From the editor: we present an article about a twelve-year-old faceshield. What has changed over time, whether from past problems? To solve it we…
Winter route accounting is considered complex — with its help, there is a record of many species of animals from ermine to elk. But P. B. Jurgenson (1973) noticed that «often we do strive for the impossible: the creation of counting the number of cheap, effortless and precise at the same time». But there is also comprehensive.
Counting all qualifying species during the winter track recording is carried out simultaneously excluding tracking activity of different types, causing a considerable underestimation of animals and birds. Anyone who has ever spent the grout residue after 7-10-day of negoslavci, was convinced that the next day, not every animal that lived in the area of accounting route, leave traces of their activities. Found that tracking activity in different species of animals has different weather conditions, therefore there is an undercount.
It has long been observed that the days with the highest trace activity is up to 10%, with an average — up to 30%, and on other days low tracking activity, up to «zero». While in the days with the highest trace activity manifest themselves until 80% of the animals, with an average — up to 50%, and at low tracking activity — up to 20-30%. Therefore, error may vary within considerable limits (2, 5 -3 times).
By the winter track recording, post-harvest only tracked the number of game animals — the lowest quantity during the year. Operation is subject to the same prepromise livestock, information on which neither Kottapatnam or do not have a hunting Department.
Post-harvest surveys give a distorted (with smaller amplitude) the picture changes in the number of species by year. Number of hares or squirrels, for example, before fishing could be a 5 — 10 times higher than post-harvest.
For Kordamentha and ketoprofene surveys need only to determine the license number of species of game animals in Russia and the establishment of quotas for the catch of wild ungulates in the following fishing season.
The state accounting of objects of fauna and their production is carried out in order to ensure the protection and use of wildlife (article 14 of the law «About the animal world».) How is security, illustrated by the example of the saiga antelope, elk and other wild ungulates. Saiga numbers, for example, has decreased almost 20 times the number of moose — 1.5 times. Reduced livestock and other wild ungulates. Official statistics of population and hunting animals submitted to different levels (from hunting to Kordamentha), shows a chronic under-utilization of most game species. However, by the abundance and production significantly lower than the real, thus confusing the public and the state.
Kotoroslnaya collected and collated Kottapatnam information on post-harvest records — Faceshield are «the exact amount (to faith!) inaccurate data» not analysed, and no practical proposals for increasing the degree of development of hunting resources, with a view to their more rational use of them is not done.
Public accounting of game animals is part of the state cadastre and state monitoring, management of which is vested in the Ministry of agriculture, in particular, to the Department on protection, control and regulation of hunting animals of the Russian Federation. The implementation of these works financed from the Federal budget.
For the Agency conducting the post-harvest PCA is not an operational necessity, but is a forced obligation. Formally, the PCA required the Agency only to according to their results, make applications for permits on licensed production species (wild ungulates) for the next fishing season. However, the hunting Department without taking into account the result of the PCA to decide how many and what types of licenses to issue for the production of ungulates that discredits the need for an account of the work of the Agency.
The lack or shortage of funds and trained personnel, the desire to get as many licenses and the obligation to submit accounting data often force the hunters to give false information.
Credentials in other types of hunting outfitters do not need at all. Neither the production plan nor the job they have, and to fulfill them there is nobody. In this situation, any katolikosata don’t care how many squirrels, hares, foxes-ferrets, grouse, grouse inhabits in its land.
For operational reasons related to organization and conducting successful hunts, outfitters spend przedpremierowo exploration that faster, more accurate and cheaper work on the forecast of the number.
In addition, the number of — the value is changeable. Hunting animals do not recognize administrative boundaries. For example, if the entire population of elk after the breeding season increases its population by only 10-20 %, on the territory of hunting, the reserve may change in different periods of the year several times, both towards increase, and towards reduction of the number. With more than 50 thousands of user routes with a total length of more than 500 thousand km almost half of the credential falls on the hunting ground of public organizations and registration of hunting farms, which are fixed for less than 15 % of all hunting grounds in Russia.
If the census on the territory of these outfitters are based 10 km of the route account for 10 thousand hectares of hunting grounds secured, with 85 % of the remaining territory account one route accounts for almost 60 thousand hectares. Objectivity credentials with highly questionable.
It becomes apparent that the hunters in the PCA simply don’t need. Over 40 years of experience in the hunting sector (industry) I’ve never met a single (!) hotpolitics, which would build its activities on the basis of data from post-harvest surveys. If there are any, please respond and tell how they use the data on post-harvest a number of squirrels, hare, Fox, ermine, polecat, and other game species in the organization of protection and rational use of these species in the territory of oxotremorine.
Dealing with the problems of accounting works since 1967, have long understood that the PCA, although not necessary for hotpolitics are mainly a measure of control and prodding on the part of bodies of the hunting Department, invested by the power.
The process of conducting accounting works too deformality. Evidence of this is the attempt to introduce permanent account routes with continuous numbering. It will not add any significance, nor necessary, nor the accuracy of the accounting work, but will give an extra reason for ketoprofene to exercise their authority in relation to katolikosata. Most often this is manifested in the rejection of submitted user materials, conducted or issued allegedly in violation of these or other requirements, and the reduction on the basis of the quota of production of wild hoofed animals that katolikosata. But the management of hunting farm there is an opportunity to get hold of excess stock of licenses for their employees and «need» people.
The fact that the distribution of licenses for certain types of game animals to ketoprofene — a kind of trough, has long been known and is still ongoing: almost every employee of the hunting Department to solve its food problem has a licence for moose or boar. And they are not deprived of licenses for the extraction of valuable fur-bearing species. The classic example is the N memories. Vereshchagin («Fishing and hunting» N No. 5, 2002) that the main hunter GOI Leningrad region in the 60s–70-ies of the last century was mined during the season, 40-50 elk, and total production was about 900 animals. A. A. Kormilitsin Sr. — one of the organizers of the hunting for the party elite of the USSR and leaders of the socialist countries in an interview with S. Fokina («KNIFE» N No. 3, 2002) reported that during tests of new types of weapons for high-ranking people he shot in a year to 60 elk and other ungulates.
Not wanting to admit the fallacy imposed on the Agency methods faceshield, Kottapatnam through their hunting Department is forcing them mandatory filing of information collected by a single method, mostly with the aim to show their power, show «who’s the boss».
Without denying the scientific value of post-harvest surveys, it is necessary to recognize that their practical value is very doubtful.
Post-harvest faceshield animals and birds in the form in which they are held now, just need to Kottapatnam and «The logging service». «In General, control of records by public bodies — good thing — approves the chief ideologist of the accounting work D. SC.N. V. Kuzyakin («Fishing and hunting» N No. 5, 2000). It «just cause». Interaction «the hunters and special government agencies — the only way to improve accounting» — adds the scientist.
Yes this is a real Klondike, a gold mine! A «Logging service» not answering and offering nothing (apart from the discussion-explore, check-processing, monitoring-evaluation), living comfortably for decades and is optimistic about the future. Work it — no end: because «to fully adjust the average length (naslega of the beast) can only special calculations, which are held in a centralized data processing» (Kuzyakin, 2000).
So it is indispensable «Public service including hunting resources», «useful for wildlife» but for some reason is not claimed by the Agency. The question is: why, for what purpose they carry out their work? Who uses it, who needs it? Apparently, not without reason the head of Kordamentha A. I. Saurin raises the question of the appropriateness of the content SE «The Central hunting control» («Hunting journal», N No. 5, 2002).
Using the power of the hunting Department, which responsible for the organization and conducting the state accounting, the state cadastre and state monitoring, to shift the conduct of accounting work at the Agency. However, to make all the Agency to carry out «scientific work» (Faceshield) is not quite correct. Wild animals are the state hunting Fund. Therefore, the state should engage specially authorized state bodies in the field of environmental protection, Ministry of natural resources, the Department on protection, control and regulation of hunting animals of subjects of the Russian Federation, scientific and other interested organizations. The Agency should undertake post-harvest faceshield only for operational reasons or (in particular interest) by arrangement with those to whom such work is necessary. Then the quality of the work will undoubtedly be higher.
Very doubtful the need for annual post-harvest accounting works to the extent in which they are involved. Quite sufficient to control the changes of population dynamics of game animals would be to hold a nationwide account works once in 5 years. In this case, the norm of production of wild hoofed animals can determine the progress made in the last season level of production, providing an opportunity to increase or decrease it depending on the created conditions by 20-25 %.
The current situation in which the Agency according to the Federal law «About the animal world» and decrees of the government of the Russian Federation and a number of bylaws, and bylaws are required regularly to account for their use of objects of fauna and their production is uniform in the Russian Federation the rules and provide the information to the appropriate specially authorized state bodies on protection, control and regulation of use of fauna objects and their habitats, requires review, as they were taken in secret, without the consent of the Agency and in other socio-economic conditions.
Without denying the need to conduct control over the number of hunting animals and their prey, the approach to solving the problem should be different than at present. In the current economic climate, when not every katolikosata has the ability to conduct a post-harvest PCA, the question arises: do we really need to spend money of outfitters on useless work?
While the state relinquished its monopoly on furs, outfitters do not have solid plans for the production of those or other species, a census of game animals in the form in which it is still meaningless. Need a new form of control, which on a parity basis and must develop controls game hunting and outfitters. The dictatorship is irrelevant here.
While it can be said: we consider not then, not there and not then. We cannot, even approximately, to determine the volume of production, accounting for only a small proportion of game animals, but trying to determine «objectively existing number» of animals and birds. The implementation of the postulate that «the basis of rational use of hunting animals should be a clear understanding of the size» (Schwartz, Mikheeva. 1976) is difficult, and sometimes impossible.
What is the point to consider animals and birds in places where no one is mining, and livestock accounted for from year to year are killed? Natural biological resources are distinguished from non-renewable that require annual fee «harvest». To create a reserve of hunting resources in nature is impossible, as it is not harvested by hunters «harvest» disappear forever and without benefit to the individual.
For rational use of biological natural resources needs to know «harvest» hunting species and not its remains after hunting. No wonder folk wisdom says: «Do not count your chickens before they are hatched». It is sufficient to know not the absolute number of species on the territory of hunting farm (district, region), and only a tendency of changes in the population (growth, peak, recession, depression) in order to enhance or reduce fishing impact on the population and get the most possible hunting products.
To increase the productivity of land, not being able to realize this efficiency, is simply unreasonable. Therefore, work to identify the status of game resources should provide the mechanism and scope of their rational use. Otherwise all this loses its meaning.
Eugene Kozlov February 2015 at 17:00