The Red Book and insects

The only mistake Penzyak made was that he got in front of his father. Such events, accompanied by PR, are carried out under the guidance of the environmental protection department, especially in the year of ecology. It's not worth a damn. Penzyak needs to go to the environmental authorities (to whom he should be familiar as the author of the CC), ask for forgiveness and stand under his banner. I hope all goes well.

Its main mistake (it is also a former point of pride) is to push a background view into the federal CC. Maybe only for the regional one, where it should be, since it is really rare in the Penza region, there would be no such cradles.

ENO, why the fright? Our Penzyak has nothing to do with the federal Criminal Code. Mostly Muscovites "push" there (Zhukov specifically-Nikitsky N. B., a professional plagiarist and terry falsifier of reports on the website "Truth") and a little St. Petersburg.

It's not worth a damn. Penzyak needs to go to the environmental authorities (to whom he should be familiar as the author of the CC), ask for forgiveness and stand under his banner. I hope all goes well.

The plot on TV was initially initiated by the prosecutor's office, not the Ministry of Natural Resources, so everything is somewhat more complicated. But even in this case, everything can be done with a minimum fine.

ENO, why the fright? Our Penzyak has nothing to do with the federal Criminal Code. Mostly Muscovites "push" there (Zhukov specifically-Nikitsky N. B., a professional plagiarist and terry falsifier of reports on the website "Truth") and a little St. Petersburg.

But what about it? "I am proud that I was able to defend at least the steppe dybka for the new edition of KK" - post #1064. Yes, I mixed up the content of this particular phrase a little, I remember that it included a deer... But about the deer, he also wrote something in that vein, in the same topic somewhat below the above-mentioned post, for which he was blamed by the majority of forumchan, if my memory does not lie, there is no time to search now. So A. J. Elez did not say about the award and the hero out of thin air.

ENO, why the fright? Our Penzyak has nothing to do with the federal Criminal Code. Mostly Muscovites "push" there (Zhukov specifically-Nikitsky N. B., a professional plagiarist and terry falsifier of reports on the website "Truth") and a little St. Petersburg.

And answer for the bazaar?
Plagiarism and falsification - serious charges, links to the studio, please.

Or from now on, swear to mindlessly repeat someone else's slander.

But what about it? "I am proud that I was able to defend at least the steppe dybka for the new edition of KK" - post #1064. Yes, I mixed up the content of this particular phrase a little, I remember that it included a deer... But about the deer, he also wrote something in that vein, in the same topic somewhat below the above-mentioned post, for which he was blamed by the majority of forumchan, if my memory does not lie, there is no time to search now. So A. Y. Elez did not say about the award and the hero out of thin air.

First, there is no new edition of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation yet and when it will be unclear , and it could have nothing to do with the old current one, then everything was done in a very narrow circle without ostentatious "national discussion".
Secondly, I am not sure that our Penzyak has any "weight" in the eyes of N. B. Nikitsky, so it is unlikely that his opinion about beetles will be taken into account there.
Thirdly, and Elez has nothing to do with the Red Book cuisine and probably does not want to have it , and what he "assumes" is just banter.

And answer for the bazaar?
Plagiarism and falsification - serious charges, links to the studio, please.
Or from now on, swear to mindlessly repeat someone else's slander.

For your information, I am the editor and, to a large extent, the compiler of the well-known publication "Truth and Lies about the entomofauna of the city of Tula / Biol. diversity of the Tula Region at the turn of the century". There the role of N. B. Nikitsky in falsification and plagiarism is shown more than convincingly.
Plus, it's enough to take some of Nikitsky's articles on beetles of the Moscow region and see there plagiarism of articles by individual authors. These authors don't want to get dirty about people like N. B., so they just ignore his work.
Well, about the "Truth" recently wrote in the section "Announcements of new literature", if memory serves. This story is about two (!) supposedly published in 16, but still not existing in nature, the book is still waiting for its development. The falsifier must at least be exposed, if not in prison, so that such "books"don't pop up in 100 years or more.

This post was edited by Nemov - 17.07.2017 09: 19

As far as I know, ZIN took part in the fate of Penzyak. Last week, a certain letter was drawn up there (without any details). Whether it will make a difference is unknown.

Maybe I should have lied. To explain to the prosecutors that it was not a deer beetle, but a similar species-a common deer for example. And the journalist was supposedly deceived, saying that it was a deer beetle. What are the weaknesses of this version?

Or maybe a person does not know how to lie?

So far, there has been no" interrogation", and when it will be - you can say in different ways. For example, that no one was seized, but was caught and immediately released.

For your information, I am the editor and, to a large extent, the compiler of the well-known publication "Truth and Lies about the entomofauna of the city of Tula / Biol. diversity of the Tula Region at the turn of the century". There the role of N. B. Nikitsky in falsification and plagiarism is shown more than convincingly.
Plus, it's enough to take some of Nikitsky's articles on beetles of the Moscow region and see there plagiarism of articles by individual authors. These authors don't want to get dirty about people like N. B., so they just ignore his work.
Well, about the "Truth" recently wrote in the section "Announcements of new literature", if memory serves. This story is about two (!) supposedly published in 16, but still not existing in nature, the book is still waiting for its development. The falsifier must at least be exposed, if not in prison, so that such "books"don't pop up in 100 years or more.

Nothing is convincingly shown there, except that N. B. did not join in the fight with Korotkova and can only be charged with a completely normal reluctance to make enemies out of the blue (Madame licked the list of butterflies from the Laurel articles along with the definition errors, and where she got the list of beetles I have no idea at all). I attach pages from the issue, if anyone is interested. There are no falsifications or plagiarism on the part of Nikitsky.

So the links are still in the studio!

As for the "books" - I remember about one book discussed, the first volume of Zhukov MO. I contacted Nikitsky a week or two ago, and he told me that he had received a signal copy and that such a thing should not be rolled out to people. He said that he would let you know when the print run would be properly printed.
I suspect that he contacted the "print on demand" company - and there the print quality is completely unpredictable every time.

Which second book you have in mind, I do not know.

PS Something is not attached to the file, but the entire issue is on the Eversmania website:
http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/2008dop1-...aznoobrazie.rar

ENO, calm down, in Russia this will not happen in the foreseeable future. Because law enforcement officers do not have any training in the field of biology in general and sozobiology even more so. In the case of Penzyak , someone gave a "signal", most likely, the environmental department. Just like that, no Russian prosecutors will get into such a jungle. They wouldn't know a stag beetle from a woodcutter. Even foresters who have lived in forests all their lives do not always distinguish them.
Kobegemot, I repeat to you once again-2 books with the same titles, but from different publishers, were published on Pravda. Allegedly already published in 16, but even now none of these books are printed, and in 17 will no longer be printed simply for lack of payment. In addition, one of these publishers does not produce books at all, but produces compact discs, and books can be printed by order in single copies. and at a price worth its weight in gold. Nikitsky did show the "signal copy" at work, but did not let anyone at least look through it. This copy is not recognized as a signal copy by the publisher itself. There is no book in nature as it was laid out, and there will never be one. This is just a "manuscript", printed so far in 1 copy.
And about plagiarism will write who is directly interested. You can't write reviews of articles.
The reptile must be crushed.

This post was edited by Nemov - 18.07.2017 07: 55

Why look to the future if the case has already become a matter of the past and present? The prosecutor himself will not tell the difference, so there will always be someone who wants to "give a signal" from among the competitors or detractors of the collector. And, judging by the zeal with which the authorities began to "investigate" this case, they were motivated. Gin is out of the bottle, and the only way to drive it back is to exclude all banals from the new edition of the CC RF (and at the same time include real rarities). But this requires a team of competent specialists instead of one or two encyclopedic pushers.

This post was edited by ENO-18.07.2017 14: 42

Exclude insects. Enough, we've had enough of this.

I do not agree with this, because then there will be nothing to justify the creation of new PZF objects. Not only Amur tigers with Siberian cranes are worthy of them. You just need to choose really threatened species (for which you need to conduct extensive research), and not reprint what you read as a child in the CC of the USSR.

This post was edited by ENO-18.07.2017 15: 22

Nothing is convincingly shown there, except that N. B. did not join in the fight with Korotkova and can only be charged with a completely normal reluctance to make enemies out of the blue (Madame licked the list of butterflies from the Laurel articles along with the definition errors, and where she got the list of beetles I have no idea at all). I attach pages from the issue, if anyone is interested. There are no falsifications or plagiarism on the part of Nikitsky.

So the links are still in the studio!

As for the "books" - I remember about one book discussed, the first volume of Zhukov MO. I contacted Nikitsky a week or two ago, and he told me that he had received a signal copy and that such a thing should not be rolled out to people. He said that he would let you know when the print run would be properly printed.
I suspect that he contacted the "print on demand" company - and there the print quality is completely unpredictable every time.

Which second book you have in mind, I do not know.

PS Something is not attached to the file, but the entire issue is on the Eversmania website:
http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/2008dop1-...aznoobrazie.rar

Vlad, come on, really... Leave these Tula lunatics alone. Just accept the fact that these gentlemen sometimes pathologically need at least someone to hate and insult. They are so bored living in their cozy, closed world of Eversmannia that sometimes they need to vent their hatred on people they don't know. The easiest way, of course, is to hate someone who dared to collect or process material from the Tula province without their knowledge, for example. And don't tell them anything about it. And publish the results (scary to say!) without their knowledge. But you can hate and insult just like that, groundlessly: completely unfamiliar Georgians who have forgotten how to write and read in Russian, some "Vlasovites" from ZIN... After all, it doesn't cost anything to insult a person behind their back on the forum, right? Especially a sick, venerable old man? However, sometimes they are overcome with righteous anger that people who are offended by them refuse to answer their letters...But that's it.

This post was edited by Necrocephalus - 18.07.2017 15: 35

I do not agree with this, because then there will be nothing to justify the creation of new PZF objects. Not only Amur tigers with Siberian cranes are worthy of them. You just need to choose really threatened species (for which you need to conduct extensive research), and not reprint what you read as a child in the CC of the USSR.

In this case, there will always be the same rake.
There are no rare insects.
How can you deal with insect parasites or climate change? ...
Ah, yes, make what you want.

There are no rare insects.

Bradyporus multituberculatus

It will definitely not help in justifying the RFP
For 20 years (or whatever it is), one find.

So let it die out completely?

CC will definitely not help him.

While remembering the password from the forum, Penzyaku already advised everything.

It remains to express sympathy to a colleague who fell under the "battle behemoth".

As I was recently told on a very unpleasant occasion, also related to the" behemoth", it is impossible to comply with all the laws here, so" hitting " is a probability function. Try to be philosophical about this.

Where exactly? We very much have.

But not anywhere.
And if you have "rare" ones, it's because the living conditions are unsuitable for them.
And even the protection of biotopes will not do anything.
Because from time to time, even in a stable biotope, for one reason or another, even a common species can become rare. After some time, this type may become normal again. Or maybe it won't.
But if you really want to enter some types of invertebrates in the cc, then all sorts of different situations will arise from time to time.
Bring it in, Pal Andreich, bring it in.

I strongly disagree! Anthropogenic transformation of bitopes very often puts on the verge (or leads beyond) the disappearance of previously common insect species, at least from the territory of the state, and even from the planet Earth in general. There are a great many examples, the above-mentioned fat man is one of the most famous and revealing. By the way, in our region, too, once lived. Other examples of insects that became extinct in the Donbass after total plowing and industrialization are the giant ktyr, the steppe bumblebee, and some beetle species whose development was associated with the burrows of marmots and ground squirrels, which were taken out by the roots during the Soviet era to prevent the plague. These are all large, highly visible insects, and how many small and hard-to-identify ones disappeared before they were discovered is anyone's guess. Another thing is that such a protection measure as a ban on trapping in the case of insects is meaningless. Here it should be removed from the law. And the conservation and restoration of biotopes is a sacred matter, and here the QC (correct) is very useful.

As far as I know, ZIN took part in the fate of Penzyak. Last week, a certain letter was drawn up there (without any details). Whether it will make a difference is unknown.

I'm 99% sure it won't.

Such events, accompanied by PR, are carried out under the guidance of the environmental protection department, especially in the year of ecology.

But can an environmental department of any high rank (even the president himself) authorize violations of environmental legislation in relation to species from the CC? In general, are there any additional provisions in the legislation with an exact list of instances that have the right to allow (or at least allow to allow) someone to act as an exception to the main provisions of the same legislation? In other words, will the environmental protection department be able to refer to the point of the law that allows it to allow the relocation of cervuses, etc., before the prosecutor or the court? If such provisions are in the law (and the bylaws are in the peace fund), please give a link to those who know about them.

As far as I know, exceptions to the provision of the law are provided only by neighboring provisions of the same law or other subsequent law of a lower rank, which provides in the preamble a list of previous laws that are repealed or partially repealed by it. As far as I know, no agency can have permits for all other permits, and it must go to court itself after issuing any permits for "collection", "relocation" , etc. If the law, along with security measures, prescribes a list of instances that have the right to ignore protection, then I ask legally savvy colleagues let us know about it. So far, I have not seen any penalty lists that include an accurate and exhaustive list of instances that are authorized to guarantee collectors impunity.

The opinion of the authors of the CC on protection measures does not have legal significance for the police, etc.; individuals will be protected by law already on the fact of the presence of the species in the CC (and fall under penalty lists that do not say a word about possible exceptions for "permits" from the Lord God), and not on whether the entomologist requested it in the CC Glukharev or Kholuyevich forbid collecting, and not according to his stories about locality or eurytopicity. Therefore, it was said here more than once that you need to think at the stage of including the view in the CC, and if there is no thought at this crucial stage, then do not cry for your hair, do not blame yourself for excesses, but dry crackers, and not only for colleagues, but also for yourself as a genius.

With regard to the protection of biotopes, it has already been said, both with examples and at the general level, and has not been refuted, that with the primacy of ecology and environmental legislation over self-interest, mandatory environmental expertise is quite sufficient for the protection of biotopes, which the entomologist can and should perform directly as an authority, based on his own knowledge, and not mediating the examination by reference to- the CC, which he himself wrote on the basis of his own knowledge. CC is simply a legally completely unnecessary and meaningless stage for the protection of biotopes. The law already requires environmental expertise. No large object can be built without them. When self-interest prevails over environmental considerations (and over environmental legislation), as we all know, they spit both directly on the scientist and on all his articles for the CC, and in this second case, the CC for the protection of biotopes does not give anything. The list of protected species is legally necessary precisely for the protection of specific individuals, for punishing the destruction of specific representatives of specific species, so that the potential destroyer knows what exactly and how exactly it can be punished; but in this aspect, plankton has no place in the CC, and almost everyone understands the multidimensional harm of adding it to the CC for a long time.

But can an environmental department of any high rank (even the president himself) authorize violations of environmental legislation in relation to species from the CC? In general, are there any additional provisions in the legislation with an exact list of instances that have the right to allow (or at least allow to allow) someone to act as an exception to the main provisions of the same legislation? In other words, will the environmental protection department be able to refer to the point of the law that allows it to allow the relocation of cervuses, etc., before the prosecutor or the court? If such provisions are in the law (and the bylaws are in the peace fund), please give a link to those who know about them.

Where do you think Amur tigers come from in zoos? Here you are, everything is spelled out in the law:

I'm 99% sure it won't.

Even 1 % is already good. The law is the law, but the court sometimes takes into account a good opinion of a person in the eyes of science and the public.

Where do you think Amur tigers come from in zoos? Here you are, everything is spelled out in the law...

Yes, this is important. Of course, I know these documents at the federal level, but I was more doubtful about the elaboration of the issue at the regional level. But even at the federal level, they have not yet decided what is allowed - "turnover" or "turnover" (?!). There, "the release into the natural environment of wild animals belonging to the species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation is carried out in order to preserve them and (or) replenish the natural populations of these animals" (see "On the procedure for issuing permits"), but de jure documentary confirmation of these goals is not required, but is only suggested below in fact, as an opportunity, and the quoted paragraph is self-sufficient as a provision of the law. True, the "Rules of Extraction" contain a whole mountain of sine qua non, here you can not get rid of declarations of good goals. But if you then release in a neighboring clearing (especially a still-living insect that was taken from a spider or "extracted" from the mud), i.e. if you held it in your hand and soon it not very far, then what are the legal grounds for talking about "extraction" at all? and what law, in fact, qualifies the very composition of "extraction"? There are only two experts who interpret "mining" in different ways (T. Penzyak only needs to apply for the involvement of adequate experts, and not Penzyaks, who will definitely drown him as an "enemy of nature"), so that the case ends up in dubio pro reo.

You can also find other minor conflicts and blunders; in particular, in the fact that the" Mining Rules " require permission from the Federal Service for Supervision, etc., which has not only federal, but also territorial bodies; but at the same time, we read a little lower about the need to register this permission with the territorial body of the Federal service, from which you can guess that above we were talking about the permission not of the federal service in general, but of its federal body (why register it where it was just issued).

Be that as it may, at the federal level, it is clear that if entomologists flashed in the CC, they should also dry breadcrumbs:

"3. Extraction of objects of the animal world is carried out only on the basis of a permit issued by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources Management...
4. Persons who have received permits register them with the territorial body of the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources Management...
5. Upon the fact of each extraction on the spot, an act is drawn up indicating the number of extracted objects of the animal world, time, place, tools of extraction, names of persons responsible and involved in extraction."

So if a CC fighter searches the area for "Red Books", how is he going to confirm their detection at a specific point? Get permission ahead of time that the dog still knows where it will get caught and whether it will get caught at all, and then, in accordance with the "recommendations to persons who have received permission", write reports on the "turnover" of the material in due time, without which the find can only be confirmed by "photofixing". And it already requires the" material " to agree to sit quietly not only during the photo shoot, but also during the inversion of the genitals and protein electrophoresis, so that there is someone to write in the act that is supposed to be drawn up on the spot(!). To search for Red book insects, it is generally impossible to obtain a permit in accordance with the above standards (even if some unlucky official issues a permit for the full list of Red Book insects, you will also need to specify the time, etc. All these norms are unthinkable in the practice of an entomologist, they were concocted by people with the mentality of a taiga tradesman, with which some people drag insects to the CC, not realizing that all their walking with a net is a complete violation of the legal nonsense they support. They were told: don't turn field entomology into a madhouse, don't set the lawmaker on it; they replied: no one is being captured in Russia yet, don't panic, we are provoking legal norms solely in the expectation of a sleeping prosecutor and a lazy cop. And now take it and happen already in Russia not according to doldon, but according to the law.

Study: Fewer insects, possible "ecological Armageddon"

A group of researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom recorded a three-quarter reduction in the number of winged insects across Germany. This poses a serious threat to life on Earth, given the important role that these creatures play in the food chain and pollination of plants, according to an article published in the scientific journal Plos One.

Since 1989, entomologists have used tent traps in 63 districts of Germany and collected more than 1.5 thousand insect samples. It was found that the total weight of insects caught in 27 years decreased by 76%. Scientists say that although the measurements were made in nature reserves in Germany, these data are valid for all areas where agriculture is developed.

The researchers do not name the reason for such a sharp drop in the number of insects, but suggest that the most likely factors are the destruction of their natural habitat by humans, the use of pesticides and global warming.

"Insects make up about two-thirds of all life on Earth, and we are now seeing some kind of horrific decline. It seems that humanity is making vast swathes of the earth unsuitable for most forms of life and is currently on its way to ecological Armageddon. If we lose insects, then everything will collapse, " said Professor Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex in the UK, who took part in the study.

More detailed: https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2017/10/19/issl...skiy-armageddon


Studies conducted by German researchers have shown that there have been fewer insects in recent years. Much less.

And drivers were the first to notice this: the windshields of their cars now remain clean even on fast country trips. But before — remember — they were completely stained, you had to wash them strenuously from the remains of all sorts of flies, beetles and other moths. Drivers bought special cleaning fluids. And now they are not needed. There's all sorts of dirt, no remains.

Insects used to crash against windshields, but now they - the windows-stay clean.

"The windshield phenomenon" is what entomologists have called the current situation across Europe. It confirms better than others that something is wrong with nature.

More rigorous observations show that in about a quarter of a century, the number of insects has decreased by as much as 80 percent. Scientists got such a depressing result by comparing the number of flies and beetles that have fallen into traps before and now.

Entomologists sin primarily on chemistry: they say that farmers and other agricultural workers who poison insects with insecticides are to blame. Poison-supposedly harmful, but all die.

There is, however, another hypothesis: the shape of modern cars have become more streamlined - this is less beetles about them beat.

Something tells me that everyone is right-such entomologists. After all, the reduction in the number of insects may be part of a larger process - the mass extinction of living things in general — the sixth in a row.

The fact that it began was announced by American scientists from Princeton, Stanford, and California Universities and their Mexican colleagues from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. They, as they say, looked around, were horrified and prepared a corresponding report . It is published in the journal Science Advances.

According to biologists, the extinction is organized by humanity itself, provoked by its destructive activities for the planet.

Paul Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies in biology and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, one of the study's leaders, said that 320 species of vertebrates have irrevocably left our world since 1500.

Previously, only two species of mammals died out once every 100 years, but now the rate of extinction has increased almost 100 times. And it's getting closer to the rate at which species went extinct 65 million years ago, when the Earth parted ways with the dinosaurs.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been sounding the alarm for many years. In his next report on the state of the Earth's bioresources, he said that these resources have decreased by about a third over the past 40 years.

In other words, we have already "consumed" a third of our planet for our own needs - eaten and digested, burned, knocked out, poisoned, killed with windshields. At the same time, the rate of "use" for the reporting period has doubled.

The most wasteful countries, according to natural scientists, are Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, the United States, Belgium, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland. If everyone lived like this, then humanity would need five more planets like ours to continue to exist.

Russia, by the way, treats its home planet very carefully (compared to many others) - it occupies 33rd places in the list of pests.

Along the way, experts noted: biodiversity is rapidly decreasing. And life on the planet is getting poorer. Every year, 25 thousand species of animals and plants disappear from it.

A source

https://cont.ws/@sage/700764

This post was edited by Penzyak - 19.10.2017 15: 03

Everything was piled up: windshields, extinct vertebrates, and Armageddon. How can we draw conclusions about the impending great extinction by reducing the number of insects in Germany alone? Here in your region, too, everything has been reduced by two-thirds? In my opinion, in the USSR, the entomofauna suffered in the process of" raising virgin land", at that level in general, and remains to this day with small fluctuations: somewhere locally, someone dies out, somewhere moves in.

terrible cases in Penza
http://penza-post.ru/news/21-10-2017/30084

terrible cases in Penza
http://penza-post.ru/news/21-10-2017/30084

I have no words

You might think that there are no yellow online publications on Nezalezhnaya Square... In this moronic article, you were given the hypothesis that there was an emergency disposal of chemical weapons back in Soviet times (by the way, Russia destroyed all chemical weapons and your American friends did not-wait for them to bring you gifts sooner or later)
http://militariorg.ucoz.ru/publ/ukraina_kr...ha/17-1-0-76129

https://progorod58.ru/news/24352

So this is the Penza version of "trembling of the earth" for the Americans and their henchmen https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%80%...%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8

This post was edited by Penzyak - 23.10.2017 11: 48

You might think that there are no yellow online publications on Nezalezhnaya Square...

ugh how ugly

Oleg, the appearance of such "sensations" is partly the fault of Penza entomologists and you, as the head of the regional department, Smishnikov should be "tamed and educated" so that they know who to turn to for comments and possibly sensationalism.
In our JAO, most journalists know my phone number, email, social media profiles, and I don't recall SUCH BLUNDERS even in the "orange" press...
Example of cooperation with KP https://www.yar.kp.ru/online/news/2831751/