[ad_1]
The program includes the Minister for the Environment, Kęstutis Mažeika, Vice-President of the Seimas Environmental Protection Committee, Simonas Gentvilas, and Member of the Seimas Environmental Protection Committee, Aistė Gedvilienė.
– Minister, what makes this hunting method so special and beneficial for you, for society or for someone else who has decided to legalize it?
K. Mažeika: In fact, first of all, it is regrettable that there has been a great wave of outrage in society, because first it was a misrepresentation of the information that the Minister allows. But perhaps in a deeper look, given the situation in which a bill on arms and ammunition control was approved last year, which was also discussed by the Environment Committee and the main one was the National Defense and Security Committee. , which removed the general definition of arches. That resulting legal gray probably required a decision of one kind or another. I can quote that, since bows for sport are no different from bows for hunting and entertainment except for the tips used for hunting, that is precisely what cannot be determined. It is proposed to establish in the bill that the law does not apply to all bows, here I am talking about the law on the control of arms and ammunition …
– What do you mean, minister?
K. Mažeika: It was Seimas himself who made the decision to facilitate, I quote, develop the sport of archery without complicating the organization and conduct of competitions, and emphasizes that in Lithuania there are no cases of violations of public order or crimes With bows, bows do not pose a real threat to public safety. . Therefore, there are a number of reasons listed, and the Seimas adopted that provision. Therefore, a provision prohibiting the use of bows has disappeared from this law.
Hunters themselves or interested parties have probably wondered if, if not banned, it might be possible. Therefore, it is logical that a discussion is debated. If it were a decision to make the bows available from the weekend, from today or tomorrow, we could probably say that it is indisputable that a unilateral decision has been made. But when that means that from 2022 onwards. perhaps, if there is a debate, if there are separate regimes, evaluated by the EU countries; If I’m not mistaken, 16 countries have a wide range of regulations, from invasive species to suburban and elsewhere, that allow hunting of all species, perhaps that debate could be, because perhaps odd, when colleagues who probably register Bills that legalize drugs immediately register the opposite law, which prohibits hunting entirely or hunting in certain ways.
– Minister, I understand that you have received many arrows of criticism, but let us not lose sight of the logic of the speech. Could you clearly explain why you legitimized this? You say something else needs to be addressed here, no, you have already legitimized it since 2022. The question is very simple: what were your arguments? And you travel to drugs …
In principle, I do not think that this is something tragic for today, because it is probably possible to correct that wording in two years, I think it will be done in the near future. Probably blaming secret, illegal, or other decisions now, I think at least unethical for the day, and I fool people, it makes sense, lives in the rhythm of elections, as I understand it, everyone will probably come up with their own conclusions.
– Minister, why did you not suspend the order? Now he is trying to explain when the decisions were made, to discuss when the decisions are made. Stop the command and the steam will calm down.
K. Mažeika: Probably, the order does not only regulate the use of bows, it is a broader order, some of the amendments have already entered into force as well. And the same use of bullets in hunting, which probably sparked passions for many years, even among hunters themselves, where there certainly were far more injuries and crippled beasts walking in the woods or later found dead where society was outraged. Furthermore, due to safe hunting behavior, where responsibilities are more stringent, hunters will have to take not only a theoretical but also a practical test of safe behavior every five years. These are the provisions that are likely to be essential. If the decision were unilateral without consulting the Hunting Advisory Council, I think it would be unethical in this case. The Council must have an opinion, we will consult them, and I have personally committed myself to it.
– Minister, you are very aware that the Minister’s order can also suspend the validity of individual points of the order, let’s not get involved in the debate here; If I had wanted to, I certainly could have suspended that point. You have acquired the veterinary specialty. Today I have talked to several vets, and they are all talking about the fact that an arc injury in an animal is much more painful in the first place, unless it is done with extreme precision, super precise, human, very well versed in animal anatomy We know that it cannot always happen. But an animal, as if it were healthy, could run with three or four wounds and not bleed immediately. Can you probably confirm this as someone with a veterinary qualification?
K. Mažeika: I can confirm more than that. But just like hunting with a gun, if the shot is fired irresponsibly, it is “one on one”, and you probably don’t need to compare, with one gun or another …
– Are you saying that the danger is “one on one” without pulling the arrow … I don’t want to speak in detail because the program can also be seen by underage viewers. But it seems to me that the difference is obvious?
K. Mažeika: Let’s not argue, there are probably many cases. When it comes to shooting hunting, it’s probably even worse, or equivalent, the same. But perhaps the bottom line is the hunter’s responsibility for the shot. Because he decides when that shot will be and what result it will give and how quickly it will end the animal’s suffering. It is probably the hunter’s duty and, at least, what happens in training courses, shooting courses, is why we reinforce hunters’ responsibility for safe hunting behavior, which should be much more common, because foreign practice shows that the more often they develop those skills. formed, and the least crippled beasts, wounds and all kinds of others.
So, for hunting in principle, it probably doesn’t matter which tool you hunt with, a smooth-barreled weapon or a carbine, the decisive decision is made by the hunter himself. In fact, so many wrong decisions can be made with various weapons that hunting should probably be banned entirely.
– Minister, however, I and the viewers have not heard: what are the main reasons why you legalized bow hunting? Could you argue in a few sentences? After all, when making a decision, the question of why I do it must be answered.
K. Mažeika: If that decision comes in two years, the debate could take place, I think that time could be used for that same debate, in the elaboration of the rules, procedures, regulations, etc. I have not and will not make a truly one-sided decision, and I certainly am not in favor of bow hunting. But we will probably be able to discuss whether hunting with bows is more damaging than hunting with a shotgun, or what the Seimas voted and banned – with a night view … There are probably opposite ways … Yes, compared to agriculture, I don’t think that It is necessary to prohibit the land from working with a horse, since there are modern and luxury tractors that can do everything faster and at a lower cost.
– Minister, I understand correctly: the only argument that this is like a horse in agriculture is an old but reliable weapon. And you have no other arguments?
K. Mažeika: The argument is a debate and a responsibility that hunters have, both for the security and for the hunting methods that exist in other EU countries, as I mentioned, in 16 countries. We are probably not exclusive, or we cannot underestimate our hunters, the people who assume such responsibilities. I think it is necessary to listen to the debate and make decisions after that, if there is any doubt, personally I would not sign said letter to continue.
– Mr. Gentville, how do you evaluate this Ministerial Order?
S. Gentville: We listened to the minister’s monologue, and he was unable to explain to hunters or the public why bows should be used for hunting. Secondly, the Minister continues to lie, and now would be a good opportunity to confess the lie: the order is approved unilaterally. The draft was last agreed at the Advisory Board on April 10. The Advisory Board never spoke about the obeisances, the ministry never sent a draft with a bow, and it was only after seeing the harmonized legislation signed by the Minister that there was a shock.
The discussion that the Minister promises to have is already overdue, because the discussions must take place between professional conservationists, non-governmental organizations, in the Hunting Advisory Council under the supervision of the Minister. The minister simply made a unilateral decision. He says the council recommended it to her, and she talked about it. But today I specifically called two advisers and they told me that, if necessary, they could also publicly confirm that the minister was lying.
And because of the hunt itself, whether this principle is necessary or not, I call it the legalization of brokers in the Lithuanian forests. Because Lithuanian hunting ideologist Tadas Ivanauskas, this fall we will celebrate the centenary of the society he created, he spoke about the fact that it is not first a trophy hunt, that it is not a human hobby, but that hunting is before all protection and enrichment of nature. Today, bows, as they are legalized, are an anti-animal principle. Because we cannot guarantee that the animal will not suffer pain.
If we observe the animal welfare laws, etc., on how animals are slaughtered in Lithuania, it has long been regulated that animals must be stunned before death, or life is brought very soon. In this case, during hunting, this can only be guaranteed with the help of a rifle, not with a bow.
– Mr. Gedviliene, how do you evaluate this situation?
A. Gedvilienė: I feel like we’re talking to a wolf and talking about how to protect the lambs from that wolf. First of all, what surprises me the most is that the legalization of arches is like news for the Minister, but in fact, like two years ago, the Minister, as chairman of the Environment Commission, had already presented a proposal to legalize arches. Then both companies, which raised 60 thousand. Citizen signatures, both members of the Seimas resisted, and the minister was forced to withdraw his proposal. He also promised from the rostrum not to legalize hunting with bows. But today we have another situation, which Simon Gentvil has already mentioned: the Minister, who did not agree with all the institutions or with all the members of the Advisory Board, decided to legalize the rings.
As a result, we went to court, believing it was a violation of the law. The Minister exceeds his competence, ignores the opinions of others and does what is good for him. Perhaps it represents some interest because, as I said, this is his second attempt to legalize hunting, this time a success. And his saying that we legalize first and then discuss sounds like “car first, then horse.” That may not be the case.
Let’s first accept, discuss, explain whether or not we need to, why, and then start making a decision. Now the Minister, using his power, taking advantage of the fact that the public’s attention is now focused on other issues (health, economy) hopes that perhaps this will go unnoticed and quietly worsen not only bow hunting, but also hunting night with dogs, reflectors, etc. I think the Minister for Small should at least apologize, reverse his decision, and generally think about his position as the “green” minister representing the government on this issue.
– Minister, have you tried to hunt or at least shoot yourself?
K. Mažeika: Certainly not, because in Lithuania, as I mentioned, it is prohibited.
– Haven’t you kept a bow in your life?
K. Mažeika: Definitely not. Well, I’ve tried that hobbyist where he’s at various celebrations.
– Going back to the decision, Minister, you say that the decision is not made individually, but in consultation with the Hunting Council. However, the council members, which the Seimas members also mentioned, assure that they did not discuss anything in public. Council members also spoke on Delfi air today, saying they had never seen such a problem. Did you see any minutes, any deliberation, did you tell the Vice Minister, or worse, did that occur to you?
K. Mažeika: It really didn’t occur to me. If we look at the data in our database, after the presentation of the chairman of the advisory board, in this case the deputy minister, the final draft lay on my desk. Judging from the project itself, it didn’t even occur to me that this is a problem that would generate a lot of criticism or controversy, because the main discussions took place, as I said, about the use of bullets in hunting and the deadlines for safe behavior. .
– Minister, I will make it clear: did the Vice Minister make that proposal to you as President of the Hunting Council?
K. Mažeika: I know that the Vice Minister is commenting on this question in various programs, I asked her that question, she will give me a simple answer. That is your responsibility as President, and that responsibility will be demanded.
– She gave it to you as president, right?
K. Mažeika: I do not know if she, as president, or according to the commission, or how that proposal was made … In the final document that I saw, it was signed by her. If it was your personal decision or commission, we will probably see it. Can the President-in-Office suggest that, because there are a number of employees in our ministry on the committee who, judging by the need to regulate in some way to avoid it, or at a certain time, perhaps that explanation should be …
– Minister, you are likely to understand as well as possible that introductions to the Minister are not just written on white paper or a napkin; there is an official document where what is provided is written. So who made you that offer? After all, it is written in black on white.
K. Mažeika: Yes Vice Minister as President of the Hunting Advisory Board.
– As president of the Hunting Advisory Board, although this was not considered by the Hunting Advisory Board. Minister, can it be that if you really don’t know anything about this, you are involved in a potentially illegal activity: decisions are made on the basis of falsified documents? Is the Council making presentations on which no one has voted?
K. Mažeika: I don’t think we’re going to commit a crime yet because we already had a soap bubble this weekend. I believe that what I have instructed my colleagues to discover and provide all the details, I believe that we will have them all in the near future and make the appropriate decisions.
– Mr. Gentvilas, I know that there are several legislative initiatives, including those in power, Širinskienė and Nekrošium made proposals to remove the Minister as an institution to decide which weapons to use. Aren’t these hasty and populist ways of changing the legal system according to one, probably the wrong precedent?
S. Gentville: Firstly, Minister Mažeika has just concluded that the opposition is almost a drug addict, that we provide projects without knowing anything about hunting, that the public also knows that they know nothing, so let them also conclude Širinskienė and Nekrošius. It doesn’t hunt either but it provides projects.
It seems to me that professionals need to address these issues. And the problem for the Minister, who has already started to revolve around his questions, Edmund, is that the bows were not voted on by the Hunting Advisory Council. It must be remembered that the Hunting Council is only advisory and, ultimately, only the Minister adopts on his order, not the Vice Minister. So the minister has the final responsibility.
There are professionals and non-governmental members on the advisory board, from White Wolf to the environmental coalition, a number of hunting clubs, ministries, there really is a professional problem. Sometimes it seems that we take so much responsibility for the law that we no longer allow professionals to decide.
I would still be inclined to have the Advisory Council return to these issues and for the Minister to withdraw this order tomorrow morning and not say that the debate will continue after his unanimous decision. At Seimas, we can come up with a very high regulation of what the cheating force should be, and so on. So those things are really regulated by ministerial orders. But when the minister everything ignore and he signs himself, and now he turns that perhaps the Vice Minister is at fault, here it is necessary to ask the Minister for responsibility.
– Minister, who are the people who have asked you to legalize bow hunting? I am not talking about the Vice Minister.
K. Mažeika: There really are no such people or men. Probably what it is, and what we’re discussing here, I think, is too much excitement in the first place. And that time, I think we will be able to hear the views of our advisory commission in the near future, which I think I really need to hear from again, whether it’s a proposal from some members or what, we will probably find out that the Vice Minister will have to answer questions anyway. . And that issue will have to be reconsidered. Again, that provision is not valid today. I believe that we will certainly find time to hold a committee meeting in the near future where we can re-raise this issue.
I really don’t see any problem with that discussion in a dark art that I will participate in myself. Because last time, as I understand it, when a decision was made … Now we explain if anyone knew or not. It’s probably not worth discussing until we get the final answers. And in any case, the commission will be heard, heard and a final decision will be made.
– Thank you, Minister, I will only correct: the provision is valid. The order of the Minister has entered into force, only at this particular point the hunting of bows begins in 2022. The order has entered into force and is a legal act of the Republic of Lithuania, a valid order of the Minister of the Environment.
[ad_2]
