In the articles “What information is based antiohotniki?” And “Psevdozaschitniki game” (“ROG» №№ 13-14, 2015), were given descriptions of the ways in which scientists, Ph.D. OA Goroshko (Baikal), VA Zubakin with the Russian Bird Conservation Union (Moscow) and the Ecological Society Geblerovskoe (Altai region) generated from a vacuum or a nebula antiohotnichi conclusions and proposals, which many people have confidence in the science, are taken seriously. Officials have accidentally found themselves on the environmental field and not really put science in a penny, these suggestions are useful for covering various nefarious initiatives.
Photo Adrian Kolotilina
Go to articles:
«What information is based antiohotniki?»
Learning antiohotnichih campaigns of recent years revealed another great event. Interestingly it is the fact that the scientist, is actively pushing antiohotnichi theses, while also involved in government and education, and public organizations.
Meet — AP Savchenko, Doctor of Biology, Head of the Institute of Economics, Management and Environmental Sciences, Siberian Federal University.
The scale and breadth of activity (for them — later) of large Siberian scientist, educator, social activist, wildlife photographer and meets a variety of methods to discredit hunting and hunters (in my understanding, the validity of which I try to show in this and subsequent articles).
It will describe the methods used AP Savchenko article «Phenology mating behavior capercaillie Tetrao urogallus L. in Central Siberia»Published by the Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk State Agricultural University in 2012 (№ 9, p. 90–94). Article presents the results of many years of capercaillie leks surveys conducted by Prof. AP Savchenko and candidate of biological sciences, IA Savchenko. We number we are interested in theses.
1. At the beginning of this article is the opinion of another scholar, according to which the decline in stocks capercaillie was a result of: a) the overall reduction of suitable land; b) their intensive economic development; c) the increasing number of amateur hunters.
The authors agree with this opinion; hunting, as we see, — The third factor.
2. Next, the scientists write, on his own, that «spring hunting of capercaillie currents is a significant limiting factor» and reduces the number of capercaillie «in most parts of Central Siberia».
Confirming or references to such data is not given. Disposals and habitat degradation have not mentioned — Only hunting.
3. «Hunting currents — It goes on to say, — is undesirable and can be carried out only in the final phase, mainly in sparsely populated and remote localities lands».
Here the authors have determined the initial temporal and spatial boundaries of spring hunting.
4. The conclusion of the article, they go even further, replacing «undesirability» on «inadmissibility»Predetermining a brief period of stability and end point: the hunting of certain currents in the current phase «inadmissible, it can not be justified, and an increase in terms of spring hunting».
5. Peak wording — in the summary of the article, a summary of its content and results.
That is the summary of all browsing the collection, of course, pay attention in the first place, it — quintessence of any scientific publication. But scientists say Savchenko that «an extremely negative impact on the population structure of this species has a spring hunting». Total species in the whole area, in any terrain, in any period of time, in any phase of the current.
What will the unsuspecting reader is limited to five lines of a resume? He will say: Krasnoyarsk scientists have proved the harmfulness and, therefore, the inadmissibility of the spring hunting of capercaillie.
But those who read the whole article, make sure — no proof it contains. Actually, the purpose of this note, it was published in a popular publication intended wide hunting circles to remind hunters about «undesirability and inadmissibility» antiohotnichih uncritical acceptance of abstracts, no matter how authoritative was the status of authors and publications.
AP Savchenko IA Savchenko gave us an unusually suitable for this purpose the sample.
After all, the deliciously good this publication? Absolute blatant copyright unfounded conclusions about the impact of hunting.
It’s not even the fact that the article contains several equally categorical and not coordinated with each other statements concerning the meaning and consequences of hunting. Not that the authors surveyed 35 points-latitudinal bands in the current total of 4 degrees, allowed themselves to allegations of most of the 16-degree band of the Central Siberian capercaillie habitat, and resume swung the entire range of the species. I do not have any biological preparation, but the attentive reader already will be enough to question the Article-similarity.
However, its special value — article certainly can be a wonderful tool for studying the beginning of logic, — in visibility, the convexity of the main nonsense.
The fact that, according to the article, in the surveyed currents hunting is not carried out!
Any known ancient aphorism — «Everything is relative». Many people know how to test new drugs: the volunteers are given identical-looking pills, but are only one chalk (placebo snag), and others — with the drug.
The most distant from the man of science knows that if his party after friendly potashnivaet are permissible only assumptions about the causes — reliably find them only consistent change of at least a snack and, if not help, drink (or dose).
Learning neopromyshlyaemyh currents without comparison with opromyshlyaemymi in principle can not be the basis for definitive conclusions on the impact of hunting and abstracts of articles about the undesirability, inadmissibility and finally malignancy spring hunting — net, not turbid nothing pseudoscience.
Artificial entanglement in a truly scientific study of the ideological declarations — frequent case. But usually these declarations attached to some kind of pseudoscientific, for example, they are provided with vague allusions to inaccessible sources. Scientists Savchenko did not complicate our task, for which many thanks to them.
A malignancy of spring hunting — stable belief Professor AP Savchenko. In an interview with RIA Novosti pozaproshlogodnie («The ban spring hunting save Siberian birds», 01.04.2013) he expressed it clearly: «The whole world comes from hunting in eco-tourism. Closing spring hunting — first and necessary step in this direction» (second, presumably, the rest of the closure of the hunting).
Link to the interview posted on the website of the department headed by professor without any comments, so that the journalist did not distorted, and the real purpose of AP Savchenko — a total ban on any spring hunting.
Geblerovskoe Ecological Society during last year’s campaign to collect signatures for a petition to the Minister SE Don on the establishment «definitive prohibition of spring hunting of birds in the Russian Federation (except for the Far North)» deservedly recommended this interview, among other important materials. It was at the second place, immediately after article OA Goroshko ("Psevdozaschitniki game"), Whose work we are already in «Horn» assorted (№ 14, 2015).
Actually, debriefings are necessary precisely to ensure that hunters understand that not all that is written professors and associate professors, science; biologists (zoologists, ecologists, game wardens) — different, and their words and texts you need to be critical; that the discovery of signs of pseudoscience in many cases available and people who have no special training.
The hunting community is particularly important to understand with whom it deals when these amateurs substitute facts ideas occupy a significant position in the hunting industry, participate in decision-making.
For example, Professor AP Savchenko in the Siberian Federal University heads are not any side direction. He directs the department — do not be surprised — resursovedeniya hunting and nature reserves, which many consider forge hunting management personnel. For example, among its graduates — supervising hunting Deputy Natural Resources and Environment of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the inspector gosohotnadzora areas by groups, officials of protected areas. It is not difficult to guess what prejudices indoctrinated with these students.
The professor sits in Ohotohozyaystvennom Council under the Government of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. It is easy to assume some positions there are moving.
In addition, he co-founder and executive director of the independent public environmental chamber (with the right business), a member of the set of boundary pripravitelstvennyh — Public Council for Environmental Protection, Commission for the construction of accommodation facilities in protected areas, Commission for the Protection of «Red» species, crisis center, Scientific and Technical Council on Environmental Management, the Public Council under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. There is no reason to think that in these organs professor position differs.
Some other antiohotnichi statements and actions of Professor AP Savchenko I will describe in the following notes, the same finish wish — hunters of all regions is, in my opinion, be interested in what the scientists included in the sectoral advisory and consultative bodies of the government, involved them in the preparation, justification and expertise ohothozyaystvennyh projects, provide support for certain initiatives, inclined if they give out their personal ethical or aesthetic preferences for scientific truth.
Sergei Matveychuk11 July 2015 at 09:49