Concept of development of protected areas of the Russian Federation until 2020

47. Croat bumblebee-Hemaris croatica (Esper, 1779).

"Croatian", then.

.. if you return from heaven to our sinful land, then the reality will be as follows:
1. Alas, it seems that there are Animals in this edition of the CC RF-we will not be able to add anything (in other respects, as well as exclude it)... the train left... I was very pleased that the authors of the list and essays on erect-winged CCS made a fuss in advance and more or less corrected the list of their species-listening to comments on the ground. Alas, the authors of beetles and butterflies have never reached us...
2. Discussions on CCPs (lists) should have been organized earlier - I suggested it two years ago, but was "crushed" by militant obscurantists (sorry in advance, "you can't throw words out of a song" as they say...).
3. CC of the Russian Federation and a separate subject of the Federation - two big differences! Regions are forced to adapt to their own realities - the protection of certain biotopes, the most valuable/rare marker species, and naturally obsolete species. All this is perfectly taken into account by botanists - they do not have any disputes about the need to protect their objects! You can only envy them-look at their website: http://www.plantarium.ru/page/personal/of/1966.html
4. Even the late Isaev A. Y. dreamed of regional CC - for example, the Volga region. Botanists have already held a conference and are actively working on such a project:
http://www.press-volga.ru/2012-09-11/10/
but entomologists, alas, are silent... although there are quite enough specialists and enthusiastic collectors. It is the regional CC that should directly influence the list of species / populations in need of protection on the territory of the Russian Federation as a whole.
5. How many times can I repeat that insects in the Red Book are an active popularization of entomology among the population, education of the younger generation-not a soulless grabber of "gifts of nature" but a prudent and thrifty owner of their land. Naturally, insects/populations/species cannot exist without their own biotope. Thanks to the botanists - they were the first to break through protected areas and have long been working not only on studying the flora, but also specifically identifying relict species... for example Penza I. I. Sprygin : http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D1%81%D0...lid=50368&lr=49
6. - Do not allow, do not allow to catch, do not allow to change/sell insects. Yes, who needs us (sorry) with our insects by and large in modern Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Baltic States ... Everything specifically depends on you - your perception of the world, goals and objectives in collecting, storing and studying insects! There is no need to be pharisaical and distort the cards in entomology in the end - who needs it, he will still make every effort to achieve his goal, and the prohibitions and restrictions we have not stopped anyone yet. I don't say anything about corporate ethics at all... maybe only the old "bison" scientists, entomologists and enthusiastic collectors adhered to it...
7. So it turns out that the Red Book of Russia or the Tambov Region is the front face of researchers living and working in this territory. And how the people will see it will depend only on you. I think older (more experienced) colleagues will never refuse to help in their work, although some specialists have a lot of ambitions (it's not clear that they will take their knowledge to the grave with them?).
In general, many more arguments and facts can be cited... but, sometimes it seems to me that I am in a deep impenetrable forest... Tell me friends - what is the point of your insect collections!?? High science, "wasting away over gold" or a tool for getting rich... Where is my entomologist brother?

This post was edited by Penzyak - 03/28/2013 10: 11

6. - Do not allow, do not allow to catch, do not allow to change/sell insects. Yes, who needs us (sorry) with our insects by and large in modern Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Baltic States ... Everything specifically depends on you - your perception of the world, goals and objectives in collecting, storing and studying insects! There is no need to be pharisaical and distort the cards in entomology in the end - who needs it, he will still make every effort to achieve his goal, and the prohibitions and restrictions we have not stopped anyone yet. I don't say anything about corporate ethics at all... maybe only the old "bison" scientists, entomologists and enthusiastic collectors adhered to it...

By the way, whether they are needed or not is a matter of the zeal of the authorities. From the point of view of the law, an insect is the same object of protection as the Amur tiger. And if a series - this is generally a particularly large size will pull. And it doesn't matter if the species essay is written among the limiting factors of trapping or not. The very fact of entering a species in the CC of the Russian Federation puts it under legislative protection, its removal from nature is possible only with a special permit issued by the ministry and this removal must take place in the presence of representatives of the Department of nature Protection of the region. If you don't believe it, read the regulations on the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation carefully.
So this may affect not only collectors and merchants, but also scientists and entomologists, because you do not have permission to catch these species for sure, as something tells me.

By the way, whether they are needed or not is a matter of the zeal of the authorities. From the point of view of the law, an insect is the same object of protection as the Amur tiger. And if a series - this is generally a particularly large size will pull. And it doesn't matter if the species essay is written among the limiting factors of trapping or not. The very fact of entering a species in the CC of the Russian Federation puts it under legislative protection, its removal from nature is possible only with a special permit issued by the ministry and this removal must take place in the presence of representatives of the Department of nature Protection of the region. If you don't believe it, read the regulations on the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation carefully.
So this may affect not only collectors and merchants, but also scientists and entomologists, because you do not have permission to catch these species for sure, as something tells me.

What they don't have... I don't have permission, I don't have full data, and I don't want to listen to my opponents. But there is hard work, grants, citation ratings, and collecting your own articles.

And there is a desire to measure who has the Red book with a squeak longer...

..in the Tula region CC, the section of insects will probably surpass the CC of the Moscow region.

Yes, I do all my research at my own expense, and the citation ratings haven't been f * * ked up to me. And you can't take the collection with you to the next world-if only as a seasoning when the devils cook for their sins in a cauldron.

..in the Tula region CC, the section of insects will probably surpass the CC of the Moscow region.

Why did you pick on me with the Tula Region CC? I have nothing to do with it. Is that clear?" NI-KA-KO-GO! Want to measure – write Bolshakov LV

By the way, whether they are needed or not is a matter of the zeal of the authorities. From the point of view of the law, an insect is the same object of protection as the Amur tiger. And if a series - this is generally a particularly large size will pull. And it doesn't matter if the species essay is written among the limiting factors of trapping or not. The very fact of entering a species in the CC of the Russian Federation puts it under legislative protection, its removal from nature is possible only with a special permit issued by the ministry and this removal must take place in the presence of representatives of the Department of nature Protection of the region. If you don't believe it, read the regulations on the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation carefully.
So this may affect not only collectors and merchants, but also scientists and entomologists, because you do not have permission to catch these species for sure, as something tells me.

There are fees for causing damage to protected species, specially downloaded this

For the destruction of the biotope of the Red Book insect species during the construction of a factory or microdistrict, I believe, we should count all the destroyed individuals at all stages (eggs, caterpillars, pupae), as well as the dead offspring of the population for several tens, or maybe hundreds of years. So? Nature conservationists avoid answering such questions. I started to correspond with one of them, but after another "difficult" question, he disappeared. This is understandable: the world for the bureaucracy and regulatory authorities should be arranged simply: they found so many butterflies caught in the collector's stain, counted them, and issued a fine. And here to assess the destruction of an entire population. This is what kind of environmental expertise should be done, how to conduct calculations, and most importantly: contact large and important developers... Pharisaism. Plebeianism.

.. for butterflies and coleoptera, the fine is 3000 rubles per individual...

I wonder how much Penzyak has already "dripped" for his research?

With these red books in general trouble - on the one hand, many, even those who speak out against the ban on trapping, and so on, are not averse to participate in their compilation, on the other hand, it justifies almost their uselessness in general

With these red books in general trouble - on the one hand, many, even those who speak out against the ban on trapping, and so on, are not averse to participate in their compilation, on the other hand, it justifies almost their uselessness in general

Yes, no one here says that CC is not needed. Most people say that there is a wrong approach to drawing up the cadastre, the lack of reliable information on types, and the admission of a narrow circle of cabinet "specialists"when drawing up and approving it.

Entalex, so lists should logically be made by desk specialists, but who should make them?
In theory, a person who works officially in the field of entomology, "occupies an office", must know everything that is happening in the fauna of the area where he works, and draw up norms. list.
He just has such a job!
If a person is at work, he must do and know what is necessary, otherwise he will be kicked out.
So in theory, local experts can write an angry review where it is necessary and the owner of the cabinet should change.
But this is in theory, in a civilized country! In our region, nepotism, patronage and mutual responsibility work.

But on the other hand - in almost any civilized country, even "uncovering" nets is potentially dangerous for your wallet, not like catching protected butterflies - you will immediately be laid by citizens vacationing/passing nearby, and after the first butterfly caught, a policeman will appear because the system works there.
In our region, you can catch as much as you want.

How many times can I repeat that insects in the Red Book are an active popularization of entomology among the population

There is no need to repeat it at all, since there seem to be no deaf people here (except perhaps Your Grace), but what can you do, Oleg, if of all the forms of argumentation on the topic under discussion, you have mastered only repetition and branding. And it's time to see that after your past spells of this kind, "militant obscurantists" have already stated that they fully support the popularization of science (in a positive sense), but they doubt that the popularization of a particular science cannot do without appeals to fines and prison, that no other forms of popularization of science can be invented. After all, before the appearance of insects in the CC, the popularization of science was at a much higher level than in subsequent decades, if only because popular literature tried to avoid moronic blunders, but even popular manuals were replete with information not about methods of collecting dust hit by cars with a six-legged car, but about how to catch, starve and spread, and they did not beat young entomologists on the hands with resolutions and criminal articles. With the help of prohibitions and sanctions, they do not popularize science (and there is no need to be hypocritical about this), but, on the contrary, they only teach people to bypass such a dumb science a mile away, in which, after first confusing mnemosyne with cabbage, you can not only fly into a piece or two, but also not soon see nature again.

If you are an enthusiast of popularization, then there is no need to advocate such militant and obscurantist forms of "popularization" as CC, rather advocate the reissue of Plavilshchikov, the elder Stekolnikov, Marikovsky, Fabre, etc. Or you can write yourself and publish popular books about how to protect plankton on the island instead of focusing on real conservation measures, which all the obscurantists here, let me remind you, have already agreed with more than once (that's why they visit, by the way, the topic of PTZ).

And to issue an index of books banned by the Inquisition (leading the reader, selling or purchasing them directly to the stake) as a means of active popularization of literary studies was not thought of even in the Middle Ages.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 03/29/2013 14: 38

There is no need to repeat it at all, since there seem to be no deaf people here (except perhaps Your Grace), but what can you do, Oleg, if of all the forms of argumentation on the topic under discussion, you have mastered only repetition and branding. And it's time to see that after your past spells of this kind, "militant obscurantists" have already stated that they fully support the popularization of science (in a positive sense), but they doubt that the popularization of a particular science cannot do without appeals to fines and prison, that no other forms of popularization of science can be invented. After all, before the appearance of insects in the CC, the popularization of science was at a much higher level than in subsequent decades, if only because popular literature tried to avoid moronic blunders, but even popular manuals were replete with information not about methods of collecting dust hit by cars with a six-legged car, but about how to catch, starve and spread, and they did not beat young entomologists on the hands with resolutions and criminal articles. With the help of prohibitions and sanctions, they do not popularize science (and there is no need to be hypocritical about this), but, on the contrary, they only teach people to bypass such a dumb science a mile away, in which, after first confusing mnemosyne with cabbage, you can not only fly into a piece or two, but also not soon see nature again.

If you are an enthusiast of popularization, then there is no need to advocate such militant and obscurantist forms of "popularization" as CC, rather advocate the reissue of Plavilshchikov, the elder Stekolnikov, Marikovsky, Fabre, etc. Or you can write yourself and publish popular books about how to protect plankton on the island instead of focusing on real conservation measures, which all the obscurantists here, let me remind you, have already agreed with more than once (that's why they visit, by the way, the topic of PTZ).

And to issue a code of books forbidden by the Inquisition (for the reader who reads, sells or buys them directly to the stake) as a means of active popularization of literary studies was not thought of even in the Middle Ages.

Not in BULL feed.

THESE FOUR TYPES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW EDITION OF THE CC RF:
44.Hamearis lucina (Linnaeus, 1758). A rare, endangered species. Prefers sparse areas (meadows, clearings) of moist floodplain broad-leaved forests on the right bank. IPEE RAS suggests excluding the species from the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation; on the contrary, it is necessary to raise the status to EN.

In the Voronezh Region, the snapper is a very local species, but at the same time locally numerous, on another small patch you can collect almost a hundred in a couple of hours. Locality and a fairly short period of summer, please do not deify, because in this part of the snapper is not a light in the window, really for the whole season in the Voronezh region and cabbage so many times you will not meet.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 03/29/2013 14: 48

So it turns out that the Red Book of Russia or the Tambov Region is the front face of researchers living and working in this territory.

That's right. So that's what they need to think about before adding daphnia and cyclops to this parade face, which will then automatically go to the cop price at three shtukars per individual.

Gentlemen, comrades! Can I ask you a question? And what, strictly speaking, do the CC of the Russian Federation and its constituent entities protect? Types? And how many are there that are restricted to the Russian Federation or a subject of the Russian Federation (for example, Moscow)? Or populations of widespread species? If there are protected species whose range does not extend beyond the limits of "jurisdiction", then this is one thing. And if their range is somewhat wider than the borders of the Russian Federation or a subject of the federation? In this case, it turns out that populations are protected, for example, in the Moscow, Tambov, and other regions, or in the Russian Federation as a whole. But then we should not talk about the protection of species, but about how it is - the protection of populations of certain species. I think this is very serious in terms of the proposals of the "authorities" to toughen punishments "up to the point of execution"! So the question is: "Can we remove the term "species" from all CC's and replace it with a population?" I think this will make the CC much more truthful. Yes, and we will save the collectors.

Citizen-comrade-master, I'm not catching up here. Populations (and individuals, too)are protected by a particular species. It seems that it is already clear that the species is represented by populations (among other levels of fragmentation). Specify the type, and it is subject to protection wherever it exists within the region. Or do you assume that each protected population within the respective region should be specifically indicated in the CC? And that, therefore, in the new population I discovered (not yet taken into account in the CC), I can legally mow it down? Or is it a question of ignoring the destruction of individuals, but punishing for the proven destruction of the population (this issue was raised here at the time)?

If you meant simply the representation of objects similar to protected ones, also outside the region of jurisdiction, then there is no legal problem, as far as I understand. Person (personality) it also lives not only in the Russian Federation, but the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for murder does not give population reservations, because it is quite enough that the borders of the Russian Federation in which the jurisdiction of this country operates are known. Wallets are also available not only in the Russian Federation, but the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not stipulate that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not protect the wallets of London passers-by. Girls also exist all over the world, etc., etc.; this is the dialectic of the general and the particular, the universal and the individual. Of course, the CC of the Russian Federation cannot be a basis for punishing at least all apollo populations outside the Russian Federation.

But then how can I prove to the "boss" that I caught a protected leech in the Ministry of Defense, for example Smerinthus caecus, not in the administrative borders of this subject, but in Mongolia? Yes, there is a label, but in English. And will it serve as proof of the absence of evidence of a crime?

I, as many people know, advocate not equating a tiger or gyrfalcon with any of the ikozyavok, worms and other spineless animals! Adding them to the CC on a par with large vertebral bodies is not only not useful for protection, but also very harmful, because protection as such was not, and will not be, but the task of educating the younger generation of naturalists will completely stall! Yes, and seasoned collectors, too, will not do well!

And why shouldn't our nature lovers and their superiors take the experience of those countries that have reached significant heights in protecting the habitat of everyone and everything? I mean Japan. A country with a very high degree of anthropogenic load, but without a Red or other Book color! And why? They are not proud of the annual increase in the number of species included in different conservation lists. National Parks just work there (let's remember the PTZ!), where nothing and no one can be collected, touched or even disturbed! The rest of the country's territory is a testing ground for all nature lovers, from cool professionals to kindergarten students! Therefore, in every remote corner of the country, in every rural store on the counter with fresh Asahi Shimbun, you will always find a series of figures about the flora and fauna of the surrounding village! The names are not always given in Latin, but everything is very well photographed and printed! It is also not uncommon to publish your own nature magazine (beetles, butterflies, mice, flowers, etc.) around your home, which then turns into a serious publication (Futao, Yadoriga). Therefore, every police officer in the country knows what a glass box (Sukashiba-ga ka) is. What about us? What can we brag about? I think only by the fact that we have the largest number of CC's per country, per adm. per unit of population. What about science? What about publishing popular literature? What about the collection equipment? However, you can see for yourself...

In the first paragraph , we will still rely on the presumption of innocence. It is generally for us almost the first and last reliable in case of anything. Let the "boss" prove it. I agree with everything else. In developed, and green-minded countries with entomological equipment and popular literature - full of grace, because there you can talk about the popularization of entomology, and not thanks to the red books. Not to mention Japan, where if you throw a stick at a dog, you'll end up with an amateur entomologist. When I am told that lists of things that are "not allowed" and corresponding legal threats popularize science, I do not even remember the complete unpopularity of the circulations of these very CC's, I remember one issue of "Crocodile" (from the time of L. I. Brezhnev). There, in the category " You can't think of it on purpose "(based on authentic, vital texts and photo documents sent by readers), they placed a photo of the reverse side of a single travel ticket for Moscow. I won't remember that text verbatim, but I'll give you the gist of it:

1. A discounted single ticket transferred to another person is invalid and is withdrawn.
2. The ticket does not give you the right to carry free baggage.
3. Tickets for buses with 300 and 400 numbers are invalid.
PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF A SINGLE TICKET.

For the destruction of the biotope of the Red Book insect species during the construction of a factory or microdistrict, I believe, we should count all the destroyed individuals at all stages (eggs, caterpillars, pupae), as well as the dead offspring of the population for several tens, or maybe hundreds of years. ...And here to assess the destruction of an entire population. This is what kind of environmental expertise should be done, how to conduct calculations, and most importantly: contact large and important developers... Pharisaism. Plebeianism.

Indeed, with this approach, you can ruin the developer and discourage the destruction of valuable biotopes. But you and I will not be invited as experts! And they'll invite you know someone-a prostituted doctor of biological sciences professor, not even an entomologist or zoologist at all, and also from another city.
On the other hand, many CCS include such species as swallowtail, admiral, patroller-emperor, and even death's head. In this case, you can declare any vacant lot where a similar species flies by as a "valuable biotope". Not to mention the fine of a private individual. But if you are pressed-demand an expert examination of the validity of entering the form in the CC and look for an expert who will support you. In addition, the normal CC does not write about bans on trapping species with relatively dense populations. Such bans are issued by lawyers on their own, from the ceiling! You can play on this and point out contradictions in the essay (compiled by a specialist) and the penalty rate, compiled WITHOUT TAKING into ACCOUNT the expert's opinion. On this and the court (:.

In pursuit. I recently got access to the legal section of the draft CC of the Tula region, which should not be changed (if the CC is published this year). For the first time I learned that since 2003 (when the CC was not even in the draft), the Law of the Tula region on Administrative Offenses was issued. Article 10-2. 1 says that for the "destruction" of plants and animals included in the (not yet existing) CC of the region, fines are established: for individuals-1500-2500 rubles., for officials-3-5 thousand rubles., for legal entities-20-100 thousand rubles
. In addition, there is a Resolution of the regional administration of 2008. where Chapter 8, Article 25 states that "actions leading to the death, reduction of numbers and disturbance of the habitat" (EVEN ITS) KK-species "are not allowed". And below, Chapter 9 of Article 31, it is stated that their extraction is permissible in exceptional cases with the issuance of permits in accordance with the established procedure.
But in the texts I edit, as a rule, nothing is said about bans on collecting category 3 species, for category 2 species it is said with reservations (such as" with a reduced population "it is impossible), and only for category 1 species in most cases it is necessary to prohibit"killing individuals". But in all cases, there are different restrictions on violations of biotopes. Moreover, it says that all restrictions must be preceded by the creation of an opt-in agreement.
The legal conflict is as follows: if someone in our region is caught for murder, for example, Mnemosyne, immediately say-call my lawyer - is there any OPT here? (:

In pursuit. I recently got access to the legal section of the draft CC of the Tula region, which should not be changed (if the CC is published this year). For the first time I learned that since 2003 (when the CC was not even in the draft), the Law of the Tula region on Administrative Offenses was issued. Article 10-2. 1 says that for the "destruction" of plants and animals included in the (not yet existing) CC of the region, fines are established: for individuals-1500-2500 rubles., for officials-3-5 thousand rubles., for legal entities-20-100 thousand rubles
. In addition, there is a Resolution of the regional administration of 2008. where Chapter 8, Article 25 states that "actions leading to the death, reduction of numbers and disturbance of the habitat" (EVEN ITS) KK-species "are not allowed". And below, Chapter 9 of Article 31, it is stated that their extraction is permissible in exceptional cases with the issuance of permits in accordance with the established procedure.
But in the texts I edit, as a rule, nothing is said about bans on collecting category 3 species, for category 2 species it is said with reservations (such as" with a reduced population "it is impossible), and only for category 1 species in most cases it is necessary to prohibit"killing individuals". But in all cases, there are different restrictions on violations of biotopes. Moreover, it says that all restrictions must be preceded by the creation of an opt-in agreement.
The legal conflict is as follows: if someone in our region is caught for murder, for example, Mnemosyne, immediately say-call my lawyer - is there any OPT here? (:

In the first paragraph , we will still rely on the presumption of innocence. It is generally for us almost the first and last reliable in case of anything. Let the "boss" prove it.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the presumption of innocence in administrative law does not apply in the Russian Federation...

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the presumption of innocence in administrative law does not apply in the Russian Federation...

There are nuances here, but they are far beyond the scope of the topic; and in this case, it was not in them, but in the fact that Oleg spoke about the composition of the crime, i.e. in the language of criminal law.

The legal conflict is as follows: if someone in our region is caught for murder, for example, Mnemosyne, immediately say-call my lawyer - is there any OPT here? (:

This position is smarter than reality. Unfortunately, I don't see any legal conflicts here yet. The CC is a source for the legislator, and the lawyer no longer reads the CC, but the laws. And they will be "seized" - not on the basis of the CC with its clever reservations, but on the basis of laws, regulations, etc., which refer to the CC solely for the sake of establishing the very fact of the red book of the species, and not for advice on what measures to protect the species and what should precede what in conservation work. And in the resolutions and appendices prescribing fines, etc., apparently, the creation of a protected area is not provided for as a necessary prerequisite for punishing potravu (more precisely, leprosy in the protected area is a separate legal conversation). So this is not a legal conflict (which in such a country could be a blessing), but a natural discrepancy between the CC data and the police selective use of this data by the legislator and the legislator. Our local differences about plankton conservation at the individual level end where science ends - in the CC text. There is no longer a trace of these polemics in the rulings and lists of specific fines, and no one can refer either to a "conflict" or to expert disagreements: under the current laws, an expert should be invited only to determine the dead mnemosyne and confirm the fact that it is included in the CC (what are the special differences here), and no more what not to ask, because only this is directly used by the law, and there is simply no place to take into account the differences of entomologists on QC, on"delirium", etc.in the legal process.

But the latter does not remove moral responsibility from the authors of the CC. If it is known that only its output and the list of included species are relevant for the legal consequences of the entire CC, then all authors of the CC should be aware of what they are legally effectively contributing to and what cannot be redeemed by legally insignificant scientific reservations about protected areas and non-resistance to "unauthorized collection". Hypocrisy - not to use the legally significant right of veto, but after the aggression actually sanctioned by you, remember your legally insignificant spells about the inadmissibility of the use of force, etc., or write a false denunciation of a neighbor as a robber, murderer and traitor to the motherland, but ask in the denunciation to limit the punishment to a strict reprimand...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.04.2013 07: 36

 
.. But the latter does not remove moral responsibility from the authors of the CC. If it is known that only its output and the list of included species are relevant for the legal consequences of the entire CC, then all authors of the CC should be aware of what they are legally effectively contributing to and what cannot be redeemed by legally insignificant scientific reservations about protected areas and non-resistance to "unauthorized collection"...

This is especially true today, when the State Duma persistently nightmares the population with inadequate proposals and laws.
Among the latest - "The State Duma may ban all types of hunting":
http://izvestia.ru/news/547708
State inadequacies have completely switched to the only "language of prohibitions"that they understand.

...Here, gentlemen, is the latest example of local government bureaucracy in the development of science, etc. and so
on. Our department (yes, we have already created our own genetic laboratory) has decided to collect genetic material for each species of mammals in the Penza region. Fortunately, there is already a lot of processed material for a number of types.
We wrote several letters to a number of relevant authorities. The chief and a number of interested parties went to some responsible persons for an appointment. The result is quite predictable - we were sent to such a jungle of regional (and Moscow) instances and offered to collect such a bunch of documents that in order to fulfill all legal conflicts, we will only have to print requests, papers, documents all spring and summer, and then still hang around a bunch of various instances. We thought about it, thought about it, and decided to do everything ourselves, as always, in difficult cases on large milks - with the simultaneous involvement of regional hunters who own the appropriate licenses...
Everything is so wrapped up in bureaucracy and fraud at the top... that there are no words.
These are the realities. But they took me to the list of hunting species: crow, rook, thrushes, chamga ... etc. I worked without any permits and will continue to work, so these are the realities of the day.

Yes, I almost forgot: Happy International BIRD DAY (APRIL 1)!!!

This post was edited by Penzyak - 01.04.2013 10: 17

Pictures:

_____.jpg — (92.63к)

.. I worked without any permits and will continue to work, so these are the realities of the day.

I worked for permissions without any permissions, and I will continue to work!
"Frostbite my ears to spite my grandmother"?

I remember such a story, not from entomology, though: once in the early 90's, a well-known herpetologist described several new species of geckos from the territory of Turkmenistan. How reasonable is another question. After describing all the freshly baked species, he offered them to the forthcoming edition of the CC of Turkmenistan. A year later, when I came to continue collecting, I was taken for the sirloin part due to the fact that I caught and tried to take out a decent number of copies of the Red Book species... The same geckos...

Yes, I almost forgot: Happy International BIRD DAY (APRIL 1)!!!

Now it has added insects to the Red Book, now it celebrates the day of their most effective natural enemies...Sic transit...*

* Russian: The music didn't last long...

I remember such a story, not from entomology, though: once in the early 90's, a well-known herpetologist described several new species of geckos from the territory of Turkmenistan. How reasonable is another question. After describing all the freshly baked species, he offered them to the forthcoming edition of the CC of Turkmenistan. A year later, when I came to continue collecting, I was taken for the sirloin part due to the fact that I caught and tried to take out a decent number of copies of the Red Book species... The same geckos...

There is a similar case, but not in connection with CC, but from entomology. An inveterate collector of Central Asian butterflies (and a passionate defender of them from all other collectors) a few years ago slipped on the pile imposed by him over the years of provocations, that is, he received, although with an offensive delay and without serious consequences, an official hoof in that very part and flew out of the republic unsolonously sucking. There are so few joys in our world, but not the least of them - on the rare occasion that the award has found a hero...

.. these, if I may say so, "news" is not only overgrown with moss, BUT also managed to acquire all sorts of rumors and conjectures...
And they have nothing to do with us, do not confuse the" gift of God with scrambled eggs " of the Lord!

Yes, I just told you by the way, Oleg, and very generally; I didn't even hint at you or your comrades here, and I didn't mean to offend you, it wasn't about the CC at all, but just about a specific example of the movement of a conservation jet against the wind, so put out your hat, don't outrun the lookout. Yes, and I did not pretend to" news " at all, the cases are well-known and not yesterday's already, just sometimes it's not a sin to remember.

By the way, are ogari rare in these parts? We have something in Moscow they aspen long ago, live and breed for a sweet soul...

.. these, if I may say so, "news" is not only overgrown with moss, BUT also managed to acquire all sorts of rumors and conjectures...
And they have nothing to do with us, do not confuse the" gift of God with scrambled eggs " of the Lord!

And no one wrote about the freshness of these stories. So, real-life examples.

... we have not infrequently in Muslim areas (they have a sacred bird) - and so an evil duck, like a swan, drives everyone from the reservoir... Hunters naturally shoot it at convenient times... it breeds in open areas... I don't think it's unusual. It appeared in our region about 15-12 years ago - it has never been noted before...

This post was edited by Penzyak - 01.04.2013 14: 11

It appeared in our region about 15-12 years ago - it has never been noted before...

Well, on what x to protect species that expand their range?

No, but you can count the nesting grounds, and then the reserve, and the protection of ogar at least in the photo is not traced... Oleg, please explain, since we are already talking about it: do you count the ogar or do you already protect it (I mean, just as a species in general in the region, and not exactly in the OPT, where protection is already implied)?

... these, if I may say so, "news" is not something that has grown overgrown with moss

Am I in the moss?

As a failed ornithologist, I will say - if you protect the ogar, then you must also bring a domestic pigeon here! Ogar - a very numerous species, distributed very widely, in some habitats (Mongolia) numerous! Are you going to guard Tadorna ferruginea or something else? But the view doesn't require security! And here are your populations... That's what we should be talking about! You are not trying to protect a species, but individual populations! But these are different things that, as already noted, are not spelled out in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation!