind of “bird protection” in reality just a paid hobby for a few individuals?

“Friends of nature” are always ready to experiment as long as they can access funding. At one time, alternative food—branches—was brought for the beavers living in the Riga Canal that were gnawing on park trees. Unfortunately, the beavers ignored the innovation. Bears are also a protected species in Latvia. Should our country really be engaged in building up a bear population? Bears belong in large forest tracts, in the taiga, not in Latvia. The bear is a large predatory animal that also requires a substantial food base. We should keep in mind the example of Slovakia, where these animals have multiplied to the point that they threaten people. Moreover, there is no compensation provided for damage caused by bears.

Who will pay for the losses caused to Latvia and its workers, and from what sources? I suspect the LOB might still have some savings left from the legendary “hoopoe project” in Ādaži, which brought in 1.5 million EUR, and some other profit-making endeavours, but even that would be far from enough to compensate the actual workers, landowners, and the state. Latvia does not have exploitable resources of oil, gas, or iron ore. Our country’s main resource is land, which we need to and can productively use for the production of agricultural and forestry products. Spring is not the most intensive time for forestry work, because roads are thawing, it is the sap-flowing season for deciduous trees, and prices drop. We do not need to impose new bans again; Latvia is already a country of bans and restrictions. The landowner is capable of deciding for themselves what to do with their land.

Paradoxically, the “nature protectors” mostly live in Riga themselves, and for them, the countryside is just a place to go and relax. However, people still live in the countryside, they work there, and for them, the land is private property. If someone, for instance the state, wishes to restrict their rights to freely manage their property, then the state must also pay adequate compensation. If the “friends of nature” managed to achieve this, forest owners would not protest but would grow birds, lichens, and snails according to their instructions, while we could purchase timber from Scandinavian countries or Russia. The state does not have the money for such a land of milk and honey, but that does not prevent it from using budget funds and Scandinavian-financed foundation money to create plans for new nature conservation areas all over Latvia.

It is interesting, though, why the Norwegians, for example, are so very interested in nature conservation in our country? There are not many examples of the West just throwing money around. And who would benefit from a significant restriction of economic activity, effectively not allowing forestry, trade, and transport to be carried out for three months?