> Drop according to whom? The people whose jobs depend on the alleged drop?
Speaking as an ecologist here, colleagues of mine were authors on one of the recent studies on insect decline in Germany (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3). Believe me, we'd rather study other things than how fast nature is disappearing.
Also, foxes and rats have nothing to do with insect levels.
Foxes and rats have very much to do with the fact that the government is telling us that species are disappearing and need protection while there was literally a fox trying to enter my house via an open door pretty much in the city.
This has never happened 20 years ago, so someone is lying.
It is a massive credibility problem created by ideologues who will deny the foxes until there are 5 in every apartment.
There are probably over 10 million species of plants and animals in the world. Of course some of these are going to be better at coping with humans and their cities than others. As you correctly observe, foxes happen to be some of the best at adapting to city life. If you want more examples, just take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_wildlife
However, these exceptions change nothing whatsoever about the fact that in general, species very much are in decline and many are about to, or have already disappeared. Indeed, when we look at cities around the world, only 20% of bird species and 5% of plant species actually live in such an environment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027400/). Outside cities, the picture is not much better. Some species, like the crested lark in Europe, have suffered over 95% population drops. Others, like the passenger pigeon, have gone entirely extinct. I‘m citing bird examples here because we tend to have the best data for them (we have numerous birdwatching records reaching back 300 years), but I could cite others. In the last decades, an increasing number of observations suggest that by now, even insects are beginning to decline. And if you want to know what it‘s like when they‘re dead, just ask the Chinese labourers who are already having to pollinate apple blossoms by hand, because all the bees are gone...
But I am sure that if there are 5 foxes per person in Germany, there will be a new "Referentenentwurf" and everyone will ask how this could possibly have happened.
If you cannot see how this hurts credibility, you have to get out of your ecological bubble. Why should people believe numbers on insects if numbers for other animals are clearly wrong?
You need to differentiate between endangered species and protected species, and between biodiversity conservation ("Naturschutz") and animal rights ("Tierschutz").
It is, however, a protected species in Germany (Anhang 1 BArtSchV), though at the lower protection level ("besonders geschützt", not "streng geschützt"). Note, however, that there are multiple reasons to give a species legal protection. These include a need for conservation (not the case here), but also ethical implications (higher animals like birds and mammals generally enjoy higher protection levels than insects or plants) and cultural reasons (in this case, the fox is a huntable species, which means that it falls under the Jagdgesetz).
In short: yes, the fox is protected, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's also endangered.
If findings are true that insects are more attracted to cold light than traditional incandescent light sources, then it's small wonder you still find significant numbers of insects where all the cold light is emitted, even if they are killed on contact with those light sources or trapped by them (which is a significant problem with mating). Same should be true for any species which follows insects as a source of food.
I'm a heretic who uses incandescent light bulbs (but no car). No shortage of insects in my room. All in the middle of a city.
How do those insects mate in the city if light prevents them from doing so?
I wonder why we are still alive. According to the Club of Rome we should have been extinct by now. But these things are a nice diversion from the real problems and a good income stream for the pundits.
