Agenda Profile: Tiit Maran
Draft law amending the Hunting Act (567 SE) – First Reading
2025-02-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is primarily procedural, outlining the Environmental Committee’s discussion and decision (the rejection of the draft bill) concerning Draft Act 567 SE on Amendments to the Hunting Act. It emphasizes the need for clear legal definitions (e.g., nuisance specimen) and finding a balance between the protection of property and animal welfare. It moderately supports the view that the issue of regulating nuisance specimens is important and requires further discussion in expert bodies.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates detailed expertise regarding hunting law and legislative procedure, addressing bill numbers and legal terms such as "nuisance individual," "game animal," and "hunting certificate." He/She accurately references arguments presented in the discussion, including citations to the Weapons Act and the Nature Conservation Act. He/She uses statistics (in 80% of damages, preventative measures are not applied) when summarizing the debate.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal, objective, and procedural, given that he/she is acting as the rapporteur for the steering committee. He/she focuses on logically summarizing arguments and contrasting viewpoints, while strictly avoiding personal emotional opinions. He/she repeatedly emphasizes that his/her responses are strictly limited to the matters discussed within the committee, which lends a cautious and constrained tone to the presentation.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in legislative reporting, having presented an overview of the Environment Committee's February 10 session to the Riigikogu plenary assembly on February 26. Their typical mode of operation involves delivering presentations and answering questions as the representative of the leading committee, ensuring their responses remain strictly within the bounds of the committee's discussion.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
He reports the Environmental Committee's strong opposition to Bill 567 SE, which was evident in the voting results (7 votes in favor of rejection). The opposition was both substantive and procedural, focusing on the bill's vague terminology, such as "nuisance specimen," and the potential risk of abuse of trust. The Ministry of Climate also voiced its opposition, stating that it did not support the bill in its current form.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
He emphasizes the need for cooperation with expert bodies, supporting the referral of the topic to the Large Carnivore Cooperation Council to find solutions. He notes the inclusion of the draft consensus decision on the plenary agenda, demonstrating a readiness for a procedural agreement. He views the Large Carnivore Cooperation Council as the appropriate venue where the issue should be discussed.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The discussion indirectly focuses on the problems of rural areas and landowners (farmers, forest owners) who are confronted with property damage caused by wildlife. The context is national legislation that regulates local hunting and damage prevention issues, pointing to the need to alleviate the distress of farmers.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
8 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among social issues, the question of citizen trust and responsibility versus state regulation is addressed, with emphasis placed on the necessity of trusting citizens. The balance between the right to property protection and animal welfare is also touched upon, with reference made during the discussion to the United States model in the context of self-defense.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is Draft Law 567 SE, which amends the Hunting Act and which the lead committee decided to reject. He/She emphasizes the necessity of regulating nuisance specimens and refers to another draft law (553) as a potential framework for a solution. He/She supports seeking solutions to prevent property damage, but lethal measures should be the absolute last resort.
8 Speeches Analyzed