The Red Book and insects

In general, I was almost imprisoned in the summer (if you don't know) for educating the Penza people about insects - I now have NO desire to bring light and reason to the masses.
I am currently writing 70 essays for the new edition of the CC of the Penza Region volume Animals.

https://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%9F%D0...49&clid=2039342

In general, I was almost imprisoned in the summer (if you don't know) for educating the Penza people about insects - I now have NO desire to bring light and reason to the masses.
I am currently writing 70 essays for the new edition of the CC of the Penza Region volume Animals.

https://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%9F%D0...49&clid=2039342

"Mice cried, pricked, but continued to eat cactus..."

Educating the people and profaning reintroduction are two big differences.

In general, I was almost imprisoned in the summer (if you don't know) for educating the Penza people about insects - I now have NO desire to bring light and reason to the masses.
I am currently writing 70 essays for the new edition of the CC of the Penza Region volume Animals.

I would personally be glad at least that Oleg, who until recently considered CC something bright, reasonable and enlightening (addressed, among other things, to the masses of the people), has now rigidly opposed CC to what is bright and reasonable for the masses of the people, which is why he subscribed to the once unpleasant subtitle of the topic. But, of course, I am not happy with the information that he chooses the subject of carrying it to the masses between delirium on the one hand and light and reasonable on the other in the old way and only increases his activity.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10/25/2017 00: 31

By God, when you speak, Andrey Jovovich, it seems that you are delusional.
Please "do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs" - that is, the Red Book with collecting insects like "beads for Papuans". You are engaged in philosophy and God be with you engage in and verbiage in vain-the benefit is now in the wilds of the Internet a lot of all sorts of clicks and hedgehogs with them. The enlightenment of the Russian people has always been a thankless task and in every possible way spun, especially from religious "luminaries" and all sorts of virtues who always know what the people actually need. And in the light of the latest scientific data on the steady decline in the number of species and the number of insects in many countries of the world , the Red Book is at least some tool that contributes to the preservation of nature and, accordingly, the naughty child of the human biosphere.
In my 50 years of life, I have seen firsthand how nature is steadily reducing the number and diversity of the animal world. Alas, most people are used to taking only from nature and doing little to preserve its riches, even in seemingly dedicated Europe! A couple of examples about "preserving the animal world" in the really decaying West.
1. Starlings - how many of them there were during my childhood and adolescence can not be counted, birdhouses hung everywhere, starlings cheerfully sang an ode to the sun near them, importantly went through the gardens collecting worms and insects for their offspring, hundreds and thousands of flocks at the end of summer wandered through the meadows and in the floodplains of rivers... Where are they now? And they are not there - that European hunters did not finish them off, and their farmers did not kill them in the autumn vineyards... Yes, of course, there are greens there, and they have become rightly outraged by the facts of the mass death of starlings. They ordered an investigation and finally found the cause - ALCOHOL POISONING (Does this remind you of anything?).
2. Woodcock-Europe has long dreamed of introducing a complete ban on spring hunting in Russia, saying that the Russians are wild people do not allow birds to breed in the spring, they hunt them. Thanks to modern banding , we found out where our woodcocks mainly winter: France, Italy, etc. It turned out that during the winter hunters there kill from 2 to 4 MILLION of these birds (males and females) and in Russia, the spring hunt of males produces 200 - 400 thousand. Such arithmetic is interesting and very instructive, isn't it?
3. Ducks-It is not enough for" Europeans " to shoot our ducks in their wintering grounds, they go on safari, for example, to Azerbaijan. Rich foreigners beat hundreds and hundreds of defenseless birds in a few days p ... ry and that there is nothing to eat? Looking at them and our bohatye also reached out there, these "woe hunters" do not understand at all that these are our ducks that will not fly to their homeland in the spring and will not leave behind their offspring...
http://raocompany.ru/ohota_na_vodoplavayus...v_azerbaidzhane
And we are still surprised that the Kuban floodplains are empty - not fish, not birds ...
All these are links in the same chain and this, alas, is the most obvious fact of man's relationship to nature.

You can't really teach an old dog new tricks.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 25.10.2017 11: 49

  
1. Starlings - how many of them there were during my childhood and adolescence can not be counted, birdhouses hung everywhere, starlings cheerfully sang an ode to the sun near them, importantly went through the gardens collecting worms and insects for their offspring, hundreds and thousands of flocks at the end of summer wandered through the meadows and in the floodplains of rivers... Where are they now? And they are not there - that European hunters did not finish them off, and their farmers did not kill them in the autumn vineyards... Yes, of course, there are greens there, and they have become rightly outraged by the facts of the mass death of starlings. They ordered an investigation and finally found the cause - ALCOHOL POISONING (Does this remind you of anything?).

And you come to Moscow, they are all there

And you come to Moscow, they are all there

Golden words. Starlings flew over the capital this year in unprecedented clouds (clearly not because they are hungrier here than in Penza, and even more so not for the sake of Moscow's birdhouses) - I myself took pictures on a soap box, I remember, over the Garden Ring near the Foreign Ministry building. Tower cranes on construction sites literally clung like lice, there was no free space on any crossbar. In the region, the starling this year was also much more noticeable than in previous years, there was a lot of it even in those places where it was almost impossible to meet it before.

I no longer have ANY desire to bring the bright and reasonable to the masses.
I am currently writing 70 essays for the new edition of the CC of the Penza Region volume Animals.

And in the light of the latest scientific data on the steady decline in the number of species and the number of insects in many countries of the world , the Red Book is at least some tool that contributes to the preservation of nature and, accordingly, the naughty child of the human biosphere.

You can't really teach an old dog new tricks.

Penzyak, well, you have found examples of rare and endangered birds! I won't say anything about woodcocks, in our arid region they were always tight, but there were as many starlings left as there were. Utri-this is actually a family, what exactly did the Heropaeans pick out of you? The main hunting duck, the mallard, only increases its number worldwide every year due to feeding in urban reservoirs and hot drains of various kinds, thanks to which some local populations have become sedentary. But there are really threatened bird species, the decline in the number of which has strangely passed your eye, and quite a few.

I'll tell you about Thomas and you'll tell me again about Yerema... I am not an ornithologist, although I am also interested in rare birds of the region... Yes, I do hunting and fishing when I have time - so I gave examples about double standards in the use of natural resources in our country and decaying Europe... About woodcocks, I forgot to add a tiny correction to my comment - IN THE WEST, THEY SHOOT (from October to March - their wintering time) 2-4 MILLION MALES AND FEMALES ... we are 200-400 thousand males... And who is to blame for the sharp decline in the number of this species of waders???

Freshwater fish-underwater hunters in the European part of Russia, with their desire for effective trophy fishing, have already so knocked out the breeding herd (that is, producers) of many freshwater fish species that even on the Volga it is already becoming very problematic to get at least something from fish... this has never happened before, but alas, this is already the reality of our time. The myth of the inexhaustibility of natural resources burst like a soap bubble.

Predatory modern hunting during the autumn flight for quail with an electronic hook, rope and at the places of flight in the mountains led to a catastrophic drop in the number of this species in the European part of Russia. Now in the countryside beyond shchastya you can hear the battle of quail at the evening dawn... but back in the 80s, they did not let you sleep at night on fishing trips...
https://yandex.ru/yandsearch?clid=2039342&t...%BB%D0%B0&lr=49

alas, this sad list of violence against nature can be continued indefinitely.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 26.10.2017 17: 50

Oleg Alexandrovich!
You're a Russian Scientist (or?)!
And the style of communication, argumentation and literacy, like a gopnik.
Leave Europe to the Europeans.
Engage in Russia.
No need for "70 essays". If there is a desire to do something useful for nature, get insects excluded from the Red List of the Penza Region (unless, of course, this will not hit your budget very hard).

About woodcocks, I forgot to add a tiny correction to my comment - IN THE WEST, THEY SHOOT (from October to March - their wintering time) 2-4 MILLION MALES AND FEMALES ... we are 200-400 thousand males... And who is to blame for the sharp decline in the number of this species of waders???

I just can't understand what you're suggesting - we have more time to shoot, so as not to offend? But seriously - I don't know about Penza, but in our Yaroslavl region, the decline in the number of woodcocks took place only in someone's sick imagination. As much as it was, so much is. And this year there was no passage from them at all, they were caught at every step.
Oh, by the way, why do we shoot only males? they actually pull in pairs, but they don't hit well...

Penzyak, you're back to myth-making again! Well, how can a couple of men in fins on a whole reservoir, even if they suddenly start hunting there every weekend, which is unlikely (the water is rarely the right turbidity for this case), can affect the fish population, provided that it was not originally two tails? Many anglers are annoyed by the tricks: the fish are scared away, and trophy specimens are often obtained, while only "sports-sized" individuals bite on the hook, and sometimes the pike sitting on the cuckoo is "extracted", but they are blamed for the reduction in the number of ichthyofauna, which, unlike the mythical disappearance of starlings and ducks, really takes place everywhere (including where there were no tricks from birth) - not from a big mind. In the same way, the pitfalls could take up the other end of the stick and turn the arrows on the fishing rods, which are numerically and collectively superior to these many times (and so it will continue, because among the modern population, few people are able to engage in spearfishing, while still enjoying the process and hitting the target, purely for health reasons). And the real culprits are poachers and the growing anthropogenic load on the habitat. Here we can also add the greatly reduced, and in most regions completely disappeared after the collapse of the USSR, artificial breeding for the purpose of releasing it into public reservoirs. By the way, the Europeans you revile so much are doing fine with fish in the rivers. Obviously, because their fish guards, unlike the Russian ones, do not eat their bread for nothing. And then the migration from the Penza rivers directly to the dining tables of the French will not be blamed.

This post was edited by ENO - 26.10.2017 20: 53

"A communication style, argumentation and literacy, like a gopnik."

- for such a style, modern gopniks do not have enough brains and literacy for sure. Haven't you read enough books, read too many thick magazines, and aren't you familiar with classic Russian filmography??? These are quite literary expressions

"Oh, by the way, why do we shoot only males? they actually pull in pairs, but they don't hit like that..."

- Kick-ass (oh, the yard education of primary classes broke out again...) and this is a deep knowledge of elementary. In general, it is VERY rare but it happens that the male flies after the female (I REPEAT RARELY!!!) and in the rules for such cases there is a reminder - you can not shoot them at all!

"which, unlike the mythical disappearance of starlings and ducks..."

- mdas probably we live on different planets (about the state I'm silent).

"By the way, the Europeans you revile so much are doing fine with fish in the rivers..."

"it's not all that good, but there's fish. Now, even in Germany, catfish began to attack people (as in the days of the Inquisition). But if you are caught there with a mask, fins and fish, then you will definitely not avoid prison. You would at least ask what you are writing about... In Europe, many countries have a strict law caught fish (at the permitted time - in the permitted place for fishing and allowed fishing gear -) - LET GO. For gastronomic satisfaction, there are private fish - breeding ponds and private land holdings (read river - pond - lake - and stream-ownership).

From his rich life experience of communicating with a considerable number of collectors in Russia (and abroad) and analyzing the history of past insect collecting. It is a sad fact that only a few of these collections have survived and ended up in scientific institutions or at least in the funds of local museums. Mostly, alas, their heirs throw them away or take them to schools, or they are simply eaten by leatherworms and moths (I bought a chic collection of butterflies of the Penza collector Starikov a long time ago in the region - alas, 2/3 of it was irretrievably lost, EVERYTHING is COVERED with MOLD).
The question is, why, gentlemen, do you overwhelmingly collect your insect collections???

 
- for such a style, modern gopniks do not have enough brains and literacy for sure. Haven't you read enough books, read too many thick magazines, and aren't you familiar with classic Russian filmography??? These are quite literary expressions

"It's just a shame! "(p.)

The question is, why, gentlemen, do you overwhelmingly collect your insect collections???

And by the way, an interesting question.
I have this answer: many groups of insects are determined only by the instance in the hands, respectively, to understand them, you just need to have a collection.

  
- Kick-ass (oh, the yard education of primary classes broke out again...) and this is a deep knowledge of elementary. In general, it is VERY rare but it happens that the male flies after the female (I REPEAT RARELY!!!) and in the rules for such cases there is a reminder - you can not shoot them at all!

As an ornithologist by training, I don't need to rub it in. During the height of the draft, woodcocks, as a rule, fly in pairs. At this very height of the draft, spring hunting takes place. Singly, the males begin to fly when the females sit on their eggs. Well, what is written in the rules is no longer important. Since everything that moves is still fired indiscriminately. At this point, I stop the discussion, because it doesn't make sense to prove anything to a fanatic.

The principle of a healthy person: caught - ate and fed the family, no need - do not catch. If everyone did the same...

That's just at this point you are, sorry, wrong. If everyone does as you suggest, the fish will disappear from the rivers very quickly. It is impossible to feed the current population of the Earth by hunting and gathering.

That's just at this point you are, sorry, wrong. If everyone does as you suggest, the fish will disappear from the rivers very quickly. It is impossible to feed the current population of the Earth by hunting and gathering.

Yes, nothing bad will happen, for nature - only good things are known fluctuations sitsem predator-prey, if, for example, for some reason the intensive livestock industry would disappear and everyone would have to get food by hunting, then in the very near future sooo large part of the human population would simply die out, well,perhaps but not the fact - they would have dragged a couple of dozen species with them. but then the balance would be established, as it was a few hundred years ago

About "caught-let go" as a law-nonsense, on the contrary, in some European countries it is forbidden to catch and release fish specifically (even for competitions) proofs - in Google.
And in the United States, in fact, some states have such laws regarding hunting and fishing that without violating them, private individuals can safely live hunting or fishing there.

There were already a lot of topics about collections - this is mainly an ethical problem, in the context of "do not kill unnecessarily", even merchants who catch for sale are unlikely to be able to make any significant contribution, they are just like some conditional predators, and very mediocre, the same conditional average sparrow eats a day, I think, more than some average collector catches in the season ))))
Of course, if this is a micro-population, then it can be ditched by fishing, but this is a secondary problem. the main reason - the reason for the appearance of such micropopulations-is the result of completely legitimate state activities, such as plowing, building, draining steppe forests, mining, etc. And no QC will help, because everyone wants to eat/live/consume.

 

"which, unlike the mythical disappearance of starlings and ducks..."

- mdas probably we live on different planets (about the state I'm silent).

We probably do live on different planets. In St. Petersburg, from April to September, starlings are more common even than the ubiquitous sparrows. And ducks on lawns actively compete with pigeons..

Oh, there's holivar again.
I'm stocking up on popcorn, taking part in the destruction of biodiversity.

But seriously...

GENTLEMEN,!! Stop hurting * * * her! As long as there is a large-scale production that does not give a shit about the environment and rare (and often to the heap) views from a high bell tower, nature will remain in danger. Protecting a couple of dozen species, no success of environmental activities will not be-you will just squander the money allocated for this, and the biodiversity will melt.

Dixi.

Sorry for my french

And what is the moral? We need to destroy large-scale production? Or ignore the reduction of biodiversity?

...you will just spend money on it allocated...

Why squeal? Just "entomoluhi" on the ground, and they master them...

Greenpeace – Greenpeace Russia
October 26, 2017
Rare animals should be protected by the Red Book: http://act.gp/vk-RedBook

Our fight for the future of whales and dolphins has been going on for a year now. Thank you to everyone who sent a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources with a request to leave rare species in the Red Book lists. If it weren't for you, they would probably be defenseless against capture and destruction.

But trouble doesn't come alone. Now officials refuse to include in the Red Book especially interesting for hunters rare species — including the Himalayan bear. Join the expanded requirements — there is still time to approve the list!

https://vk.com/feed?z=video-66871_456239202...t_-66871_142362

Greenpeace – Greenpeace Russia
October 26, 2017
Rare animals should be protected by the Red Book: http://act.gp/vk-RedBook

Our fight for the future of whales and dolphins has been going on for a year now. Thank you to everyone who sent a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources with a request to leave rare species in the Red Book lists. If it weren't for you, they would probably be defenseless against capture and destruction.

But trouble doesn't come alone. Now officials refuse to include in the Red Book especially interesting for hunters rare species — including the Himalayan bear. Join the expanded requirements — there is still time to approve the list!

https://vk.com/feed?z=video-66871_456239202...t_-66871_142362

While I personally welcome the long-awaited transfer of the Red Book's focus from insects to game animals, I can't imagine how the Himalayan bear guards ' forums are now collecting signatures in defense of the deer beetle...

As far as I understand, the presence of these interesting species in the CC for hunters was initially quite controversial. And the call to sign something without providing any information, except for emotions smiles

I think everyone has already understood that I (Baryshev for the company) drink the blood of babies and kill Kennedy in the morning, but let's talk about the red book! Here are my thoughts on what this manuscript should look like in principle. I consider it appropriate to compile a nature conservation booklet from the following sections. 1 a list of all species found in the region. 2 list of rare species, 3 List of biotopes recommended for protection from economic activity with a description of the possibility of protection of rare species in these territories.

but let's talk about the red book! Here are my thoughts on what this manuscript should look like in principle. I consider it appropriate to compile a nature conservation booklet from the following sections. 1 a list of all species found in the region. 2 list of rare species, 3 List of biotopes recommended for protection from economic activity with a description of the possibility of protection of rare species in these territories.

Oh, this is a waste! You're about to be eaten alive. After all, this topic has already found out that the protection of biotopes does not make sense, and there are no rare species, and in general we need to eat and drink, because tomorrow we will die...

Why do you need a list of all types? It is as if not a large part of the manuscript will go under it, and still it will be very incomplete, because for many groups of specialists in the region there is always no one. I liked how some authors of the CCU did it, writing immediately under the name of the species, for example:"One of the 3 species of the genus in the fauna of Ukraine". And it doesn't take up much space, and it immediately becomes clear that there are two more types of similar ones, and in case of detection, you need to make sure that you haven't confused them with the non-red book. And if it says " The only species of the genus in the fauna...", then you can immediately be somewhat sure that it was he who got caught. And the whole list of fauna, where most species are not even close to similar, why?

I would place the list so that in the future, after 100 years, for example, it is possible to track changes in the species composition. The lists, of course, will be incomplete, but the question of their correctness is solved by a simple signature "known at the time of such and such"
. Regarding "one of three types" - a really convenient solution.

This post was edited by t00m - 21.11.2017 19: 50

But here is a small problem that the lands of holy Russia often look like this, where would you settle if you were a Red Book insect?))) (pictured is a plot near the Sea of Azov)

This post was edited by t00m - 21.11.2017 19: 58

Pictures:

____.jpg — (102.59к)

Total monitoring of fauna is a good thing, but it is not directly related to the Red Book. IMHO, you should not mix everything in one pile.

....Here are my thoughts on what this manuscript should look like in principle. I consider it appropriate to compile a nature conservation booklet from the following sections. 1 a list of all species found in the region. 2 list of rare species, 3 List of biotopes recommended for protection from economic activity with a description of the possibility of protection of rare species in these territories.

These dreams of yours in the interval between "doses" are absolutely unrealizable. Because of your complete failure in any of the narrow branches of entomology and your inability to attract suitable personnel to such work.

Yeah.

Total monitoring of fauna is a good thing, but it is not directly related to the Red Book. IMHO, you should not mix everything in one pile.

You're probably right.

T. t00m's thoughts are quite rational. And it is hardly necessary to consider the" realizability " of the current CC in its entomological part as its great advantage: there are much more realizable things in life that are not even accepted in public; but this will never be understood by those who do not consider themselves "suitable personnel". You should not blame the" scientific failure " of someone who understands what logically should be at the beginning and what - in the end. The most feasible thing isn't always the smartest thing; honest work isn't always the easiest. Of course, it is always easier to attract "suitable cadres" to foolishness and light semi-scientific Panama than to serious and difficult-to-implement work, but I do not agree with those who interpret this (presumably on the basis of a limited knowledge of "narrow branches of entomology") in favor of the long-proven Panama. In the meantime, the line, alas, is as follows: the cadastre for KK is not needed, it has nothing to do with it, go ahead and write a list of rarities first (and do not forget to lie loudly that you cook it with all the kagal not from a fool and not from ordinary academic hard-headedness and unscrupulousness, but on the basis of some "techniques", obligations based on past issues of the CC and supposedly real data, which life then daily refutes with fieldwork as really illiterate, alarmist and deceitful); and then start collecting information about finds, and ONLY about finds of ALREADY INCLUDED species! First make a conclusion, and then look for packages. First, pass a sentence on just anyone, and then take an expert, go to the crime scene and start collecting facts, and only under the already convicted person.

Such an inverted logic has nothing to do with science; even regardless of the question of the feasibility of introducing insects into the CC, this way of "protection" is a scam of the highest standard, for which, I hope, the initiators will eventually learn to be jailed as malicious embezzlers with special cynicism. Human logic should be different: first collect information about everything that is available, conscientiously take into account all the findings that can be taken into account, and only based on the results of this work should all species be ranked according to the degree of "threat" and so on. And after the list is compiled, due to the "total monitoring" carried out before this, a special cry for additional collection of information about finds of specifically listed species will not make sense. Faunal studies of ALL THE SPECIES KNOWN WITHIN THE TERRITORY should logically PRECEDE the conclusion that it is necessary to include exactly this and that in the CC. True, such a path - the only scientific one - would doom plankton to a friendly exit from the CC, which genuine entomologists could still put up with in the future (of which the majority have always been against insects in the CC), but which those near-entomological enthusiasts who, due to their small scientific potential, can only trade do not want to allow that "love" for nature.

That's why fans of a priori lists start to panic later, when collecting information in hindsight - or at least information on our forum - about the findings of what has ALREADY been included in the security list quickly leads anyone who still has brains and conscience to the question of which lyad, in fact, all this shit is under guard. That's why even here they're scratching around like they're in a hot frying pan to prove that they didn't put their bullshit in the CC for nothing, and that those who fix it in bundles here and there are all liars, but in fact it all, you see, suffers from cow overperturb, doesn't leave the limits of its tussock and it is on the verge of extinction. But the real liar, the enemy of science and nature - just CC, first of all-in its entomological part. It is based on a deliberate deception, because first the type is entered in the list for the CC, and then when preparing the already expanded text of the CC, it begins to find out when they marked who (already only from this great list!), where, how much and who. And even if at the stage of finding out the current state and dynamics of the distribution and abundance of the species included in the list, information about the abundance and wide distribution of some "rarity" approved from above is obtained, the author of an article about it can at best only reset the authorship to another, but not remove the proven shit from the already approved list. No speculations (long refuted) about the benefits of shameless lies for the protection of biotopes can justify such a phenomenon as insects in the CC.

But this, of course, does not mean that at the historical stage when the entomological part is preserved in most CC, and the law imposes sanctions based on the fact that a particular species is in the CC as an official document, we should be indifferent to its content and condescend to its informational imperfection. The fact that the entomological part of the CC is already harmful by definition does not change the fact that it is also more harmful the less reliable the information contained in specific articles is. Therefore, the quality of information is far from an idle question, and if possible, no published CC (especially such a regional one, which is often written not by entomologists, but by specialists in the field of love of nature) should remain without attention and criticism from entomologists in its entomological part.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 23.11.2017 08: 34

I consider it appropriate to compile a nature conservation booklet from the following sections. 1 a list of all species found in the region. 2 list of rare species, 3 List of biotopes recommended for protection from economic activity with a description of the possibility of protection of rare species in these territories.

Oh, this is a waste! You're about to be eaten alive. After all, this topic has already found out that the protection of biotopes does not make sense, and there are no rare species, and in general we need to eat and drink, because tomorrow we will die...

I would argue with them, but I want to read their posts first. Can you provide links to posts on this topic that argue that biotope protection doesn't make sense, that a species can't be rare outside of preferred biotopes or at the edge of its range, and so on? Thank
you in advance. P. S. By the way, in the message T. t00m you quoted, it does not say that the "booklet" is exactly the CC in its legal meaning; even protection is not mentioned in relation to species, but only in the third paragraph - in relation to biotopes. Therefore, in this formulation of T. t00m, I personally do not find any reason for fundamental objections.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 23.11.2017 08: 34