Semi-free breeding of wild ungulates is a promising direction in the hunting industry. Problems of protecting wolves in Poland Aviary keeping of wild animals in Poland

More and more often you can find breeders who are inclined to breed wild animals, including mouflons, on their plots.

European mouflons are small animals 110-130 cm long, weighing 35-50 kg. The short coat varies in color from reddish-brown on the sides to yellow-white on the belly and inner legs. The small proportional head of males is decorated with twisted triangular hollow horns.

European mouflon can be found in wildlife, zoos and nurseries in Armenia, Iran and Iraq. A small number of acclimatized animals live in Cyprus, Sardinia, Corsica and Hungary. Mouflons are often spotted in mountainous landscapes with calm and subdued topography. Rams prefer gentle slopes with alternating deep ravines or rock ledges, which serve as shelter from predators and winter weather. Animals require a large area for grazing and proximity to a watering source.

Mouflons live in herds, sometimes containing 100 individuals. Males behave separately, joining the herd only during the current period, from October to December. Sometimes in the mountains you can even hear the sounds of blows of horns in fights between males, which spread over 3-5 km. Pregnancy in females lasts about 5 months.

The animals have a well-developed sense of smell, vision and hearing, so the rams do not allow them to come closer than 300 steps. In case of danger, mouflons are able to run quickly and overcome obstacles up to 1.5-2 meters high and up to 10 meters down mountain slopes.

Animals do not like sudden temperature changes, so in the summer months rams climb to the mountains, where the climate is cool and there is young, lush grass. During the dry summer season, they move closer to bodies of water, hiding from the heat in gorges and under rock overhangs. In winter they go down to the foot of the mountains, where they shelter from adverse weather conditions in gorges protected from the wind. They lead a sedentary lifestyle, with permanent feeding, watering and resting places.

You can also buy European mouflons at a nursery and keep them in your backyard or mini-zoo, maintaining the total number of animals. Often high reproductive males are crossed with regular domestic sheep to produce healthier and more fertile offspring.

Keeping mouflons is not particularly difficult. Since the animals are accustomed to grazing in endless fields, keeping them in captivity will require large paddocks with a high and strong fence. A small barn is built inside the enclosure, in which animals can take shelter from cold or heat, and a manger for hay and drinking bowls are installed. The more mouflons are exposed to fresh air, the better their coat structure will be.

The main summer diet of mouflons consists of field grasses and tree leaves, while the winter diet consists of thin branches of bushes, dry grass and tree bark. Mouflons can be fed with grain and vegetable mixtures, hay and sheep feed.

The average life expectancy of mouflons in nature does not exceed 12 years, and with proper maintenance in enclosures, it can be increased to 19 years. These rather rare animals will decorate the familiar setting of the home landscape.

Law direct action There is no regulation regulating relations in the field of farm (aviary) breeding of game animals. These relations are vaguely spelled out in the Federal Laws “On Wildlife” (1995), “On Hunting and on the Conservation of Hunting Resources and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” (2009), Forestry, Land and Tax Codes. The specialists of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, who were responsible for the hunting industry, unfortunately, did not bother to prepare the necessary by-laws for the Federal Law “On Animal World” for more than two decades, which significantly slowed down the development of game breeding. This type of business activity was and continues to be regulated by many departmental regulations and instructions. With the entry into force of the Forestry Code, the problems worsened: incessant attempts by officials to introduce exorbitant payments are strangling this business in the bud. For example, by order of the Federal Forestry Agency dated October 25, 2005 No. 285, the annual rates of forest taxes for the use of forest fund areas for the maintenance and breeding of wildlife in semi-free conditions were established for the Leningrad region in the amount of 50,000 rubles, for the Moscow region - 100,000 rubles per one hectare. Accordingly, for a plot of 100 hectares the farmer had to pay 5,000,000 and 10,000,000, and for a plot of 1000 hectares - 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 rubles (!). New law“On hunting...” turned out to be, in the words of one of the ministers, “clumsy” and created even more problems for farmers. Article 49 of this law “Maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitat” states:

2. The maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats is carried out by legal entities and individual entrepreneurs registered in the Russian Federation in accordance with the Federal Law “On State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs”, on the basis of hunting agreements and with permits. for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats, which are issued for the duration of hunting agreements.

3. The permit form for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat is a document of strict accountability, has a registration series and number.

4. The permit for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and an artificially created habitat shall indicate information about the legal entity or individual entrepreneur to whom it was issued, the types and purposes of activities related to the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitat, conditions for maintaining and breeding hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats, conditions for delivering hunting resources to the customer or placing them in the habitat, the procedure for placing hunting resources in the habitat.

5. An application for permission to maintain and breed hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat and the documents attached to it are considered within ten days from the date of their submission. Based on the results of this review, a decision is made to issue such a permit or to refuse to issue it. The grounds and procedure for making a decision to refuse to issue a permit for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat are established in accordance with parts 8 and 9 of this article.

6. A permit for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and an artificially created habitat is valid from the moment of its registration in the state register of permits for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and an artificially created habitat.

7. A permit issued to a legal entity or individual entrepreneur for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat is canceled in the case of:

1) inconsistencies of this person the requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this article;

2) this person submits an application to cancel such permission;

3) liquidation of a legal entity or death of an individual entrepreneur.

8. The decision to cancel a permit for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat shall indicate the circumstances that served as the basis for its adoption, with obligatory reference to the relevant provisions of Part 7 of this article. Within one working day from the date of the decision to cancel such a permit, a copy of this decision is sent to the person whose permit was canceled in accordance with this decision.

9. A permit for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and an artificially created habitat is recognized as canceled from the date of entry of information about its cancellation in the state register of permits for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and an artificially created habitat.

10. A person who has been denied a permit to maintain and breed hunting resources in semi-free conditions and in an artificially created habitat, or whose permit has been revoked, has the right to appeal the relevant decision in court.

11. The procedure for submitting an application for a permit to maintain and breed hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats, a list of documents submitted simultaneously with it, the procedure for making decisions on issuing such a permit or refusing to issue it, the procedure for canceling such a permit, maintaining a state register of permits for the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats, the form of such a permit is established by the authorized federal executive body. According to this law, an official (mainly a hunter), as we see, not only authorizes the maintenance and breeding of “hunting resources” in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats, but also determines the conditions for their maintenance, breeding, delivery to the customer, the conditions and procedure for placement in the environment a habitat. It is commendable, but such concern for a farmer is like a “bone in the throat”: the conditions may be such that it is better to immediately abandon the business, and if they are not met, the permit may be revoked. And, as many years of practice have shown, a farmer, with rare exceptions, can obtain permission, even with all the documents correctly executed, only after officials take a considerable tribute from him in “green”, “wooden” or “greyhound puppies” in the form of jeeps , preferential hunting at any time, etc.

Having studied the law, the farmer begins to “puzzle” over why he needs to enter into a hunting agreement and obtain permission to keep and breed animals in enclosures (in captivity) from a specially authorized body state power(hunting official), but a rural farmer and reindeer herder who grazes his herds in hunting grounds and, often, slaughters his livestock with a hunting weapon, does not need it; Why does the official consider his property - legally acquired wild animals and their offspring obtained in captivity - to be a “hunting resource”? And why is he controlled and, in part, disposed of by a hunting official, if, according to the law “On Animal World” (Article 3), relations in the field of protection and use of agricultural and other domesticated animals, as well as wild animals kept in captivity, are regulated by others federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, and the actions of the Federal Law “On Hunting...” do not apply to relations related to the use and protection of wild animals kept in captivity (Article 4, paragraph 3).

And the question immediately arises: what is semi-free breeding of animals and “artificially created habitat”? In the basic Federal Laws “On Fauna” and “On Hunting...” these concepts are not defined. And if they are not defined, then everyone interprets them in their own way. The origin of the term “semi-free breeding of animals” is clearly agricultural. Domestic animals spend part of their time in barns, farms and pens, and part of their time in the wild. Herds of deer and sika deer on reindeer state farms and elk on moose farms are grazed or can be grazed outside the paddocks, just like domestic animals, i.e. kept semi-freely. In zoos, zoogardens, menageries and nurseries, animals are kept and bred in order to preserve the gene pool and increase the number of animals without grazing in the wild (in captivity). In hunting parks, animals are also kept and bred in order to increase the number of animals without free grazing, i.e. captive. This is where the animals are used inside the enclosure. The term “artificially created habitat” also apparently has nothing to do with enclosures: animals are kept and bred in their natural environment habitat limited by a fence. It follows from this that enclosure keeping and breeding of game animals is not covered by the Federal Law “On Hunting...”. Not only I think so, but also the famous hunting lawyer V.B. Slobodenyuk (see: Safari. 2006. No. 4).

To import animals into enclosures, you also need to obtain permission from federal or territorial hunting authorities. There are no fewer bureaucratic obstacles along this path than when obtaining permission to organize a hunting park. As an example, I will cite the problems that the Moscow Regional Society of Hunters and Fishermen encountered when obtaining permission to import Siberian roe deer and red deer into enclosures from the Hunting Department of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation.

The hunting society was denied on the basis of the conclusion of the State Institution “Tsentrokhotkontrol” (No. 168/01-1-06 dated 06/13/2002). I quote the reasons for the refusal, which shocked the experts: “With the semi-free keeping of the Siberian roe deer, the escape of animals and their deliberate hybridization with the European roe deer is possible, which contradicts the law “On Animal World” and the Convention “Conservation of Biodiversity”, therefore the resettlement of the Siberian roe deer and its semi-free keeping is outside the limits We consider its historical area illegal. The resettlement of European red deer north of the border of the species’ natural habitat (Bryansk-Samara region) has long been recognized as unprofitable,<…>releasing deer in small batches did not produce positive results<…>and inappropriate."

For some reason, Tsentrokhotkontrol scientists moved the Moscow region outside the historical range of the Siberian roe deer, and in one fell swoop moved the northern border of the distribution of red deer hundreds of kilometers to the south. Moreover, deer were not allowed to be imported, “concerned” ... about the profitability of the activities of the MOOIR. With the motive “possible escape of animals and their deliberate hybridization,” I note that all zoo activities should be banned, since animals can potentially escape from their enclosures, and they do, including large predators, including lions. It is surprising that Tsentrokhotkontrol scientists and hunting officials have not yet responded in any way to the breeding of foreign ostriches in Russia, which may well escape from farms and appear in hunting grounds. But suddenly they can cover up for someone? Disorder!

Having received such a shocking refusal, the Moscow Society of Hunters and Fishers turns to the Institute of Ecology and Evolution. A.N. Severtsov of the Russian Academy of Sciences for clarification regarding the boundaries of the historical range of roe deer. The institute reported that “... the Siberian roe deer in post-glacial times inhabited the Russian Plain up to the Dnieper.<…>The Moscow region is completely included in the historical range of the Siberian roe deer. Consequently, its resettlement here in no way contradicts the Federal Law “On Fauna” and the international “Convention on Biological Diversity” and cannot serve as an “illegal” action, which, apparently due to a misunderstanding or due to ignorance of the history of the species’ range, Tsentrokhotkontrol reports.

After another appeal to the Hunting Department of the Ministry of Agriculture of the MOOiR, they again received a refusal (letter No. 12-02-19/183 dated 02/07/2003) with the same motivation and with additional explanations that the Siberian roe deer is prone to migration (in an enclosure?) and What evidence base for its introduction into the hunting grounds (in the open-air cage?) of the Moscow region “in conditions general decline the number of ungulates and the strengthening of anthropogenic pressure” is insufficient. The last phrase sounds like an outright mockery of an organization trying to increase the number of ungulates through farm breeding. The Ministry of Education and Science again appeals to a leading academic institute, which again explains that (I quote especially for farmers!): “there are no objective scientific or international legal grounds for prohibiting the import of Siberian roe deer and its breeding in enclosures and in the wild in the Moscow and Tver regions, since The Moscow region is included in the historical range of this species (see monographs “European and Siberian Roe Deer”, 1992 and “Olenyi”, 1999). The resettlement of animals within their historical ranges in no way contradicts the international Convention on Biological Diversity, according to which Parties must only prevent the “introduction of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (Article 8h). Moreover, keeping wild animals in captivity and semi-captivity is important for the conservation of biodiversity and is widely practiced throughout the world. In conditions of a general decline in the number of ungulates in Russia, increased anthropogenic pressure, a protracted crisis in hunting and inept population management, breeding Siberian roe deer and other species in enclosures is extremely necessary and as a guarantee of the preservation of their gene pool. The reintroduction of the Siberian roe deer in the Moscow region cannot change the “established ecosystem”, since this type already lives here along with the European roe deer as a result of the activities of the Main Hunting Department of the RSFSR (Hunting Department of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation). In the second half of the twentieth century. hunting organizations brought and released about 1.5 thousand of these closely related animals in the Moscow and Tver regions, the descendants of which have survived to this day. All releases of European and Siberian roe deer (in the same areas) took place with the permission, under the control and with the direct participation of the Russian Federation Hunting Department. From the point of view of hunting, the Siberian roe deer is much more promising for breeding in snowy areas of the Moscow region than the European one. The Kurgan population, as established by the Institute’s specialists, is sedentary and not prone to migration.”

After such a detailed explanation, showing, in fact, the blatant unprofessionalism and arbitrariness of officials of the Hunting Department and scientists of the subordinate Tsentrokhotkontrol, after another long pause with the answer and going through the authorities, permission to import Siberian roe deer and red deer was received, but it took 1, 5 years. Officials are also trying to prevent the import and breeding of fallow deer, European mouflon, white-tailed deer, bison and other species “alien” to the domestic fauna, under the pretext of “possible flight of animals and their deliberate hybridization” and other pretexts. Let me remind them that in the royal menageries and the famous Askania-Nova, dozens of species of ungulates, including foreign ones, were kept and bred in enclosures for two hundred years and were even specially crossed with each other. However, it is not visible that hybrid herds are roaming around Russia and Ukraine, with the exception of Fr. Biryuchiy and several hunting farms, into which the Askanian hybrid deer was specially released by an organization similar to the Hunting Department. On the other hand, caring about the preservation and purity of the gene pool of ungulates even in enclosures, the Hunting Department of the Russian Federation (now part of the Ministry of Natural Resources) for some reason does not consider the introduction into the nature of the European part of Russia of the Ussuri sika deer, which displaces native species of ungulates, hybridizes with red deer and causes more significant damage to the forest than other ungulates. The deer are also settled here. As a result of mass artificial resettlement, the boar gene pool in most of Russia has become completely mixed, and the same thing happened with the pheasant. The Moscow region white hare has Yakut roots. The American mink and Canadian beaver have replaced their European relatives, and raccoon dog, imported from the Far East, causes colossal damage to small game. Any bans on the importation, keeping and breeding of animals in fenced areas (in captivity, semi-free conditions and artificial habitats) are outright arbitrariness of officials and lawlessness, usually carried out under the guise of maintaining the rule of law and obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. They use this convention as a “horror story” quite often. I have the impression that our hunting leaders are either not familiar with the contents of this document, in which the breeding of animals in captivity and semi-free conditions is encouraged, or they are using it unlawfully and quite consciously due to the lack of legal literacy of wildlife users. Both of these do them no credit!

Many farmers receive a response to letters of request for permission to bring game into enclosures only after several months, often negative and verbal, or not at all. This is already an established practice of ignoring requests, and it seems that officials are not going to change it. Partly they can be understood: under the existing legislation, there is no clarity on any issue related to enclosure breeding of game, and if there is no clarity, then problems may arise, so it is better not to respond to such requests at all. However, after long walks through the corridors of power, farmers still receive permission. Guess how much it costs them to resolve this “insoluble problem” with the importation of animals?

Some aviary owners, after talking with prohibition officials and studying Art. 18 “Hunting for the purpose of maintaining and breeding game resources in semi-free conditions or an artificially created habitat” of the law “On Hunting...”, they have stopped going through the pains and are importing animals without permits or bribes, but with veterinary certificates. By agreement with the hunting management, they buy licenses for shooting wild ungulates and use them to catch animals. It is even easier to import animals from other game farms: a call or letter via the Internet, a veterinary certificate, transportation and animals on site. And what’s surprising is that animals brought in without the permission of a hunting official reproduce no worse than those allowed into the enclosure, and their quality has not deteriorated.

The use of purchased animals is also problematic. There are no direct legislative prohibitions on the year-round production of animals (hunting “resources”) in open-air cages, but, as practice shows, the most zealous employees of state hunting and environmental authorities and the prosecutor’s office under all sorts of pretexts (with reference to the laws “On Animal World” and “On Hunting”) …", on international convention on biological diversity, departmental instructions, on the ban on shooting in buildings, on the ban on being on land with a gun outside the hunting season, etc.) are trying to prevent farmers from enjoying the results of their labor. And even Article 40 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Wildlife”, which states that users of wildlife have the right “to use, without permission, objects of the animal world acquired for resettlement on a designated territory, in the manner established by this Federal Law, if these objects animal world are kept in semi-free conditions,” did not stop them. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 49 of the Federal Law “On Hunting...” the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats is carried out “for the purpose of placing hunting resources in their habitat or for the purpose of their sale in accordance with civil legislation.” Such a recording can only be deciphered by those deputies who formulated this paragraph of the article. The farmer and other citizens immediately have a question: with this formulation, is it possible to hunt animals in enclosures or not? The official says evasively: this problem can be solved in principle, but... you have to pay for everything.

Since game animals are kept in captivity in enclosures, their use obviously does not fall under the scope of either the Federal Law “On Hunting...” or the standard and regional rules for the “harvesting” of animals. Consequently, prohibitions on tools, projectiles and methods of removing individuals (methods of “hunting”) in the territories of enclosures also do not apply. Counter-argument of the hunting official: captive animals are a hunting resource that is kept and bred in an “artificially created habitat”, and, therefore, the use of the resource falls under the Federal Law “On Hunting...”, standard and regional rules for obtaining animals. Ultimately, in all enclosures and under current federal laws, departmental rules and instructions, animals are hunted year-round. The only question is the size of the “bribe” for controllers.

The roots of opposition to the development of hunting farming are partly economic. For the hunting official, the farmer becomes a territorial and economic competitor. When the territory is secured and a fence is built, the hunting grounds are alienated, which are now completely “owned” by the official himself. Moreover, a farmer, having purchased game animals for a fee, essentially becomes their owner (and the animals themselves are a means of production) and, like any owner, wants to use them at his own discretion and at any time, actually remaining outside control and outside the field of activity an official who cannot allow this to happen. The socialist principle of “keep out” and “control” is still alive today. The officials and deputies whom we support with our taxes have not yet realized that they should not work for themselves, but for the benefit of the whole society. Hence, or more due to thoughtlessness, the absurd legislation and the same departmental instructions. But at the same time, there is nothing more useful for an official than an unclear law or by-law, made “for himself” and opening up the broadest opportunities for corruption.

Is it currently possible for a hunting farmer to legally escape the excessive “guardianship” of a hunting official? It is possible if, if necessary, he can prove that he keeps and breeds animals not in semi-free conditions, but in captivity, and also if he keeps and breeds game pheasant, sika deer and deer brought from other farms. Domesticated forms of these species are officially recognized as farm animals, registered in the State Register of Animal Breeds Approved for Use, and can therefore be bred and used without permission. Moreover, under section A “ Agriculture, hunting and forestry" of the All-Russian Classifier of Species economic activity OK 029-2001, adopted and put into effect on 01.01.03 by Decree of the State Standard of the Russian Federation dated 06.11.01 No. 454-st, subgroup 01.25.4 “Reindeer Breeding” and subgroup 01.25.9 “Breeding of other animals not included in other groups” , belongs to subclass 01.2 “Livestock”. At the same time, breeding animals also involves keeping them (Gagarin, 2008). This category also includes hybrids of bison with bison and livestock, hybrids of wild boar with domestic pigs and other hybrid forms, although hunting officials, armed with the law “On Hunting...”, have a different opinion: hybrids of bison with bison and livestock are classified as “hunting resources”, and for the hybridization of animals classified as hunting resources, permission must also be obtained. In any case, documents confirming the domestic or hybrid origin of animals are very useful in the courts, which, under our legislation, only a rare farmer manages to avoid.

Let's return once again to paragraph 1 of Art. 49 of the Federal Law “On Hunting...”, which states that the maintenance and breeding of hunting resources in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats is carried out “for the purpose of placing hunting resources in their habitat.” Apparently, the deputies, the authors of this article of the law, wanted to convey to us that they allow the release of “hunting resources” from enclosures into hunting grounds. But at the same time, they forgot to indicate whether the farmer can use them outside the enclosure, and if so, under what conditions?

At existing laws and total poaching, most farmers don’t even think about releasing animals into the wild. Some, however, sometimes release them “at gunpoint” secretly or by verbal agreement with the local hunting chief, and, of course, not for free. Another important issue is the urgency of the permit for keeping and breeding animals in enclosures. According to the Law “On Hunting...” it is issued for the duration of hunting agreements (see Article 49, paragraph 2). This period also, of course, depends on the favor of the official or on the amount given to him. The permit will expire sooner or later. If they don’t renew, the business is over; and again bribes.

However, that's not all. A hunting farmer, like any businessman, is visited by dozens of inspectors. And everyone wants something and, as a rule, does not leave empty-handed.

In recent decades, I have advised more than a hundred potential game farmers on the organization of aviary farming. Most of them never realized their dream, mainly due to bureaucratic obstacles. In this situation, is it worth building a farmer’s “vegetable garden”? It's not all doom and gloom. Dozens of hunting farms have already been created in Russia, and they operate even in conditions of legal and bureaucratic chaos. Laws and departmental rules and instructions, even the most absurd ones, cannot be violated, but, as we know, they can be challenged or circumvented in our state. How to do this is partly shown above, but it’s better to ask those who have already organized hunting parks and farms. And they will certainly tell you about who needs to be “given” and how much.

I am far from thinking that the majority of Russian officials are bribe-takers or staunch opponents of captive breeding of game animals. Among them, of course, there are many decent people, and I know many of them personally. Some sincerely and selflessly help farmers, thanks to them. But, for now, alas, the basis of farmers’ well-being is good “commercial” or personal relationships with “permits” and “controllers.” The fight against corruption, including by changing laws, is one of the most important areas of government activity, proclaimed by the President of the Russian Federation. Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, as far as I know, intend to make adjustments to the Federal Law “On Hunting...”. I would very much like the corruption of Article 49 of this law not to fall out of their sight.

In my opinion, in the field of captive animal breeding, it is necessary to legislatively abolish the licensing system as the basis for corruption and bureaucratic arbitrariness, and switch to a notification system. The corrupt procedure for obtaining permission from a specially authorized (hunting) body to import animals into enclosures, of course, also needs to be eliminated. The only document a farmer needs is a veterinary certificate confirming the health of the livestock purchased and transported. The hunting official must control the farmer only at one stage of his economic activity - when releasing, if necessary, captive animals into the hunting grounds. Ownership of farm property (an enclosure with animals and structures located in it) must be independent of the whim of the official and indefinite. It is necessary to legally classify the keeping, breeding and use of game animals legally removed from the wild or imported from other farms as domestic animal breeding with all the ensuing consequences, including the provision of preferential loans, admission to participation in government programs, aimed at the development of farm agriculture, etc. I will add to this that our Belarusian colleagues have already taken a serious step towards the development of farm hunting by adopting new Rules for hunting and hunting in November 2010. These rules, unfortunately, are not indisputable; the state licensing system still dominates (specific to Belarus), but they relatively clearly stipulate the procedure for organizing an enclosure, keeping, breeding and using wild animals, which can be hunted inside the enclosure all year round, including including a bow and crossbow.

The Belarusian regulatory act should not be copied - the Russian hunting farmer (and hunting users too) must be freed, first of all, from the bureaucratic “shackles” and given economic freedom. Some of the “permits” and “controllers” will, of course, lose their jobs, but they may well learn the profession of a farmer. And then corruption will disappear, there will be plenty of game, the “royal hunt” will become accessible to all hunters, and the state will significantly strengthen food security. There's no harm in dreaming!

However, after many years of “battles” with hunting and other officials, the conviction is increasingly growing in me that in our state it is not the laws that need to be changed, but by legal means it is necessary to change... the authorities, which, obviously, are unable to radically change the situation in the fields of biological environmental management and nature conservation and improve the lives of the vast majority of Russian citizens.

Making a decision on the enclosure keeping of ungulates (deer, fallow deer, mouflons) requires a serious strategic calculation for the owner or director of the farm. An enclosure (we will use this term to refer to areas fenced off for keeping animals) requires large financial investments: the construction of a fence and special infrastructure, the creation of pastures and fodder fields, the purchase of agricultural equipment and, finally, the initial number of animals. The initial costs amount to millions of rubles, and the enclosure will bring tangible results only after a few years.

Breeding goals.

The size and required infrastructure of the enclosure depends on the goals.

1. Hunting, including trophy hunting, in an enclosure.

2. Release into own lands.

3. Sale of live animals.

4. Raising animals for commercial purposes (producing meat and antlers).

5. A complex of all these goals or their combination.

Depending on the purposes of breeding, places where animals are kept can be technologically divided into “enclosures” proper and more complex complexes - “farms of wild ungulates”.

Aviary

In the simplest and most common version of an enclosure (both in Europe and here), the same territory is used for breeding and shooting animals. These types of enclosures are created by fencing the perimeter of an acceptable area of ​​land and are the simplest to set up. The animals are provided with minimal care, but managing such a semi-wild herd to achieve a specific result is quite difficult.

Subsequently, the owners of the enclosure, as a rule, are faced with the need to catch part of the animals for various purposes, be it for sale or veterinary needs, etc. In small enclosures, adult males conflict and can cause serious injuries to each other, even leading to the death of animals, so raising elite trophies in such conditions is not an easy task. An excess of females in the enclosure, resulting from the predominant removal of males, necessitates their removal from the enclosure. Therefore, the structure of the enclosure should initially be thought out in such a way as to have several zones that allow a differentiated approach to the animals contained in them, depending on their purpose and plans for further use.

Such a system of enclosures seems expensive and unnecessary initial stage, but in the future it can reduce costs and provide significant income by reducing losses and improving the quality of the resulting animals. The phased construction of areas of the enclosure complex, carried out over several years (as the livestock increases), allows us to avoid large one-time costs.

Farms of wild ungulates (deer farms, farms)

usually, are created for the purpose of obtaining marketable products (meat and antlers), selling live animals, although growing elite trophies on a farm is much more efficient and faster.

In the West, there is a whole culture of consumption of delicious deer meat, starting with the fact that a restaurant visitor can know from which specific farm the meat was supplied, in what conditions the animal was raised and what it ate, and ending with a special technology for maturing the meat, without which the deer steak will not reach the desired softness and juiciness. Therefore, the production of venison represents a huge and as yet untapped market of interest to investors.

The leaders of reindeer farming - New Zealand and England over the past 30 years have actually turned deer farming into an agricultural industry using all the latest veterinary and livestock achievements.

The basis of reindeer farming is their grazing on pastures divided into paddocks. Rotating grazing paddocks during the summer is essential as deer are much more demanding of pasture quality than traditional farm animals.

Many years of experiment show that deer get along just fine without a forest if they are provided with good grass, a watering hole and a shelter from the sun in the summer, and hay or silage and shelter from the wind in the winter.

High quality pastures with young offspring of optimal height can only be ensured by permanent shift paddocks and mowing the grass in them, which imposes its own specifics on the design of farms.

The area of ​​the paddocks depends on many reasons, including the purpose of raising animals, the number of animals in the group, and the quality of pastures.

To design pens when building farms, it is important to determine how animals will winter and provide places for this. Traditional and simple is wintering in pasture paddocks. With this option, one should take into account trampling and excessive grazing of pastures, which significantly reduces their productivity in the next season and changes the composition of the vegetation cover. It is imperative to take into account the distance from the feed warehouse, the possibility of travel (hills, mud, snow), animal safety, and protection from the wind.

The best solution is to build small winter pens in convenient locations as close as possible to warehouses and technical bases. It is optimal to have a separate wintering pen for each group, since it is better for the groups to be permanent, with an established stable hierarchy and minimal competition between animals. Using the natural configuration of paddocks and existing forest plantations to protect, and in their absence, the construction of artificial protection, primarily from the wind. With appropriate protection and feeding, deer can withstand even very severe frosts.

A more advanced method is wintering under a roof (sheds, sheds, etc.), most often calves separated from their mothers winter this way, as they are the most sensitive and fastest growing (and therefore the most demanding of conditions).

The nature of the terrain also determines most of the decisions, and above all, the location of division into pens, the route of animal translocation corridors, the location of gates and places of capture.

The main element of the farm is a specially equipped pen for catching and carrying out all necessary veterinary procedures, equipped with a machine for restraining animals.

No pen for catching there cannot be a farm, since conducting breeding work using only injectors for immobilization is extremely unproductive and expensive.

Fencing and mesh

Even 6-7 or more years ago, the fences of all enclosures were built from chain-link mesh with a mesh size of 100X100 mm or less, less often - from welded non-galvanized road mesh. The only advantage of the chain-link mesh was that its short rolls can be carried manually and mounted in special hard to reach places– ravines, etc. The only advantage of the road network is its accessibility. There simply were no other materials.

But the days of chain-link mesh are gone forever; now they are used to fence enclosures special systems fences, which are based on a galvanized steel mesh with a fixed knot, capable (often without repair!) of withstanding a tree falling onto the fence. The inventors of such a net are New Zealanders - the pioneers of modern farm reindeer husbandry.

The essence of the concept of “fencing system” is that the mesh along the entire perimeter is always in a tense state, which is achieved by using special fasteners to connect rolls of mesh (up to 100 m long) into a single whole, by fastening the wire to the posts without rigid fixation. All this requires special tools and technologies and forms elastic, durable fencing elements that work as a single unit for 200-400 m, resistant to impacts in any direction.

There are only 3 manufacturers of such mesh in Europe -TORNADO (England), NODIMOR (Portugal, FORTEMA (Spain). THIS NET IS NOT PRODUCED IN RUSSIA.

The height of a fence made of mesh with a fixed knot can be from 1.9 to 3 m. To keep deer, there is no need to bury the mesh in the ground.

Enclosure infrastructure facilities

Technological processes in the enclosure require the construction of special structures both for feeding the animals and for their removal (shooting, trapping) and the implementation of veterinary procedures.

1. Complex feeding areas.
2. Feeders for feeding hay.
3. Solonetz.
4. Towers for observing animals and shooting.
5. Watering holes.
6. Quarantine pen (quarantine).
7. Pedestrian paths.
8. Car roads.
9. Live trap.
10. Separator.

The infrastructure of enclosures is designed individually in relation to the goals and objectives of animal breeding and depends on the landscape and terrain.

Animals for enclosures.

1. Among deer, the most common species for keeping in hunting enclosures in our country, according to our experts, is sika deer (CervusNipponhortulorum). This is the most accessible and inexpensive type.
2. Maral (Siberian subspecies of red deer) is the second largest animal in hunting enclosures. This is due to the availability of primary purchase of animals from deer breeding farms.
3. The last 5 years have seen an explosive interest in acquiring European red deer (Cervuselaphushippelaphus). It is this species that is traditionally cultivated in Europe, where it is the personification of the most valuable and prestigious trophy for a hunter. Once introduced to New Zealand, this species gave rise to the development of modern intensive reindeer farming and a culture of deer meat consumption.
4. Doe (Damadama)- this medium-sized deer with characteristic spade-shaped antlers actively and confidently takes its place in the enclosures of the European part of Russia. Due to its small size, it is the most economical to maintain, and the meat has the highest gastronomic characteristics.
5. In the last 2 years, interest in keeping white-tailed deer has increased among individual owners. What drew attention to this species was the not entirely justified opinion about its hyper-fertility.
6. Mouflon (Ovismusimon). This is the only representative of the genus of sheep living in Europe. Successfully kept in fenced areas. Not found in the wild in Russia, the most exotic inhabitant of our hunting enclosures.

Typically, mouflons are imported by farm owners who want to diversify the species composition of animals in enclosures and gain additional opportunities for trophy hunting. Traditionally, our hunters went to Europe to hunt mouflons, but we believe that in a few years worthy specimens of these rams will be raised in Russia.

1. Boar (Sus scrofa).

Recently the most popular and easiest to breed, this hunting species is now experiencing better times due to outbreaks of African swine fever, which decimated the livestock of European Russia. The main feature of enclosure keeping wild boars is the need to deepen the fence by 30-50 cm due to its ability to undermine the fences, but at the same time not requiring a fence height of more than 180-200 cm. It is extremely undesirable to keep a boar in the same pen with deer, since, being an omnivorous animal , it poses a mortal danger to newborn fawns.

Shared content.

The following combinations may be most common: all deer can be kept in enclosures in different combinations; the only difficulty lies in the difficulty of identifying females and young animals of different species when shooting in an enclosure.

Mouflon can be kept together with any deer, but requires close attention from staff, since females and young mouflons cannot compete for food in feeding areas with deer; this problem is especially acute in winter.

Supply of wild ungulates (Who can buy deer from in Moscow?)

The main task that arises when creating an enclosure is the acquisition of animals.

If you only need a few animals, they are easy to find in Russia and delivered to the farm. Private enclosures offer almost all types of deer; just type the phrase “buy deer” into a search engine.

But, as a rule, domestic suppliers cannot provide the necessary selection either by gender or age of any large batch. The gender and age composition of groups of animals offered for sale within Russia almost always differs from the wishes of the customer, since the formation of batches of animals occurs based on the results of catching with live traps in enclosures, or immobilizing animals. At the same time, the selectivity of capture is extremely limited.

In addition, prices for Russian animals are often formed based on the wishes of the owners and may exceed the cost of imported animals.

When importing animals, DeerLand LLC has the opportunity to form batches by sex and age in accordance with agreements with the customer, which is due to the presence of its own quarantine in Europe and extensive partnerships with breeding farms for breeding European red deer, European fallow deer, and European mouflon. In addition, imported animals can undergo all prescribed veterinary quarantine procedures at the base of Dearland LLC in Russia.

What is needed to create an aviary?

If you are thinking about creating an aviary, expert advice will not be superfluous.

Sabina Novak, Robert Myslajek

INTRODUCTION

For many years the wolf was considered a pest and was recklessly destroyed wherever it appeared. In addition to the dynamic development of scientific research, until the beginning of the eighties of the last century, a significant number of special projects were carried out in Europe, the purpose of which was to study the ecology of this species. Their further development led to a substantiation of a change in views on the role of this predator in forest ecosystems and its inclusion in the lists of protected animals in many Western European countries. The only pity is that only in a few of these countries the wolf lives in natural conditions. And in eastern Europe, this species is still considered a priori pest. In many countries, this animal is not subject to protection even for short period, necessary for raising wolf cubs (Promberger and Schroeder, 1992, Boitani, 2000). In Poland, studies of this predator have been carried out for about 20 years both on the plains (primarily in the Białowieża Forest, as well as in the Warmian-Masurian Lake District) and in the mountains (Bieszczady, Beskid Szlaski and Zywiecki) (review of Okarma 1007, Berezhinski 2000, Jedrzejewska and Jedrzejewski 2001, Nowak and Myslajek 2000, Piruzzek - Nowak 2002). Their results are published in prestigious scientific journals and constitute a significant amount of data on wolf ecology. It was they who contributed to the fact that this species is now subject to strict protection throughout Poland.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE WOLF

The protection of this species throughout the country began in 1998, when the wolf received the status of a protected species throughout Poland and was removed from the list of commercial species. game species. Previously, until 1995, the wolf was protected in accordance with a special order of the Minister of Protection environment, natural resources and forestry in 46 voivodeships, with the exception of Krosno, Przemysko and Suwalski. In the last two, he was still subject to protection based on the orders of the governor. The fact of ensuring the protection of the wolf is not just a reason, but a direct ban on the shooting of wolves. According to the law of April 16, 2004 on nature protection, in relation to the wolf, as well as other protected animals, it is prohibited:

• Kill, injure, disturb the peace, transport, search, keep in captivity, and also possess live animals;
• Collect and keep dead animals and possess them, including dissected ones, as well as their parts and derivative products without the permission of the voivode;
• Destroy their habitats and resting places;
• Destroy their burrows, lairs and young individuals;
• Dissect dead animals and/or their parts, including those found, without the permission of the voivode;
• Sell, acquire, offer for sale, exchange and donate live and/or dead animals, prepared or modified, as well as their parts and derivative products;
• Intentionally frighten or harass;
• Without the permission of the voivode, take photographs, make films, or observe anything that could frighten or disturb them;
• Moving from places of usual habitat to other places;
• Transferring animals born and raised in captivity to natural habitats.

The above prohibitions do not apply to situations where it is necessary to catch wounded or weakened animals to provide them with veterinary care and transfer them to a rehabilitation center, as well as when it is necessary to catch an animal wandering in close proximity to farmsteads in order to move it to its usual habitat. Violation of these provisions of the law is punishable by arrest or fine.
The wolf in Poland is a rare species, therefore it is listed both in both editions of the “Polish Red Book of Animals” (Głowacinski, 1992, 2001) and in the “Red Book of Endangered and Threatened Species” (Głowacinski, 2002). It is also is on the list of endangered species in the Carpathians (Vitkovsky et al., 2003).

IN EUROPE

The wolf is classified as a species subject to strict protection. This decision was ratified in our country in 1995 by the Berne Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Species of Wild European Fauna and Flora and Their Natural Habitats), as well as the European Union Habitats Directive (II and III annexes), which is a binding legislative act for us in connection with our accession to the European Union. The Washington Convention (CITES) regarding trade in endangered species is also relevant to this decision. In addition, the wolf is one of the species taken into account when establishing the Nature 2000 network.

STATE OF THE WOLF POPULATION IN POLAND

In accordance with the order carried out General Director state forests and coordinated by the Institute of Mammal Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Białowieża and the Society for Nature Conservation "WOLK" "Inventory of wolves and lynxes in forestries and national parks of Poland 2001", the total wolf population in the country is about 550 individuals (Jerzejewski et al, 2002a) . The densest habitat of the wolf population is limited to the eastern, northeastern and southern parts of the country. The vast forest complexes of Western Poland and the highly dissected forests of Central Poland are inhabited by hardly a few isolated, ephemeral flocks, unusually sensitive to all dangers. The condition and location of these flocks change from year to year. The main part of the wolf population lives primarily in industrial forests (Erzheevsky et al., 2002a). This predator requires vast spaces inhabited by wild ungulates (Okarma, 1995). One pack of wolves covers a territory of approximately 80 to more than 140 km2. The average area of ​​a national park in our country is about 140 km2 (including the forest area - approximately 87 km2, and the average area of ​​a forest reserve hardly reaches 0.7 km2. All national parks and forest reserves occupy no more than 2.8% of forest areas country. It is clear that it is impossible to implement the protection of this predator within the existing network of protected areas (Novak and Myslaek, 1999c). The key to the conservation of this species in our country is, in fact, that part of its population that lives in standard economic forests.

PROBLEMS OF WOLF CONSERVATION IN POLAND

WOLVE MIGRATION ROUTES AND ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN POLAND

The gradual development of civilization in our country leads to significant fragmentation and isolation of the habitats of these predators. As a result, an increasingly large part of the Polish population of this species consists of small subpopulations inhabiting isolated forest complexes. This makes it difficult, and sometimes simply impossible, for the free exchange of individuals, and as a result, the exchange of genes between individual flocks. The most isolated subpopulations of wolves become extremely susceptible to any negative environmental factors, especially anthropogenic ones (Novak and Myslajek, 1999c, 2001, Erzheevsky et al, 2002a, 2004). If the whole set negative factors will lead to the destruction of the local population, then the chances of repopulation of wolves in this area are very low. Currently, the most significant factor creating insurmountable obstacles in our country is the ongoing construction of expressways in our country. European Union laws require that motorways on both sides be separated from the environment by continuous wire mesh barriers. The strip of territory occupied by the highway with all its infrastructure occupies about 120 m and forms an insurmountable barrier for many terrestrial animals. High-speed roads are also a powerful barrier, which should also be fenced in certain areas, in particular within forest complexes. It can be foreseen that the emerging network of highways and expressways will have a negative impact not only directly on the main forest complexes through which they will run. Transport arteries will cross the most important migration routes of predators, identified based on the findings of the Wolf and Lynx Inventory. These paths are also used by many other large mammals that also require large spaces, such as elk, deer, chamois, and wild boar. Where highways intersect with migration routes, it is necessary to build appropriately large crossings for animals, such as green bridges with a width of at least 40 m, crossings under overpasses or constructed bridges and viaducts. Only in this way will Poland have a chance to avoid the problems that Western countries are struggling with, where, in order to ensure connections between animal and plant habitats, huge areas are allocated for the construction of crossings over existing highways.

POACHING

Despite legal protection, a significant number of wolves are killed illegally in Poland every year, some of which are caught in snares, others are shot illegally, for example, in the Carpathians or in the northeast of our country (Myslajek, 2002). There are also frequent cases when wolf cubs are taken from their holes, which is also a type of poaching. In some cases, animals raised by humans in captivity are returned to their natural habitat. They become the focus of conflicts because they are not adapted to life in the forest and are not afraid of people.

SHOOTING IN BORDER TERRITORIES

Another problem is the shooting of wolves in our eastern and southern neighbors. In Slovakia, the wolf is a game animal, but in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Russia it is simply exterminated. Given that only narrow strips of forests in the border areas are well preserved, the packs of wolves that live there use the territories on both sides of the border. As a result, the same individuals that are protected on Polish lands are killed several kilometers further, on the other side of the border (Nowak and Myslajek, 2001, Piruzzek-Nowak, 2002).

INCREASING HUMAN PRESS ON THE FOREST

Penetration human activity deep into forest complexes leads to frequent contacts between wolves and humans. This gives rise to many conflicts, mainly with pastoralists - they are widely covered by the media mass media(Nowak and Myslajek, 1999a). Such messages contribute to the formation of a negative image of this predator in the public consciousness, which deepens due to the lack of knowledge about its critical role in forest ecosystems. The development of construction of recreational and tourism infrastructure reduces the areas available for wild animals and allows people to penetrate into the most remote corners of forest complexes. This disrupts the process of raising young wolves and leads to high mortality of wolf cubs (Piruzhek-Novak, 2002).

WOLF ECOLOGY

Most wolves live in family groups, commonly called packs. In unexploited, non-fishing populations, solitary individuals account for 2–5% of the total number of these predators (Jerzejewska et al. 1996, Smetana and Wajda 1997). Lone wolves are most often young individuals migrating in search of new territories, as well as sick or old animals expelled from the pack. In populations subject to human exploitation (hunting, trapping), the percentage of lonely animals is higher - they appear from packs broken up by hunters or shooting. The average size of a flock in Poland is 4–5 individuals (Jerzejewska et al, 2002a), including the alpha parent pair and its last offspring. Sometimes non-blood relatives can also join the group. Wolf cubs (5–6 on average) are born in the spring, only once a year. However, an average of 1.8 pups in the valleys survive until winter, and even fewer in the mountains, only about 1.3 per flock (Piruzhek-Novak, 2002).

Each flock occupies a separate territory, the size of which depends on the density of potential prey. In Europe, the largest area of ​​wolf packs is given for areas with the lowest density of deer populations (Okarma, 1995). In Belovezhskaya Pushcha, wolves occupy an area of ​​154–343 km2 (Jerzejewska and Jerzejewski, 2001). In the mountains, their territory is smaller - in the Bieszczady 82–90 km2 (Smetana and Wajda, 1997), and in the Żywiecki and Sławski Beskids - 98–227 km2 (Peruzhek-Nowak, 2002). The average density of wolves in the lowland forests of the Bialowieza Forest is about 2–2.6 individuals/100 km2 (Okarma et al., 1998), in the Bieszczady region - 3.9 (Smetana and Wajda, 1997), and in the Beskids Żywiecki and Sławski - 1 .5–1.9 (Peruzek-Novak, 2002).

As Belovezhskaya and Carpathian studies show, based on the analysis of wolf excrement and the corresponding remains of their prey, the basis of the diet of wolves are ungulates. In the Białowieża Forest they constituted 97–98% of the wolf food biomass (Jerzejewski et al. 2000), in the Bieszczady region they constituted 85–97% (Smetana and Klimek 1993, Smetana 2000), and in the Western Beskids 95% (Peruzzek-Nowak , 2002). The dominant species among the prey of this predator is deer, accounting for 31–55% of all ungulates killed by wolves and 42–80% of all biomass eaten by wolves (Erzheevsky et al., 1992, Smetana and Klimek 1993, Okarma, 1995, Erzheevsky et al., 2000, Smetana 2000, Peruzhek-Novak 2002). Roe deer and wild boar are, although important, but dependent on local conditions and the time of year, a component of their food supply. In the Bieszczady region, wild boar becomes a significant source of food for wolves only in winter, which is most likely due to deep snow cover. In typical economic forests, the percentage of roe deer can reach up to 35% of the total biomass of wolf food due to its advantage in the structure of ungulates, but the preferred prey for wolves is still deer (Peruzhek-Novak, 2002). In addition, the remains of hares, foxes, badgers, beavers, moles and rodents were also found in wolf excrement, although in small quantities. In the Beskids, Domany livestock accounted for no more than 3% of the biomass of the food eaten (Peruzek-Nowak, 2002), and in the Bieszczady - 2% (Smetana, 2000).

As follows from Belovezhskaya research, a wolf pack kills about three ungulate mammals per week, and the average daily requirement of one wolf for meat is approximately 5 kg. Wolves annually eliminate about 15% of individuals from deer populations and approximately 5% of individuals from roe deer populations, relative to the maximum spring-summer abundance of these animals (Jerzejewska et al., 1994, 1997). Although the main factor limiting the density of ungulates in a given area is the availability of food, wolves can significantly influence the abundance and growth rates of ungulate populations and prevent the achievement of maximum densities determined through food resources (Jerzejewska and Jerzejewski, 2001). To more accurately determine the influence of the wolf on ungulate populations, the age and sex structure of its prey was also analyzed. Belovezhskaya studies based on the analysis of the found remains of wolf victims show that most often their prey was deer calves (51% of the found remains of deer), 36% were adult females, and only 13% were bulls (Erzheevsky et al., 2000). In the Bieszczady Mountains, wolves killed the most juveniles (32–51%), fallow deer (40–45%), and the least bulls (9–24%); Only during the rut do bulls become easier prey for predators.

Among bulls, wolves most often killed very young ones, less often very old ones (Okarma, 1984, 1991, Bobek et al., 1992). In the Beskids, too, wolves most often hunted calves (32% of all found remains of deer) and female deer (54%), and much less often - bulls (14%) (Peruzhek-Novak, 2002). Among wild boars, killed by wolves, also most of all young animals: in Bialowieza Forest - 68% (Erzheevsky et al, 2000), in Bieszczady - 73% (Smetana and Klimek, 1993). As for the roe deer, given its insignificant mass, it is not found so often (Jerzejewska and Jerzejewski, 2001, Peruzhek-Nowak, 2002). In conclusion, it can be noted that wolves most often prey on the youngest and oldest individuals, as well as those that, for various reasons, are in worse condition. At the same time, wolves are least likely to kill those animals that form the basis of population reproduction. Wild boars are difficult prey because they actively defend themselves during a wolf attack. Therefore, among them, too, wolves most often kill young animals.

PRESENCE OF WOLF IN FOREST COMPLEXES, HUNTING AND FORESTRY MANAGEMENTS

The natural composition of ungulate mammals found in Polish forests includes deer, roe deer, wild boar, moose and bison. In addition, there are wild goats in the Tatras. Introduced species found only locally are sika deer, Daniel's deer and mouflon. The percentage of species depends on the nature of the forest complex in which they live. However, in general, roe deer (67%) dominate in economic forests, with significantly fewer wild boars (20%) and deer (13%). Elk and bison are rare species, their presence is limited to only a few small areas. Due to the large number of ungulates - as of 2000 their numbers were: 117 thousand deer, 600 thousand roe deer and 180 thousand wild pigs (Budna and Grzybowska, 2000) - their impact on economic forests is enormous. In 1999 alone, the State Forest Administration allocated about 70 million zlotys to protect trees from damage by deer and roe deer. Analysis of the structure of damage shows that the greatest damage is caused by deer, mainly those with the greatest need for food, that is, fallow deer and calves (Zhukel, 2001). The above results of studies of wolf predation prove that, by limiting the number of herbivorous animals, they indirectly protect the forest from excessive damage by deer and roe deer.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF WOLVE HABITAT IN FORESTS FROM THE POINT OF THEIR HUNTING OF WILD UNGULATES AND LIVESTOCK

DAMAGE FROM FATING OF UNGULATES IN FORESTS

As data published in the publication of the General Directorate of State Forests “Forest in Figures, 1997” shows, damage from ungulates in 1995 amounted to PLN 54.5 million. On average, the annual cost of Polish forestry for the protection of forests from ungulates has been in recent years about 70 million PLN (oral information from the General Directorate), so the total quota of costs of state forestry in reality is about 124.5 million PLN. And 77% of all damage (worth about PLN 95.8 million annually) is caused by deer, 19% is caused by roe deer (worth PLN 23.7 million). Thus, the cost of fattening one deer is approximately 816 zlotys per year, and a roe deer is about 40.

NUMBER OF DEER AND ROE DEER KILLED BY WOLVES IN POLAND

According to the 2001 Inventory, the number of wolves in Poland was about 550 individuals. With the average meat requirement of one individual being approximately 5.58 kg (Erzheevsky et al., 2002i), it is easy to calculate that the annual production of these predators is 1120 tons.
On average, 60% of the biomass consumed by wolves is from deer. The average weight of a deer killed by a wolf is 87 kg, that is, in a whole year, wolves kill an average of 7,725 deer per year (mainly females and calves) - 6–7% of their entire population in the country. Roe deer make up approximately 30–40% of the biomass of ungulates eaten by wolves. This means that the total number of roe deer eaten by wolves in Poland is 22,270 individuals, with average weight one roe deer is 17.6 kg (Peruzhek-Novak, 2002). This represents 3–4% of the entire population. We sum up the cost of fattening one deer (816 zlotys) and one roe deer (40 zlotys) in the forest and we get specific savings per deer of 6.3 million zlotys and 0.9 million zlotys per roe deer. This gives an average saving of PLN 7.2 million.

WOLVE PREDATION FROM A HUNTING POINT OF VIEW

The positive impact of wolf predation on wild ungulate populations, proven by scientific research, convinces us that this phenomenon should not be considered harmful to the hunting industry - on the contrary, it is a positive element that improves general state and the sexual structure of populations of commercial and hunting animals. However, hunters often use the term “harm” or “damage” to return the wolf to the list of game species. Obviously, it is quite possible to approximately calculate the market price for selling a wolf killed by a hunter.

The above research data prove that the victims of wolves are mainly young individuals, whose mortality from various other factors is quite high. They also hunt adults, but it should be remembered that among adult prey, the majority are sick, weakened, very old, wounded individuals, that is, those who would not live long in any case. Many variable environmental factors, seasons, as well as anthropogenic influence determine how large the proportion of such, in fact, “doomed” animals in wolf prey is, and what is the percentage of individuals in good condition (Jerzejewska and Jerzejewski, 2002). The calculations below are maximum quotas and cover animals that humans would most likely never hunt. The hunting plans drawn up recently include shooting no more than 10% of calves or kids, and the rest are adults, primarily females (70%). Among adult wolf prey, approximately 36% were females and 14% were males. That is, in terms of deer, this amounts to 2680 fallow deer and 672 bulls on a yearly scale. Their cost when buying game would be: for fallow deer (with an average weight of 90 kg and an average seasonal price of 5.5 zlotys per 1 kg) - 1326 thousand zlotys, for bulls (average weight 140 kg) - 517 thousand zlotys. As for roe deer - 7050 goats and 2280 bucks - then their cost when buying game would be: for goats (average weight 19 kg and purchase price 14 zlotys) - 1875 thousand zlotys, for goats - (weight 24 kg) - 766 thousand .zloty. Together this gives about 4.5 million zlotys. It is difficult to calculate the quota received from foreign exchange hunting, since their price is very variable, but the component of individuals bearing antlers, which are valuable trophies from the point of view of hunters, is significant in the diet of wolves.

VOLUME OF WOLVE HUNTING OF LIVESTOCK IN POLAND

Damage from loss livestock(the cost of all killed animals, and not the total amount of payments for damage incurred) amounted to 201,350 zlotys in 1999, 168,900 zlotys in 2000, and 190,000 zlotys in 2001. On average, annual damage is estimated at PLN 187,050 (the cost of 4 middle-class personal cars). This amount is less than 3% of the funds saved by the Polish forestry thanks to wolf hunting of ungulates. According to the agricultural census (GUS, Agriculture, 1997), Poland's livestock production numbers approximately 7,136,500 cows and 551,600 sheep. Losses from wolves (on average 139 cows and 332 sheep) account for 0.002% of all cows and 0.06% of all sheep in Poland.

As evidenced by the findings of a project carried out for several years in the Western Beskids by the Society for the Conservation of Nature "WOLF", damage to livestock breeding can be minimized by introducing simple conservation methods, such as fencing sheds or pastures with flags, as well as the use of properly trained herding dogs. In addition, changing the grazing method from individual (without constant supervision) to group (for example, together with neighbors) with the professional assistance of shepherds can also significantly improve the safety of livestock.

CONCLUSIONS

The hunting of wild ungulate mammals by wolves cannot be assessed in terms of “damage” caused to game animals. This is a natural and positive role for these predators in forest ecosystems, both from an ecological and economic point of view.
The general economic benefit of the presence of predators also applies to forestry, for which wolves, through their hunting, are direct allies in maintaining the population of ungulates in a given territory at an average level below the maximum density determined by the availability of food.

The only objective damage caused by wolves living in forests is the loss of livestock. However, they constitute a relatively small quota compared to the benefits that wolf predation brings. However, for specific pastoralists these are sensitive losses, so it is necessary to implement efficient systems compensation, in connection with further use various methods livestock protection.

A set of measures to restore the number of wild ungulates, undertaken by hunting specialists in order to eliminate the consequences sharp decline number of wild ungulates, which took place in the late 80s and early 90s. of the last century, has not yet led to the desired result and remains one of the most pressing problems of the hunting industry.

The successes of individual, primarily private hunting grounds, where intensive protection, feeding, and regulation of the number of predators are carried out, do not allow reaching the former number of wild ungulates, due to their insignificant area compared to the total area of ​​hunting grounds suitable for habitat of the species in question.

In the current situation, as an alternative to the low number of wild ungulates in public lands, in recent years, in a number of regions, separate park-type farms have begun to be formed, aimed at raising game in semi-free conditions.

Table 1. Hunting users who have permission to maintain and breed wildlife in semi-free conditions and artificially created habitats in the Tver region.

In addition to the impoverishment of hunting grounds, there are a number of other reasons that contribute to their development, including limited time for hunting for a certain category of hunters, the requirement for a full guarantee of hunting success, the impossibility of acquiring or an acute limitation of the limit of one-time licenses for the production of wild ungulates, and limited data periods types of hunting in leased hunting grounds and public lands, the acute demand for this type of service, due to the increase in the material well-being of the population in recent years.

The main goal of developing aviary farms, according to the author, is:

Providing the maximum types of services during hunting, at the request of the hunter;

Preservation of wild animals in nature by harvesting animals raised in an enclosure;

Enrichment of hunting grounds by releasing into leased lands game animals raised in a semi-free state, incl. sale of animals to other farms;

Studying the biology of wild animals when raised in enclosures, developing effective methods biotechnology, incl. feeding;

Protection from predators, poachers and diseases;

Determination of limiting factors and their elimination by carrying out appropriate biotechnical and veterinary measures;

Improvement of species composition and formation of breeding stock;

Demonstration of wild animals to park visitors for review, photography and video shooting; carrying out educational lectures on the biology of the species.

Currently, the technology for growing sika deer and deer, which are included in the list of farm animals in Russia, in semi-free conditions, has been developed in some detail. The species of antler deer under consideration have been traditionally used in the Far East and Altai to obtain valuable biological products, the main type of which is antlers. The wild boar is becoming increasingly popular among hunters as a valuable hunting object. At the same time, there is a tendency to develop two types of enclosure farms: intensive and extensive.

A striking example of intensive farming on an area of ​​20 hectares is the work of Bitis LLC, located 50 km from Moscow, 1 km from the village of Shapilovo, near the station. Khotkovo. The author was able to personally verify the efficiency of game reproduction on this farm, which in 2008 alone sold 800 wild boars. Along with wild boar, sika deer and roe deer are bred here. It has its own incubator, pheasant farm, mallard duck farm, and fishing pond. The hunter, at his discretion, can use a number of services, including hunting for ungulates, feather hunting and sport fishing, which was clearly demonstrated by visitors to the farm, the number of preliminary applications from which far exceeded the carrying capacity. The park is not without aesthetic pleasure: mute swans and scorches live on the pond next to the mallard ducks, and sika deer feed along the coastal strip.

The high efficiency of reproduction of game animals here has been achieved thanks to the use of wild boar breeding technology through hybridization with domestic pigs, strict compliance with sanitary and veterinary requirements, timely vaccination of animals, feeding them with high-quality balanced feed of our own production, produced on our own equipment, high culture production due to the stable work of trained personnel, active material motivation of work, depending on the final results, creating conditions for wild animals taking into account their biological characteristics and needs, detailed design of pens, cages, and farm premises. The farm is served by a staff of 10 units, including administration, specialists and technical personnel.

The opposite, extensive type of park hunting management is the example of LLC PH "Nesterovo" near the village of Bazykino, Tver region. on the border with Moscow. Here, the area of ​​the park fenced with a metal mesh is 3.5 thousand hectares, including the fence perimeter of 32 km. The park is served by 7 units. rangers-guards who go around the perimeter of the park on ATVs every two days. The park is home to more than 250 wild boars and 150 red deer. A visit to this farm in June 2009 showed a significant concentration of wild ungulates, while at the same time there were no active signs of degradation of vegetation and soil cover. Thanks to the significant internal area of ​​the enclosure, the presence of large cultivated areas occupied by oats, winter crops, young deciduous trees, including aspen and willow, in the form of clearings 40-50 m wide, intensive feeding at 7 complex feeding sites, construction of artificial watering places, including a small pond in 0.3 hectares, the optimal ratio of the amount of game in relation to the area of ​​the park has been achieved.

Information on the selection of animal species, sites for parks, fencing and landscaping of the site, keeping animals in enclosures is given in sufficient detail in the monograph by A.A. Danilkin. Wild ungulates in hunting. Various design features construction of fences in parks is given in the manuals of Gusev V.G. and Kovalenko N.E., Drury I.V. and Matyusheva P.V. Practical recommendations for increasing the number of wild ungulates are presented in the work of B.I. Ditsevich. The specifics of feeding wild ungulates in winter are contained in the article by Danilkin A.A.

The demand for services for the production of animals in enclosures is currently quite high, despite the rejection of this type of animal production by individual hunters, hunting specialists, and hunting clubs. At the same time, the hunter requires that the hunt be brought as close as possible to the driven hunt, using its active phase with approaching the animal for a shot or using hunting dogs, gradually moving away from static shooting from towers on feeding grounds. Without going into the debate about the moral side of enclosure hunting, this is a topic for a separate article, it must be recognized that today there is no other alternative, since the lands are poor in game and do not meet the hunter’s need for sufficient quantities. Whether we like it or not, park hunting is actively developing, but, unfortunately, it is still chaotic.

Recognizing the right to life of this form of hunting, hunting specialists need to resolve a number of issues for its development, including the following aspects:

To begin with, unite specialists in this area into a working group;

Prepare methods for organizing enclosure (park) farms;

Establish information support on the database of breeding animals, the availability of accessible and inexpensive materials for the construction of enclosures;

Summarize the experience accumulated by individual farms and publish it in an acceptable circulation, post it on hunting websites;

Resolve legal issues, in particular, eliminate unnecessary guardianship by control bodies, simplify the procedure for acquiring breeding material, revise the cost of renting forest areas for organizing an enclosure;

Provide a number of benefits for farms engaged in semi-free breeding and release of wild animals into hunting grounds;

To allocate a separate subprogram within the framework of environmental and agricultural programs for the development of small businesses, in order to allocate targeted long-term loans at low interest rates for those wishing to develop hunting farming;

To hold, under the auspices of specialized scientific organizations, an All-Russian conference dedicated to the issues of game farming (park breeding of wild animals).

Considering that the main topic is XXIX International Congress game biologists: “Hunting is one of the most important tools for preserving the animal world” - it can be stated that the topic of park breeding of wild ungulates is fully consistent with this statement and is worthy of further discussion.

F.F. Abdullin.