HS Analysis | The ruling elite with a hunting background decides on the killing of wild animals in Finland – This is how the excitement was born

Riistakeskus is not an authority, but it grants exceptions to the statutory protection of large carnivores. Repeated deficiencies in the justifications for exemptions have begun to raise questions.

In October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated in its preliminary ruling that a protected wolf cannot be hunted by appealing to the fight against poaching.

In March 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland stated the same in its two decisions.

In April 2022, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the protected lynx cannot be hunted by appealing to “population management”.

In October 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court stated in two decisions that a protected bear cannot be hunted by appealing to the preservation of the Finnish bear hunting culture and the management of the bear population “by taking possession of the prey”.

A court decision has yet to be obtained on whether the protected lynx can be hunted by appealing to the “commitment of the local community”.

According to Riistakeskus, the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court do not mean that the center has repeatedly made illegal decisions, but “it is about the development of jurisprudence”.

Finland in the constitution it is said that public administration tasks can be given to someone other than an authority only if it does not endanger the requirements of good administration. Significant the use of public power cannot be given outside the authorities.

Riistakeskus does not belong to the actual state administration, but is an independent institution under public law that operates under the guidance and supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The Game Center and the game management associations belonging to the game administration are not authorities, but they have been given tasks involving the use of public authority.

“

Significant power must not be given away from the authorities.

Parliamentary The Constitutional Law Committee has taken a position on the public tasks assigned to the Game Center in 2010.

According to the statement at the time, it was quite appropriate to give the Game Center, for example, the granting of ordinary hunting permits and deer hunting permits, because it is not a particularly significant exercise of power.

On the other hand, the committee saw potential problems in the fact that the Game Center grants exemption permits for hunting protected large game animals. The nature of these permits is different, as they grant exceptions to the easement, prohibition or restriction established by law.

In the committee’s opinion, the exception permits are already “very close” to the limit of the use of significant public power. Significant power must not be given away from the authorities.

In addition, the Constitutional Law Committee was concerned whether good governance would be jeopardized when Riistakeskus grants exemption permits to representatives of relatively close interests. This meant hunters.

Riistakeskus is the former Central Association of Hunters. The central organization was abolished in 2011, when the current Riistakeskus was founded.

Riistakeskus’ logo is also the same as the central association of Metsästätäjäi.

In Riistakeskus, exemption permits for big game hunting are granted by the head of public administration tasks Sauli Härkönen. He is the former deputy executive director of the Metsästätäjäin central organization.

The Central Association of Hunters also had statutory duties, but at the same time it was the hunters’ own organization, as the vast majority of hunters were its members.

Arrangement saw each other unclear. The tasks of public administration and other activities were wanted to be clearly differentiated.

And the answer to this was Riistakeskus.

HS asked in October from Riistakeskus, why special permits are given for lynx hunting.

Head of public administration tasks appealed at the time both to the exceptional provisions made possible by the law and to the policy. It is a “political will” that lynx must be allowed to be hunted in Finland.

When Riistakeskus was once given the right to exercise public power, it was wanted to ensure that it acts like an authority in these tasks.

When exercising public power, the head of public administration tasks may not be under the guidance of politicians – not even his own predecessor.

“

Riistakeskus has granted exemption permits for the killing of hundreds of large game animals.

According to the law the head of public administration duties is independent when performing public administration duties. It mean, that in these positions he is not even subject to the manager’s work management right. The head of public administrative tasks is subject to criminal liability.

Riistakeskus has granted exemption permits to kill hundreds of large carnivores, even though according to the court it should have rejected the applications. In addition to this, the case of the Tohmajärvi wolf pack has raised questions.

In December 2020, Riistakeskus issued a damage-based one exemption permit to kill a pack of four wolves in North Karelia. The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland ordered a ban on the implementation of the exemption permit, so that “actual legal protection” would not be jeopardized. The wolf was therefore not allowed to be killed while the court was dealing with the matter.

Christmas came in between, but only two business days after the administrative court ban Riistakeskus gave permission kill one wolf from the same pack. The permit entered into force on December 30, 2020.

The very next day, the administrative court ordered a ban on the enforcement of this permit as well, but in the meantime the wolf had already been killed.

In January 2021, Riistakeskus granted again exemption permit to the same pack, to kill yet another wolf.

The administrative court ordered a ban on the enforcement of this third permit, but the hunters had already managed to injure the wolf and the police stopped it.

HS asked From Sauli Härkösen, why did Riistakeskus bypass the court’s enforcement bans at the time by issuing new permits to the same herd.

“When the applicant makes a new application, we have to process it. In the case of an individual application, it was considered that the conditions for a safety-based exemption permit are met.”

When the Riistakeskus uses public power like an authority, shouldn’t the good governance and legal protection mentioned in the constitution be prioritized? Now the actual right of appeal was not fulfilled when the wolves had already been killed.

“Here we must now distinguish between the interpretation of the law, which falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative court, and then the fact that the administration must always act. The administration cannot be paralyzed, but we have to resolve individual applications based on the information known at the time of application.”

But could you also have rejected the applications?

“If the criteria are met, then the decision must be made.”

The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland later stated in its decision that the Wildlife Center should have rejected the exemption applications in question. In the court’s opinion, the threat caused by wolves was real in itself, i.e. the safety justification was valid, but the exemptions could endanger the protection of wolves.

In the case of the Tohmajärvi wolf pack, a complaint was also made to the Chancellor of Justice on the grounds that the Game Center overrides the jurisdiction of the administrative court with its activities.

Attorney general did not notice There are no errors or illegalities in the Game Center’s procedure.

Parliamentary the constitutional law committee was once of the opinion that exemption permits for big game hunting can be granted to the Game Center, as long as the committee’s comments are taken into account.

One of the things that allayed the committee’s concerns was that the discretion of Riistakeskus is ultimately very limited, as the granting of permits is limited by the EU wildlife and bird directives. The EU habitat directive defines strict protection of wolves, bears and lynx.

“

Riistakeskus grants exemption permits because wolf, bear and lynx are listed as game species in the Hunting Act.

Granting exemption permits requires such a deep knowledge of EU legislation that decisions can only be made outside the official apparatus exceptionally, the Constitutional Law Committee stated. However, this is how it was done.

A group consisting of conservationists and lawyers is now of the opinion that numerous exemptions found to be unjustified in court show that the Game Center lacks such knowledge.

Riistakeskus grants exemption permits because wolf, bear and lynx are listed as game species in the Hunting Act.

The group of conservationists and lawyers proposes to remove this mention from the Hunting Act. Then the exception permits for killing them would be handled by the ely centers or the Ministry of the Environment.

The information in the case concerns the area outside the reindeer husbandry area. For example, the wolf is strictly protected only outside the reindeer husbandry area.