In the fall, after the Ministry of Regional Affairs acknowledged that the state no longer has funds to compensate for goose damage, the topic of spring deterrent hunting for geese resurfaced. Last week, Climate Minister Kristen Michal gave the green light for the hunt and left the details of the rules to be determined by the Environmental Board.

Rainer Vakra, director general of the Environmental Board, plans to sign his order in the coming days so that the goose hunt could last from March 15 to May 31.

Hunting would be allowed in six counties where the damages have been the greatest, and during this period, it would be permissible to kill 750 greater white-fronted geese and 800 barnacle geese. The Canada goose, as an invasive species, could be hunted without limit. On one agricultural field, up to ten birds may be hunted per day.

"If 20,000 greater white-fronted geese were counted in 2002, then 20 years later, there were already 100,000," said Vakra, who notes that the suffering of farmers is growing in line with the improved situation of geese in Estonia. "According to farmers, their damages now reach ten million euros a year."

Ornithologists: Situation unchanged since last court case

The head of the Estonian Ornithological Society, Kaarel Võhandu, believes that spring deterrent hunting is fundamentally wrong.

"As a general rule, it has been agreed that birds heading to breeding grounds and nesting in spring should not be hunted," Võhandu stated.

He noted that birds can be scared off just as effectively with lasers, drones and noisemakers as with shooting, but added that more ecological solutions should be sought.

"Restoring areas, traditionally wet meadows, where geese congregate. Most of these have been drained and converted into farmland," Võhandu explained. "In more problematic areas, one could try using bait fields where grain that geese like is sown so that they do not come to the fields from which a harvest is attempted."

The state last permitted lethal goose deterrent hunting in 2021. At that time, the goose hunt could only last a few days because the ornithological society went to court, and the court temporarily halted the hunt.

"In my opinion, the situation is exactly the same as it was three years ago," said Võhandu. "Alternative solutions exist, and it has not been proven that lethal deterrence would reduce these damages more than non-lethal methods."

Therefore, the ornithological society is considering going to court again this time. However, they have not yet made a decision.

"We need to review the potential costs," Võhandu explained.

Vakra believes the board's position stronger than last time

Three years ago, the district court primarily relied on two arguments. First, the court referenced a study suggesting that killing geese is not significantly more effective than simply scaring them away. Secondly, the court was concerned about rarer species such as the lesser white-fronted goose and the taiga bean goose, which could perish because they are difficult to distinguish from their relatives.

At that time, the Environmental Board announced that before the lesser white-fronted goose arrives in the fields, the farmer would receive a text message instructing them to temporarily halt the hunt.

Rainer Vakra stated that the legal circumstances have changed in three years. Last time, the Environmental Board permitted the deterrent hunt on an exceptional basis and at their own risk. This time, the agency only sets more specific conditions for the hunt. These conditions are backed by a hunting regulation signed by the climate minister, which essentially states that spring goose hunting is allowed.

"That it also deters is an additional result," Vakra said. "But that is not the primary condition when following the law to the letter. And this is an entirely different legal discussion."

In other words, Vakra believes that if bird protectors wished to stop the spring deterrent hunt, they should have contested the climate minister's regulation in court.

Vakra hopes that the Ornithological Society will not turn to the courts. As part of a compromise, the state is prepared to pay the society to conduct a study that would provide more information about the effects of the deterrent hunt.

Farmers: Goose hunting still banned in nine counties

However, this may not mean that the Environmental Board will completely avoid legal action. Jaanus Põldmaa, a member of the council of the Estonian Farmers' Union, noted that the state has been discussing the conditions for the deterrent hunt with farmers for some time.

"At none of the meetings was it said that this deterrent hunt would be allowed in Estonia only partially. Because in that case, the farmers' umbrella organizations would have opposed it," Põldmaa said.

He reminded that compensation for goose damage was terminated across all of Estonia. However, shooting geese is only allowed in six counties – Harju, Lääne-Viru, Ida-Viru, Jõgeva, Põlva and Tartu.

"Let's do it so that in those counties where hunting is allowed, no money is paid, but in those where it is not allowed, payments continue," Põldmaa suggested. "It simply cannot be that everyone loses out and only partial permission is granted."

Rainer Vakra assured that the agency has explained its choice to farmers. "In those six counties, the damages have been the greatest historically," Vakra said. "We agreed with both farmers and ornithologists to start somewhere and see how this decision affects everyone. Then we can adjust it next year."

Environmental Board director: We are caught in the crossfire

According to Vakra, the agency also considered that deterrent hunting should not be conducted in areas with a significant presence of wet grasslands. Jaanus Põldmaa believes this acknowledgment does not reduce the injustice.

"Previously, it was always the ornithologists who contested the regulation. Maybe at some point, we need to start contesting it too because we feel that an injustice has been done to us and our members," Põldmaa said.

"Let's wait for the regulation to come out and then see how to proceed. But I indeed see that umbrella organizations should protect their members' interests in any way possible and to the end," added Põldmaa, noting that no one in the agricultural organizations has opposed the possibility of going to court.

He added that in court, it would be possible to rely on the principle of equal treatment and the fact that there are damage sites across Estonia where the European Union directive would, in principle, allow for deterrent hunting.

"We just don't understand how the state decided at the last second that only half of Estonia can conduct deterrent hunting and the other half cannot," Põldmaa explained.

"The Environmental Board is clearly caught in the crossfire, and it's hard to find a middle ground," said Rainer Vakra, the director general of the Environmental Board. "We are trying to find a solution that avoids court cases and allows us to move forward with this matter."

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!