The hunter reacted to the scandal: I can no longer remain silent

What happened to the image of the hunter: bad examples occupy the air

Today in Lithuania, the hunting community includes around 30 thousand. Hunters D. Gudačiauskas estimates that adding hunter families to this number results in a ten times larger circle of people who closely observe hunting life and have good opinions about hunters. However, he notes that in the eyes of today’s public, the hunter’s reputation has waned.

“Reading articles, comments, various speeches, especially from the new generation of nature lovers, gives the impression that we are the worst people that could have been born in this world. It hurt. Seeing such reactions, we think something is wrong, “he says.

The hunter realizes the problem that today there is no one who can publicly represent the hunter’s interests: some do not know how to communicate with the media, others are afraid to speak, seeing how easy it is to become unpopular when try to hunt. According to him, the existing representatives of the interests of the hunters, seen in the air, do it today ignorantly, which determines the deterioration of the image of the hunters in the public space. Therefore, he said that he did not want to remain silent: he agreed to establish the position of the hunters.

“Today, for those who call themselves nature lovers, hunters are scoundrels, drunkards, fat people, beavers, murderers, Soviet descendants. These are the 30 thousand. Soviet descendants, beavers, sitting in the forest, protecting them from poachers Making Selections to Have Enough Animal Mothers: How Can You Imagine What a Guard of Environmental Inspectors Can Do? Every week, after making schedules, who can do it? With the restoration of independence, the collapse of Hunting, wildlife eradication, all the abundance of wildlife today over many decades of work is created by people who are despised today, whose children in school fear that their father is a hunter. I can no longer remain silent I want to say what it really is like, ”says D. Gudačiauskas.

D. Gudačiauskas calls hunting a controversial occupation, because it ends with the death of an animal. However, in our culture, the killing of animals for food is not condemned in all cases; for example, raising pigs for food often seems normal.

“There are different ways of extracting meat in our culture. One is farm-raised meat, the other is wild life entrusted to hunters, which grows freely. The difference between them is that wild animals die on their own if they are born unhealthy, and on a farm, an obviously unhealthy pig is killed or treated while still young.

Now those people who think it is moral to raise an animal on a farm and immoral in the woods are immersed, rare, or have other interests. What is the problem that I, the man who grew up in this culture, cannot throw away the animal that grew up in the forest, evict with my own hands and feed my family, my loved ones? It is not my main diet, but what is the ethical and moral problem here? I didn’t steal that beast. I didn’t torture him. Who knows who is suffering the most, whether it is a crowded animal on the farm or a deer that came out one night, and I hunted him down, trying to cause him as little pain as possible, ”says D. Gudačiauskas.

Hunters have to respond to different interests.

Before evaluating today’s events, D. Gudačiauskas wants to draw attention to an important context: the interests of hunters, farmers, the state and animal protection organizations, which are different. According to him, the hunter’s interest in hunting arises from nature, the desire to spend time in nature, get energy from him, the farmer’s interest in growing cereals, so that there is no hoofed beast, because its activities cause losses in business.

“Although no one talks about the state’s interest, I will remind you that the owner of wildlife is the state. Wildlife is a great asset entrusted to hunting clubs. They pay taxes and ensure that property is not reduced, but who face other interests, such as the farmer or the forest engineer.

What happens when that wealth increases? Excessive damage is done to everyone else. Hunting infrastructure has been developed since Soviet times: taxes are collected, separate industries are created offering clothing and ammunition for hunters, someone sets up shooting ranges for hunters to train, someone runs courses, catches poachers, writes fines . The state must take care that all this does not disappear, modernize hunting so that it complies with the moral aspects of today, and also preserves its cultural identity, “explains D. Gudačiauskas.

Speaking about the interests of animal rights organizations, the interviewee admits that he does not always understand them.

“I never understood the interest, for example, in the ‘Empty Cages’ organization, and I couldn’t believe that people love wildlife so much that they are ready to close factories and take people to the streets. I thought maybe they were interests. religious, but it turns out that things are much simpler. A man from that organization explained to me that there is a tendency in the world to grow meat in a bioreactor, a tube, and it turns out that there are rich people who invest in the development of this industry Until now, she can’t do everything as abruptly as meat is grown, so they have to do it fatally to make it expensive and immoral. When I realized this interest, I calmed down, “says the hunter.

D. Gudačiauskas draws attention to the fact that the balance of nature has been disturbed by human activities. As the number of predators increases, so does the number of other ungulates, and as the number of ungulates decreases to a critical level, the predator litter also decreases.

According to him, therefore, the control of the wildlife population is entrusted to hunters, who helped species like deer spread in Lithuanian forests. Given this control, the hunter states that he does not understand the interest of the “Baltic Wolf” organization.

“Now, imagine an emerging man who says that we are missing a wolf in this ecosystem because it has the right to live. The hunters in charge of managing this property answer: yes, the wolf has the right to live, but on condition that balance is maintained.

The hunter generally makes the adjustment by removing the mothers from the herd or inheritance, because the most important thing in nature is the mother: all hunters know this. The wolf does not protect the mother, the wolf makes no difference: it wants to eat and it eats. Capture what you can catch today and don’t choose whether the animal is sick or not. He does not care that the wolf eats sick animals are fairy tales of people who do not understand nature.

Now, if the Baltic Wolf can tell me, as a person who has been entrusted by the state with wildlife properties, how many wolves will be on my farm and do what they want, then we are violating the order established by the state. To be consistent, this organization would have to discuss with hunter organizations, including individual clubs, how many wolves could live in a given forest size. They are now influencing politicians by circumventing the royal steward of wildlife property, the hunter, and pushing the state into a situation where its wealth will begin to decline. I will say openly: I do not understand the interest of these people ”, admits D. Gudačiauskas.

Minister calls walking a step to the water without building a bridge

In evaluating the changes in the Hunting Rules that are widely discussed these days, D. Gudačiauskas believes that the Minister made a mistake in taking a step that he did not communicate correctly before, especially considering the context in which the issue of hunting is delicate today.

“In fact, I find it funny when the head of state, the minister in charge of forests, lakes, wildlife, does not have the right to decide that a dog will be used for hunting.” The level reached here is that the professional we choose cannot make decisions based on their professional knowledge, they can be prevented by journalists, organizations. Everyone jumped on that person, even though everyone understands that there is laughter over a state that is plunging into the COVID-19 unemployment swamp. Here is the sadness of our state, “he believes.

The planned changes in hunting rules (the use of bows, night lights and dogs in hunting) have been criticized by nature and animal protection organizations, and the methods have turned out to be barbaric, inappropriate in the modern world. According to D. Gudačiauskas, the criticized measures may seem more moral in relation to the hunting rules in force today, if their operation is deepened.

“We will not control predator populations in any way if we do not regulate them.” Either we regulate and have everything: lynx, deer and wolves, or we do not regulate and we do not have deer, but we have wolves. A predator can generally be found hunting at night, during the darkest hours of the day.

If state policy provides for the regulation of the predator population, then conditions must be created for this, otherwise the shooting at invisible objects will begin, which could be a dog, another animal, a human being. As a result, many countries have enacted laws allowing the use of reflectors or night vision devices to reduce animal populations, “says the hunter.

However, D. Gudačiauskas wants to draw attention to the difference between a reflector and night vision devices. As the hunter explains, when a swarm of wild boars, for example, is illuminated by a spotlight, the animals remember that this light is accompanied by a shot, so that in the future, frightened by the spotlight, they attack to escape. The hunter has a second to fire, but when the bullet hits the animal, it is already moving, and although it has been applied to vital organs, the bullet hits the abdomen. Such an animal can run 10 kilometers and die within three days of infection. D. Gudačiauskas calls such inhuman behavior.

“If we want to talk about human methods, with a night vision device you are calm, you can clearly see what an animal is like and shoot it where necessary. The implications that this will lead to poaching are pezalai, because, in particular, the hunting rules for that are to protect animals from poaching. “Another thing is that a hunter who has been entrusted with wildlife will never be interested in destroying animals,” he says.

No problem with the criticized measures.

The decision to use dogs for hunting has also been recently criticized. According to D. Gudačiauskas, hunting dogs have been bred for a long time, for a long time they were irreplaceable helpers in situations where it is necessary to look for an escaped injured animal. Lithuania can also be proud of having the only national dog breed: the Lithuanian Hounds.

“It is only in the movies that the fallen animal falls immediately: a deer with a shot heart can run another 100 meters into the bushes. Then the moral question arises: do you leave the rotten meat or find it? In such cases, a dog, whose smell allows to find prey, comes to the rescue. It is the greatest misfortune for a hunter to harm an animal and not find it. If hunting is legal, it must be legal to hunt with a dog, because without this assistant there are even more moral problems with the abandoned animal ”, he points out.

Speaking about the use of bows in hunting, D. Gudačiauskas calls it a specific activity that requires a lot of preparation and includes “a lot of stalking, a little murder”.

Until 2004 In Lithuania, the use of bows for hunting was legal, but only individual enthusiasts did. Furthermore, it is strange for D. Gudačiauskas that it was this measurement that received such a large resonance, because it is a much smaller problem in terms of animal injuries compared to functional hunting with guards.

“The number of animals hunted with a bow, in any case, is reduced by tens, hundreds of times, because it is much more difficult to do and, therefore, no poacher will bow.

Whoever says that poachers will take the bow in their hands is Translation in English: – To hunt with a bow, they must be in good physical shape, have carbon fiber clothing, not have access to the animal at a distance of 20 to 25 meters and train every day without the help of that bow. What poacher will deal with all this nonsense? Which poacher will buy carbon fiber clothing so deer don’t smell within 20 meters? Depth and lack of professionalism flourish in the state, then there is room for opportunists to show their face in one way or another, and ignorant people, with their interest, build a message, “explains D. Gudačiauskas.

“Hunting has been much more than just hunting, it is a branch of the economy with its own ethical, cultural and economic ecosystem, the basis of which, living nature, is the property of the state. It is not necessary to destroy the value of this farm, but to grow, promote the production of related goods, trade and develop services.The ideas of other organizations, such as the Baltic Wolf, must also be taken into account, giving them access to part of the state-owned natural resources and allowing them to cultivate.

If such agriculture were better than today, then we could talk about changes in the game farm. “