Prime Minister Vladimir Putin holds a meeting with representatives of public recreational and sport fishing associations

Transcript:

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues and friends.

It is a happy coincidence that the Russian Alliance of Public Associations of Hunting and Fishing is also a member of the Russian Popular Front. We have an opportunity to discuss the problems that have caused so much uproar among the community of sport fishermen. I fully share their sentiments on this score. The law was approved in 2010, and we remember the reaction that followed. There were attempts to modify and amend the law. But amendments are still pending. Is this right, Mr Krainy (addressing head of the Federal Agency for Fishery, Andrei Krainy)?

Right, they are yet to be introduced to parliament and this is the reason why I wanted to have this meeting with you. The problems, as I see the situation, are the same as what they were before, even though there was an extensive debate on the Internet and the matter was discussed with public organisations. I wanted to meet with you and to discuss this topic once again before we take the final step to introduce these amendments.

Of course, it seems the drafters of the bill were guided by noble motives. They wished to make the process more civilised, to help sport fishermen (of which we have millions in this country), to create additional conditions for the reproduction of biological resources, and so on. But we know how the whole thing ended up in reality. I was surprised to learn that in certain regions (and precisely the regions were given the right to indicate paid angling sites, or so-called commercial fishing areas, and to put them up for tenders) almost one-half of the water surface had been transferred over to commercial organisations that were supposed to arrange the tenders. What remained outside of the scope of commercial ventures was in remote locations and lacked infrastructure. It was impossible for people to reach these sites. The figures vary from region to region: in some, 47% of water surface was put to commercial use, in others, over 20%. As I recall, Kazan has provided the entire area. This is the first point that is cause for anxiety.

Another issue concerns so-called fish cards. If I am not mistaken, they are mentioned in the amendments that have not yet made it into legislation. The idea itself seems noble. This country is so big, there are so many opportunities. We are not a medium-sized European state. I know how they arrange this business there. But their bodies of water occasionally do not even look like natural ones, they have an artificial appearance. That's fine for them. But here, a fish card can only be obtained from a local branch of the Federal Agency for Fishery. If someone is a local resident, he will receive it free of charge – after camping out on the doorstep for an unspecified period of time. But what if he is accustomed to travelling to a location controlled by a different agency? Does this mean that he will have to pay again?

An exception has been made for children under 14 years of age and for people with disabilities. This is noble, of course, but, to my mind, the whole process is excessively bureaucratised. Generally I do not quite understand why we are doing this. What's the point? People have been fishing since time immemorial. Recreational fishing does no harm to the environment or to biological resources. What is harmful is poaching, but this is a different matter entirely! You must fight poaching more effectively.

Where the reproduction of biological resources is concerned, we regularly allocate two billion roubles a year from the budget, with 1.5 billion roubles earmarked directly for reproduction. We did this in 2011, and we will do it again in 2012.

The process began in 2010 and we need to find a way to finish it. I’d like to consult you on how to do this so as not to damage anyone’s interests. If we decide to do something, let’s go about it to help and support people and to create better conditions for them. I think, as many have already said, that when it comes to artificial water reservoirs, private companies want to take over in order to render people additional services, and let them go ahead and do this. But it would be wrong to transfer all water reservoirs over to the commercial domain. I’d like to discuss this with you and hear your advice in order to decide once and for all what we need to do to complete this process. Who would like to start? Mr Bendersky, would you like to begin our discussion?

Eduard Bendersky (president of the Russian Association of Public Societies of Hunting and Fishing): Good afternoon, Mr Putin, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm sure there's no point in referring back to history in order to understand why so many fishermen are displeased. I believe that the positions of public organisations in this field are being subjected to heavy pressure, and this is being done at the regional level as well. For many years (since the 1950s) our association has been dealing with fishing, among other things. The Mozhaisk and Ruza water reservoirs in the Moscow Region are vivid examples of our efforts. The former is visited by 300,000 to 500,000 anglers a year.

These fishermen have never been upset about services or vouchers because, first of all, they knew that public organisations were in charge here, for all their pluses and minuses, whose finances were transparent and spent mostly on fish reproduction. Every year these organisations placed five million tiny pike-perch and two million juvenile pike into the Mozhaisk water reservoir alone. In other words, when they came to this place, people knew they would get quality fishing. They knew where their money was going. No one was making them buy unnecessary services. In other words, everything was done on a voluntary basis. However, things went somewhat wrong when they started transferring titles for water bodies. I’m saying this without trying to belittle the importance of the work performed by private owners. Local organisations lost all of their water bodies in certain districts and regions, so anglers and hunters who came to familiar grounds found new owners, new arrangements and the requirement to buy a pass. People were dumbfounded by these new arrangements and that they had to pay for accessing their favourite fishing or hunting spots. There were no social responsibilities whatsoever. That’s why it caused such indignation. I believe that we should keep the balance of ownership and leave some of the water bodies to public organisations that run their business differently from private companies. If we don’t restore the balance, there will be social tension.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Bendersky, please be more specific. I’d like everyone to be very specific today. There is a text. You have comments regarding the text, or proposals regarding the removal of something unnecessary, superfluous or dangerous. I’m sure you have read it.

Eduard Bendersky: Mr Putin, I believe that Mr Krainy will confirm that our employees are extremely specific in lawmaking issues. We made our employees available as soon as the situation had arisen. We understand almost everything that’s written there. Our proposals were included in the text, and we are working together on it. There are certain disagreements. For example, we believe that the Mozhaiskoye water reservoir should be publicly owned, and I cited positive examples of such work. It will be really strong if we manage to set forth a specific regulation in the federal law to protect the interests of public organisations and public users. However, I’m not sure how to go about it.

Vladimir Putin: If everyone believes that this is the way to go, then this regulation should be explicitly spelled out in the law, so as to prevent any future abuses by executive authorities.

Let’s take turns and share our opinions. Mr Krainy, do you have any comments or additions?

Andrei Krainy: Yes, Mr Putin, thank you for this opportunity. Good afternoon, Mr Putin and colleagues. Indeed, we had a very busy day today summarising the results of the past year. Unlike Eduard Bendersky, I will start at the beginning. Part 5 of Article 24 became effective on January 1, 2011. It introduces the concepts of fishing passes and paid services at fishing bases or spots awarded through tenders.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, we’ve been fishing for hundreds of years. Why would anyone do all that at all?

Andrei Krainy: I swear to God, Mr Putin, this was not our initiative.

Vladimir Putin: Then whose? Not mine, either.

Andrei Krainy: We represent the executive, not the legislative branch. What I’m saying is that acting upon your instructions we introduced a moratorium on tenders, which is still valid. Second, we have terminated 235 agreements…

Vladimir Putin: Who spearheaded it? Can you tell me?

Andrei Krainy: Deputies. One year ago, I was speaking at the committee for natural resources and warned our colleagues that this was a dangerous thing to do. We cannot tie money and aquatic biological resources together, just like Mr Bendersky said. You see, this service should be provided on an as-needed basis. I should have a choice between buying or not buying a service. However, these regulations set forth unequivocally that I must buy a fishing pass, which aroused people’s concern.

Therefore, Mr Putin, there’s a certain disagreement. Even our colleagues sitting in this room aren’t in full agreement about everything. We worked closely with Mr Bendersky’s colleagues. I believe that there are things that everyone sitting in this room will agree with. The most straightforward solution today is to cancel Part 5 of Article 24, which provides for the mandatory purchase of a fishing pass. However, this will only address one-hundredth of the entire problem.

Vladimir Putin: Passes? What passes? Are you talking about these fish cards?

Andrei Krainy: No, passes. The law on fish cards hasn’t been passed yet. Today, we are talking about a de jure law, specifically about fishing passes, which caused the trouble. This is just an infinitesimal part of the problem. Ultimately, the issue is not about paying or not paying or other payment arrangements. Let’s write “free of charge” all over Russian water bodies, but then again we should realise that by acting this way we will not be able to address a number of problems that were raised by the rally participants and our colleagues.

First, what do we do with fishing grounds? The existing law uses the somewhat inadequate term “fishery grounds”. In fact, it should be renamed “fishing grounds”, because it has nothing to do with commercial fishery operations. That’s my first point. By the way, it’s included in the draft law.

Second, many of those present here spoke against organising such fishing grounds on the rivers, for example, on the Volga. Why? Because “grounds” means something with geographical coordinates. You can’t draw a line on water or fence in a water area.

This is why the new wording of the draft law says that special grounds for sport and recreational fishing can be established on the basis of certificates at artificial water bodies, which are not important for commercial fishing – that is, there are no commercial amounts of fish there. We have with us today Vladimir Petrushin (President of the Federal Union of Fishing Companies), who is doing this very actively in the Moscow Region, as well as on rivers populated by valuable and super-valuable seafood species. The draft law has a list of 11 such species, including three crabs and Far Eastern and Kola salmon. If we approve this wording, I hope that my colleagues will agree that we will have prohibited areas in the European part of Russia only on the Kola Peninsula. All of the other fishing grounds will be open for free sport and recreational fishing.

Next, we must introduce a ban – it is stipulated in the draft law – on electric fishing tackle and harsher punishments for the use of electric fishing rods. Second, before your arrival, we spoke about a ban or a limit on using fishing nets. You see, two years ago, we approved the rule banning the import of Chinese monofilament nets. Russians are ingenious people. They have started bringing such nets under the guise of string bags, rolls and the like. They started producing such monofilament nets here, in homes. These nets are very cheap, and violators simply let them sink at the approach of fish inspectors. These nets have clogged the Ladoga, Onega, Volga, Rybinka and other rivers. We should probably introduce licences because it is impossible to ban all nets. There are regions where you cannot catch fish in any other way, for example, on the Northern Kuril Islands, where the sea depth is 3 km right at the coast, which is impossible for angling. This is an issue upon which everyone agrees.

And one more question. Mr Putin, when we say…

Vladimir Putin: Just a minute, fishing tackle – nets and electric rods – are one thing and fishing passes are quite another matter.

Andrei Krainy: No, there is no mention of fishing passes in the current draft law.

As for a fish card, it was not stipulated in the initial draft of the law. The idea was raised following discussions on the Internet. It was not proposed by the Fishery Agency, but by recreational fishermen. It led to heated debates about whether there should be paid tickets or not, how much they should cost, and where they should be paid. The new wording of the law says that people who…

Vladimir Putin: See here, I don’t know where the idea has come from, maybe the Internet where visitors are knowledgeable people who know how recreational fishing is organised in other countries. It is true that all European countries have fish cards – I have used them too. But Russia is a different country, it is very large and people can travel anywhere they want to. See what I mean? I will buy an air ticket and go fishing somewhere in the wilderness. How will I get a fish card there? Where will I find it? You’ll grow tired looking for the place where you can do it. See what I mean? We have a very different system of recreational fishing here.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, I fully agree with you, but the authors of the law – experts and representatives of public organisations – have agreed that we won’t have to buy fish cards. Under the law, Russians will be issued free all-in-one cards starting on January 1, 2012, first in Moscow, and across Russia in 2013. We could add a fishing permit to that card, which will be an ID, a payment card and anything else we want it to be. It will not be difficult.

Vladimir Putin: What’s the problem then?

Andrei Krainy: Trust me, it’s not a money problem. The trouble is that we want at least rough data. Today, we cannot even imagine how many people go for recreational fishing in Russia. Assessments differ by 20%-30. We have between 20 and 25 million recreational fishers. Why do we need this information? We need it to calculate the possible anthropogenic load on water bodies. Mr Bendersky said that 500,000 to 700,000 people fish on the Mozhaiskoye Reservoir and 2 million on the Volga – we only have the data provided by mobile operators – the Lower Volga region and near Astrakhan.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Krainy, suppose you are conducting a population census – you don’t make people come to you, do you? You go to them. The same applies here – your service can count people without making them count themselves. This is not too difficult.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, I agree with you. This isn’t the issue in dispute, and let me repeat, that was not our idea and we aren’t insisting on this, for goodness sake. We are referring to something else. You just said in your opening remarks that the government spends 2 billion roubles a year for fish reproduction, which is perfectly justified. We said that we need money. When I say we, I do not mean myself – I mean Russia, I mean our bodies of water need money, but the money that recreational fishers can contribute is negligible and can be easily done without. What we need is large contributions from companies that cause so-called unavoidable damage to the environment. What does this mean? Mainly oil and gas companies such as LUKoil, Rosneft and Gazprom. Consider this: LUKoil plans to start offshore drilling in the Caspian. Prior to that drilling, an environmental assessment is done, estimating the damage the project will cause. We are not trying to hold up industrial progress, but we say: “Right, guys, you can drill – West Kamchatka, Shtokman or whatever. But you also have to restore aquatic resources. You are required to either breed 100 million young fish or build a fish farm.” That’s where things get stuck. Companies say: “All right, we have included this spending in our budgets.” They get their drilling and production licences and go ahead. But the problem is the Budget Code does not include environmental compensation as a revenue item. The money gets stuck on the companies’ balance and cannot be transferred to the federal budget or another appropriate fund.

Vladimir Putin: What does this have to do with recreational fishing?

Andrei Krainy: No ...

Vladimir Putin: There’s the money... I would like you to understand, although I think you already know this as everybody else does. Any fees go to the federal budget and they are not colour-marked or anything.

Andrei Krainy: That’s what I am talking about Mr Putin.

Vladimir Putin: But you are talking about the budget’s revenue section, whereas expenditures are determined by the parliament following the government’s requests. So you need to apply for the relevant spending on fish reproduction. You have made a request and made your case – we allocated 2 billion roubles for your purposes. If you need more, we can allocate more. Don’t burden oil producers engaged in offshore projects with building fish farms and breeding fish. They need to pay some money; the money will go to the budget; we will know how much they contributed; we will also know how much you need; your service will get the relevant allocation during budgeting. This has nothing to do with recreational fishing after all.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, we are discussing the need to preserve aquatic resources; this issue is broader than…

Vladimir Putin: There is something else: I have been to the Caspian; I visit regularly. I saw how LUKoil handles these things. No other company in the world does more to preserve the environment. LUKoil uses the most high-tech production methods in its Caspian project. They are the best in the world, I can guarantee that. They extract oil up to the very last drop and take it all to the shore. You cannot shift the entire responsibility upon them, blame them for any pollution that might occur and bleed them dry, although, if any damage is made, they must certainly pay some compensation.

All right, this is clear now. Now we should let others take their turn to speak. I can see your point, and we will come back to it later. I’m sorry, Mr Bendersky, I would like to give the floor to Mr Barinov now, and then everyone will have a chance to speak.

Alexei Barinov (chairman of the Moscow Region branch of the Union of Fishermen, an interregional public organisation): Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Good afternoon, colleagues. I’d like to say that I perfectly understand the point Mr Krainy was trying to make, about fines from larger or smaller companies (not individuals) that do damage to the environment. Maybe his example wasn’t quite good – about offshore drilling – but we also see massive discharges into inland waters, rivers and so on.

I’d say that the damage caused by dumping even into a medium-sized river is ultimately much more severe than from dumping into a big water reservoir. But we must focus on this issue and draft a relevant document. But the main demand that is being made during forum discussions and even during daily conversations, and that continues to hang in the air, is that the money levied as fines from some organisations must be used only for specific purposes. The main point is to allow people to see that these funds are actually spent on development and reproduction of bio-resources or some other eco-friendly objectives, rather than getting dissipated in the budget which, regrettably, sometimes happens.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Barinov, for the sake of information I’d like to tell you that experts all over the world do not consider this to be effective budgeting. The money that is raised from specific sources is not singled out, but simply enters the budget at which point the government decides on its spending priorities. The department in question can inform the Finance Ministry as to what income has been received from its activities and what it needs in order to implement its charter goals. As a rule, the requirements are higher than the earnings but only this particular department can decide what it needs and what its priorities are.

The trouble is, if we specify all revenues in this way, we won’t resolve a single problem. The main point is how much the government deems it necessary to allocate towards certain purposes, because as distinct from other countries… As distinct from all countries with advanced economies, this year we are the only country that has a surplus – our revenues exceed our expenses and we have an opportunity to allocate funds towards the purposes for which they are needed. All that remains is for the department in question to define these purposes clearly and in a timely manner. Believe me, it is pointless to specify the source of any revenues. Now let’s discuss whether or not we should fine people for something, and what penalties should include fines. I’m sorry for interrupting you.

Alexei Barinov: Nevertheless, I still consider fines to be necessary. Let more competent people judge their effectiveness, but as I understand it, in North America and Canada such funds are used for specific purposes and by law can only be spent on mending damage.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this practice exists. This is true.

Alexei Barinov: I’d like to add a few words about the role of public organisations. This is a very urgent issue, and we should be able to resolve a lot of our problems simply by enhancing the role of public hunting or fishing organisations like the Russian Association of Public Societies of Hunting and Fishing. This was a powerful and efficient organisation. It controlled water reservoirs and its members were happy about it; the fees they paid were used for specific purposes. In principle, this is something that can be monitored. The system of council meetings and report-and-election conferences is a fairly transparent system – I am intimately familiar with it.

Vladimir Putin: This is a public organisation. It raises money for its charter goals and spends it on them. It is not a budget organisation.

Alexei Barinov: Yes. We have other organisations as well. I represent the Russian Fishing Union. I think that if we increase the role of public organisations by law or by granting them holdings in certain proportion, we will achieve a great deal -- half of the issues that come up will be resolved automatically. To my knowledge, by law it takes just three people to be able to form a public organisation. But we must take the right approach. Of course, it is possible to establish a public organisation and someway or other gain some holdings. But we must work out a mechanism to ensure that such organisations benefit the people, because amateur fishing is a massive sport that will affect

the broadest population. Why is this issue so urgent? In a sense, this represents an escape for people running away from their daily problems. Attempts to create obstacles to it led to uproar.

Vladimir Putin: This is only natural. People were worried that this policy would spread to mushroom spots next, and they would have to pay to pick mushrooms.

Ms Lebedeva, please go ahead.

Irina Lebedeva (co-chairperson of the regional public organisation the Fishing Union): Good afternoon, my name is Irina Lebedeva; I’m an angler from Rybinsk and also represent a young organisation, the Fishing Union. I’m sorry I didn’t have any time to prepare a speech because this is a spontaneous meeting and I was only told about it at 7 p.m. yesterday. So I have practically just arrived.

Vladimir Putin: But surely you are also worried about this issue?

Irina Lebedeva: Of course, I am. This is what I’d like to say on this score…

Mr Putin, you know that anglers believe this situation has been created deliberately. Water reservoirs have been left at the disposal of poachers who are destroying them as fast as they can, not only because of their ignorance or lack of vision but because they are setting up all kinds of shadow fishing agencies. They do not deal with the comprehensive recovery of these reservoirs – I’m talking about inland water bodies. The aim is to promote the idea of transferring water reservoirs into private hands. This is the ultimate motive. They are talking about complete chaos, the government’s inability to cope with problems that arise and a lack of funds. This is being done to bring about the conclusion that only private companies are able to put things in order. We believe this approach is totally wrong.

Private companies will not be able to do anything under these conditions. First, the transfer of these water holdings… We are being told that these holdings will be limited. So, if anything is done with them, this work will be limited to specific holdings. And what will happen with the rest? Nobody even bothers to think about that mess. Second, private companies are primarily interested in profits. They are not concerned with preserving water and bio resources, and not even after developing amateur fishing.

All they are interested in is acquiring profits and avoiding losses. I have seen what is happening with fishing holdings in Astrakhan, where I attended the discussion of the draft law. This is utter nonsense – they seek profits even during the spawning period, when not only industrial fisheries but amateur anglers cover up their spinning rods and wait patiently for it to end. When such facts surface all declared good intentions of private companies, such as protection from poachers, are reduced to naught.

My point is that such holdings are not good for anybody, including small companies, because they create monopolists in this sphere. Imagine there is a fishing section. I will cite Astrakhan as an example. I’ve been there for the first time and saw how developed they are. One base is on the left, another is on the right and they are separated by a fence. One user can win the lease of a plot for a very long term and will prohibit its rival – I’m not talking about amateur anglers at this point -- to have boats nearby or take its customers to this section.

Accordingly, these users or companies have to strike some kind of an agreement. They establish all kinds of shadow businesses. Is it good for small businesses? No, it's not good at all. That means higher prices and substandard services. Previously, things were based on sound competition, but now they are building monopolies. What do we see? We see that private ownership cannot be the ultimate solution. We should drastically change our attitude towards poaching. You are right about this. Our organisation sees the solution not in banning fishnet sales, as someone said here today, but in introducing special regulations covering fishnet sales. Initially, we suggested classifying fishnets as hunting weapons and selling marked and numbered fishnets, so as to be able to identify the owner if need be. In the regions where fishnets are the customary way of fishing and traditional way of life such fishnets will be assigned to a particular owner. If the issue is about a region where fishnets are outlawed, like in our Yaroslavl Region, then there must be a total ban on selling fishnets in such regions. I ran this idea by the commercial fishers in Yaroslavl and asked them whether they would be affected in anyway by the introduction of a total ban on fishnet sales in the Yaroslavl Region. They told me that it wouldn’t affect them in any way, because they were buying their nets from wholesalers and never deal with retail stores. However, in our region you may buy fishnets everywhere: in stores and at markets. Fishnets are everywhere. I believe that poaching is all about easy access to fishnets. The second aspect of remedying the fishing problem has to do with markets that sell poached fish.

I could see this for myself this year when we had a fishing ban during the spawning period in the Yaroslavl Region. I wrote an official letter to the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare. Of course, retail outlets are not accountable to the State Fishery Inspectorate. It cannot inspect them; it can deal only with what happens on the water, whereas fish is sold at stores. During the spawning season, they openly sell poached fish on the markets, and this seems to be all right with everybody. Unfortunately, one month later I received their response saying that they didn’t see any practical reason for inspecting retail stores. I can perfectly understand them: they are interested in customers having access to fresh fish, but back then it was not interested in protecting aquatic and biological resources.

This disconnect between the departments will not help restore fish resources, either. If there are no fishnets, there will be no markets. That way we will nip the poaching problem in the bud.

The second point that was discussed here is about compensation paid by economic agents. These are not fines, Mr Putin. They are already paying small fines, and major operators have no problem paying them. What I’m talking about is compensation for specific damage caused to a particular body of water. Unfortunately, we have heard recently that this compensation only exists on paper in an abstract form. Large businesses include this compensation in their business expenses, but there are no mechanisms for receiving this money. We’ve been discussing this draft for one year now, but we noticed these huge amounts of money just now. These funds are available on paper, but the state cannot get them from these companies. I can’t understand how this is possible. Same thing goes for fishnets. We’ve raised this issue on several occasions since March, but the Federal Agency for Fishery is trying to address the situation by charging anglers. Please understand that anglers don’t cause as much damage as commercial operations or poachers.

Now, as for fishing cards. Neither the Anglers Union nor I support this idea. The timing is not right and, more importantly, it will not solve the problem at hand. Why are we collecting this money? It will serve no purpose if we don’t properly address issues of poaching, compensation, hydraulic works that disregard nature and can drop water levels during spawning periods thus destroying tons of fish eggs that end up on river banks. On the other side, we have a man with a fishing pole who they want to cover all the damage caused by multiple users. The price doesn’t matter, and people will be willing to pay – either 500 or just one rouble - , but this will bring no results, and the money will be wasted. I might as well float this money down the Volga River.

I’d like to provide additional explanations about the fishing card. Back when they proposed it to be a law, they didn’t specify the grounds for pricing it. They didn’t say anything about the fund or how much money will be used to maintain it. In other words, what they are telling us is: “Come on, anglers, can’t you spare one rouble a day?” There’s no problem with paying, but will this rouble be enough to run the fund? We might find out soon that the fee doesn’t cover the production cost of the card, and suddenly one rouble will be not enough anymore? We can’t afford to implement things that haven’t been properly considered from all angles.

I would also like to support my colleagues who say that measuring recreational fishing in terms of money is not the right thing to do. We will get the money from anglers, but we will lose much more by depriving anglers of their favourite pastime. You said that children under 14 will be admitted without charge… But they will still be children after they turn 15. It’s a transitional period where they choose their path in life. I have a tagline that runs as follows: Better fish with the hook than be hooked on the needle. That’s how things really are. You know, recreational fishing for us, anglers, is also about love for our small motherland, patriotism and raising younger generations. We can’t afford measuring these things in terms of money.  

Accordingly, we believe that fishing holdings will not help solve the situation on water bodies, unless the issue is dealt with in its entirety.  

Pardon me if I say something unpleasant in conclusion. However, I can’t help saying it to Mr Krainy. With all due respect, the situation that has arisen from our uncompromising battles is also due to the fact that the head of the Federal Agency for Fishery has adopted a derogatory or even offensive way of speaking with anglers, who perceive such communication …

Vladimir Putin: Don’t take it too close to heart, because Mr Krainy is a former journalist and he has his own way of speaking with people…

Irina Lebedeva: Nevertheless… Anglers have no trust in the federal agency precisely for this reason.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Ms Lebedeva, do you have any specific proposals regarding the text of the law?

Irina Lebedeva: Yes, of course, I’d like to submit these specific proposals to you today. I planned to talk about them during the session. We wrote a letter to the president today with these proposals. But since I’m here today, we have made another copy, and I’ll give them to you today.

Vladimir Putin: Good, good. Colleagues, I’d like to ask you once again to be specific during today’s discussion, so as to be able to come up with solutions which will allow us to adopt a quality document. Actually, this is the point of today’s meeting. Mr Voskresensky, please go ahead.

Alexander Voskresensky (vice president of the Moscow Federation of Fishing Sport): Good afternoon, Mr Putin and colleagues. In general, I support much of what was said today, but I would like to answer specific questions asked by Mr Putin with regard to the draft law.

First, Mr Putin, you asked us about our opinion about fishing holdings on land-locked water bodies and fishing arrangements with the use of passes or licences. I believe that the point of passes and fishing holdings is not in collecting money, but in limiting the number of anglers at a given water body. This may make sense and certainly should be applied to water bodies with particularly valuable species. The issue is not about charging a fee. What we need to do is limit the number of anglers, because if we don’t do this, we’ll run out of salmon in a year. We can call them special areas featuring valuable fish species which attract recreational fishermen from all over the country, for example, such as the Astrakhan Region. This region really stands apart, since fishermen from all over Russia go to a fairly small area year round. I believe that we don’t need passes or licences at all other land-locked water bodies, meaning rivers and water reservoirs. This is my answer to your first question.

Second, I agree with everything that was said about poaching and so on. I’d like to add a few words to what you have already said, Mr Putin. You said that recreational fishing has nothing to do with poaching. In fact, sometimes it is. As is known, there are recreational anglers who are good at what they are doing and catch fish not just for fun or food, but also for sale. Previously fishing regulations had the concept of standard catch per unit of time. I believe it makes sense to restore this standard precisely for the purposes of recreational fishing. Of course, this standard should vary by the region, so we’ll have to decide on that. But still, I think this concept should be restored, and standards specified for each particular region.

There is one more question regarding recreational fishing. Perhaps not everyone knows that there is a ban on fishing during the spawning period that includes recreational fishing gear except fishing poles. However, this ban doesn’t cover all our water bodies. As a recreational angler, I propose adding to the law a ban on fishing, not just commercial, but the recreational one as well, at all water bodies in Russia during the spawning period. This is what I have to say regarding your questions, Mr Putin. I’m prepared to continue this discussion, if there are any other questions. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. Let’s elaborate on the number of recreational anglers at particular water bodies. You said that these passes can be used to control their numbers. I believe that this is not a fair method of imposing limits, because it has to do with income levels. There are other ways to do this. In other words, your proposal means that anglers with money are welcome and everyone else can take a hike. You know, recreational fishing is a democratic pastime… I don’ think we should segregate people by income. There are other ways to control access, purely administrative. For example, access to a water body can be cut off once there’s a certain number of anglers there. Regardless of how much cash one has in one’s pocket. There may be other ways to protect water bodies. We just need to give it some thought.

As for recreational anglers acting as poachers, well, in this case I would say that what they are doing has nothing to do with recreation.

Alexander Voskresensky: I agree.

Vladimir Putin: You see? This is not quite the same. If we get back to the text… do you have any comments about the current wording?

Alexander Voskresensky: My comments are my proposals regarding your first question. I believe that the clause about passes and fishing fees… I’d like to exclude at least the water bodies with particularly valuable fish species.

Vladimir Putin:  Have you formulated your proposal in any way? Have you submitted it to the Federal Agency for Fishery? Please submit it.

Alexander Voskresensky: We will.

Vladimir Putin: Please do this. I’ll tell you why. I would like our current meeting to produce a package of documents and your proposals. Perhaps Mr Krainy is not always polite when communicating with his colleagues, but he is a competent official. He will make a synopsis of all the proposals, and he will tell me what the Federal Agency for Fishery accepts or rejects. I’ll take a look. Perhaps, we will meet again in this format.

This does not necessarily mean that the government will agree with the Federal Agency for Fishery. Quite possibly, it will agree with you on some issues. We will make the final decision after clarifying the so-called disagreements between specific organisations and the agency. And I would like to assure you that all these decisions will be called on to create normal conditions; not to aggravate the situation, but, on the contrary, to take steps that would improve the situation in this sphere.

Andrei Medvedev has the floor. Go ahead, please.

Andrei Medvedev (president of the Russian Fishermen’s Internet Club FION): Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Maybe, I’m not well-versed in lawmaking because I’m not a professional lawyer. I represent the largest national online community. I’m a fisherman myself. I spend every weekend out fishing or at competitions. The Internet is bustling with activity. Overall, the situation is not too good and the people are not very happy.

In effect, you have expressed a popular view just now. Most Russian fishermen believe that fishing must remain free of charge in most Russian regions. There may be some exceptions, as the colleagues have said. This implies specific water bodies inhabited by specially protected fish species, etc. But on the whole, fishing must be free of charge. We completely agree with you on this issue.

I would like to note that Mr Barinov has voiced a conjecture that certain water bodies must be controlled by public organisations. In my opinion, this may cause the misconception that private companies are bad and that public organisations are good. Let’s take everything away from private companies and give it to public organisations. I think this is not right. Quite possibly, water bodies must remain the property of the Russian people. We have official state bodies which must keep watch of the situation, establish law and order, release fish into water bodies, etc.

As for specific proposals to improve the situation with fish, much has been said about nets and their free availability. We also propose licensing net sales. It may be better to sell fishing nets only to legal entities. So, what is our task? There are fishing cooperatives. This amounts to their main activity, and we can’t take it away from them. But our task is to restrict the activities of the so-called weekend fishermen who want to relax and who can easily buy cheap Chinese-made nets at local stores. They cast the nets and forget all about them. The nets become clogged with rotten fish. This does great damage to the water bodies. We must try and get rid of these nets. Naturally, this must be accomplished by economic methods, through sales. In other words, we must make it harder for retail outlets to sell fishing nets and net-making materials.

Furthermore, speaking of the crackdown on poaching, Article 256 of the Criminal Code makes no mention of fishing with nets. It mentions the extermination of biological resources by chemical methods and explosives during the spawning season. Is it possible to stipulate liability in the form of fines there or in the form of some arrest or administrative arrest for illegal net sales? Maybe we should examine this issue? 

Moreover, we should reinstate the institution of public inspectors. We are working together with the Federal Agency for Fishery on this issue. This institution does not function today because public inspectors have virtually no rights. They can only watch, report, and that’s it. We can do some simple things. We could allow public inspectors to remove illegally installed nets from a water body and take such nets to a local branch of the Federal Agency for Fishery for subsequent supervised destruction, for example. There is a certain legal problem here because, although they are illegal, nets amount to private property. Nevertheless, private individuals, including licensed public inspectors… There are some legal snags here, and lawyers should find a way of circumventing them. But it would be great if public inspectors were allowed to confiscate illegally installed nets lacking tags and other markings and to take such nets to the local agency office. This would amount to real work because our fishermen’s club in the regions… Its members are doing some real work. In some cases, they act independently or together with the Federal Agency for Fishery. Do you see what I mean? But they must receive some additional rights, and we must help them in this work.

And here is another important issue. Mr Voskresensky was absolutely right about the spawning season. This country does not regulate it in any way… How shall I put it? Every spring, hydro-technical facilities discharge substantial amounts of water. This happens during the spawning season. The water discharges can be very rapid and the ups and downs in the water level have a devastating impact on the fish population. We need some kind of oversight here. I don’t know whether it should be executed by the government, the Federal Agency for Fishery or some other agency, but we need to keep an eye on this process. This rather short time period is very important. If we miss it, then all fishermen know that we have missed the spawning season... Sorry, I wanted to use an expletive here. 

Vladimir Putin: Please tell us.

Andrei Medvedev: We have screwed up the spawning season.

Vladimir Putin: You should not restrain your sincere emotions.

Andrei Medvedev: Yes, and if we miss it now, then the fish population in the Volga River will decline considerably next year. How can this be accomplished? I think you should make a decision on this issue.

Alexander Voskresensky: May I add something on this issue?

Vladimir Putin: Sure, go ahead.

Alexander Voskresensky: We had a situation… I represent the Moscow Sport Fishing Federation, and we hold most of our competitions in Moscow and the Moscow Region. We had contacted the Mosvodokanal (Moscow Water Canal) agency, which regulates water levels in the Moscow Region, on the water discharge issue. And we were told that they lacked any criteria for assessing the influence of water discharges, timeframes, etc. on biological resources. I understand, they have other things to do. Mr Putin, perhaps we should try to include this among the department’s responsibilities?

Vladimir Putin: Mr Voksresensky, Mr Medvedev, frankly speaking, I’ve never heard about this before. But if such a problem exists, then we will solve it in a rather simple way. I will instruct both departments to improve these criteria and the relevant work coordination procedure. In some cases, water discharges are required due to other considerations, for safety reasons, and this will probably play the lead. But they are absolutely capable of coordinating their work as a matter of  routine. We will do this.

Alexei Tsessarsky (chairman of the Union of Fishermen inter-regional public organisation): May I explain some criteria? Simply…

Vladimir Putin: Here is what we will now do. We will give you the floor in your turn, all right?

Alexei Tsessarsky: The subject will become irrelevant.  

Vladimir Putin: All right, good, go ahead. Alexei Tsessarsky has the floor.

Alexei Tsessarsky: The experts at the Federal Agency for Fishery can calculate damage inflicted on water biological resources. Such water discharges are a major problem which causes caviar and roe to dry up on the shore. The Federal Agency for Fishery should simply send its experts, who would do some calculating, and then…

Vladimir Putin: I see. They will assess this. I will instruct both departments on this issue today, and I will instruct one of the deputy prime ministers to oversee this. We will work out the criteria with regard to possible damage to biological resources, technological specifics linked with the operation of hydro-technical facilities, and we will also improve the algorithm of such departments’ cooperation. I think that it will be impossible to accomplish this in one day. The relevant instruction can be issued in one day, but it will take more time to look into this matter… I don’t know how long it will take, but this will require some time. But I have no doubt that they will do this.

Vladimir Petrushin, please.

Vladimir Petrushin (president of the Federal Fisheries Union): Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Good afternoon, colleagues. My name is Vladimir Petrushin, and I’m a member of the public organisation Opora Rossii, which supports small and medium-sized businesses. We have also joined the Russian Popular Front. So, the Union of Hunters and Fishermen is not the only member of the Front.

Mr Putin, I represent the interests of hundreds of small fishing companies, primarily from the Moscow Region, which organise fishing tours to small water bodies that have no fish of their own and all of their fish is brought over from other regions. I will not complain, our business is doing well and continues to expand. Fishermen like our tours very much. They bring their entire families along. To do such companies credit, they turn fishing into a family pastime. It is very important to involve children and wives, as well as mothers-in-law, grandmothers and grandfathers, in fishing because it is a wonderful pastime.

Vladimir Putin: It’s always important to involve mothers-in-law. If you send your mothers-in-law on a fishing trip, you don’t have to go anywhere. Just stay at home and enjoy yourself.

Vladimir Petrushin: Nevertheless, Mr Putin, we have some proposals concerning the draft law and the relevant amendments to this document. So, here is what we propose. First of all, the law should introduce the concept of “recreational fishing companies”, which would describe the activity of hundreds, if not thousands, of small fishing companies now in existence. Such companies are primarily called on to transform small, neglected water bodies that no one needs because they have no fish, into a community recreation site. The companies release fish into the water body, improve the shoreline, build a small restaurant and create the entire infrastructure, so that people find it comfortable to spend their leisure time there.

We have compiled a business survey. The Moscow Region’s demand for amateur fishing in this format has been met by just 30%. These are frightening statistics. This highlights tremendous growth prospects here. The business community wants to invest in this very interesting sphere. Unfortunately, there are no clear and transparent mechanisms for renting such a water body and clarifying the coordination of specific issues with the concerned agencies, etc.

Vladimir Putin: Wait a minute. To the best of my knowledge, some water bodies are being leased out.

Remark: Yes, Mr Putin, that’s what he has in mind.

Vladimir Petrushin: Let me explain. At present, such small companies are covered by legislation for the fishing sector. My colleagues and myself believe that it’s impossible to compare a 100 kilometre fishing sector on Taimeneva Rechka in the Khabarovsk Territory and a small three hectare pond, and to apply the same regulations and principles to them. These are different things, and they need different principles and different approaches. Consequently, recreational facilities must be singled out as a separate category. I think that no one sitting at this table will say anything against such companies. Notably, the Union of Fishermen and the Union of Hunters and Fishermen will not oppose this in any way. They are very popular and in demand.

Here is another proposal, probably the most important proposal for us. We want to formalise private property rights on fish being purchased by businesses in various Russian regions and being delivered to the place where it is to be released into a water body used by amateur fishermen. Current legislation implies that once released, the fish belongs to the state, rather than to us. Consequently, we have to once again apply to the concerned agencies for the quotas and permits enabling us to catch our own fish. This situation must be rectified. Incidentally, the proposed draft law stipulates such provisions, which were initiated by us.

Vladimir Putin: Especially if, as you have said, these are small water bodies which have been improved using the companies’ own funding.

Vladimir Petrushin: Absolutely right. There is no other fish there. All fish is delivered to these water bodies from other regions.

Andrei Krainy: Excuse me, Mr Petrushin. This issue is already covered in the draft law. This is what Vladimir is talking about.

Vladimir Petrushin: That’s right. We have already proposed it and submitted.

Vladimir Putin: Have you already included these provisions?

Vladimir Petrushin: Yes, we have, although these provisions should probably be modified somewhat, because the draft law has been changed several times. Nevertheless, the main points are there.

I will not take any more of your time. We have a lot of questions regarding veterinary clearance and fish transportation control. There are many excessive provisions there. In some cases, we have to spend months coordinating various issues and obtaining certificates from various departments. This is being done in order to allow us to deliver fish to some region and to release it into a water body. It is not right when, for example, a fish consignment arrives from Karelia or the Volgograd Region, where it has already received the veterinary clearance certificates… Why do I have to obtain additional permits and to coordinate additional issues for this specific consignment, in order to deliver it and release it into a pond, so that people can catch it? Please note that the procedure of obtaining the required permits takes 30 days. These are very difficult procedural norms. I have repeatedly told the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection and veterinary control agency about this at various conferences.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, we have noted more than once that there are excessive provisions for amateur and professional fishermen. You have even issued an instruction to eliminate this barrier and to transport fish nationwide with the right to catch fish. No veterinary certificates are required. Such previously non-existent certificates were introduced in 2004.

Vladimir Putin: Please draft the relevant resolution.

Andrei Krainy: We will.

Vladimir Putin: Please do this without coordinating any issues.

Andrei Krainy: We need to put an end to this.

Vladimir Putin: Please bring it on January 16 or 17.

Andrei Krainy: Good.

Vladimir Petrushin: In conclusion, I would like to say the following. We also have many questions about the organisation of tenders for the right to conclude water utilisation agreements under recreational projects. For instance, if we get a fishing ground, a small pond for establishing such a facility, we are also forced to sign a water utilisation agreement under recreational projects. This means that we must build piers, boat pontoons, etc. In my opinion, current provisions open a lot of opportunities for corruption. I have already won a fishing ground tender, I have leased a water body for my personal use in order to set up such a facility. I am addressing the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment or the local branch of the Ministry of Environment, depending on the region, which hold their own tenders. Even the existence of my own land plot and fishing ground on that water body does not influence the results of the tender in any way, and any other company from another region that does not own land or the required fishing ground can take part in the tender. What happens? A representative of this company comes along during the tender and offers a certain amount for them to withdraw from the tender…

Vladimir Putin: On your body of water?

Vladimir Petrushin: Of course.

Andrei Krainy: This is a question for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Vladimir Petrushin: This is for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Andrei Krainy: This is for the Ministry of Natural Resources. What he is saying is quite beyond the bounds of reason, and I agree with you absolutely. It looks like everything should be abolished and cancelled.

Vladimir Putin: Where is this set out? In what regulations?

Vladimir Petrushin: It is mentioned in some government resolutions. If needed I can … We have already prepared several times …

Vladimir Putin: What resolutions?

Vladimir Petrushin: If you are interested, I can e-mail them to you.

Vladimir Putin: I am, of course, interested. This is why we have gathered here.

Andrei Krainy: It is more about local initiative than government resolutions.

Vladimir Petrushin: Quite so.

Vladimir Putin: I would just like to be clear on something: are these government or regional resolutions? And if they’re regional, on what are they based?

Vladimir Petrushin: This is a government resolution. It is mainly concerned with …

Vladimir Putin: What resolution? Has there been any such resolution?

Vladimir Petrushin: Unfortunately, I don’t have it with me.

Vladimir Putin: Perhaps there is no such resolution. And you are falsely accusing the government?

Vladimir Petrushin: They may be misleading us. Anything is possible.

Andrei Krainy: But they hold auctions.

Vladimir Petrushin: Yes, they do hold auctions.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Petrushin, prepare a memo for us, please, and then we will report back to Mr Putin because this is madness…

Vladimir Petrushin: Of course, of course.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Krainy, let’s say Tuesday or Wednesday.

Andrei Krainy: Great.

Vladimir Putin: And the first item which is already prepared …

Andrei Krainy: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: And this one, too. OK?

Andrei Krainy: Yes, sir.

Vladimir Putin: Find where this is set out.

Vladimir Petrushin: Thank you for your time, Mr Putin.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. Mr Polukhin, you have the floor.

Mikhail Polukhin (chairman of the Moscow branch of the Anglers Union inter-regional public organisation): Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Good afternoon, colleagues. About the law – briefly. When we look at the draft law… we see that the first principle, one of the fundamental points in it, is about paying for recreational and sport fishing activity, something most people immediately resent.

Vladimir Putin: That is understandable.

Mikhail Polukhin: It is set out right from the start. The principle is not one of resource conservation, not of recreation, but of payment. This is the point on which I would like to dwell. We believe that terms such as “fishing site or holding for recreational fishing activity” or “recreational fishing organiser” are not needed. Recreational angling need not be organised. Anglers themselves are in a position to arrange how they practice their hobby. What they need is services: a service base, all kinds of services. Naturally, the concept of a “fishing sites, holdings, grounds” for recreational angling has been strongly resisted. If we eliminate these things… What is in all our interests? Having fish in the rivers and being able to go fishing, not from among nets, but from clean riverbanks.

Vladimir Putin: So that you could take a commuter train, go to sit somewhere aland and fish without anybody interfering. That is what we need.

Mikhail Polukhin: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Have you seen the final text as per today?

Mikhail Polukhin: We saw the text dated September 19, if I am not mistaken. I have not seen an amended text. I do not know …

Vladimir Putin: Are there any amendments, Mr Krainy?

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, there are some. Many of my colleagues have been talking about exactly that, it’s been dealt with. Our colleague Mr Voskresensky has prepared a case study for us as you asked. I will cite it if you permit. It is recommended to keep vouchers only for bodies of water that are home to valuable fish species. To introduce a catch quota …

Vladimir Putin: Listen. As for valuable species it is all clear. You could release three young salmon in a body of water and claim that it is stocked with highly valuable fish species.

Andrei Krainy: No, Mr Putin, three young salmon in a body of water, that just doesn’t happen.

Vladimir Putin: You should be more careful. Perhaps we should set up some boundaries, as you mentioned on the Kola Peninsula?

Andrei Krainy: Yes, the Kola Peninsula. In European Russia, it is only this peninsula and nothing else. And two or three rivers in Siberia…

Vladimir Putin: Can they be expressly named?

Andrei Krainy: The Far East. Shall I enumerate the rivers or sections of them? The lower reaches of the Amur may be written into the law, for example. That’s no problem.

Vladimir Putin: Their geographical names must be indicated.

Andrei Krainy: Agreed.

Vladimir Putin: Because if you fail to use their proper, geographical names, relying on other features to identify them, it’ll be hell later.

Andrei Krainy: Agreed.

As you are aware, Mr Putin, we have – I do not know if my colleague has seen the latest version – a very transparent norm when we speak of fishing sites, grounds. Look at what we have. A region establishes a ground, but the region sets up a commission on a parity basis, with an equal number of representatives from the region and from public organisations, fifty-fifty. Then public consultations ensue even if the public organisations agree. And the Federal Agency for Fishery still has the right to use its veto to avoid the situation you outlined in your opening remarks, when the Perm Territory gave 47% for fishing grounds. So I am ready. We held a lengthy discussion today before meeting with you. We invited our colleagues to show the final version of the draft available currently. Perhaps some of the issues will resolve themselves.

Vladimir Putin: I am not so sure. I understand Mr Polukhin is apprehensive about the concept of fishing sites, grounds in general.

Mikhail Polukhin: I am not apprehensive about new concepts being introduced; I just feel that fishing grounds are unnecessary for recreational angling … So now I think …

Vladimir Putin: That they are not necessary.

Mikhail Polukhin: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: But Mr Petrushin described some recreational fish farms.

Mikhail Polukhin: Excellent farms.

Vladimir Putin: Excellent indeed. People came, rented a small pond, paid, made improvements and released fish into it. Anyone who wants to go there, pay a fee and spend time fishing, and visit a good, cosy restaurant, are certainly welcome. But if I just want to take a bus, a commuter or long-distance train, even a plane, and do a bit of angling wherever I want, why should I have to go anywhere for a permit? If poaching of some kind or other is involved, there must be people to enforce the law. These people should be on hand, and these services must be strengthened.

Andrei Krainy: We have your directive and I think the government will adopt the resolution in January or February.

Vladimir Putin: So my understanding of what you said was correct? I agree, in fact.

Alexei Barinov: May I say a few words, Mr Putin? When we speak of recreational fishing activity, the main criterion here is what does a “small pond” mean.

Vladimir Putin: Agreed.

Alexei Barinov: In one region a small pond may cover 100 hectares, and in another… Here, we must formulate the technical details. This is the most important thing if we want to avoid further …

Vladimir Putin: Yes, quite. And then you know what matters? If Mr Petrushin represents here an organisation combining small and medium businesses… What does this mean? It means that people come and invest money into transforming a pond into the required condition, and stocking it with fish, so they put their own money into the project. But talking of fishing grounds, no one, as a rule, invests anything into them. They just stake off a stretch of river or sea or large pond, and that is it – they set themselves up, sit back and “reap their rewards”, as some say.

Vladimir Petrushin: May I?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Vladimir Petrushin: Your remark was most apt. Just a few statistics: I have four fishing farms with a staff of 300 in the Moscow Region. They earn on average 45,000 roubles a month – which is quite a decent sum. In a year I sell about 500 tonnes of delicious Russian fish from my four farms. These are important social things as well.

Vladimir Putin: And what do you feed your fish with?

Vladimir Petrushin: We do not feed them, we bring them in adult and release them into the water. They are reared in Karelia …

Vladimir Putin: But they must eat something, surely?

Vladimir Petrushin: Certainly not, or they’d never bite. We release them hungry, and recreational anglers …

Vladimir Putin: But they eat something, they cannot …

Vladimir Petrushin: There is natural feed, of course.

Vladimir Putin: Exactly.

Vladimir Petrushin: Worms and bugs.

Vladimir Putin: What bugs? He is having us on. How many worms and bugs would have to be dug up to feed them?

Vladimir Petrushin: The main objective is to ensure they bite, giving the anglers what they want. For the angler the main thing is catching fish, he will forgive anyone and anything to get that.

Vladimir Putin: That’s true. Mr Polukhin, have you finished?

Mikhail Polukhin: I would like to highlight one point which is not connected with the law, but which relates to state aid, because there is talk that the government lacks the funds to protect all the bodies of water. My hobby takes me to many regions, and many regional clubs want to help fish protection agencies to bring order to our watercourses, but they come up against opposition from local fishery agencies, perhaps I use incorrect names but I actually fishery protection agencies. In other words, they try to carry out spot checks to protect bodies of water against poachers’ nets, but encounter resistance from officials in fishery agencies who refuse to deal with them. Despite the fact that regional clubs offer technical and staffing help, the authorities refuse to cooperate. Perhaps some instructions should be issued so they cooperate with public organisations and clubs?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I already made a note for myself about this, and colleagues have spoken here about the role public organisations play, and I think Mr Krainy favours the re-establishment of public inspection offices and inspectors and giving them certain rights. I think this should be done. The point is to avoid any abuse. We should state the procedure, rights and duties clearly and precisely. That is beyond doubt and this is certainly much needed.

Andrei Medvedev: It will work.

Vladimir Putin: It will work, I don’t doubt it, and I think it will help put official organisations in order.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, I can offer some details here, this re-establishment has already taken place. It is another matter that things develop differently in different cities. We already have two thousand public inspectors. But Mr Medvedev mentioned an important point – the right to confiscate nets. It is a complex area, but he was right to note that they are private property. In the Soviet Union, the public had a right to draw up statements, which were then signed by a state fishery protection inspector. But members of the public could draw them up. Yet when Mr Polukhin says that the clubs wish to participate in spot checks, it seems logical to me they should first submit an application saying “Please accept me as …” or on a recommendation of a regional organisation: “Please sign me up as a public inspector”, receive a card and only then go on a spot check.

Vladimir Putin: But that is exactly what we are talking about: reviving all this, giving these inspectors certain status, rights and duties and laying down powers and responsibilities.  

Andrei Krainy: That seems fair.

Vladimir Putin: My colleagues are right, this should be done, and this can be done in law, giving it a different legal basis.

Mikhail Polukhin: I would like to clarify one point. There are clubs that have been fighting poachers for years, and their members do not have public inspector status. Nonetheless, when they participate in joint raids with officials from the Federal Agency for Fishery, they go to areas where the poachers do not set up their nets, that’s a fact. Yet the Federal Agency for Fishery officials do not consider it necessary to inspect spawning streams, when there are many nets, for example in spring. It does not really work.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Polukhin, if we are to tackle this situation we will need clear signals regarding each location.

Vladimir Putin: This is not an isolated case. I think Mr Polukhin is right. I know what I’m talking about. I do not want to dwell much on this point in public, but this is not an isolated case. It is a good proposal. Let us consider it.

Mr Tsessarsky, (addressing Alexei Tsessarsky) please go ahead.

Alexander Voskresensky: Excuse me, can I add something on this point, Mr Putin?

Vladimir Putin: Please do.

Alexander Voskresensky: Andrei Krainy and I had an additional proposal regarding public inspectors. Of course, the local Federal Agency for Fishery directorate is to decide who can be appointed as public inspectors. Maybe we should have a quota for public organisations…

Vladimir Putin: Mr Voskresensky, I suggest we do not include this point in our current discussion, because it requires a separate discussion. It should be adopted into law. It requires consideration, discussion, after which it should become law. It needs to be worked out. It needs to be drafted into law at the appropriate level, with every word in the right place.

Please go ahead, Mr Tsessarsky.

Alexei Tsessarsky (Chairman of the Fishermen’s Union inter-regional public organisation): I want to say a few words on the same point, to clarify it. The fact is there is this concept of public inspectors. Public inspectors used to play an active role. For example, there was the Russian Environmental Protection Society. It had its certified inspectors who were authorised to draw up legal documents and even seize weapons. I happened to be a member of a Moscow State University environmental protection student group and this is just what we did, we had the relevant authority. Later the Code on Administrative Offences changed, and these authorities vanished. Now, as for what Mr Krainy said. I would like to lob another accusation at the Federal Agency for Fishery. There is a Federal Agency for Fishery decree on part-time inspectors. This is a completely different matter, it does not concern public inspectors, these are volunteers helping the Federal Agency for Fishery. I feel this decree should be reviewed because it is more like… Under this decree, the status of a part-time inspector is something like that of a secret service officer: forbidden from divulging information obtained in working hours, and obliged to report back to the local directorate leadership every fortnight. That’s on the one hand. Of course, some order is needed, but it acts as a constraint on public initiative. On the other hand, the aforementioned problem exists. Frequently the Federal Agency for Fishery’s local branch does not want to have contact with the fishermen who are keen to participate in the fight against poaching. Moreover, here is a recent example. A public organisation called Strizh operates in the Tomsk Region. At its own risk, it would remove traps from deep holes for wintering fish. They would clear dozens of kilometres of the River Ob of these barbaric hooked traps used to catch sturgeon. The territorial directorate filed a petition with the Prosecutor’s Office alleging that their activity was illegal, because they were acting on private property, and they had no right to do that. The legal dispute took a while, and they finally arrived at a consensus, the territorial directorate proposed to carry this work out jointly. As a result of this collaboration, the number of traps collected plummeted at least ten-fold, which meant that information was being leaked to the local poaching community, effectively rendering all their raids ineffective. This is a problem.   

I do not want to unequivocally blame local bodies of the Federal Agency for Fishery, because one should bear in mind that this inspection office is working under adverse conditions. First – their ridiculous wages. But the main thing is that the inspectors, as a rule, live cheek by jowl with the poachers. So, say an inspector lives in the same village as them, and the poachers set up their nets on the body of water which he is duty-bound to protect. Well, that’s life, he understands that… 

Vladimir Putin: That his job is to drive away poachers from elsewhere?

Alexei Tsessarsky: Yes. In many cases, poachers have used measures of physical coercion against inspectors. Well, the situation is clear. And given this situation, a public inspection office is even more of an urgent matter, because this is a No.1 problem that needs to be tackled at a legislative level. The current draft law does not include adequate provisions.   

And now as for the draft law, the current situation in general. So, we have…

Vladimir Putin: Let’s… I would like to repeat this: set it out as you feel necessary, discuss it with your colleagues, pass it to us, we will look into it. It does not mean that everything that is set out will make it into law; it needs to be examined, lawyers will have to consider it, the rights and obligations will have to be gone into, as has been said here, as will relations with official bodies. But I agree with you that some room for independent action is necessary, a link with state bodies is of course necessary, but the work carried out by these organisations should be independent, you are absolutely right on that. Let us put our heads together about how it should be formulated in the law.

Alexei Tsessarsky: We have a great inheritance of relevant material from a previous age, under the Soviet Union, when all this existed, and we can draw on it, I think…

Vladimir Putin: If, for example, we classify this net as a weapon, as some people have suggested here, at least nominally, then in analogy with the Soviet period, if the inspectors had the right to seize and confiscate weapons, it means they would be in a position to seize nets. There is nothing special here, we should all think about this just to rule out discrepancies. But generally speaking, why not?

Alexei Tsessarsky: If I could continue. Regarding the broader situation involving recreational fishery. The first thing I want to say is: our media has said numerous times that fishing is free in Russia. Unfortunately, this is not the case. They make people pay for fishing. This caused a wave of protests in spring, the law was suspended, but still there are a great many fishing grounds that offer no services to fishermen other than selling fishing passes for catching a certain quantity of fish. And the Federal Agency for Fishery actively participates in this business through fishery management directorates for the protection and reproduction of fish basins, fish stock, or fish farms. For example, in Krasnoyarsk Territory, of 209 recreational fishing grounds (my error margin is approximately one or two grounds) 126 fishing grounds are the property of Yeniseirybvod which indeed charges for recreational fishing. It is a publically funded organisation that profits from recreational fishing.

Vladimir Putin: How does it charge payment? On what grounds?

Alexei Tsessarsky: It sells fishing vouchers, which is stipulated in fishing rules.

Vladimir Putin: So we still have vouchers, do we?

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, we are now talking about the draft law that has been submitted to the government. The provision that has generated so much publicity exists de jure, as I have said above. Fishing vouchers exist de jure, so when…

Alexei Tsessarsky: I am talking about the existing law on fishing.

Vladimir Putin: …which was adopted in 2010.

Andrei Krainy: Yes, the one adopted in 2010.

Vladimir Putin: So we must approve amendments and cancel…

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, maybe we should proceed in two stages? First, we need a week to prepare for aboloshingclause 5 of Article 24 about fishing vouchers.

Vladimir Putin: Certainly.

Andrei Krainy: And taking into account today’s discussion, we can prepare and make amendments to the draft law we’ve been talking about today within two or three weeks.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s do it.

Andrei Krainy: You see, people confuse things all the time. Some colleagues are talking about the existing law, while others speak about the draft law…

Vladimir Putin: If the application of the existing law has led to these consequences, why do we need it in this part?

Alexei Tsessarsky: We spent a long time trying to understand the idea behind fishing sites or holdings. No one could explain it clearly. Moreover, it was initially argued that recreational fishermen are dissatisfied with the provision and that the number of such holdings should be cut to a certain percentage. Where will this take us? We were told that fishing holdings should be established to attract business, which would save the water bodies. But now it is suggested that the overall share of such holdings should be small, around 5%. What will happen with the all other water bodies then? This means that the principle is ineffective. Yet the draft law stipulates that the existing sites should remain effective until July 2013.

Andrei Krainy: Yes, until the law comes into force. It depends on all of us. The sooner we complete the draft and submit it, the sooner will the State Duma adopt it. As soon as the law is adopted, the fishing sites or holdings will be invalidated.

Alexei Tsessarsky: Alright. I would also like to draw your attention to two other issues.

The first concerns public organisations. I think that if we really want to have an effective law we should, first, shift the centre of gravity to the regions and second, ensure that fishermen are involved in decision-making. This is the first issue that is not covered in the draft law, although Mr Krainy has said here that the new wording has a provision on conciliation commissions, which did not exist in the previous draft.

Andrei Krainy: This should be the joint responsibility of regional authorities and public organisations. But I would like to return to an issue that was mentioned by somebody earlier: in this case we will have to introduce a quota for public organisations. What do I mean? One organisation like the one represented here by Mr Bendersky has 1.5 or even 1.7 million members, …

Eduard Bendersky: Nearly two million members.

Andrei Krainy: So, nearly two million. But some organisations may have only 200 or 300 members. These are not two equal organisations, and so giving them equal rights doesn’t seem… I am not sure that this would be right, if you see what I mean. One is a nucleus organisation and the other an organisation comprising 10% of recreational fishermen. We should find a way to depict this aspect in the draft law.

Alexei Tsessarsky: There is one more aspect specific to Russia in particular, which has a huge territory and huge biodiversity. This means that we need to consider different principles for different regions. Compare the Kola Peninsula to the Astrakhan Region. I think you see what I mean. The de facto conditions of the recreational fishing business also differ dramatically from region to region.

So, what do I want to say about the draft law? I don’t think we should hurry to adopt it because it was drafted hastily. And then, I’d like to remind you about the initial draft, which also stipulated fishing sites and had all the other conception elements incorporated in the existing law. After President Medvedev met with fishermen in Astrakhan last August, he instructed that the draft law be reviewed so as to prevent discontent among fishermen. Miraculously, the draft was turned upside down within a matter of two weeks, and now it stipulates fishing cards and fishing quotas – but no fishing sites. They have not been outlawed temporarily , but de facto there are no such sites anymore.

I believe that such important documents should be considered more thoroughly with the involvement of the Federal Agency for Fishey and all other related agencies, such as the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources and possibly the Ministry of Sport, Tourism and Youth Policy, which should be directly concerned with sport and recreational fishing. In general, I believe that recreational fishing… The government should give proper attention to it, to understand that it is not just a form of recreation but an instrument for promoting patriotism in society and also drawing young people away from drugs, drinking and other destructive behaviour. Those who go fishing sit on a bank of a water body and have enough time to look around and see that they love everything around them. They become true patriots of their area and are concerned about what happens to these water bodies. So this is a task of federal importance. Look at recreational fishing in Europe and America, where governments have programmes for supporting fishing among young people and developing recreational fishing. I think that we should take this aspect into account. I know that there are more important issues and tasks, yet we should not overlook this issue either. I’d like to say again about the draft law that we should not hurry to submit it to the State Duma but take more time to work on it.

Vladimir Putin: Have you drafted your proposals?

Alexei Tsessarsky: When this work started last spring, we drafted a law as an alternative to the one on which the Federal Agency for Fishery was working. But since then part of our proposals has been incorporated into a present draft law. We could submit an improved version of our draft in a short while, using it as a basis for constructive discussions…

Vladimir Putin: Yes, let’s do it. Any law, not just the law on recreational fishing, should be drafted properly. This law is no exception to this rule, because it regulates a substantial part of social relations and concerns millions of people. However, we could approve certain provisions rather quickly. Take these fishing sites – who needs them? I don’t understand where the fees are transferred. Who collects the money and where does it go?

Andrei Krainy: Money is collected by the organisers of recreational fishing at these existing sites. I cannot agree with Mr Tsessarsky that we should not hurry. You see, if we terminate only Clause 5 of Article 24 on fishing vouchers, we will put the problem on ice: the fishing sites will continue to exist and nothing will change in the regions. You say that we should hand over these powers to the regions, but look what they are doing: the Perm Territory authorities have set aside 47% of water bodies for commercial fishing, while the river banks in Kazan have been divided into fishing sites by decision of the local government.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, the region came up with it but you're the ones who gave them the opportunity to do so.

Alexei Tsessarsky: Mr Putin, it was planned so that we do not have the right to veto; there was no provision for that in the law.

Vladimir Putin: A poor plan then.

Alexei Tsessarsky: Fair point! This is why I suggest that we upgrade the bill without delay, without waiting another two or three weeks to do so. The team we have here will be enough for the job or some other people could be invited to provide an additional analysis of the proposals that we have heard today and are yet to hear.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Tsessarsky, can you give me the proposals?

Ms Orlova, you are an angler too, aren’t you? Please, take the floor.

Svetlana Orlova: First, the Popular Front was engaged in an active discussion of this draft law on August 26 in Astrakhan, and many of my colleagues who participated in that discussion are here today. Many amendments were suggested and some of them were considered. Mr Putin, as to what wasn't considered and what is causing the most anxiety... You were absolutely right in saying that the commercial fishing grounds are the biggest irritant. Practically everyone was outraged. There are 1,300 commercial fishing grounds in Russia that are being put up for sale: not a single one has been withdrawn from tenders on account of violations. Why the fishing passes? Tourist companies will immediately join this voucher scheme and impose additional charges. People are outraged.

Next point. As my colleagues said, there are almost 25 million amateur fishermen, including whole families. This movement has long-standing traditions of its own. Incidentally, Mr Putin, I was surprised to learn that a lot of women are also actively involved in sport and recreational fishing.

One more point. We agreed that the second clause would be deleted from Article 3, as Mr Tsessarsky and Mr Polukhin said. I mean the paragraph about paid fisheries. Mr Krainy, it is written in black and white here that the clause on fees has been left intact, while we agreed that you would drop it.

The next point is poaching. Virtually everyone is worried about it. Everyone said this should be covered by a separate article, Mr Putin, because poaching is a scourge. No amount of licensing will outlaw the use of fishing nets. It is bureaucrats that are in charge of licensing and where there are bureaucrats there is extortion. We should have an administrative punishment for that, as you rightly said.

Next point – Karelia. They do not want to divide Lake Onega into commercial fishing grounds. They all stood together as one, invited the press: the journalists were in contact with us. They are adamant that this is unacceptable for them. Sakhalin and Kamchatka are concerned over the fate of the red salmon: another five years of this predatory fishing and there won't be any left.

No one mentioned underwater hunting. There is an article on this, but it imposes no restrictions, which is also a serious topic relevant to the draft law. We have already covered a number of points. We could scold Mr Krainy and possibly he should be scolded, but he deserves credit for having toiled away for five hours at those hearings, where he answered many questions. Social activists should be mentioned as well. But, you know, there are different public organisations uniting different social activists. Who is discussing the matter most actively in the Internet? Many public organisations are not active. But why don’t you discuss this actively in the Internet and Twitter? Today every bill is discussed openly before it is submitted to parliament. Mr Putin said, too, that not a single law would be approved unless it had been openly discussed. So, let us do it this way: the text has been posted on the website for two months, but virtually no one has sent in any proposals. If there are some, let us discuss them article by article and edit them jointly. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. Mr. Samsonov (addressing Vladimir Samsonov), please, you have the floor.

Vladimir Samsonov (member of Rusfishing.Ru, national Internet fishing club): Mr Putin, colleagues, we have gone over virtually the entire range of issues that were raised, urgent and important issues. I would like to focus on what we have not talked about. Strange though it may seem, I mean the promotion of proper fishing, both sport and recreational. This is a very important issue. The old recreational fishing traditions are on their way out, and are being replaced by catch quotas and sport fishing. There is a growing awareness that our rivers are not bottomless and that biological resources are dwindling. And this is what makes the promotion of competent fishing in the social networks and elsewhere so important. People must learn the correct angling methods to minimize damage to our waters. After all, we go fishing for pleasure. You know, I was terrified by a photograph in the Internet that showed two burly blokes standing next to a flash, expensive car, in front of which they had arranged 50 carps, each weighing between 8 and 12 kilos. I was itching to grab my gun! Why would you need those 50 carps? This is about the lower reaches of the Volga. It was painful to see… I often travel to Astrakhan myself and fishing gives me a lot of pleasure. But I release the fish I catch; I do not see them as a source of food. For me, it is just pleasure.

Now let me speak about the Kola Peninsula, Astrakhan, Kamchatka, and Sakhalin. To my mind, we should introduce a special fishing regime in those areas and draw up fishing rules and regulations to fit the local conditions. The Astrakhan Region and the Kola Peninsula are unique areas, you can count similar ones on the fingers of one hand. The governor of the Astrakhan Region must have told you that it is high time we introduced restrictions on the number of fishermen. This tiny stretch of the delta is too small a place for two million of them. I know that as the head of a tourist firm that organises fishing tours I will be accused of having made a cartel deal with the holiday centres. But, believe me, there is no cartel deal. It is just that we know the current condition of the delta.

Vladimir Putin: But the delta is not that small. It is 290 kilometres wide.

Vladimir Samsonov: Yes, but two million people… Do you see my point Mr Putin? If there is some oversight over fishermen accommodated at the holiday centres – and local laws should prescribe that the owners regulate the fishermen’s catches – then those who come on their own are totally uncontrolled. Add to this the tons and tons of rubbish that the Astrakhan Region has to clean up and recycle. It is a real problem: the delta is on the verge of collapse. Another five years, and we will lose it as a fishery area.

Where Law No.166 is concerned… Let me mention just one aspect. Two or three months from now, the spawning season will begin. We must immediately ban the open sale of fishing-nets and netting materials. The so-called Chinese nets are a scourge. There were cases where people were getting entangled in the netting that was clogging the water. A person would dive headlong from a catwalk and get caught in a net. If it is a triple net, he is as good as dead. The waters are crisscrossed with these nets in all directions. They are a scourge, Mr Putin, they are worse than locusts. The fish are rotting. The fish begin migrating because there is no oxygen. You see, the waters near Moscow… They should be cleaned with a drag anchor. There is not a single body of water without poachers’ nets. The sale of fishing nets must be licensed. We should put up a barrier at that level. I fully agree with Mr Krainy on that. It is an urgent problem! As soon as the spawning season starts in ice-free waters, poachers will turn up en masse to install the nets. We are ready to join in the effort and participate in sweep-and-clean operations. I think that the Fishermen’s Union is ready to do the same in conjunction with the Directorate for Fishery Protection. We are ready to keep vigil. We want the fish to stay in the water.

And I’d like to stress once again the importance of promoting competent sport fishing. It must be promoted! We have some fishery TV channels in this country, but they are subscription channels, you have to pay for them. We need to bring this to the masses. People have to be taught to behave in tune with nature. This is incredibly important. Our generation is old enough to know that our waters have to be protected and that the shores need to be kept clean. But the young people… When they come to camp on the Oka, it is terrifying to see what they leave behind after they have gone. I would like the Government to pay attention to this point.

Mikhail Polukhin: I have a concrete proposal to make.

Vladimir Putin: Please do.

Mikhail Polukhin: If I am not mistaken, there are three or four organisations operating on the ground, or rather on the water. Mr Krainy, if I am mistaken, please help me out. These are the Directorate for Fishery Protection, the State Small Boat Inspectorate (SSBI), the Water Police, and possibly something else. What is it?

Andrei Krainy: The Environmental Prosecutor’s Office…

Mikhail Polukhin: That’s right, the Environmental Prosecutor’s Office. So, on the one hand, people are complaining of being short of funds and resources, while on the other there are four organisations working in parallel on the water. Could they be merged in some way or other? After all, they perform near enough the same functions.

Vladimir Putin: Not quite so. The Prosecutor’s Office, for example, has its own specific functions and the environmental entity…

Andrei Krainy: You can hardly merge the Prosecutor’s Office and the Fishery Protection, but the SSBI and Fishery Protection…

Vladimir Putin: I have no objections.

Mikhail Polukhin: I don’t know anything about their specific functions. I know what they do. That’s why I made this suggestion.

Vladimir Putin: They are doing more or less the same thing, that’s true, but it's still something we can think about. Something like what we are doing on the border, where we cut the number of services that operate there.

Andrei Medvedev: Mr Putin, I have another specific proposal. They're right in saying that fishermen need more state support. In fact, there’s more of us than…

Remark: …anyone else out there.

Andrei Medvedev: This is the most popular recreational pastime in Russia. There are more recreational anglers in Russia than there are football fans. Yet they build stadiums for football fans, but don’t pay enough attention to anglers. Concerning concrete steps, perhaps we should… We can use your name and your support, or conduct a major catch and release contest with television coverage. Set up something along the lines of a mini nationwide project.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s do it. Where?

Andrei Medvedev: Where?

Remark: In Russia, where else?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, in Russia.

Andrei Medvedev: We will think about it. We are lacking state support for the organisation of such events.

Vladimir Putin: Support from the state?

Andrei Medvedev: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Good, Mr Medvedev, we will consider this.

Andrei Medvedev: Thank you.

Alexei Tsessarsky: In that case it should be a marathon across various regions.

Vladimir Putin: That’s one way of doing it. Anyway, let’s do it, it’ll be fun.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, our colleagues have raised a very important issue. We do have television programming that covers sport and recreational fishing on the channel 7TV. Other channels, paid ones, are not easy to access. Perhaps we should ask the Sport and Rossiya-2 channels to focus more attention on fishing? I can spot a few TV hosts right here in this room. There are people here who haven’t spoken, but have been fishing for a long time. There are even films about recreational fishing.

Vladimir Putin: All right, I will have a word with Mr Dobrodeyev today (Oleg Dobrodeyev, general director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company).

Andrei Krainy: Thank you.

Svetlana Orlova: Mr Putin, I support this proposal. You know, many families take their children out to some beautiful places in Russia and teach their children to love their Motherland. But this never gets to be shown on television, not even our best sports anglers. Alexei is absolutely right, and we can organise a marathon event across Russia. Let’s have a marathon with some nice prizes.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, let’s do it. I’m not against it, I’m all for it. This is a noble cause, and a beautiful one at that. Please, Mr Shcherbovich, go ahead.

Ilya Shcherbovich: My name is Ilya Shcherbovich. I represent the Russian Salmon Fund. I'd like to say a few words about promoting culture. Mr Putin, about five years ago your fishing trip with George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr was shown on television.

Vladimir Putin: Oh, yes, that was quite an exciting trip.

Ilya Shcherbovich: It was an interesting experience. They didn’t catch anything, but you did.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I did.

Ilya Shcherbovich: We were doubly happy about this. I’m here to tell you the other part of the story. First, it’s gratifying to know that the Russian president is a better angler than his American counterpart.

Vladimir Putin: I didn’t see the coverage of this story on TV, but I remember it.

Ilya Shcherbovich: The second part has to do with your releasing the bass that you caught.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Bush Sr is an avid angler. He drove the boat at over 100 km/h. Bush Jr and I have nearly fell out of the boat while he was driving.

Ilya Shcherbovich: Yes, Bush Sr is known for his love of fishing. Still, you released the bass. It was a meaningful signal for young Russian anglers. We have just spoken about the Kola Peninsula, Kamchatka and the Khabarovsk Territory. I’m not sure if everyone in this room knows that the catch-and-release arrangements with regard to valuable species of fish have not been practised for two years now, directly after these amendments had taken effect. But they were in place for about 15 – 20 years before. If you do a google search for “fishing in Russia,” your first search results will include the Kola Peninsula, Kamchatka and the Khabarovsk Territory. These areas are the crown jewel of Russia’s fishing grounds, the result of our work over the past 15 years.

I have a couple of short comments to make on this subject.  The last thing I want to happen is for this discussion to lead to the disappearance of fishing grounds. They are very helpful in promoting this recreational activity, environmental protection and associated small businesses. I would like for all of that to remain in place after the new law is adopted. My second point has to do with criticism of the Federal Agency for Fishery. I would like to say a few words in its defence. The draft law has been posted on the internet for almost two months, and there was the opportunity for anyone to make a comment on it. Now some people are running around trying to interpret all these things that different people have said. Our lawyers took their time and notarised the results of this internet study. I’m here to tell you that most of the respondents supported the agency’s draft law the way it is. It has a few shortcomings that need to be addressed, but saying that anglers were not given a chance to speak just isn’t fair. Our lawyers participated in over 20 meetings, including the federal agency and the Duma working group. I therefore believe it makes sense to finalise this draft law within the next week or two. Perhaps we should arrange for one or two conciliatory meetings, but I believe a great deal of work has been done already. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Speaking about fishery grounds, you have just mentioned the Kola Peninsula and the Far East. There are unique spots in the Volga estuary as well. Unique in the world! But regarding the rest, we should probably leave people to their own devices, shouldn't we?

Ilya Shcherbovich: The current draft law removes all fishery grounds except for these.

Vladimir Putin: The number of fishery grounds should also be limited there. Everything is clear with the unique areas. The state should protect its unique areas. But let me assure you… How many amateur anglers do we have in Russia? About 20-25 million? How many of them do you think go fishing to the Kola Peninsula or the Far East? People go fishing in places that are close to where they live.

Ilya Shcherbovich: Ten percent of them go to Astrakhan to fish.

Vladimir Putin: What about those who can afford to go from Moscow to the Far East? They can buy a pass or whatever it’s called. Still, things should be kept reasonable.

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, everything else is being removed in the draft law.

Vladimir Putin: So far, nothing has been removed. Mr Tsessarsky said that anglers go somewhere in Central Russia and are being charged for access to water.

Andrei Krainy: That’s what I’m talking about. We need to act faster, because otherwise things will remain as they are.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s act faster, then. That’s why we are here. Mr Chernushenko, do you have anything to add?

Alexei Chernushenko(member of the Commission on Improving the Regulatory Base for Sports and Recreational Fishing at the Federal Agency for Fishery): Good afternoon, Mr Putin and colleagues. It so happens that I’m the last to speak today, and we have already discussed the most important matters. There’s one thing that I’d like to bring up again and draw your attention to. We have discovered so many issues and so many people who have a stake in such a seemingly small draft law, on fishing. Fishing is something that we have always treated as fun in Russia, but we should indeed take a very close look at it.

Getting back to the issue of fishery inspectors, perhaps it makes sense to look more deeply into their powers and include environmental control in their job description. Everyone knows that the Cherepovets plant discharges huge amounts of toxic waste into the Rybinsk reservoir. It pays minimal fines for doing so, and this is okay with everybody. Things will stay this way unless we start a public discussion using mass media.

Secondly, I think everyone will agree that a good angler cannot be a bad person. He’s a person who truly loves his country, a real patriot. This is all about education. For many, it’s more than just a hobby. In fact, it’s more of a religion, which should be promoted at the highest government level. Thank you..

Vladimir Putin: Mr Bendersky began our discussion, and I suggest that he finish it too.

Eduard Bendersky: Thank you. I have made a special effort not to interfere with the discussion. However, I will take the liberty of casting light on several issues at the end of it. First, as a lawyer and a citizen, I believe that living in accordance with the law is preferable to living without law. We have had enough time to discuss the situation, and if the law has come out good, so much the better.  I believe we have enough time, including in the Duma committee, to finalise it. Still, it needs to be passed. The lack of a law hinders the growth of the industry, with all the consequences that go along with it. You have our proposals. Based on today’s discussion, I take it upon myself to finalise issues related to public organisations within one week.

My second point has to do with poaching. The thing is, fishing and hunting go hand in hand. Personally, I’m more of a hunter than an angler. However, this problem has industry-wide dimensions and even overflows into the issue of forest protection. This problem should be addressed by amending the Administrative Code. The law on fishing will not address this issue in full. There is a good illustration of this point, a case in which public forest rangers attempted to arrest a poacher. The poacher killed the two of them, and was later detained. The prosecutor officially prohibited the district society from carrying out protective actions, because it had no right to do so, and also with an eye toward heading off similar crimes in the future. Before 2004, we had the right to write up reports. We are trying to address the protection of hunting grounds along with the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any way you slice it, neither protective agencies, nor any other existing entities work in the way they are supposed to. The industry-wide law is still less likely to bring about any solution to this problem. Amending the Administrative Code is the only way to go. We (public inspectors) must be entitled to write up documents that carry legal weight. We will not pass procedural decisions, since this will be done by a duly authorised body or a court. However, public inspectors should be able to write up a document that such a duly authorised body will have to consider. Only then will we be able to persecute poachers wherever they go: on the water, in forests or on hunting grounds.

We face one problem, and it is system-wide.  We have studied self-regulation arrangements, because we are invariably confronted with the issue of how to lodge a claim. Are we supposed to allow just anyone to write up these reports? We have considered the issue from all angles. Certainly, we should have a list of rights and obligations. In general, the construct of a self-regulating organisation is acceptable, because it’s enshrined in law. However, this construct will only work if we amend the Administrative Code. If we don’t, we’ll achieve nothing through this law or the law on hunting.

Mr Putin, you said today and on earlier occasions that new decisions should not aggravate the situation with the existing system or existing organisations. We were among the first to join the Popular Front back in May. We have submitted our proposals, because we were asked to identify problems that affect large groups of people and come up with solutions. Today, the Russian Association of Hunters and Anglers has almost 2 million members. The Russian national sports association Dinamo and the Military Hunting Union are also part of our association. Budgeting is very important to us. This is the first time I've heard that the state allocates 2 billion roubles for our needs. We held a convention one month ago at which we summarised the results of our work. The amount of funds used by the association to address its statutory goals totals 2.1 billion roubles annually. We have managed to increase this amount by 2.5 times in a matter of five years, and we have expanded our statutory activities accordingly. The legal status that our membership card carries is very important to us. We have managed to reach an agreement with lawmaking authorities over the past three years, and we have postponed the contingent regulation until July 1, 2012. The government insists on issuing a uniform membership card. I can say that if the hunting membership card loses its status as document that carries legal weight, this will severely undermine the association’s status, bring down the vertical nature of governance and cause serious financial damage. I’m confident about this, Mr Putin. We submitted our proposals earlier but I’d like to give them to you today again. The system has been in place since 1982. If someone wants to become a licensed hunter, he clearly does not have to be a member of any public organisation. He can go ahead and obtain the state-issued hunting permit in accordance with the established procedure. But please leave us this right. Our public association uses all its funds for statutory purposes. We do not distribute any profits.

Vladimir Putin: What is your current proposal?

Eduard Bendersky: Keep only the hunting permit, effective July 1, 2012. We just need to exchange…

Vladimir Putin: What are the current arrangements?

Eduard Bendersky: In accordance with the government resulution, the procedure is as follows: if someone wants to obtain a free state-issued hunting permit, he can get one from the state. If he prefers to get this get permit through a public organisation, he is free to do so, since the hunting permit issued by our association can also be used as a document certifying the owner’s right to hunt. We have nothing to do with guns.

Vladimir Putin: Wait a minute, why July 1?

Eduard Bendersky: Well, the Law on Hunting took effect on April 1, 2009. This is a very acute issue, and we have ongoing disputes with lawmakers. Over the course of three years, we have managed to convince them that this regulation is of a contingent nature. However, lawmakers use all kinds of excuses… First, you can’t replace that many permits and, secondly, they realise that this issue affects the interests of 2 million hunters and, ultimately, the state will not have to pay anything for it. The state will just have to create an additional number of officials who will issue these permits. We have 23,000 grassroots organisations in Russia, with a presence in almost every district. Therefore, it is a very important status issue for us, and I believe it runs counter to today’s realities.

Vladimir Putin: Who will take over this right under the newly adopted law?

Eduard Bendersky: Duly authorised regional bodies.

Vladimir Putin: Which ones?

Eduard Bendersky: Those that have been established in the Russian regions under the law on hunting. Believe me, there’s a huge shortage of such bodies. There are cases in which there is just one inspector in a fairly large district. He has to perform his work protecting things, and on top of that he is supposed to issue permits. We believe that this function can be easily taken over by public organisations, such as Dinamo, the Military Hunting Union or the Russian Association of Hunters and Anglers.

Vladimir Putin: We’ve been talking about delegating a significant number of functions to self-regulating organisations, but now we are suddenly discussing the reverse process...

Eduard Bendersky: Yes, it runs counter to what everyone is saying about the need to transfer powers of government officials to public organisations.  We’ve been working on it for three years now.

Svetlana Orlova: Mr Putin, the law on self-regulating organisations was submitted by deputies of the previous Duma. It’s on the list of draft laws scheduled for consideration by the Duma. Perhaps we should look at it with our colleagues?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, by all means.

Eduard Bendersky: As for promoting hunting and fishing, Mr Putin, I believe that the idea of holding such a festival is extremely… This idea emerged right here at this table.  Believe me, it will do a lot of good for the country. For instance, I watch the Hunter and Angler channel on Trikolor TV. They run foreign hunting and fishing programming. We contacted them and made 15 films about fishing and hunting in Russia. It was very difficult to get our films shown on their channel. For some reason, they find it easier or cheaper to show foreign films. They began showing our films on January 1. I’m not sure that we will be able to run all 15 of them, but perhaps, in addition to Dobrodeyev, you could talk to people from Trikolor TV and ...

Vladimir Putin: No, Trikolor is private, while Dobrodeyev runs a state TV channel.

Eduard Bendersky: One more question, Mr Putin. Unfortunately, not all Russian regions understand the role of public organisations. In some regions, it appears as though they are trying to destroy public organisations altogether. I met with the Ivanovo regional authorities six times in December. The conflict between the Ivanovo Region administration and the Ivanovo regional association of hunters and anglers has been going on for two years now. There was a rally in late December in which 1,500 people participated.

Vladimir Putin: What is the conflict about?

Eduard Bendersky: The head of organisation there is very authoritative. At first they asked him to give up one property. He complied. Then he was approached by other government officials of the Ivanovo Region asking to give them another property. However, all hunters ….

Vladimir Putin: What does “give” mean, I don’t follow.

Eduard Bendersky: For instance, they want to establish private farms in the Ivanovo Region that could be used as exemplary forms of agricultural business. Normally, regional political elites prefer to have their own private farms. This is where their interests clashed. This dispute has been going on for two years now. I personally spoke with the Ivanovo Region governor on six occasions. They pushed the issue to a point where 1,500 people took to the streets. The local authorities are rudely interfering with the activities of public organisations. I told the governor that he was waging a war against local residents and a compromise had to be found. I know the situation from the inside now, and I genuinely tried to establish common ground between them during my six trips to the region, but to no avail. The situation is getting worse. I believe it’s wrong when hunters start holding rallies. Unfortunately, this is what we have in the Ivanovo Region and many other regions. In the Ivanovo Region people have not been able to go hunting for two years now. 

Andrei Krainy: Mr Putin, let’s get back to water issues…

Eduard Bendersky: Thank you, I’m sorry…

Vladimir Putin: It’s been too long, hasn't it? I know.

Eduard Bendersky: It's not every day that I have an opportunity to speak with you.

Vladimir Putin: I’ll look into that. Mr Men (Mikhail Men, governor of the Ivanovo Region) seems to be a reasonable person. I don’t understand what’s going on there.

Friends and colleagues, we have discussed a fairly large number of issues today in the preparations to amending the law on recreational fishing, so I’d like to ask Mr Tsessarsky to agree that we need to move forward. We’ll be expecting your proposals. Certainly, the law needs to be finalised, and it should be a well-drafted law. Let me assure you that by far not all 25 million people participated in this discussion, but they were closely following the developments and our discussions.

I hope that we have considered all aspects of the issue: the role and importance of public organisations, their status, rights and obligations, licensing or banning the sale of fish nets, the spawning period and poaching. Of course, we have also covered fishery grounds and angler cards. All these issues need to be considered in detail within the next two or three weeks. Like we said, if there are issues that can be settled even more quickly, then I’ll be ready for your reports on Tuesday and Wednesday. If you need to come up with a clean copy without any mistakes, then please get together with your colleagues without me and show them the final draft. Post it on the website, so that anyone can read it. We’ll consider this a pre-zero reading and will then submit it to the Duma.

Andrei Krainy: Will do.

Vladimir Putin: How much time do you need?

Andrei Krainy: I think we will get together tomorrow. I believe that two and a half weeks will be enough to finalise the text. If we manage to coordinate the instructions issued by the federal stakeholders quickly, then we’ll be able to submit it to the Duma in February.

Vladimir Putin: Draft instruction on cooperation between the Federal Agency for Fishery…

Andrei Krainy: Between the Federal Agency for Water Resources. You said so with regard to the veterinary medicine.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, water discharges is an important issue.

Andrei Krainy: I will see to it.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Krainy, I expect you to make due note of Ms Lebedeva’s remark about the way you discuss problems, even controversial ones, with your colleagues.

Andrei Krainy: I understand.

Vladimir Putin: These are issues that all of us want to be resolved in a reasonable manner. Thank you very much and all the best.

Alexei Tsessarsky: Mr Putin, may I? Since we spoke about promoting fishing, I just wanted to remind you that…

Vladimir Putin: I’ll be pleased to take part in this marathon.

Alexei Tsessarsky: There was a television programme called “Dialogues about Fishing” on the Rossiya channel for three years. I just want you to know that the team is ready and if the Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company finally understands that this is an important subject, then we …

Vladimir Putin: Is it no longer running?

Alexei Tsessarsky: No, it was discontinued for financial reasons. It was re-run later on the 7TV channel. They used to run it up to 18 times a day. And it’s still popular among viewers.

Alexei Chernushenko: There must be a programme that deals with fighting poaching, too, not just fishing.

Alexei Tsessarsky: Of course, it includes everything.

Alexei Chernushenko: Poaching should be portrayed as something that’s not cool.

Vladimir Putin: It should incorporate everything that has to do with a healthy lifestyle.