Ondřej Dočkal: Game belongs to the forest. But also trees
Deciduous forest on the left. Deciduous forest with natural rejuvenation on the right All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archivePlease look at these two photos, there is a mature deciduous forest on both of them. Why is it that in one you can see hundreds of meters away, and in the other, without a road, you can't see too far? We know ads are annoying. And we respect that you have them turned off :-) We will be happy if you support us differently. Please log in to hide your ads
advertisement
Did you forget the password? Change them. Only those who have already registered can apply.
Debates on forest regeneration vs. I've been watching the game for quite a few years now. So I'm watching the forest too. I am not a hunter, nor a forester, nor a forest owner. Even so, I would like to present my subjective opinion on this matter. As I said, this is a layman's view - yet I hope that any discussion will be about WHAT is written here, not about WHO wrote it here. While writing the article, I did not find a satisfactory, ie clear answer to all the questions I asked myself. I will be happy if these answers try to find a more professional.Introduction
Known by a friend is a lawyer, he often makes a lawyer assigned by the court (ex offo lawyer). He said that his work is in fact very simple, running according to this simple scheme: 1. my client didn't do it because he wasn't at the scene at all. When they prove that he was there, the defense proceeds to the second "phase":. yes, my client was there but did not do it. When the other party proves it did, it follows:. yes, the client was there and did it, but he did it unintentionally. By proving intent it is usually quite difficult (note: for intentional actions there is usually a higher punishment than for negligent ones). I remember this funny story quite often, in debates with people who do not want to admit the existence of a problem, and when it is unquestionable that a problem exists, they try to trivialize it or look for causes wherever possible, but not where they are.So does the game hurt the forest or does it hurt?
The question is clear, but the answer is more complicated. Game (meaning hoofed game) is part of the forest, and the forest is simply exploited. No one doubts that part of the forest production serves as food for forest animals (and other animals). There are no beasts like beasts either. Some feed mainly on grazing herbs (eg mouflon), others belong to the so-called bites (eg roe deer - tree shoots are an essential part of its diet). Then there are the types of game that do not have strong preferences - they feed on grazing and taste (eg fallow deer). For more details, see the article. If the game is just right, then the damage to rejuvenation (young trees) is not a problem - it will always survive enough for a new generation of forest to grow. The problem arises when game stocks rise above the capacity of the environment. If there is more game than the forest can feed without knowing how to restore it, then there are not enough young trees in the forest for the forest to regenerate spontaneously. And I personally consider this to be a situation where the conditions of the game are harmful to the forest. Spotted fallow deer on the right - in summer there is a lot of vegetation in the forest, a large food menu. It's worse in winter. License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archivePrase savage: he does not consume rejuvenation, but sometimes destroys fences when he tries to go through them (thus creating a passage of hoofed animals into fences). License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archivePozn. 1: it is not important in this respect whether the game is native or non-native - it is the food pressure of all game on the forest. 2: there are differences in what species of game tastes more and what tastes less. E.g. spruce "tastes" less than beech (= there may be a situation that there is a natural rejuvenation in the forest - but it is the rejuvenation of spruce, not beech - because beech is tastier for game than spruce, and it goes after it, so there is a species impoverishment of the new forest generation).So is the reforestation taking place or not?
According to some, the restoration of the forest is going without problems (trees are growing, the forest is being restored), the game is not increased (compared to the usability of the environment), so there is simply no problem with reforestation, which others are discussing. If we look deeper into the arguments of the former, we will find that they are right in a way, because: 1. Restoration of the forest is taking place - meaning restoration in fences or with other protection.2. The usability of the environment is perfect, and the game is "just right" - meaning usability in the summer. ). License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archive Left restoration element with a fence - beech planting, variegated with maple rejuvenation. Right detail of a wire fence. License | All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archiveThen we have opinions that are closer to me personally. In short: 1. The forest can regenerate on its own, without fences, if we give it the opportunity. 2. Fencing is not a standard, it is a forced investment by circumstances, as well as planting seedlings from nurseries, maintenance of fences, etc. Artificial reforestation begins with the collection of seeds from recognized stands (here elm). The stands are regenerated either by sowing (sowing on a regenerating element) or (more often) by planting seedlings grown in forest nurseries.License | All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archive3. It is possible that the forest that grows "alone" will have a different representation of woody plants than we would like. In this case, let the owner choose the plantings and raise them (pruning, etc.). But it will not be a necessity (standard), it will only be his choice (above standard) .4. The usability of the environment, on which the possible conditions of game in hunting depend, is maximum in summer and minimal in winter. To assess the impact of game on forest rejuvenation, it is necessary to consider the period of winter scarcity, not the summer surplus.5. Restoration of the forest does not matter what the exact numbers of game in the hunting grounds are. For the restoration of the forest, it is important what state the rejuvenation is in, ie how the game that is there affects the natural rejuvenation. I have a feeling that the discussion between these two currents of opinion is sometimes a bit stuck. With the memory of the lawyer from the beginning of the article, we are often somewhere in the phase: "there is not much game there = she could not do the damage". Alternatively, we are still completely out of the lawyer's scale: "the offense did not happen, there is no damage there - because the reforestation is underway".What is the standard - reforestation in a fence or without a fence?
This is a basic question. For many decades, we have been convinced by the circumstances that the forest cannot regenerate itself, it needs to be helped. All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archive According to this opinion, it is necessary to grow seedlings in the nursery, then plant them, build a fence and maintain this one, and as the trees grow in it, the growth is continuously diluted with educational interventions. Persuasion is not violent - simply by walking in the woods and seeing fences with trees planted in rows. But is it really so? Can't the forest really regenerate itself? It can - and not only biologists claim, but also foresters - in short, for example here.When there is no rejuvenation in the forest, does that mean there is too much game?
It's more complicated. Rejuvenation of woody plants can be missing in the forest for other reasons, not only because of the game. It can be too dark (dense crown canopy), it can be too dry, it can be too wet, rejuvenation can be "suffocated" by storms, etc. There really can be several reasons. Calamity clearing after bark spruce mining, approx. 550 m above sea level. Fences that are too large are impractical; if game enters, it is very difficult to drive it out. License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Michaela Hodulíková / author's archive Sometimes it is necessary to wait until the so-called "seed year" to rejuvenate. Which may not be fully in line with the obligations set for forest owners by the Forest Act. In the case of grazing: within 2 years the clearing must be afforested and within 7 years the so-called secured, ie have trees there about 1.5 - 2 m high in a certain density. But rejuvenation can also be missing due to excessive food pressure from game, let's face it.How can we know that small trees are missing due to, for example, drought, not because of wildlife?
I enclose some photos of the forest and fences from my surroundings. Let's ask ourselves - how do we explain what we see in the photos? Is it due to excessive game pressure or some other factors? Are fences installed exactly at the light / dark, dry / humid interface or does the fencing protect young trees from excessive taste of game that is outside the fencing? License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archiveCHKO Litovelské Pomoraví, without more precise location, fence full of young trees, almost nothing outside the fence. Why? License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archive Left view of a fence overflowing with rejuvenation in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area. Just a few unhealthy shoots outside the fence. Why? On the right, Hejtmanka Nature Reserve, view of the forest undergrowth at the fence / rest of the forest interface. The fence forms a clear boundary All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archiveCHKO Litovelské Pomoraví, PR Doubrava. Left winter view of the forest. In front of the fading linden tree, at the back massive rejuvenation of beech in particular (in the fence under the diluted vegetation). The fence again precisely defines the space of growing rejuvenation. On the right, the same fence in summer, different angle of view All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archive This will not lead to a solution. Only an analysis of causes and suggestions for their solution can lead to a solution.Are hunters responsible for everything?
Here we come to the second extreme of opinion. To those who (sometimes) attack hunters in the sense that they don't even want to shoot the game, or that they're not even capable of it, or that it suits them so economically: more game = more meat, more trophies, more fee hunters. And in general, the "best" are the opinions that the game belongs to the hunters, so for everything that the game caused, they are to blame and they should pay for it - even the wrecked cars, after the traffic accidents, they will be game. bit differently. According to our law, wildlife is the so-called "res nulius", ie it destroys the thing, it has no owner (it is neither a hunter, nor a landowner, nor a state). After being caught, the owner is a hunter, but before being caught, the game does not have an owner. In principle, therefore, hunters are not liable for damage caused by wildlife - with one exception. They are liable only and only to the extent required by applicable law. Therefore, they are not responsible for wrecked cars, but they are responsible, for example, for damage to forest stands (see below), and only on hunting grounds (ie in hunting grounds). And although I do not intend to defend anyone here, I would like to point out that hunting in itself is not entirely easy. There are complications, both legislative and practical. They are not unsolvable - everything is solvable, but ignoring the existence of these complications is exactly the same mistake as evaluating the usability of the Central European landscape according to the food supply in the summer surplus. For example: 1. Hunting periods are determined not by the will of a particular hunter, but by legislation (Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 245/2002 Coll.). 2. Some game can be hunted all year round (eg pig), but others are not. E.g. Roe is hunted 5 months a year - which is not enough, but it is not 12 months, it is 5 months. 3. Unfortunately, in the case of roe deer, these 5 months coincide quite precisely with the time when the largest number of people move through the forests (1. 5. - 30. 9.). No one objects to the people in the forest, but from the point of view of hunting, it is undoubtedly a complication. The game is more frightened, and the more it hides. In addition, especially this year, people were fleeing directly into the forests due to quarantine covid measures. And the frightened game ran away from them again.4 The game is not visible in the grown corn, it cannot be hit. Of course, farmers are also unhappy with the damage to game, so various measures are devised so that, for example, game can be seen passing through corn and can be shot (cut-out belts at the farms). If we are talking about complications, this is one of them.5. But mainly an amendment is being prepared, which cancels this obligation, resp. to impose an obligation to keep new game stocks to a minimum between those which do not cause excessive damage. Which, in fact, is more logical in my opinion - it does not matter to the forest whether 10 or 20 deer go there, it is important for the forest what damage the deer is doing and how it will affect the ability to restore the forest. If the level of damage allows spontaneous reforestation, there should be 40. There is only how the damage will be determined.Is there a possible factual discussion?
It is clear that the debates led by these two extreme styles of argumentation lead to one thing - concreting in their positions. I am not a supporter of concreting, neither landscape nor opinion, so I tried to think about the arguments of the other party. What do they mean, if they claim that there is no damage to reforestation, nothing to claim, nothing to pay and a fence is a standard part of working in the forest?So what about the damage in the forest?
The Civil Code states: "The obligation to compensate another person for damage always includes the obligation to compensate for property damage (damage)" (§ 2894, para. 1). Thus, it is not only logical, but also legal, to demand compensation from someone who causes harm to another by their actions. For the method of determining the amount of damage, it is already necessary to look into the regulations concerning hunting and forest. Ministry of Agriculture No. 55/1999 Coll., On the method of calculating the amount of damage or damage caused to forests. Here in § 1 we read that this decree stipulates the method of calculating the amount of damage or damage that occurs: a) on forest land as a result1. permanent withdrawal or permanent restriction of the fulfillment of the wood production function of the forest (hereinafter referred to as the "production function"), 2. temporary withdrawal or temporary restriction of the production function, 3. permanent damage to the performance of the production function, 4. temporary damage to the performance of the production function, b) on the forest stand as a result of1. destruction of forest stand, 2. premature clearing of forest stand, 3. reduction of forest growth, 4. reduction of forest production, 5. reduction of forest quality, 6. c) of extraordinary and more costly measures in forest management. Let's try to take a closer look at whether we can find ways to claim compensation (in my opinion, compensation for increased costs with reforestation) caused by the fact that rely on a natural recovery from rejuvenation, but it is necessary to buy seedlings, pay people to plant them, then fence it all and maintain the fence for the next 7 years or so. As I said, my search will not be professional, but I will try. If I'm wrong about something, I'll be glad if one of the more professional people corrects me. Ministry of Agriculture No. 55/1999 Coll., On damage to forests: Point a can be omitted, it concerns damage to forest land, not to stands - these are in point b). Point b-1: damage for destruction of forest stand: in my opinion cannot be applied, because the formula takes into account values such as the volume of wood in m3 / s or the price of wood at the collection point in CZK / m3 - which are values that I cannot imagine that could be determined for rejuvenation. Point b-2: damage from premature clearing of the stand - in the essence of the matter it does not seem to be applied. years, and the third for the calculation of damage for the reduction of forest growth due to taste. The third looks promising - the calculation is: S7.2 = Z. K2. Np / NHThe value "Np" is defined as the number of damaged seedlings, and the value of N as the actual number of individuals (I understand that the number of individuals from natural rejuvenation and the number of planted seedlings). So, if I understand correctly, it is necessary to calculate the proportion of seedlings, and only that enters the damage calculation. If nothing has been planted in the forest (Np = 0), and all 1000 pieces of trees are from natural rejuvenation and are tested so that it does not grow (N = 1000), the resulting value Np / N = 0/1000 = 0. And whatever you multiply zero, it is always zero. So the resulting damage is zero. Or this formula seems to count the damage to damaged planted seedlings, not the damage to damaged natural rejuvenation ... Yes? The calculation for stands under 5 years old is: S7.1.1 = Z. (1 - K1) Z is the value of annual growth according to groups of woody plants - see Annex 6 - annual growth is in CZK / m2, it does not reach even CZK 1/1 m2 (for categories 1–5 years), ie not even CZK 10,000 / 1 ha. K1 is a coefficient of the growth rate of damaged and healthy vegetation - the determination of this value must be left to the callers in specific cases (probably it will be for an expert opinion). In general, this comes to me as a possible way. Unlike the previous formula, the number of seedlings does not figure here, so it should not be limited to artificial plantings. I am wrong? Will someone more knowledge confirm or deny it to me? Thank you. b-4: damages from the reduction of forest stand production due to tree replacement - here I believe that this is a calculation of damage for those cases where, for example, oak disappears from the stand as the main production (= expensive) tree species and "lower quality" remains there “(Meaning less paid) woody plants (eg birch, linden, ..). Which is not exactly what I'm looking for… but in some cases it would certainly be useful (eg when the rejuvenation of beech disappears and the spruce remains - see above). or approaching wood, etc. This sounds promising, there is even a reference to the table in Annex 1, which shows the value of the stand - even for stands aged 1-5 years. That's exactly what I was looking for. But then I run into a problem. It is stated here that this damage is applied to the washing only once on each individual tree. Here's the question of how to interpret it - the number of trees rejuvenated per 1 ha is several orders of magnitude higher than the number of trees in 1 ha of toll stand. I don't know - I see the risk here anyway that claiming damage to rejuvenation this year means that it is impossible to claim damage to these trees when they are 30 years old and deer are peeling them. However, I am not able to evaluate from the position of a layman, I leave more professional. Point b-6: theft cannot be logically enforced. , irrigation, fertilization), revitalization measures (spraying), anti - erosion measures, reconstruction of replacement stands, access to damaged stands, construction of spare roads, guarding and clearing of fires, activities in the extended period to ensure culture caused by game taste and air pollution. This also includes the costs necessary to determine the amount of damage, such as the costs of monitoring, biomonitoring or expert opinions. If we proceed from the assumption that fencing + planting is not a standard and is not cost-negligible (which in my opinion is not - see below), this provision should apply for compensation for construction and repair of fencing, inter alia because this provision is not a complete but exemplary list of emergency measures (see: emergency measures are ESPECIALLY, ie not ONLY… activities,… listed below). However, if we assume that the fence is a standard, it is not possible to ask, it is not possible to draw.Is fencing a standard or above standard in forest care?
Pursuant to Act No. 289/1995 Coll., On Forests, Section 32, the forest owner (together with the hunting user and the state forest administration body) is obliged, among other things, to ensure that forest stands are not unduly damaged by game. 1996 Coll., States in § 5 that the forest owner implements (ie is probably obliged to implement) selected preventive measures to protect the forest from game. Among other things, this means that: • according to § 5, paragraph 1, letter b): in the case of forest holdings with an area of more than 50 ha, at least one area (fence) per 500 ha monitors the effect of game on raids, growths and crops by means of control and comparison areas, • § 5, par. f): protects endangered forest stands against bite, peeling and winter barking in the range of at least 1% of the forest area of the owner in the hunt. ie. 1 ha is cut down and afforested every year, in 7 years it is 7 ha (note: after 7 years the growth is so-called "secured" - it should already be resistant to excessive damage to game, the fence can be removed). If the forest owner is unlucky to be in a certain locality, as can be seen in some of the photos here, he must fence all the restoration elements. Thus, it has 7% of the forest area fenced, while on the basis of the decree it is obliged to fence 1% of the forest area. What does this mean? Can the fencing of those 6% of the forest be perceived as extraordinary or more costly measures, which are mentioned in the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 55/1999 Coll.? In my opinion, this should be possible. However, I am a layman, so please know more about the comment - is there a mistake in this reasoning? Thank you. I also looked into the law of hunting. I have been a little stunned here: § 54 Unreimbursed damage caused by game in paragraph 2 states: Damage to forest stands protected by fencing against damage caused by game, to individuals damaged only by side shoots and in forest crops in which taste, hammering or by felling trees for annual damage to less than 1% of individuals, at all times until the securing of the forest stand, while the damaged individuals must be evenly distributed over the area.What does this mean? Do I understand correctly that if I build a fence and plant seedlings, and the fence is damaged by a fall during a storm, the deer find me there and the culture is damaged, then I am not entitled to compensation? Why then in point b-3 of Decree 55/1999 Coll. stated that it is possible to draw compensation for reducing seedling growth? Does it only mean seedlings outside the fence? Or is § 54, para. As a layman, I'm getting a little lost in this, too, and I'm more knowledgeable here for a comment - thank you. However, it is definitely not obvious at first glance in my opinion. In some cases, moreover, I have the impression that the various pieces of legislation are not entirely in line. In the case of claims for damages for the construction of fences, of course, the question arises as to whether a particular fencing is not unnecessary. For example, foresters plot restoration elements out of a kind of inertia, and they know nothing about the current state of the game, for example, those states have been ok for a long time, and they just waste money and time unnecessarily. How do we find out the truth? Are those fences unnecessary or necessary? There is no price to argue here, the solution is simple. An absolutely trivial attempt can occur, where a forester can "pull away" with a fence. If part of the renewed vegetation gets off the fence in October and survives by March / April, there is no entitlement to reimbursement. However, if the game destroys the unprotected vegetation, a claim for reimbursement should be possible. Let's try to speculate - what would happen if the fence of the fences photographed here moved a little bit? Their proponents are based on how they read and interpret legislation, and here - at least what I have come across - I do not see it clearly written. Although a layman, I personally see it written there, but I'm not so surprised by the opposite opinions.What about the usability of the environment?
I see the usability of the environment in the fact that the state of the game corresponds to the possibilities of the environment. That is, without food. However, like damage, usability is somehow addressed by hunting legislation - this is more important for understanding the substance of the matter than my view. So how does the law on hunting deal: in general, game stocks should be kept between minimum and standard stocks. The standard state is the highest permissible spring state, which corresponds to the quality of the game environment and the usability of the hunt (see here). According to § 3 of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 553/2004 Coll. on the basis of data on the amount of damage caused by game to forest and agricultural lands in the past period, the game hunting plan shall be adjusted so that the actual numbers of game after capture are between minimum and standard levels at a level that does not cause disproportionate damage to forest and agricultural land; stands. We can only agree with this, there should be as much game as possible in the hunt, which can feed there, and the cultures of the owners should not be unduly damaged (let us now omit how the adequacy is determined). But § 11, paragraph 4 of the Hunting Act states: "(4) The hunting user is obliged to operate feeders, backfills, salt marshes and watering holes and to feed the game properly in times of emergency." natural, he considers that part of usability is also feeding in times of emergency. Which I don't understand. But the law seems to show that there is (legally) more game than the capacity of the environment can handle. And the question is "only" whether and how the game is fed so that it does not cause excessive damage, for example, in the period of shortage, for example in the natural rejuvenation - do I understand that correctly? In addition to this, it is necessary to add that the growing season lasts only about half a year (less in the mountains) and in the case of bites such as roe deer, feeding is not entirely simple (hay is not enough - see here, for example.). hunters do not understand that the usefulness of the environment should be calculated by winter, not by summer. When the legislature tells hunters that the standardized conditions correspond to the usability of the hunt, and in times of emergency that they should feed the game, it clearly tells them that the usability of the environment is not what the forest itself provides to the game in winter. Jeseníky Protected Landscape Area, mountain spruce. Old crane bird in a group of spruces. It has enough light and space - yet it does not bear fruit. Or bears fruit but does not grow rejuvenated? All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Miroslav Havira / author's archiveCHKO Jeseníky, mountain spruce: a view into blueberries: the rejuvenation of cranes is here, but it does not "peek out" above the blueberry level - why? All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Miroslav Havira / author's archiveThe group of bird cranes in the Jeseníky Protected Landscape Area was protected by a fence, so it grew up. Once the protection stopped working, the beast damaged the trees. They are still alive, but they are far from winning All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Miroslav Havira / author's archiveWhat does this mean?
Before we start criticizing anyone for opinions that may seem wrong to us, we should find out what those opinions are based on. We do not necessarily agree with that, but at least we will get a better idea. I would like the hunters to try to think about the views that fences are not necessary for the restoration of the forest. And if foresters are obliged to fence 1% of the forest, let them do it, but only 1% (the decree says "at least 1%" - so I think 1% is enough). I do not doubt that there are certainly cases where natural rejuvenation is applied in reforestation (without additional protection by fences or protective coatings). Unfortunately, I am probably unlucky, but I see fences in the vast majority of places where they occur. And outside of them, I see young trees (especially deciduous trees) only sparingly. If so, most of the spruce or pine are still going anyway (somewhere with the help of paints). I usually see deciduous trees only in the marginal parts of the forest (near cities or used roads, where the game is not quiet and therefore does not occur much). But even there, deciduous trees are sometimes bitten in the form of bonsai. License All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Miroslav Havira / author's archiveCHKO Jeseníky: cranes do not grow up in accessible places, regular taste creates dwarf, "bonsai" forms. License | All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Miroslav Havira / author's archiveCHKO Litovelské Pomoraví: natural rejuvenation is sometimes possible even without fences, eg here - by the hiking trail. License | All rights reserved. Further distribution is possible only with the consent of the author Václav Polášek / author's archiveSummary
1. Game in nature is the so-called "res nulius" - the thing destroys, it has no owner. Myslivci tak nejsou zodpovědní za všechny škody způsobené zvěří, ale jenom za ty, které definuje platná legislativa. A legislativa v tomto ohledu, alespoň pro mě jakožto laika, není úplně srozumitelná.2. Vzhledem k liteře zákona o myslivosti (= povinnost přikrmovat zvěř v době nedostatku) se již nedivím tomu, že úživnost honitby nehodnotí řada myslivců podle zimy, ale podle léta. Z hlediska biologického to však vidím stále jinak. 3. Vzhledem ke znění vyhlášky o škodách na lesních porostech (= není tam jednoznačně napsáno, že by se měly hradit škody na skousaném/neexistujícím přirozeném zmlazení), nedivím se již tolik tomu, že někteří myslivci nároky na tyto škody neuznávají. Osobně tam tu možnost vidím, ale je tam docela dobře „zašitá“. 4. Vzhledem ke znění vyhlášky o škodách na lesních porostech (= není tam jednoznačně napsáno, že oplocenka je investicí vyvolanou nemožností obnovit les bez ochrany), nedivím se již tolik tomu, že někteří myslivci tyhle nároky neuznávají, a považují oplocenku za nutnou součást hospodaření v lese. Osobně to ale stále vidím jinak, zejména kvůli § 5, odst. 1, písm. f) vyhl. MZeč. 101/1996 Sb.Dospěli jsme do patu, nebo lze doufat v řešení?
Řešení nevidím v přesvědčování se o tom, že oplocenka a umělá obnova je nutnost. Přirozená obnova fungovat může, a umělá obnova není zadarmo. Mám-li správné informace, drátěná oplocenka stojí cca 100.000 Kč za 1 km. Dřevěná cca 130.000 Kč za 1 km. Sazenice lesních dřevin se sázejí v počtech cca 6–10 000 kusů na 1 ha. Jedna sazenice může stát cca 5–15 Kč (jak kde, jak co). Výsadba také není zadarmo – řekněmě 5 Kč za 1 ks. Když to spočítám, tak oplocenka 100 x 100 m může při založení stát cca 40.000 Kč za plot, 50.000 Kč tisíc za sazenice, a 30.000 Kč za výsadbu. Celkem 120.000 Kč za 1 ha oplocenky. Je to reálná cena?Opravte mě, pokud ne. Konzultoval jsem ji nicméně is lesníkem. Počáteční náklady jsou tedy cca 120.000 Kč. K tomu se přidá několikrát ročně kontrola, v případě nutnosti i vyhánění zvěře, oprava, a případné dosadby mezitím poškozených sazenic. To vše po dobu cca 7 let do zajištění kultury. Pokud je oplocenka poškozena a naleze tam zvěř, dle § 54 zákona o myslivosti zdá se navíc nelze získat náhradu za škody na stromcích v oplocence (pletu se?). Řešení nevidím ani v přesvědčování se o tom, že myslivci prostě musejí víc lovit. Pokud mohou, tak budiž, ale když nestíhají, tak prostě nestíhají… je třeba jim pomoct. Je třeba být si vědom možných komplikací při lovu a pokusit se tyto komplikace odfiltrovat. Kolem sebe vidím stále intenzivnější tlak zejména na některé honitby, aby se tam více lovilo. Hlavně kvůli škodám na polních kulturách, ale i kvůli lesu. Někteří uživatelé honitby mají přímo přikázáno orgánem státní správy myslivosti zvýšený odlov (dle § 39 zák. o myslivosti). Nestíhají to, nebo stíhají jen s vypětím sil. Tohle rozhodnutí totiž sice ukládá zvýšený odlov, ale z podstaty věci nemůže prodloužit dobu lovu, stanovenou vyhláškou ministerstva zemědělství. Tedy se musí více lovit, ale není na to víc času…Proto jedinou cestu, jak omezit v budoucnu konflikty, vidím v dalším rozvolnění pravidel pro lov (= delší doba lovu, omezení případných dalších regulací – ať již centrálně, nebo lokálně). Pokud myslivci budou odlovy „stíhat“, mohou se interně dohodnout o odlovu „postaru“ (dohoda v rámci konkrétního sdružení). Pokud však odlovy zvládat nebudou, a bude jim přímo nařízen vyšší odlov, budou mít větší prostor tento zvýšený požadavek na odlovy splnit, a nestresovat se zbytečně s blížícím se datem konce doby lovu.Celoroční lov je již několik let povolen u prasete divokého, právě z důvodů nadměrných škod páchaných zejména na zemědělských plodinách. Nešlo by to iu jiných druhů zvěře? Novelizaci vyhlášky o dobách lovu a případné další rozvolnění pravidel pro lov zvěře považuji za rozumné kompromisní řešení, řešení pro všechny zúčastněné mnohem příjemnější než množící se vyhrocené spory jak o škody samotné, tak io to, zda ten, kdo je povinen zaplatit škody zvěří, je povinen zaplatit i náklady majitelům na ochranu svého majetku před zvěří (vím o případu, kdy zemědělci oplotili svá pole elektrickým ohradníkem a úhradu žádali po myslivcích, nakonec nedošlo k soudu, ale nějak se dohodli).Conclusion
Podaří-li se nastartovat plošnější odrůstání přirozeného zmlazení, je nepochybné, že to prospěje i zvěři. Bohatší, strukturovanější lesy budou úživnější (v létě i v zimě). Stavy zvěře se pak budou moci zvýšit oproti dnes žádoucímu sníženému stavu, který se jeví jako nutný pro nastartování plošnějšího odrůstání přirozeného zmlazení v lokalitách, kde to dnes kvůli tlaku zvěře nejde. O kolik více to bude moci být, to bude záležet na konkrétních podmínkách.Zvěř potřebuje les, a les potřebuje myslivce. Zvěř se množí, a její počty je nutno regulovat. Vyloučení myslivosti z lesů by nevedlo k ničemu než k prohloubení problému se škodami zvěří. Mohlo by se zdát, že cestou k řešení je častější podávání nároků na náhrady škod zvěří na lese. Možná, někde, někdy.. ale vidím tu určité riziko. Může to vést ik tomu, že o výkon práva myslivosti v některých honitbách už nebude zájem. Může se stát, že s těmi vysokými náhradami škod už půjde o příliš náročný „špás“, o který místní myslivci ztratí zájem. Cílem proto musí být spolupráce, která předpokládá zejména schopnost naslouchat argumentům druhé strany. Netřeba se vším souhlasit, ale být ochoten je vyslechnout a zamyslet se nad nimi, to by pro začátek mohlo stačit.advertisement
Tags:
