July 12 a meeting of the Expert Council for Game and Hunting. On the eve of the participants were presented to the Board of conceptual changes to the Federal Law “On the hunt …” and some legislative acts of the Russian Federation and the project these changes (apparently prepared by the specialists of profile department in a hurry).
Photo Eugene Rozhina.
In the photo – the author.
As participants in the discussion, the draft did not cover 1/3 of the proposed concept and, more importantly, in many respects it did not match that found in the general chairman – director of profile department AE Bersenev.
It was felt the need for a broad discussion of the proposed changes.
I also subscribe to this view and today’s publication I do try to provoke a discussion. I would particularly like to hear the views of practitioners that the regulatory framework of today is not working, and that was a hindrance. I would like to hear suggestions biologists, including the terms used in the law. In my opinion, instead of the two concepts, such as hunting and hunting grounds, leave one of them, and hunting resources called game animals. Fur-bearing animals or burn fur-bearing mammals beasts. To critics were less in the future, let’s offer without fear of offer “gaffe.” For example, in the above-mentioned meeting of the Board, I discovered for myself that was originally land (ground), but not land.
I will express their vision and future changes. I propose to take the time, do not indicate dates for the introduction of these changes, not to get “as always”. I believe that the discussion in the first place to be myself, “the concept of change.” Proposed in the concept of consolidation of hunting grounds for 10 years for the local community associations, will not solve the problem of access to hunt for all social groups of hunters, so how to get into these small hunting area residents of regional centers, not to mention the inhabitants of the region and Moscow, it will be just as problematic as today in the land of private entities. This task is always better to cope and will handle regional and nation-wide associations.
I believe that the problem of access to hunting must be addressed through the introduction of the hunting grounds attendance rate as a criterion for the efficiency of game management, affecting the indication for termination ohothozyaystvennyh agreements as well as through the establishment of a ceiling price for hunting users on dominant species hunts calculated for each federal district. Either in each region to oblige hunting users to negotiate these prices gospodrazdeleniyami responsible for tariffs, as is done with the prices of communal and transport.
As for the criteria for termination ohothozyaystvennyh agreements, it is suggested that the average calculated by the federal districts.
One already named – attendance at the hunting farm thousand. Hectares of hunting grounds: for woodcock – in the spring, the entire game birds – in the autumn, for the hare – in the winter;
The number of rangers on the thousand. Hectares of land assigned;
The average monthly salary huntsman;
Number of technical means on the balance of hunting grounds users;
The number and production of wild ungulates in the thousand. Ha.
The law stipulates that ohothozyaystvennoe Agreement may be terminated by the court, if the hunting grounds users made a threefold reduction in half of these indicators and the situation has not changed within the prescribed period after the issuance of the supervisor notice.
For the reduction and simplification of permits for hunting I suggest that we return to how it was in Soviet times. Everything new is well forgotten old. In fact, we have returned to the hunting rules of the time. To declare the law that gives the permit-hunting users permission, as it is impossible to arrange something faster than a ticket, stub, which is written as a blueprint. Statement hunter must write only in case of refusal to permit him, in order to get a negative response. The government only determines which columns are required in the permit: terms, types, production standards, etc. From the data of the hunter enough names, initials, and the ticket number. For hunting users permission to save a limited type species, for which criminal liability. Production permit forms and their subsequent issuance of hunting grounds users nothing but additional costs for the state and taken away from employees of state agencies time does not. Permit takes a lot of time. Make changes to the Tax Code, removing from Art. 333.3 nelimitiruemye all kinds of animals, simplifying, and the reporting procedure.
In order to develop hunting users feeling secure legally the owner’s right to plan production and the protection of hunting grounds.
Ideas to issue state permits for the massive types of hunting with which you can go to any hunting users, absurd. This state-based conduct hunting economy that is no longer possible, because a lot of land in the Russian Federation received at auction or as a result of the transition to an agreement ohothozyaystvennoe a lot of money. Implementation in practice, this idea is fraud in relation to the users of hunting grounds by the government, and ohotpolzovanie lose all meaning.
When making changes to the law should decide what should prevail – the availability of hunting for all social strata or security grounds a large variety of objects of hunting.
If the first, then more land must be assigned to the all-Russian and regional public associations of hunters, or leave the public. If the latter, then assign to private entities and, as proposed in the concept of small ohotobschestvami, which in practice will be private in nature. To be objective, it should be noted that the level of business with game management a good half of private entities situation is somewhat better than that of NGOs, and significantly better than in ODOU. The best level of protection at the title above half privateers provided primarily by the fact that, apart from a favorite, nobody in the economy, they try not to let. And the ranger knows about every shot – who and who fired. At the same farms where allowed to hunt on dominant species of everyone, this level of protection is difficult to organize, because among the resolution have taken the hare are always willing to get on that resolution some of ungulates.
The ideal would be to combine the conceptual problems outlined above private sector institutions were to be distributed mosaic, small areas of the region, and the remaining lands of not less than 50% fixed for national and regional ohotobschestvami. This would help in many ways to solve the problem “of wolves and sheep.” Ohotobschestva would ensure the availability of hunting, and the private sector, with its samorezhimami, would perform the role in Soviet times carried reserves and reproductive areas for reproduction and saturation of the neighboring land small game.
Unfortunately, in many areas it is no longer possible, because the offer described in the beginning process of price control and bandwidth capabilities hunting leases.
Anatoly Durandin17 August 2012 at 00:00