Free bulls and the law – a twenty-year discussion without a result

According to the nature protection plan of the Ķemeru National Park, the first pastures for large herbivores were established in the Dunduru meadows, and a year later in the Lielupe floodplain. The purpose of the action was the restoration of grassland habitats and restoration of nature in open landscapes. What has been done has been fully justified, – the attraction of many species has taken place, because the living conditions of many species have been significantly improved. Over the course of twenty years, accumulated observations and gained valuable work experience with knowledge about the management of this type of natural areas.

It is customary to call an animal of the bull family a taurgovi, which was deliberately bred with the aim of “reviving” an extinct bull that once lived in nature and from which man once obtained all breeds of domestic cows. Currently, the following herds of animals suitable for wild life are released in specially protected natural areas of many countries. In the future, humans interfere minimally in the life of the herd (with selection, veterinary care, etc.), while the universal mechanism of natural selection begins to operate, which ensures the selection of the most suitable animals for local conditions and the transmission of useful characteristics to future generations.

In 2005, a partnership agreement was signed between the administration of Ķemeri National Park and the World Wildlife Fund (the animal keeper at that time) for cooperation in the establishment of wild pastures in the Park as part of the Life-Nature project. In 2010, at the end of the project, the World Wildlife Fund handed over the animals in the Park – taurgovi and cones (a total of 87 animals) to the Ķemera National Park Foundation (hereinafter – ĶENPF), which is still responsible for them. On the other hand, the Nature Protection Board concluded a cooperation agreement with ČNPF, stipulating the following:

• The parties mutually agree on the promotion of nature-friendly management of agricultural lands and the promotion of natural grazing methods;
• The parties support the use of large wild herbivores for the preservation of natural diversity and for rural development in the maintenance of natural grasslands, incl. for receiving rural support payments;
• The parties support the creation of natural grazing demonstration facilities in fenced Park areas on state land;
• The Parties, in mutual cooperation, prepare and distribute informative materials to interest groups about wild large herbivores in order to popularize the validity of the initiative;
• Do not allow such activities that disturb the animals or contradict the natural development of the territory, except mowing in the ungrazed part, if a sufficient amount of feed for animals is kept for winter pastures;
• Develop safety rules for visitors to the territory, allow excursions in the fenced territory only accompanied by trained guides;
• To carry out monitoring of flora and fauna in the territory inhabited by animals.

The practical natural problems of the management of grazing areas in the Park are solved based on previous experience and doing daily work, but there is still one “but” that has hindered work for many years, that is, from the time of the introduction of the first commercial cows and cones, the managers of the areas are for higher-ranking state institutions – Environment to the Ministry of Defense and Regional Development (VARAM) and the Ministry of Agriculture (ZM), have indicated inconsistencies in the legislation. Normative acts do not distinguish wild bulls (taurgovis) and koniks for wild needs. Therefore, the registered keepers (supervisors) of these animals are required to comply with all norms applicable to livestock – individual labeling of animals, regular blood sampling for disease examinations, transfer of animal remains to specialized companies, etc. Although there are understandable reasons for the need for veterinary requirements – for safe agriculture, food for the production and/or sale of products, however, one must be aware of the essential difference between commercial cows and conics from farm animals, – in their applicability, location and lifestyle. Moreover, no animal products are obtained from these animals. It is necessary to stop looking at these animals as a potential mountain of meat, a source of profit or a hotbed of infection!

In addition, the welfare requirements of the Animal Protection Act are also applied to wild oxen and conics, classifying them as captive-bred animals.

All the above-mentioned veterinary and welfare requirements are neither reasonably justified nor practically feasible for the Park’s 400 animals in their 5 sq.km of inhabited area. The wild bull line is a human-made line of animals capable of defending themselves and their young in the face of physical danger. It is in the instincts of this species to be able to exist in natural conditions among large predators. Therefore, hunting and capturing animals endangers the people who do it. On the other hand, it is traumatic for the captured animals, as well as undesirable for the entire population from the point of view of strengthening protection skills. If the provision of welfare requirements causes animals stress and suffering, then they are not welfare requirements. In the sense of the Animal Protection Law, welfare means “a set of measures to ensure the physiological and ethological needs of an animal” (Clause 12 of Article 1).

State controlling institutions, such as the Food and Veterinary Service, are also held hostage by the shortcomings of the regulatory framework. Officials understand the real situation, but are forced to work within the existing regulatory framework.

On the other hand, individuals from the Park’s local hunting clubs who are hostile to the ideas of nature protection use the loopholes in the law for their own purposes. Publicly slanders ĶNPF, which advocates the conservation of large herbivores, including our wild species – roe deer, moose, red deer, etc., for the purpose of restoring the Park’s habitats. This, in turn, will limit hunters’ opportunities to hunt in the national park.

Again, I want to express a 20-year-old hope that maybe this time the two involved ministries – VARAM and ZM will consider the recommendations offered by non-governmental organizations, prepared by professional lawyers, about what and which regulatory acts should be changed. At the moment, it is necessary for civil servants to take a bold action to use the opportunity to achieve a reasonable solution with the changes in national-level regulatory acts. It should once be understood that one should not persistently demand compliance with the incomplete norms of the law, if the real situation requires something else.