The Red Book and insects

This is a bit of an old quote, but I see a few points that I would like to draw your attention to.
In Russia, in the middle zone, there is no fresh fish. In principle, no. Generally.
Lying on any counter is far from the first freshness. It doesn't matter if it's a market or a store. And sea fish in stores have been frozen-thawed so many times that it is impossible to eat without nausea. I sometimes (once every two years or so) have to literally search all the stores to buy red perch, terpug, squid without the smell, zavetrennosti and yellowness. It is clear that I myself do not eat such fish, I buy it for food. Luxury.
Fresh, and even more so - live fish (carp of the same kind), do not buy. They sold live carp, but it quickly died and it was the dead one that was in demand, and it was expensive to live. More expensive than pink salmon and even chum salmon.
It may be very strange for a Ukrainian (DNR), but don't be surprised. It's true.
Commercial fishing in Russia brings products to other countries. What is sold in our stores is some kind of culling, possibly from those countries where fresh catch is taken.
I love fried fish, I love salted fish, I love making sushi (I use it as a quick way to cook pink salmon), but I rarely eat it. Stale food is total.

I will also tell you about the method of breeding carp.
In the 90s, the director of the local CHPP began to breed carp on the territory of the CHPP on water used in cooling turbines. They were fed mixed feed. Later, they began to breed trout.
Costs are minimal. Water is still needed for cooling, a lot.
But the contribution to the development of local fish fauna is huge!
In the river, where the discharge went, there was the most interesting fishing. Yes, sometimes I pecked at carp and trout, but it's not about them, it's about the compound feed! He got into the river and fed a huge mass of fish and other animals! The river flourished! Even near the confluence of the Kama River, there were a lot of all kinds of fish! I'm not talking about aquatic insects, beautiful aquatic plants, frogs, newts, toads, and so on.
Then the director changed and nothing happened. All of the above was lost very quickly and in full.

And one last thing. About 10%. It is completely unnatural for a person to eat mixed feed. to which I refer all grain and products from it and bread, there are also powdered milk, sour cream, cream and other premixes, sugar. These foods spoil the health of the population. A healthy diet should consist of meat (fish) and vegetables. But it is very expensive. Therefore, the masses were transferred to mixed feed, because they use these masses as agricultural livestock, even a postscript to the farm is available. It is worth keeping this in mind and not telling people to eat mixed feed.
Production should be organized efficiently. This is the meaning of careful use of nature. Reasonable co-existence, mutually beneficial.

Of course, the fish in the rivers of the middle zone swims already rotten
In general, what does the problem of insects in the red Book have to do with it? Maybe you'll cry in the conversation?

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 Penza alconaut did not express any of his own thoughts. This is the most banal truth known since time immemorial. It is very immodest when untenable individuals try to teach someone here.
You (and you, Elez in particular) should first try to take an inventory of the regional fauna of at least the simplest group - for example, diurnal butterflies-and we'll see. And since none of you are able to process even the regional fauna of diurnal butterflies (despite the fact that you all collect and sell them), then you will always be a stinking shit for normal researchers, and nothing more.

The Penza alconaut did not express any of his own thoughts. This is the most banal truth known since time immemorial. It is very immodest when untenable individuals try to teach someone here.
You (and you, Elez in particular) should first try to take an inventory of the regional fauna of at least the simplest group - for example, diurnal butterflies-and we'll see. And since none of you are able to process even the regional fauna of diurnal butterflies (despite the fact that you all collect and sell them), then you will always be a stinking shit for normal researchers, and nothing more.

Banal truths are also useful to remember, especially in a company where no less banal lies have long become boring. Yes, and you repeat in a more rough form what you have already said many times before. But it has already been answered that the difficulty of the problem does not mean that it is permissible to do without it what is logically impossible without solving it. The fact that someone who understands this axiom of scientific work does not undertake to solve some of these problems himself, being busy with other things (and in general not going to disgrace themselves with "lists for CC"), is not yet a scientific or moral justification for avoiding these tasks for someone who logically needs to solve them for drawing up security lists that are dear to him. If I reproach the meat seller tomorrow for slipping me rotten meat, it's only because he's a scumbag, and he can reproach me in return because I didn't bring him fresher meat from the base myself.

My claims are valid only because I pay for the product. And his job is to do his job conscientiously, and not to cheat and sell his conscience for loot, and even shouting with an honest face " keep the merchant!" And we, the taxpayers, pay for the red book sukhodryuk, by the way, and we don't care how you use our money there, hiding behind the excuses with which you have already sat down a hundredfold in what you summed up your message. I don't have to make an inventory, but I'm not going to make conservation lists either; but anyone who wants to make such lists, but shies away from taking an inventory of the fauna on the grounds that even Elez himself doesn't take it, shouldn't look far for someone to apply his academic expressions to. If there are no opportunities , don't build a dacha. You haven't listened to all the contestants yet, so don't rush to award places. If you haven't examined all applicants, don't make a list of applicants. If, of course, you are not a corrupt official, not a pest and not a thief, or at least do not want to have these qualities firmly lit up and always be perceived by the appropriate shop. Of course, the zero cycle and the construction of the first floor will always seem like an unaffordable job for someone who has spent decades ruining people's money to build the second (!) floor at once. Such a hopeless "construction" can be riveted not every ten years, but in general incessantly, "mastering" unlimited amounts out of our pocket. Fake fighters against "commerce", of course, like this practice. We don't.

Having worked in the field of social studies for decades, I can assure you that we also have enough difficulties in collecting primary information. Sometimes there are so many of these difficulties that you will truly regret that you are not engaged in an inventory of the fauna of Eurasia. Accordingly, our employees are divided into those ("incompetent individuals" according to Nemov) who will not allow themselves to draw conclusions before mastering the information logically necessary for these conclusions, and those ("normal researchers" according to Nemov) who rivet "works" with absolutely bullshit "information" and baseless ones "conclusions", receiving from this incentive increases in salary and other benefits, and not even blushing from reviews (or criticism on the Internet), from which at least some decent person would have had enough kondrashka long ago.

So I'm happy with your answer in every way. One such answer can have a greater positive effect and prove more to the thinking public than tons of competent reasoning. The style alone is more than enough to choose a qualification between an incompetent person and a real researcher, and what can we say about the scientific content? I think you yourself may have noticed in retrospect that no one on this forum has done more to confirm the title of this topic and to undermine the authority of the entomological part of the CC than the inveterate fighters for it. Nomina sunt odiosa.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 24.11.2017 04: 23

Mr. Elez, you are wasting many hours and effort here on writing such lengthy and useless opuses. Still, few of your opponents read them in their entirety, and they will not be included in your PSS either. And even if someone finds something new and reasonable in your soap arguments, they will pass it off as their own. Your like-minded people will also not be able to use this, because all of them, without exception, are kitchen chatterboxes and losers who are not capable of practical work on the inventory of even light groups of fauna, not to mention identifying its "threatened" elements. .All your scribbling is a waste of time. As the saying goes, " the dog barks and the caravan goes." It would be better if you spent your understanding of the problem and literary talent on practical work on this very inventory. Or they would publish critical reviews of red books. Then, even if not all the authors of the CC, but at least some of them would really feel ashamed. But you can't do that either, because you don't own an invoice for any region where bad CC's were issued.

This post was edited by Nemov - 24.11.2017 14: 07

Please tell us the details of the process. Where can I publish them or at least read some examples?

Korb S. K. 2015. On Lepidoptera listed in the second edition of the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region [2014] // Eversmannia. Issue 43-44, pp. 49-53

Korb S. K., Pozhogin D. A., Zatakovoy A. A., Talyak R. E. 2016. The experience of inventory of the lepidoptera fauna of the Nizhny Novgorod region and its application to the compilation of the Red Book of the region (Insecta: Lepidoptera) / / Zapovednaya nauka. 2 (1): 57 - 72

Mr. Elez, you are wasting many hours and effort here on writing such lengthy and useless opuses. Still, few of your opponents read them in their entirety, and they will not be included in your PSS either. And even if someone finds something new and reasonable in your soap arguments, they will pass it off as their own. Your like-minded people will also not be able to use this, because all of them, without exception, are kitchen chatterboxes and losers who are not capable of practical work on the inventory of even light groups of fauna, not to mention identifying its "threatened" elements. .All your scribbling is a waste of time. As the saying goes, " the dog barks and the caravan goes." It would be better if you spent your understanding of the problem and literary talent on practical work on this very inventory. Or they would publish critical reviews of red books. Then, even if not all the authors of the CC, but at least some of them would really feel ashamed. But you can't do that either, because you don't own an invoice for any region where bad CC's were issued.

1. "Few" of my opponents here "read" - that means about one and a half people. I'll get over it. There are almost no opponents here, and it's not for their sake that I answer them. Read at least the name of the topic. And can you be considered an opponent with your posts? You are my best assistant (or rather, in second place).

2. We help "Practical work on inventory" as much as we can. Even my last name occasionally appears in the reports, including in the latest CC of the Ministry of Defense. It is true that red-book solicitors do not need to look at our reports, at least. And bread does not go for the belly. And to completely take on someone else's work just because you have a conscience and see through the hack-it will be too easy for parasites to live, you will lick your lips, you are our shifty ones. Everyone should do their job conscientiously, and anyone can criticize anyone, especially the one on whose tax deductions Panama goes; and instead of counterarguments, break off "so you make me the foundation yourself; and I'll build the second floor right away!" "it's a boor's business, but not a scientist's. This has already been said, and there were no objections from you, only repeating for the hundredth time what has already been refuted, and abundant personal assessments. If at least once in your life the environmental prosecutor's office was interested in the Red Book sinecure, you would be popularly explained that the answer "and you will work for me" is never considered confirmation of your innocence. However, you wouldn't say such a thing there.

3. At least you can do the inventory yourself, if you are currently involved in making lists for the CC; and you will do it when you are finally deprived of the feed trough for falsifying empirical data and trading love of nature to the detriment of science and nature. Unless, of course, you go into commerce, which you now reproach those who are not related to it, forgetting what is said here in this regard, at least about the authors of the entomological part of the Voronezh Region CC. However, the fact that the CC only helps merchants by inflating prices for bullshit was also mentioned here, but there were no refutations, except for swearing like yours, a fighter against "soap arguments". If you think that the counter is a line of demarcation between the creators of CC and merchants, then you are again not aware, although photos from the Moscow bursa were displayed on the forum.

4. Take off your shoes. Specific criticism of specific CC articles on insects is also enough on this forum. Including mine. And the criticized authors are familiar with it, further questions-to them.

5. I agree with your remark (which you obviously do not consider "the most banal truth", unlike the idea of T. t00m) that "the dog barks, but the caravan goes". I might even add that the barking of dogs only makes the caravan go faster. Here you very accurately caught the evolution of the attitude to insects in the CC on our forum against the background of attacks like yours. If you were referring, on the contrary, to the success of the Red Book case in the Russian Federation, then even here you are correctly looking at Russian society, in which it is really difficult to find a state-owned project where money would not be cut by a scam with all the gasps and indignations of the public and a huge law enforcement apparatus. That's why I was talking not just about malicious embezzlers, but also about a special cynicism (in the spirit of - say what you want, push us like the last scoundrels and amateurs to the wall with iron scientific and legal arguments, and we are like water from a goose, we will continue to play for your money, but you need it honest information - take inventory yourself for thanks, because we are real researchers, and you are losers).

6. From my "non-mastery of the texture", some authors of the CC have repeatedly scratched their bruises noisily (like you are now after the recent shame about the "threatened" cervus and assurances that no one in the Russian Federation is fined, as your like-minded friend T. Penzyak soon almost became convinced). And the more intelligent ones just thank you for the "invoice". You can understand something further by rereading the topic.

7. "Many hours" I do not spend on the forum, why did you take it? I write in my native language.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 24.11.2017 21: 09

Korb S. K. 2015. On Lepidoptera listed in the second edition of the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region [2014] // Eversmannia. Issue 43-44, pp. 49-53

Korb S. K., Pozhogin D. A., Zatakovoy A. A., Talyak R. E. 2016. The experience of inventory of the lepidoptera fauna of the Nizhny Novgorod region and its application to the compilation of the Red Book of the region (Insecta: Lepidoptera) / / Zapovednaya nauka. 2 (1): 57 - 72

And how was the criticism taken into account?

Dear Andrey Jovovich, don't waste your time on the Behemoths


And I would like to ask Mr. Nemov about his list of publications, preferably in highly rated journals...

In general, CC has a very indirect relation to science.
As for including insects, a species like Bombus fragrans, for example, immediately comes to mind. There should be some species that show no doubt that they are actually disappearing. Another thing is that most ccsare full of" left-wing " species (for insects, there may even be an overwhelming majority). Unfortunately, this is the reality, and this must be dealt with through comprehensive criticism (first of all, reviews in various journals). But this is not an argument against insects in the CC as such. We don't think that roads are unnecessary because most of them are covered with holes in asphalt.
I'm not calling for a discussion - just a remark.

And how was the criticism taken into account?

This will be clear in 9 years.

  
And I am not an entomologist, I do not claim to publish and do not criticize those who really work for the benefit of science, although maybe somewhere they are not doing enough in red book matters. Criticism of red books is the prerogative of specialists, not of wounded collectors and "fearful" merchants.

It's always like this.
All the steam went into the horn.

But what do I mean by that? What is so seditious about my post?

Pictures:

1234.jpg — (270.87к)

Here everything depends on the level of knowledge of the specialist. Some red book writers immediately think of a stag beetle, for example, and they sincerely believe that it is actually disappearing. So confidence and faith are not the ground for QA, but a real field study should be at the beginning.

So big and beautiful beetles are listed in the red books not because they disappear, but because they are attractive to collectors, in the worst sense of the word. And you don't have to tell them that you can't exterminate the species in this way - read about wandering pigeons.

And you don't have to tell them that you can't exterminate the species in this way - read about wandering pigeons.

It seems that you have absolutely nothing to do with "entomology".
Any "parasite" or April frosts will easily do what a hundred "catchers" with nets and stains cannot do.

So big and beautiful beetles are listed in the red books not because they disappear, but because they are attractive to collectors, in the worst sense of the word. And you don't have to tell them that you can't exterminate the species in this way - read about wandering pigeons.

And where can you read about how the wandering pigeon was destroyed by collectors? And about the fact that the simplicity of extermination is the same for the species in general-without specifying whether it is a bird or a massively reproducing plankton? And about the fact that something can be proved by examples related to critically dissimilar cases? In my opinion, it is better to "read" this topic or entomological literature first, referring to many years of experience in fighting (not with a net, but with much more terrible means) with insect pests of agricultural crops. These insects, apparently, do not have enough appeal, otherwise collectors would have swooped in - and definitely would have given kirdyk to all the species that they could not destroy with any chemistry.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/29/2020 04: 16

It seems that you have absolutely nothing to do with "entomology".

I also got the same impression, not only after this post, but also from the totality of the previous ones. And if it does, it's purely formal. According to his logic, all types of animals and plants that are of interest to collectors (not necessarily for the collection, they take a lot more for food) should be entered in the CC. Mushrooms, berries, fish, birds, etc. And then suddenly the silver carp will suffer the fate of a wandering pigeon, look how they row it from every pond...

This post was edited by ENO-25.11.2017 19: 21

Interestingly, the extinction of the wandering pigeon falls on the period of plowing the prairies, but still only those who shot it are to blame, and who is Melanoplus spretus, also hunters? And both species became extinct at the same time...

The extinction of the wandering pigeon shows that even a very large species can be destroyed if you try hard enough. That only hunters are to blame, no one says. And in your opinion, hunting did not affect its extinction in any way?

According to his logic, all types of animals and plants that are of interest to collectors (not necessarily for the collection, they take a lot more for food) should be entered in the CC. Mushrooms, berries, fish, birds, etc. And then suddenly the silver carp will suffer the fate of a wandering pigeon, look how they row it from every pond...

You can also tell us about the Colorado potato beetle. Stop growing potatoes and it will die out.
And because of "for food", species are still dying out, and there are many examples of this, study the literature.

PS And yes, formally I have nothing to do with entomology - there are no diplomas, no publications in "highly rated journals".

P. P. S. Row on, row on, let's see what happens...

This post was edited by KM2200-25.11.2017 20: 08

You have "respected" in some incomprehensible way became the most aggressive "behemoth", which has nothing to do with real entomology and only dissolves tons of snot because of the realization of its insolvency.
And I am not an entomologist, I do not claim to publish and do not criticize those who really work for the benefit of science, although maybe somewhere they are not doing enough in red book matters. Criticism of red books is the prerogative of specialists, not of wounded collectors and "fearful" merchants. But when it was relevant, I organized a publication criticizing highly obscured plagiarists and falsifiers, but Behemoth never did this.
And it may soon be necessary to "expose"again. An even more "respected" professional forger, Nikitsky.

Just do not think, dear colleagues, that I do not know the saying "to beat a tree stump is to spend the day". The fact that T. Nemov is not an entomologist, he now admits himself, although this is not news to anyone here, because at least in order to say what he said about the notorious cervus, you need not only not be an entomologist. But I'll say a few words to the others.

Reproaching me for avoiding specific criticism of the CC, T. Nemov perfectly remembers how many of them were there and at what addresses. A paper collection of low-circulation materials, the" organization of publication " of which T. Nemov is proud, is no more public than a polemic on the forum (and here the bureaucratic criteria are aside, this is not the Higher Attestation Commission or the nomenclature commission). But with all due respect to L. V. Bolshakov, I would like to point out that T. Nemov is probably doing a good job, pushing us to reread that collection on the Tula entomofauna against the background of such messages; by the way, it would be good to remind L. V. not to forget to thank a fellow countryman for such compromising advertising. After all, either I, like many of us, at one time incorrectly perceived those materials and in general the whole story, including the role of certain specific participants in it, or someone else writes local posts under the name of T. Nemov.

No, neither I, nor the participants of the Red Book projects known to me, remember what was written here about the red books. I don't memorize what people write on people's forums, in the tabloid press, on fences, etc.

Well of course. I just realized that under your nickname, someone else was disgraced here not so long ago. And that now you are once again shouldering the unaffordable burden here, not you, but someone else. And that you don't even remember a bit of what has already firmly attached you to this topic, not for the first time. I also understood your hint that the main credit in Tula history belongs not to L. V. Bolshakov, but to the one who "organized the publication". I also understood that, in your opinion, you will allow me to be completely opposed to something only after I get into it in public and in print, and that only old experienced whores are allowed to speak out against prostitution in principle, and everyone else can be accused of unfounded and say to them: and you are better we would have wandered around the hotel in the evening, just like we people of business do...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 26.11.2017 10: 41

Those who write red books have very different authorities.

Truly so! Here it has long been recognized that their authorities and priorities are quite different from those of most of the participants of our forum, who are not indifferent to nature and science, and among them are not only amateurs, but also people who have a much higher status in science than most of the authors of the entomological part of the CC. Anyone who has read this topic and does not complain about poor "memorization" knows that I am not defending only my third-party position. It is not difficult to compare the level of specialists who support this position, measured by scientific degrees, the availability of professional publications, and the place in the academic and university hierarchy, and the level of the average author of entomological articles in the CC.

Therefore, it is completely unfounded to accuse opponents of writing "on fences" and consider paper products more authoritative just because the well-known authority Fursenko hardly knows how to turn on a computer and prefers a piece of paper. In addition, these days, a paper form does not guarantee that something better is presented in printed form, and not a hundred times worse than fence writing. I don't think anyone will think of calling for the protection and resettlement of cervus on any fence, but what will the authors of the CC say? By the way, about the authors of the CC: if you haven't been to the Moscow bursa, then you shouldn't have looked at the photos from it in vain...

And because of "for food", species are still dying out, and there are many examples of this, study the literature.

If there are insect species, then a link to the literature has already been requested. If the types of something more invertebrate, then this is not part of this forum, where the entomological part of the CC is recognized as comprehensively harmful.

You can also tell us about the Colorado potato beetle. Stop growing potatoes and it will die out.

What's the use of potatoes? We will include it in the CC yes in the penalties. We have craftsmen here. And just let him try to die out.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 26.11.2017 11: 56

What's the use of potatoes? We will include it in the CC yes in the penalties. We have craftsmen here. And just let him try to die out.

Thanks to the efforts of potato scientists, the Colorado potato beetle (Chrysomelidae: Leptinotarsa decemlineata) still got into the Red Book of Belarus. Now his crushed and dried body can be found between page 132 and page 133!

https://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/COLEOPTERA/rus/jokes.htm

This post was edited by Elizar - 26.11.2017 12: 06

And in your opinion, hunting did not affect its extinction in any way?

Not in a decisive way, of course. We remember at the level of a much more advanced hunt epic war with urban birds; and what's the use? And such questions have nothing to do with insects at all, and this has already been noted here. If a certain ant species goes extinct tomorrow, science will have to look for the real causes, and not waste time on the Jesuit "What, your walk through the forest while stepping on the ground did not affect its extinction in any way?" On the destruction of several individuals in a patch far from the main range, loudly declared a "micropopulation" - perhaps. But on the extinction of an insect species-in any way. The survival strategy of insects allows their species to experience very often such that your "hunting" for them is just a joke.

Therefore, it is necessary to prohibit eating!

Thank you, now it is completely clear: you have no formal or informal relationship to entomology. But on the other hand, you have a deep a priori knowledge given from above on the subject and heroically carry it into the dark, barbaric environment of this forum.

That's great. And now, if you don't mind the trouble, please show a list of your publications in "highly rated" (oh well, you can in any) journals, so that you can see what your attitude to entomology and knowledge of the subject is.

If the types of something popozvonochnee, it is not part of this forum,

I must have missed something in modern taxonomy,

Mushrooms, berries, fish, birds, etc. And then suddenly silver carp

already classified as an insect?

And in the essence of the question, I will say this.
I think you are familiar with such a science as logic. The mistake you make in your reasoning is called "incomplete induction".
Yes, some (many) insect species have the ability to reproduce quickly and "experience this all the time". But is that all? Why do you call for excluding all insects from the Red List at once?

Many fish (and amphibians, too) lay eggs by orders of magnitude more than insects-eggs, down with the fish from the Red Book? And how can sparrows or rats breed in the right conditions, you know? You know, you write it yourself. So down with the birds and mammals, and forget about nature conservation forever?
That's about your logic.

This post was edited by KM2200 - 26.11.2017 17: 24

  
Yes, some (many) insect species have the ability to reproduce quickly and "experience this all the time". But is that all?

And what specific types do not have? Are there any publications about this?

And what specific types do not have? Are there any publications about this?

Are you kidding me? Here, the same deer beetle, from Wikipedia (sorry, too lazy to download the article, but there is a link):

Yes, in fact, there are a lot of such types, here at least the most typical
Apollonian
There are links to publications and much more.
In fact, all insects whose strategy is close to K strategy are vulnerable, and there are plenty of them. Dybka steppe, tolstun, and even the same deer beetle
The vulnerability of the latter is associated with low plasticity, the deer beetle lives on old oak trees, and forestry enterprises work on the principle of regular logging before the wood becomes old, and sanitary logging is generally carried out even in the national forest.parks and nature reserves.
The trouble with all these insects is usually that they live within the narrow boundaries of their stations or consortia, which change due to economic activity.

Here is another joke, the point is that finding a particular species in the CC, whether it is appropriate there, or not, in principle, does nothing wrong with this species itself. Well, there is a podaliri in the CC, or a swallowtail, and what now, even if there is a lot of it?
I do not know any publications on this topic, but I can assume that podaliriy bothers mainly those who benefit from it
Although, the current feature of the CC creates problems not only for merchants, but also for researchers. Theoretically, at least in our country, it is possible to study KKvids, including in captivity, but for this you need to arrange so many bamboos...
Therefore, all studies of the CC of species related to catching them are done as if it were not legal, even in institutions.
The bureaucrats are satisfied with this, you can always "attract" some kind of "nerd" for a tick, but the fact that something is chopped, plowed, dried there is not their concern)

KM2200, you still try to understand the meaning of my past psians The problem of catching insects for anything is purely ethical, and does not affect their existence as a species in any way. Yes, an individual butterfly may not be lucky, it will be pricked on a pin, and put in a frame, but in principle, even more likely this butterfly has already laid eggs, or fertilized its female, and now it would be eaten by a bird or spider. So here the trouble is not how much the butterfly has, how much the spider has, instead of eating - he is hungry, and the butterfly is in a frame))
So all these condemnations of someone who catches or trades - this is how to call it, mentoring, letter-reading, and so on. in the style of "here they are all like this, and I'm all in white"

..... Your hint that the main credit in Tula history belongs not to L. V. Bolshakov, but to the one who "organized the publication". I also realized that, in your opinion, you will allow me to be completely opposed to something only after I get into it publicly and in print ...

And what makes you think that? This publication is the only one that L. V., for obvious reasons, was then not convenient to organize himself. This is just a moment in Tula and other stories.
And to become an opponent, it is necessary to "get involved in print", and not spoil the air in your sandbox.

Well, one highly authoritative Entomologist present here with a capital letter " E " is quite unduly KK still almost brought under the monastery. To find out about this curious case, just flip back a couple of pages. So this is not to say that it does not create problems in scientific (and near-scientific) activities. Not to mention that being guided by the principle "the strictness of domestic laws is compensated by the non-necessity of their implementation" when drafting these very laws is a wrong strategy. What if they do start operating in the future?

I think you are familiar with such a science as logic. The mistake you make in your reasoning is called "incomplete induction".
Yes, some (many) insect species have the ability to reproduce quickly and "experience this all the time". But is that all? Why do you call for excluding all insects from the Red List at once?
Many fish (and amphibians, too) lay eggs by orders of magnitude more than insects-eggs, down with the fish from the Red Book? And how can sparrows or rats breed in the right conditions, you know? You know, you write it yourself. So down with the birds and mammals, and forget about nature conservation forever?
That's about your logic.

Complete or incomplete induction has long been clarified here, because its completeness in a particular case is determined not by logic, but by data about the subject. Experts in the field of entomology will tell you (and have said it many times) that insects in general are plankton, the lowest link in the animal food chain (and they also talked about the meaninglessness of the Red Book - that is, necessarily at the level of individuals and not otherwise - protecting them here). Entomology dealers (i.e., merchants who sell their love of nature for lack of a serious product and actively push insects to the CC) are also looking for "rarities", but they often get into a puddle out of ignorance or deliberate distortion of the real state of a particular species, and this is not an accident, but an inevitable dead end.

And your induction is overflowing. You've already been told about false analogies. The question "Why do you call, etc." is already answered here by many; it is interesting-read the topic, but it is difficult to repeat everything again for each new questioner, as you yourself understand; especially since each of them flies from argument to argument as they blow, running the topic once again in full Finally, getting to the point that it would be impossible to protect biotopes, justify protected areas, etc.without the CC; all this has long been proven proven wrong, I say in advance so that you don't start another cycle here.

I mentioned the insect survival strategy in response specifically to your pigeon approach; and if you now decide to confuse insects with amphibians and fish rather than birds, then the distinction should be made on a different principle. Offhand, at least, I will say that fish have so much less maneuver in space that you can say goodbye either to fish as an example or to logic; and amphibians at no stage of development can spread geographically as easily and in a variety of ways as insects. But it is better to request specialists in the relevant groups: maybe they also have a fundamentally negative attitude to "their" sections of the CC. Nature protection (also mentioned a hundred times) existed in the world long before the CC; in recent decades, the CC has been bred as uncut dogs, but for some reason, in parallel with this Panama, nature protection is sinking deeper into the substrate, which T. Nemov understands much better than we do.