In the first issue of “the HORN” for 2016 I read the editorial of Professor Kozlov V. M. “How to fight poaching”, where it was stated that this is a mass phenomenon, causing considerable damage to hunting management and combat thrown into the main forces of management bodies of a hunting economy. The problem is serious, but “me torment vague doubts”, because this problem and the damage from it often inflate to incredible sizes. Is this true?
No fundamental scientific works on this topic have never been conducted, and if conducted, it is very one-sided, superficial, more in the commercial areas. This theme is still completely white spot in science hunting. Here is a vivid example of life. Almost a quarter of a century ago in Russia were forbidden by law to fight poaching Rangers, hunters, leaders of professional societies of hunters, and were also disbanded all the public inspectors have great power. Regular huntsmen and hunters were forbidden to carry into the offseason sidearm under pain of administrative sanctions. The harm from such absurdity in the growth of poaching is enormous. That it was necessary to throw the main forces of gosokhotuchet, but, surprisingly, the situation is quite suited them, since significantly raised their status in society, and they often jealously controlled by these rules. Very true they say that in Russia, some deliberately create difficulties, and others in the face of all people “heroically overcome them”. Not fun, but realistic scheme is noticed. Created many subjective reasons, seriously impede the normal work, and there are those shackles and chains that are now firmly enmeshed hunting management of Russia.
Very rightly pointed out in the article, dear Professor, that poaching is more directed for its cause and consequences, and therefore hopeless. Long ago it was necessary to form a serious concept on the question, what factors affect the damage to hunting and increase the level of poaching.
Poaching is a complex, multifaceted, ambiguous and subtle. There is no direct relation: the more guard the better guard. The military and repressive solution of the issue is not a very big ceiling of opportunities, because there are many other influencing factors, including and secondary.
Has to be a certain openness in hunting, so as not to fuel rumors and to promote the ongoing social policy.
The level of reference of the forestry directly affect the protection of wetlands. On the one hand, employees of the hunting economy, which has reached years of hard work, great success in the breeding of valuable animals, much more experiencing and sustaining serious works. They do not need to customize and control — they all do (and effectively) but in addition actively connected to this case all they could.
On the other hand, with high abundance of ungulates is much easier to allocate a large number of licenses to activists, local hotcollection, and all partners, including local local hunting community. Poor hunting ground devoid of this possibility. He has no incentives, and it can neither be promoted nor punished. Activists it makes no sense to help the poor hunting — what’s it take?!
In view of the above, there are many examples where the Director of the huntsman and other professional the most “no toil” on the job, as the economy develops and gets richer. Conversely, when workers are worn on forests day and night, “tongue hanging out”, and the number of the beast is not growing… it’s All about the reasonableness of the policy and its public acceptance.
Natural and socio-economic conditions of Russia in different regions vary greatly, therefore, in order not to confuse readers, I’ll mainly only talk about the problems of sports-Amateur hunting in the inhabited parts of the country (and it’s not more than 15-20% of the Russian Federation).
In my opinion, three-quarters of the root causes of damage to hunting and poaching concluded “only” two factors:
1. Compliance of welfare real-life conditions. A rich man can buy any hunting and services, but the bulk of the population wasn’t even informed of market prices at a minimum of hunts and services. It should be considered, and therefore the distribution of hunting grounds by category and designation of the Agency should correspond to the number of its potential users according to ability to pay for their services. On this issue in many regions of Russia the situation is clearly abnormal: the lands are distributed to the hundreds of wealthy neogotica the Agency without regard to the interests of tens of thousands of resident hunters, many of whom are marginalized. Nowhere in the world more land than in Russia, but nowhere is there such distortions. Earlier in the Moscow region land enough for all, and now even the Magadan hunters complain that there are almost no places to hunt.
2. Regulatory framework on the hunting interests of most hunters and outfitters (and lately even common sense). Here would be the place to throw the “main force” of gosokhotuchet because a great deal of things going on here, and in the bog deliberately created difficulties hunting bogged down deeper and deeper.
3. Many, probably, would add here the third factor is the inefficient management of the industry, but the condition of most of the key issues, demonstrates whole-of-government approach to the industry, is outside the competence of gosokhotuchet. I think that in the context of growing economic crisis “3rd factor” in the near future will be even more crushed and he will lose even more industry independence. And besides, it’s time to understand that policy, any control you can easily adjust at the expense of recruitment, and therefore no “Ìglavohotaî” will not solve anything.
Science the main reason for the existence and growth of poaching sees “in violation of the equal right to use hunting resources in accordance with the principles of the modern democratic Russia, which proclaimed the equality of its citizens before the law.” Unfortunately, usually never explains the mechanism of realization of this right, often understanding it completely. It’s one thing equality before the law, and the other — equality in the acquisition of specific services. Some rest on holiday at home and others in Courchevel; some people live in a communal apartment, and others in a luxury Lodge; some eat in the diner, and the other in an expensive restaurant; one ride on the tram, others for the Mercedes; the only hunters at the house, others fly on the “Big five”.
No, never was and never will be no equality, but there is nothing illegal. All strictly within the framework of democratic legality.
It is correct to say that if you remove all restrictions, and violations (poaching) will not. Such a position is justified for the vast majority of sparsely populated and remote land of Russia, where hunting is just the development of small and mostly valuable part of resources of fauna. There’s a poaching problem is not as acute as in densely populated regions. In intensively managed agricultural lands and hunting grounds, experiencing a very high press, it is extremely necessary different types of restrictions, regulations, regulation, rules for the distribution of scarce resources, priority, and priority of the easements. Human rights are good, but science and the vast majority of officials forming the legal field, usually you can completely forget about such important factors as responsibilities. If there are many applicants for the use of limited resources, individual rights must be balanced against and limited to the responsibilities and rights of other citizens. It should be recalled that in all of civilized Europe itself the right of hunting is extremely inaccessible, and all the lucky who have received the coveted kotelet saddled with very significant financial, labor, organizational and legal duties, in default of which the hunter easily and permanently excluded from the hunting community. It serves as a reliable basis for the prevention of poaching. And this is absolutely correct. We have become a “hunter” easier and cheaper than a birth certificate to obtain, and they can be listed forever, not remembering anything about any duties. The crowd then such newly-born “hunters” appear in the hunting grounds, and require equal rights for usage of hunting resources (often scarce and valuable), but still at affordable prices.
Some conscious and willing to pay market value, however not only they, but the vast majority of seasoned experts do not know that in the highly organized agriculture, the market value of a deer or wild boar many times less than their real cost. And so, given dvuedinstva rights and obligations, usually ask the candidate: “what have you done for hunting, earning a scarce resource and what is your advantage over other hunters?” Offended… meanwhile, the contents of even a medium-sized hunting quite expensive and a very large portion of all the costs compensated by collective participation of hunters, helpers and sponsors. Without assistants and an asset to any hunting ground to work is very difficult, if not impossible. But our hunting law completely ignores this important aspect in the activity of hunting grounds. This is because the vast majority of the managerial and scientific “luminaries” are not even aware of the existence of this side of life (responsibilities), and the category of liability are concerned solely in the key violations of the rules of hunting on the part of citizens and not for their inaction or actions of officials in carrying out their duties.
