Protection of wildlife sites: individual legal constructions and models of their implementation (regional features)

Abstract

The author focuses on the fact that the normative legal structure is implemented within the framework of various models. Moreover, every model that has developed in practice has the right to exist, of course, with the exception of defective models (including those recognized as such). Close attention is paid to the peculiarities of the application of certain legal constructions due to the models of its implementation (Articles 258 of the UKRF, Articles 7.11 and 8.37 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). Special attention should be paid to the generalization of the practice of applying norms that ensure the protection of wildlife objects in the regions of Russia. At the same time, the emphasis is placed on those norms that are implemented depending on the region. The analysis, comparative research, as well as the legal and technical method used to prepare the text of the article, allowed us to formulate conclusions and recommendations aimed at solving problems arising in the field of protection of wildlife objects, both for employees of the bodies of inquiry and for supervising prosecutors. In particular, in order to give uniformity to legal practice, the implementation of legal construction strictly within the framework of a single model, it is necessary: 1) the legislator should pay close attention to the quality of the legal structure being formed; 2) to oblige the subject with the right of official interpretation, in case of occurrence of various models of implementation of the normative establishment, with a certain periodicity, to prepare materials explaining the content; 3) police officers should be guided by the explanations contained in the acts of interpretation; 4) in the extraction of hunting resources without permission and without the person in whose name the permit was issued, the act must be considered illegal hunting; 5) it is necessary to strengthen control by supervising prosecutors over the content of the decisions issued on the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, on the initiation of criminal cases and the suspension of criminal proceedings, on the facts of illegal hunting.