Russian man jailed in Madagascar for trying to export rare butterfly

No, the confiscation of a car used by would-be fishermen (and even more so, insect catchers) is a lawlessness that has nothing to do with the law. This interpretation is too free and broad. Fishing gear of a poacher-fisherman, from the point of view of the law, is objects that are directly a means of fishing (nets, "screens", tops, electric fishing rods, etc.), or directly contribute to it (for example, boats, boats, etc.). Recognizing a car as a fishing tool, you can go to the point of absurdity - that way and an apartment, the dacha where the nets, motor, etc. are stored can be brought under confiscation. This has nothing to do with legality. By the way, our provincial courts, of course, confiscating nets, etc., to confiscate such property as boats, motors, etc. they are extremely cautious, and the law allows them to do so (note that all articles indicate - " ... with confiscation... or without it"). However, Moscow's fish inspectors and courts are a separate song, they have their own "legality", because Moscow is now almost not Russia, but a state within a state (for God's sake, Muscovites, do not be offended, this has nothing to do with ordinary people, most of whom are sympathetic, and I have a lot of Muscovites friends).
And for the collector of insects, fishing gear, from the point of view of the law, is, first of all, a net and everything that is attached to it (the list is easily continued by all forum participants). However, a motor vehicle can also be recognized as a means of fishing if it is used as shown here:
http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/autkesch.htm
Well, that's it...

Unfortunately, this is not a question of law, but of law enforcement... The letter of the law allows confiscation without specifying its boundaries and conditions. That's why I wrote that it CAN be

Unfortunately, this is not a question of law, but of law enforcement... The letter of the law allows confiscation without specifying its boundaries and conditions. That's why I wrote that it CAN

I agree that this is not a question of law, but of law enforcement. But the law has clearly defined the limits of confiscation (for both anglers and entomologists):
Part 2 of Article 8.37 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (violation of fishing rules) clearly states: "...with or without confiscation of the vessel and other fishing gear."
Article 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation or protected by international treaties) also specifies everything: "... with the confiscation of animal extraction tools ...or without it."
What is not specified here? A car, if it is just used to go to the forest or to the shore of a reservoir, and does not use it directly for catching or extracting animals (in the case of fish, I can't even imagine how this is possible), is a vehicle, but neither a vessel, nor a fishing tool, nor an animal extraction tool. Therefore, if a zealous fish inspector tries to take measures to confiscate a car, he himself commits a crime under Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - "abuse of official authority".

This post was edited by Dmitrich-02/03/2008 01: 09

Bravo Dmitrich ! If Russian amateur entomologists ever unite in a society, then the place of its lawyer is yours! I'm serious.

A car, if you just drove it to the forest or to the shore of a reservoir, and do not use it directly for catching or extracting animals (in the case of fish, I can't even imagine how this is possible)

In general, it is possible that a friend of the fish inspector told me that the nonsense was tied to the towbars of 2 UAZ trucks that were traveling along different shores of a small lake.

Bravo Dmitrich ! If Russian amateur entomologists ever unite in a society, then the place of its lawyer is yours! I'm serious.

Thank you for your trust!

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 02/04/2008 00: 59

Bravo Dmitrich ! If Russian amateur entomologists ever unite in a society, then the place of its lawyer is yours! I'm serious.

And who prevents you from joining the REO? You can easily join it for both an amateur and a professional. No problem, as they say. The main thing is to have interest and passion. A separate society of amateur entomologists is nonsense! It will not justify itself with such a powerful and adequate competitor.

And who prevents you from joining the REO? You can easily join it for both an amateur and a professional. No problem, as they say. The main thing is to have interest and passion. A separate society of amateur entomologists is nonsense! It will not justify itself with such a powerful and adequate competitor.

I agree. We are not the simplest to reproduce by fission.

In my experience of visiting our nature reserves, the attitude to catching insects in them strongly depends on the position of the directorate. In my practice, there were cases when the director of the reserve forbade catching anything on the territory under the threat of pasture with a scandal, but more often the directors are quite sane people who perfectly understand the difference between the biology of vertebrates and invertebrates. In this case, the trapper is treated loyally, and sometimes they are asked to provide data for the annals of nature. In addition, you need to take into account how many people want to break into the territory. If one or two amateurs can be tolerated, then regular" expeditions " of amateurs begin to cause irritation and they can be understood in this matter. Do not forget about the concern factor that the rest of the local fauna is exposed to from visitors. As for foreign national parks and nature reserves, apparently this is the specifics of each individual country. Madagascar, despite the massive reduction of forests, is extremely jealous of catching individual representatives of its fauna...

No, the confiscation of a car used by would-be fishermen (and even more so, insect catchers) is a lawlessness that has nothing to do with the law.

Gee-y, Dear, what country do you live in?

Madagascar, despite the massive reduction of forests, is extremely jealous of catching individual representatives of its fauna...

... and not only Madagascar. That's what pisses me off! Sweep away entire biocenoses and plant them with coffee/oil palm/rice/leaving wastelands is a normal economic activity. But to collect insects without permission (translated into human - without resisting local authorities) is a terrible poaching. from such poachers, nature must be protected and punished them (poachers) mercilessly, to the fullest extent of the law!

And who prevents you from joining the REO? You can easily join it for both an amateur and a professional. No problem, as they say. The main thing is to have interest and passion. A separate society of amateur entomologists is nonsense! It will not justify itself with such a powerful and adequate competitor.

And what, a piece of paper from the REO will give you something in a practical sense?

Gee-y, Dear, what country do you live in?

I'm in Russia. and you? And I am responsible for my words - where I live and work, such lawlessness with a car (we are talking about such a situation related to detention for poaching) is practically impossible. I myself am directly involved in monitoring this, so I know the state of affairs in my field "from the inside".

And what, a piece of paper from the REO will give you something in a practical sense?

What practical meaning do you have in mind? If the acquisition of a "security certificate" in case of violation of the law - then, of course, no. And joining any community does not have such a meaning. But the opportunity to participate not from the outside, but directly in the work of the REO, membership in it, of course, gives. However, to learn more, you need to read the constituent documents of REO.

I didn't think at first that I would write here, but still it broke through...
I am not inclined to chew snot like "ethical-not ethical" at all – everyone always decides this for themselves, and not suddenly, but on the basis of all their personal life experience, and the morality of one individual is not comparable to the morality of another – it will never work to bring them to a common denominator, but to express it in words for the purpose of involving in my faith, it is rather ungrateful work, to which I do not gravitate... Well, not a missionary

It seems that laws, regardless of where they are issued, in Russia or elsewhere, are written not for our compatriots, but for some other inhabitants of our planet.
In this particular case, a person who is clearly not new to this, unfortunately, "business", deliberately violates the law of the country, collecting enough unique, and therefore having a higher value in the market, representatives of the fauna to meet personal and, I suppose, self-serving needs.
Here I am 100% in solidarity with Salix
" For the cause they took, for the cause...".
Why are national parks organized at all? Whether to protect nature, so that what survived, despite everything in nature until the 21st century, could survive, or that it was here that all sorts of collector fighters rushed here to catch unique little animals that simply do not exist anywhere else on our rather small planet...
I don't think the "Harsh Madagascar Laws" are that draconian.
Maybe in this case it is more appropriate to follow the advice of I. A. Krylov:
"Isn't it better to turn on yourself, godfather?"
Who are the laws written for???
I am somewhat struck by the very approach in the discussion-Ah, it is impossible for a white person to be there!.." This man himself, at his own risk, went to collect material for his personal zoo, for his personal collection. Knowingly violated the law of a foreign country. Previously, in other countries, it was probably possible not to officially shine, not to pay duties, or to manage with a "lamb in a piece of paper". This time, apparently, it didn't work out. And public opinion was stirred up right up to the central TV channels – " Our people are being beaten!"
BUT : "A thief should be in jail!"
Or, in connection with the perversion of public consciousness, as some already believe: not every thief should be in prison ?

After all, this "Resident of Krasnoyarsk Vladimir Efremenko, a collector of rare fauna", a person who is far from poor in everything (how many of you can go to Madagascar for a couple of weeks, for example, spend a vacation there, collecting your favorite beetles?), did not bother to issue official permits for collecting collections in the country – nat The park was his destination... or rather, its inhabitants.
It seems to me that for such businessmen 8 thousand pupaars - to get out on bail – is a small problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already free, but it's just not news to our media.
I do not believe that the person who lives here did not know the laws of the Malagasy Republic, when he was going with his wife and M. B. also with other accomplices, to deliberately violate the laws of another country, in order to remove the nth number of representatives of the local fauna, often unique, as the island of Madagascar itself is unique, from the natural conditions and export it outside the borders of this state.
After all, he is not interested in representatives of his local Siberian fauna, only exotic animals can bring good money...
The risk in this case is divided into the possibility of being tied up right at the scene of the crime (without quotes!) and already at the airport – at the inspection with the collected collection in your luggage.
Here, only one overcoming the quarantine obstacles of transportation across the border is worth such hemorrhoids... Not to mention live material. Happy for those who have not dealt with this... (This is not about smuggling, there are other problems here...)
As for our embassy, it seems to me that all their activity in this case should be limited only to monitoring the compliance of the Malgash with international standards for detaining violators of the law – and, most importantly, that water and food are suitable for consumption without the risk of infection.
Malaria can only be contracted from the bite of a plasmodium-infected malarial mosquito; Dysentery is a "dirty hands disease";
there are many fevers, but in Madagascar there are still a finite number of varieties, and they also do not arise from the dampness of the prison.
If these conditions are met and basic hygiene standards are observed, even "taking into account the local climate", the likelihood of contracting malaria, dysentery or fever is minimized. As I believe, the newly appeared Krasnoyarsk Darrel still passed the necessary vaccination.
As for the laws of the country:
Why do you think tourists come to Madagascar at all?
1. Not for shopping,
2. I don't think it's for architectural sightseeing, although there is something M. B. in this area.
The main thing is to see the unique nature of this island, while not all the forests have been cut down yet, and not all their inhabitants have died out naturally...
And we should not be surprised that the main reason that attracts tourists to the country is under the close attention of the lawyers of this country, because both their well-being and the entire population of the island directly and to a large extent depends on this...

To Coleopter:
And where is the line between "slegontsa posobirala insects" and between caught the last representatives of a species on the IUCN list? Who should monitor this and how should violators be punished for it?

To Zlopastnyi Brandyshmyg
Do you really care so much about the live deforestation in Madagascar or is it just a simple shaking of the air (ether)? Have you already joined an international organization that opposes this or are you actively involved in the Green Peace movement? It is precisely in national parks that forests are not cut down, and it is precisely there, if there is a purposeful environmental policy of the state, that the entire diversity of endemic fauna can be preserved. And if there is a flood of such illegal collectors who have no law written, in 20 years there will be nothing to go there for

Now, as for our country.
If you move away from the capital of our homeland for some distance (a couple of hundred km, I think, is already enough), then the attractiveness of nature reserves or other protected areas for collecting insects can be justified, mainly, only by the greater probability of preserving traps there. A tiny part of the land that is now privately owned, or other territories that are closed to the public (military facilities, etc.), still leave us huge, unexplored territories that promise us a lot of opportunities and discoveries in the field of entomology – no, we do not live in Luxembourg...
How much do you think the entomofauna of the Moscow region is known? But, really, does anyone have such data on the number of species? I dare say, barely 2/3. For example, in the small northern country of Finland, more than 20,000 species of insects are known. Based on this, do we really need the Turkish coast?

This post was edited by IchMan - 02/04/2008 21: 23

Gee-y, Dear, what country do you live in?

Despite the fact that in Russia - all the same lawlessness. And the shortening is found quickly. This is me as a ghoul official saying

In my opinion, the situation is comparable to that if an amateur archaeologist (or rather, a person who earns money by selling archaeological rarities and has an appropriate office in his city) came by himself, without permits, with a shovel to the territory of a protected temple complex (even if it is the Novgorod or Moscow Kremlin) and he began to dig, putting in his trunk not just buttons or coins (after all, we were talking about rare species), but things of the museum level.....for your collection or subsequent resale...
What would it look like? It is unlikely that they would say - yes, let him dig, you'll think he will find what, he will not dig up everything anyway....

IchMan, great! They spoke out - like to Berlin by tank! I am ready to subscribe to your every word.

However, often visiting nature reserves (I don't even mention national parks in our country, their environmental role is zero) is attractive because unique landscapes are often declared protected, which, accordingly , have a unique entomofauna that is not typical for the region as a whole. That's what entomologists go there for.

What practical meaning do you have in mind? If the acquisition of a "security certificate" in case of violation of the law - then, of course, no. And joining any community does not have such a meaning. But the opportunity to participate not from the outside, but directly in the work of the REO, membership in it, of course, gives. However, to learn more, you need to read the constituent documents of the REO.

By "practical sense" I mean the ability to collect insects in accordance with the law.
The fact is that some time ago (about a year) I came across documents related to the ZIN charter, including the rules for collecting animals (I was interested, of course, in insects). Sinful, I did not remember anything, but the conclusion was the same-you can take anyone for .... There would be a desire to portray the struggle for nature conservation, etc.

In our country, there is still a great reverence for any piece of paper, especially with a seal, so perhaps this will give something, especially in the provinces, but of course it does not give the right to legally collect insects. You have quite correctly noted that you can take everyone. And it seems to me that when forced to communicate with local authorities, the key phrase should not be "I collect", but" I study". For illegal study of insects, they will most likely be embarrassed.

I agree that if you want, you can take everyone. The rule "if there were a person, we would find an article for him ourselves", unfortunately, still applies in our country, and it will continue to work for a long time, especially under the current government (I'm a fool, I got into politics for some reason). But let's think logically (and practically): are you aware of the specific facts of bringing entomologists to justice under Article 8?34 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (violation of the established procedure for creation, replenishment, storage, use, accounting, sale, acquisition, transportation or transfer of biological collections)? I personally don't. But this article is crying for all of us! Our collections (most of them) are not registered in accordance with the established procedure. And, nevertheless, provided that our hobby is known to many, is not particularly hidden from anyone, no one is in a hurry to fine us, confiscate collections, etc. (about those for whom collecting is not a hobby, but part of the work-a special conversation). There is such a common concept in legal circles - "non-working article". Such articles include Article 8.34 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. A articles 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation ("Destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation") and 8.39 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation ("Destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation").Violation of the established regime or other rules for the protection and use of the environment and natural resources in the territories of state nature reserves..."), using this terminology, in relation to entomologists "malorabochye" (so far, thank God). And yet, since it is impossible to guarantee that they will not suddenly work in full, or will not work "pointwise" in relation to any of our respected colleagues, going to the reserve, it is worth resorting to negotiations with its management. I believe that we have enough diplomacy to get permission to take a walk and fish (sorry, to study) .

This post was edited by Dmitrich-05.02.2008 17: 15

as for the collection in other countries, this is exactly at your own risk,and given the terrible state of prisons in third world countries, I would not renounce malaria and other joys...I'm going to go take a picture in Borneo for a month and a half,but even for these purposes, I'll go to the embassy just in case,a piece of paper may not be superfluous for representatives of the local police or anyone else there is a difficult task.

And again the word "Rare" sounds, "on the verge of extinction". This rare butterfly has natural enemies in nature (an entomologist-collector doesn't count) so much so that the damage caused by the collector is so negligible. Even with all the desire, an entomologist armed with a net can not do much harm.
Now let's talk about emotions:
1. For some reason, none of the sources mentioned the specific name of the butterfly, which already invalidates the claim that it is "rare". The media said, "the butterfly was rare," and everyone believed it.
2. It seems that many ardent critics of our compatriot are driven not by the desire for justice, but by inflamed envy that they themselves cannot afford to travel to Madagascar!

 
..... under Article 8.34 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (violation of the established procedure for creation, replenishment, storage, use, accounting, sale, acquisition, transportation or transfer of biological collections)? I personally don't. But this article is crying for all of us! Our collections (most of them) are not registered in accordance with the established procedure. ...

Can you not give a link to this very "established order"? The most interesting thing is that the search gives links only to Article 8.34 of the Administrative Code, but the legal provisions should be, as I understand it, in the Civil Code? But I can't find it there yet... Thank you in advance!

And again the word "Rare" sounds, "on the verge of extinction". This rare butterfly has natural enemies in nature (an entomologist-collector doesn't count) so much so that the damage caused by the collector is so negligible. Even with all the desire, an entomologist armed with a net can not do much harm.

Everything is so. Just a little bit remains - to explain this to the policemen/rangers in the national park, catch the intruder red-handed and at the scene of the crime.

Bourgeois ornithologists have a concept of "birdwacher" - a person who observes birds. The same thing is collecting, only the presence of a bird carcass in your personal collection is replaced by a note in your notebook or a photo that says "I saw this species". Quite a peaceful and exciting activity. Bird carcasses, of course, unlike insects, you can't get enough of all lovers. A very popular movement in Europe: badvochers have their own magazines, societies, and so on. They drive around with binoculars and cameras, and no problems with the criminal code

Bourgeois ornithologists have a concept of "birdwacher" - a person who observes birds. The same thing is collecting, only the presence of a bird carcass in your personal collection is replaced by a note in your notebook or a photo that says "I saw this species". Quite a peaceful and exciting activity. Bird carcasses, of course, unlike insects, you can't get enough of all lovers. A very popular movement in Europe: badvochers have their own magazines, societies, and so on. They drive around with binoculars and cameras, and no problems with the criminal code

Yes, so not interesting. It would be better for us to have the carcasses of butterflies, and not their photos Besides, there are many insects-doubles, which you can not determine from the photos, you need to digest the genitals, etc. So our future is in carcasses! And photos are purely auxiliary material.

Can you not give a link to this very "established order"? The most interesting thing is that the search gives links only to Article 8.34 of the Administrative Code, but the legal provisions should be, as I understand it, in the Civil Code? But I can't find it there yet... Thank you in advance!

See Order of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection No. 411 of September 30, 1997 " On the Regulations on Zoological Collections "(Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 1507 on 08.04.1998). There is a comment at this address http://entomolog.narod.ru/ent_zakon.html However, the commentary is sometimes outdated (in particular, it contains references to the invalid Administrative Code of the RSFSR, replaced by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in 2001). I attach the text of the order and regulations.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 06.02.2008 09: 33

File/s:



 ____________________________30_09_1997_N_411.rtf

size: 29.7 k
number of downloads: 320

See Order of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection No. 411 of September 30, 1997 " On the Regulations on Zoological Collections "(Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 1507 on 08.04.1998). There is a comment at this address http://entomolog.narod.ru/ent_zakon.html However, the commentary is sometimes outdated (in particular, it contains references to the invalid Administrative Code of the RSFSR, replaced by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in 2001). I attach the text of the order and regulations.

Thank you for the selection.

I wonder what documents you need to submit to certify ownership?
I understand that if I bought the Rothschild collection from the British Museum, then I will have the appropriate pieces of paper-and if I caught it myself?

In general, again naprinimali laws by which it is impossible to live...

Thank you for the selection.

I wonder what documents you need to submit to certify ownership?
I understand that if I bought the Rothschild collection from the British Museum, then I will have the appropriate pieces of paper-and if I caught it myself?

In general, again naprinimali laws by which it is impossible to live...

I totally agree. They themselves do not fully know how to apply them in practice. About the documents that need to be submitted... It is already necessary to contact them, and since no one wants to" shine", I have not applied myself (and I am not going to do so yet), so I do not know a specific list of papers

In general, as far as I understand, the extraction of insects is regulated by the same rules as other non-hunting animal species. That is, theoretically, you should submit an application to the local authorities of the Rosselkhoznadzor (or that we now supervise the fauna, I already got confused in their shuffle), which indicates what types of insects, in what quantity, and for what purpose you are going to catch. A wise inspector, after studying the application, decides whether it is possible to allow the withdrawal of this product without harming nature and how much it will cost. This usually takes 2-3 months. And I must say, most quickly you will be refused, saying that there is no information about the number of species. True, this is purely theoretical, I do not know of any such precedent for insects, although there have been such cases for other groups of animals (amphibians, reptiles, small birds). Honestly, this is a first-class nonsense, but such are our laws....

It was me, check-in failed.

I once (about eight or ten years ago) received such a permit (more to show off in front of the museum authorities), still lying around somewhere... The sheepskin coat (i.e. the hassle of making it) wasn't worth the effort!!! At least once some "infection" asked...
Theoretically, even for museums, the collection of non-commercial vertebrates, invertebrates and plants should somehow be regulated and regulated, but officials are not up to us... In our Yaroslavl region, we are tired of learning the names of various "environmental" bodies and who is responsible for what... And they keep multiplying and multiplying...

True, this is purely theoretical, I do not know of any such precedent for insects, although there have been such cases for other groups of animals (amphibians, reptiles, small birds). To be honest, this is top-notch nonsense, but these are our laws....

Yes, as for collecting insects, the most terrible nonsense ! But these laws can also work if someone really wants to. They'll come and ask: "Why are you ruining beetles without our knowledge, comrade?" So it is better to know these laws in order to think out a line of defense at your leisure (just in case of a "fireman" ).

I have also received such permits several times (though not for insects), and I quite agree about the sheepskin coat and its dressing. Yes, I completely forgot, this permission must be registered in that admin. in the area where you are going to fish, and after the validity period expires, submit it to the issuing organization with a detailed report. And take for... both a private person and a museum can do this (they also need to get such permits), because all the fauna in our country belongs to the state, at least legally.

This post was edited by Anthrenus - 02/06/2008 10: 54

Here's another document. Look...

File/s:



 ____________________________05_10_1998_N_560.rtf

size: 22.95 k
number of downloads: 313

In our region, such a commission has never existed, that is, this document was not executed, apparently there were no precedents with animal collections.

It remains to hope that some of the Yaroslavl residents are members of the commission on the Red Book of Nuclear Weapons, and some are "lawyers", so we can get away with each other if anything..

This post was edited by Elizar - 06.02.2008 13: 32

But there was already an incident with the seizure of the collection - under the pretext of its illegality. And this is just what was in print.

In our region, such a commission has never existed, that is, this document was not executed, apparently there were no precedents with animal collections.

In our confusion with the legislation, and even more mess in the myriad bylaws, officials should be pitied: well, they do not have time to process the shaft of documents. Yes that's a good thing: they do not have time, do not create-do not execute, and we do not need it