Cut off the paws and sell to China: why does Russia want to kill more bears?

Around the bears of the Russian Taiga, there are now so many 'interested parties' that it's unclear who the poor animal needs protection from first—everyone wants their piece of the meat. Now, in addition to demands to kill bears without limits, pay bonuses for it, and shoot them in their dens all winter, there are active public complaints about the ban on exporting bear paws and bile to China. It's sheer madness!

Before I delve into this, take a close look at the overall picture to understand what's really happening. Many people currently don't connect these things and genuinely believe that we have '300,000 bears overpopulating, and they need to be urgently killed.'

Now look:

• In 2014, there was a 'bear invasion' in all the media, and simultaneously, purely by coincidence, the Ministry of Natural Resources adopted a program for the large-scale sale of Russian forests for sports and recreational hunting and stated that bear harvesting needed to be increased to at least 60% of the approved quotas. They also directly mentioned the financial interests in the animal shooting industry, amounting to hundreds of billions by 2030.

  
  

• In 2019, the FSB of Russia and the Prosecutor General's Office stood up for the bears. They reported that bears were being destroyed on an unimaginable scale, and their numbers had sharply fallen to 143,000 individuals in just two years: from 2015 to 2017. That is, just a year after the Ministry of Natural Resources announced its program. The Prosecutor General's Office requested that bears be included in the Red Book, and the FSB developed a project to make them a strategic resource, primarily to prevent export to China.

  
  

• But the scandal was hushed up, and on the contrary, the regions set a course for expanding the industry of paid animal killings. A third of all public forest lands in the country were allocated for recreational hunting, a huge number of bills were passed to simplify the shooting of animals, and quotas for bear hunting were deliberately increased. For instance, if in 2019 it was permitted to kill about 24,000 bears, by 2027 decrees have been signed for limits on shooting over 52,000.

  
  

• Then they started demanding permission to kill bears all winter while they sleep in their dens with their cubs. In 2024, the Ministry of Natural Resources officially came out with such a proposal and quickly tried to push the bill through! It didn’t work; we managed to fend off this madness.

  
  
• And then in 2026, there was another 'bear invasion,' and again the Ministry of Natural Resources at that moment pushed a project to increase animal shooting, simply characterizing it as a necessity for 'intensive growth of indicators.' That is, to further multiply the sports recreational hunting of wild animals! And immediately the hunting lobby began demanding an unprecedented scale of bear killings — to shoot them all winter during hibernation, to remove the fee for hunting, and instead, to pay those who kill from the budget as bonuses. They also wanted to remove the shooting limits, so bears could be killed 'as much as one desires.' Officials immediately supported these ideas and are already working on how to legalize all this as soon as possible. Meanwhile, regions are already paying bonuses for shooting bears.

How do you perceive the situation? Quite a coincidence, isn't it? I previously wrote in my materials that there is no reliable count of bears at all, and no one knows how many we have. I also mentioned that it is precisely the linear killing of bears that leads to their further approach to humans and the so-called 'bear invasion,' meaning their appearance near our cities, towns, and villages.

And just imagine the scale: killing bears without limits and restrictions, paying bounties for each animal killed from taxpayers' pockets, and even killing them during winter hibernation. And they justify this by claiming that there are supposedly too many of them and 'we counted, you see, more than 300 thousand.'

Who did the counting? Where are these scientific studies? What methods were used? And why, when an official says 'we counted,' do scientists say 'no one counted, the number is unknown'? How did it happen that in 2017 the Ministry of Natural Resources announced a bear population 100,000 more than the General Prosecutor's Office, and the prosecutors—43,000 more than the estimate of global scientists?

And never mind the global scientists; you could argue 'don't interfere, we know better.' But you don't know! Within the agencies themselves, the discrepancies are significantly different.

So, moving on.

Besides all this appalling ignorance regarding wildlife and the symbol of the Russian spirit, strength, and our homeland—the bear, undoubtedly a symbol of the Russian people—lobbyists for its destruction have started complaining that the ban on exporting bear paws and bile to China is hindering them.

Have you all completely lost your minds? And what about the draft government resolution developed by the Federal Security Service, which tried to stop this madness back in 2018? Our federal agency responsible for state security sought to ban exports because our bears were being killed by the thousands just to sell to China and earn their bloody money.

And now you have the audacity to demand the re-legalization of exports to China?

So, look at what's happening, comrades.

The new project for the 'intensive development' of the recreational hunting industry was proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources back in the winter of 2026, and they planned to review it for adoption in the fall. It was right before this that the so-called 'bear invasion' began in the regions.

What a convenient coincidence, of course.

And so, since the end of August, amid the appearance of bears near populated areas and the rise in conflicts, there has been open discussion about how 'bad people banned the export of bear paws to China.' As if we need to lift all these restrictions and allow the dismemberment of the symbol of the Russian spirit—the bear.

This was especially actively discussed in Buryatia. On August 20, 2026, former advisor to the head of Buryatia, Aldar Badmaev, lamented that people stopped killing bears in normal quantities due to the export ban.

An article was published in 'Moskovsky Komsomolets' titled 'Economist Links Bear Invasion in Buryatia to Decline in Demand from China.' 

I will quote:

'Economist Aldar Badmaev, former advisor to the head of Buryatia, proposed an unexpected version of the sharp increase in bear encounters in the region. According to him, citing familiar hunters, the main reason lies not in biological cycles (although that's part of it too), but in market conditions.'

Badmaev explains that previously, Chinese customers purchased bear paws and other body parts in large quantities for traditional medicine. However, stricter control in China over the circulation of these products has led to a decline in orders from Russia, which in turn has affected the regulation of population numbers in the wild.

Badmaev notes that the increase in population against the backdrop of a lack of feeding grounds forces predators to approach humans more often. He cites the neighboring Altai Krai as an example, where some municipalities even imposed a curfew due to the increased number of attacks.

The economist sees targeted population regulation as the only systematic solution to the current situation, but he predicts possible legislative and ethical challenges reminiscent of the situation with stray dogs.

Just notice how actively the topic is being stirred up. The economist-advisor refers to stray dogs: how difficult it was to start killing them, and the same with bears—due to 'ethical complexities.' Yet, this is simply a lack of science. How can one intervene in a complex biological system with billions of feedback loops formed over thousands of years without science? If the bear population is unknown, and according to scientific research, linear killings disrupt the spatial distribution of the population, leading to the very 'bear invasion' that the media writes about.

So, it's very simple: how can these 'advisor-economists' talk about things they don't understand at all? It's easy to reduce everything to 'ethical issues' when no one cares about basic science.

But in one thing he is certainly right: the main agenda is to also lift the restrictions on exporting bear paws to China to make even more money.

Subsequently, the media began actively quoting comments from ordinary hunters, who are also widely complaining about the ban on exporting bear paws to China. One publication includes the words of a hunter from the Kemerovo region:

"There used to be demand for bear paws, skins, meat—all of this was taken to China, but now such trade is over: you can get a real sentence for smuggling bioresources."

Then the heavy artillery came forward: in Buryatia, on the shores of Lake Baikal, high-ranking officials began actively complaining about the ban on exports to China. On September 7, 2026, the regional news agency of the republic, "Vostok-Teleinform," published an article titled "In Buryatia, they explained why hunters lost interest in hunting bears."

I quote:

"In Buryatia, there is a noticeable decline in hunters' interest in bear hunting. As Marina Damdinova, head of Burprirodnadzor, reported at a press conference, the main reason lies in the lack of appeal of bear hunting products. Specifically, the skin, paws, and bile do not have significant market demand, especially in China, making hunting economically unviable.

– Previously, hunters harvested bears in large numbers, but now neither the skin nor the paws bring income, as export sales have decreased. This undoubtedly affects interest in hunting. This factor is significant; we are not utilizing quotas, and the bear population is increasing."

Further, on September 17, 2026, the chairman of the agrarian committee of the People's Khural of Buryatia, Semyon Matkheev, complained during a parliamentary discussion that killing bears has become unprofitable due to the cessation of Chinese purchases of paws and bile.

Next, I quote an excerpt from the media:

"First of all, there has been a decline in commercial demand for hunting products: currently, there are restrictions on derivatives from China. If three years ago, one could earn up to 50,000 rubles from a single bear by selling its paws and bile, today that is no longer possible."

"One of the main reasons is economic. Today, hunting bears is simply not profitable for hunters, as it is a very costly and complex endeavor. China has stopped purchasing such products," noted Semyon Matkheev. "If there is a basis for hunting, they will hunt."

"Another reason is the rather high tax levy—about 3,000 rubles. By order of the regional head Alexey Tsydenov, the government of the Republic of Buryatia has increased the reward for a hunted bear from 6,000 to 15,000 rubles this year in cases where hunting is carried out for regulation purposes, meaning when there is a forced culling of the animal."

"These legal relations, according to the decree, apply to bear hunting that has been conducted since August 30," notes Demidova. "Additionally, the list of areas where payments are made for amateur and sports hunting has been expanded. Initially, these were only areas in the coastal part of Baikal, but now it includes the entire territory of Buryatia, except for the Tunkinsky district, which is mostly a national park. The republican budget has allocated funds for hunter rewards, this year 4.8 million rubles—for bears, foxes, and wolves. Financial incentives for hunters to hunt bears are a necessary tool to reduce their numbers, ensure public safety, and decrease the damage they cause."

These payments do not apply to permits for sports and amateur hunting—they remain at the same 6,000 rubles. Less than a month has passed since the increase in payments, and the department has already received 49 applications, with 29 applications resulting in payouts totaling half a million rubles. Just for comparison: last year, there were 37 applications totaling 228,000 rubles.

I remind you that Alexey Tsydenov is the one who, along with other lobbyists, most actively sought to weaken the protective status of Baikal, legalize the transfer of land into private business hands, and conduct clear-cutting in ancient forests. Now, as you can see, even the bears are in the way!

Remember, I talked about this? When the bill on clear-cutting was passed, I wrote that bears would start coming to people, conflicts would increase, and consequently, more bears would be killed. In other words, one problem would create another. This is basic: the simplest, most elementary things to understand.

And, as you can see, the same people are lobbying for everything: both the weakening of the protection of sacred Baikal and the increase in bear hunting. We will even pay bonuses for killing the Russian bear, and we will completely abolish the fee for hunting.

One after another, high-ranking officials began to talk about how bad life has become without the Chinese market: it has become unprofitable to kill bears. I would like to note that in some regions, amounts up to 50,000 rubles have been introduced for killing bears. And here in the text, they themselves note that previously bears were simply killed and sold at extremely low prices, the same 50,000 rubles—it was profitable for everyone. Although, in reality, bear derivatives on the black market cost up to several thousand dollars. In Buryatia, the bonuses are still lower, but there are already many who want to kill and get paid for it.

At the same meeting, Semyon Matkheev additionally emphasized:

"We are ready to do everything within our competence to ease population control."

In other words, after openly discussing how harmful the restriction on exporting bear paws is, there is a direct statement that they will seek to relax restrictions for further killing of bears.

In other regions, this same agenda is being pushed. On September 23, 2026, the Irkutsk publication "IrkutskOnline" published an article titled "'People have become more kind.' A game manager on the real reasons for the mass appearance of bears near humans."

I have previously written in my materials that any professional opinion regarding human intervention in a complex biological system should be independent, and specialists covering any issues should not lobby for their own profit. Because this is an inherently biased position, based on some "expert" literally representing the interests of vested groups.

And in this article, all we need is a quote:

"Regarding the skins, Yuri Vashukevich gave his own example: this spring he hunted a bear, but no taxidermist in Irkutsk offered him 10,000 rubles for the bear skin."

So you see for yourself: personally kills bears, clearly has an interest in it, and even ran around Irkutsk trying to sell the bear skin and get money for it. And he is disappointed with the low price. Moreover, I have already said in my materials: if you hear that the media publishes "a scientist said to kill more animals," check who he is and how he is connected to direct lobbyists for increasing the scale of animal shooting.

I checked Mr. Yuri Vashukevich further. In the same year, 2026, his comment is cited in the publication "Arguments and Facts:"

"A good example is that this year I hunted a bear in the spring, all properly, with a license."

He also has very good connections with the bureaucratic apparatus; together, so to speak, they hunt bears. For instance, NEWSru.com reported back on May 19, 2011, that Yuri Vashukevich participated in a bear hunt with the governor of the Irkutsk region, Igor Yesipovsky, Valentin Borodenko, and other participants.

Are additional comments needed?

But I will still provide quotes from the article because they show what the experts, representing the interests of the influential hunting lobby, are actually saying.

Here are the quotes:

"The technological impact on bears coming to humans is, of course, present. Logging, fires, road construction, and other activities inevitably change the natural environment <...> However, for the Irkutsk region, these changes are not decisive, adds Yuri Vashukevich. A more serious role is played by the economic collapse in the hunting industry: the demand for bear products is now at a historic low, says Yuri Vashukevich. Trophy hunting, which could remove large, often aggressive males, has practically ceased and accounts for less than 1% of the total catch. The situation is even worse with the market for bear bile."

"The expert also debunked the myth about the main buyer of this raw material: it turns out that the main consumer of this animal-derived raw material is not China, but South Korea <...> However, bear paws were indeed mainly purchased in China, but subsequently, according to the expert, this stopped due to stricter laws on both sides.

— If normal trade were established, then bears could be hunted in greater numbers, — he noted."

Am I mistaken, or is it true that the expert presented in the media as a scientist, who is interviewed about the importance of increasing the scale of bear killings, recently killed a bear himself and tried to sell its skin, but was disappointed by the low prices and then advocated for establishing trade with China and Korea to export bear body parts there?

And on the same day, September 23, an article was published in the publication 'ChitaOnline,' which is controlled by the same media holding as the previous outlet. That is, it is directly connected to it: they even have the same design, founders, and so on. And on the same day, they 'disseminated' materials across their different media outlets with headlines where scientists advocate for increasing the scale of bear shootings and specifically mention that 'oh, they don't allow us to export paws to China.'

The article is titled '“The bear has become bold and unruly.” A scientist explained the bear invasion — there is a problem in Transbaikalia.' Here they brought in another specialist — Viktor Salovarov, a professor at the Department of Game Management and Bioecology at Irkutsk State University. He advocated for lowering the protective status of bears and increasing their killings. And, as if copied, he complained about the ban on exporting bear derivatives to China:

“Currently, neither the meat, nor the bile, nor the paws of the bear are needed by anyone, as they once were, so the bear is also hunted less.”

The expert is literally from the Department of Game Management. I also checked information on him: in 2020, the publication 'Arguments and Facts' reported that it was Salovarov who proposed opening year-round hunting for bears to reduce their numbers. He is also directly connected with high-ranking officials: for instance, in 2013, he was part of the Public Council on Hunting Issues under the government of the Irkutsk region.

So yes, this is indeed a scientist who is within the hunting community and actively, consistently, with direct ties to the bureaucratic apparatus, promotes the expansion of bear hunting in Russia.

And what a coincidence, of course, that on the same day, from different 'hunting experts,' in various media outlets, but under the control of a single founder, identical materials are published promoting the urgent need to increase bear killings with direct complaints about restrictions on exporting their parts to Asian countries.

Amazing, isn't it?

And already in the early days of October, this promotion became even more apparent. For instance, on October 5, 2026, the publication '38 News' released an article titled 'About a thousand bears are hunted annually in the Irkutsk region with a permitted limit of 4,000,' where the head of the Irkutsk region's wildlife protection service, Valentin Borodenko, gives an interview and, like those hunting experts before, also openly and publicly refers to the ban on exporting bear body parts to China. He also advocates for the restoration of the 'economic attractiveness of commercial hunting.'

I will quote:

'— Many say that one of the reasons for today's situation is that China stopped buying bear paws and bile from us. Why did this happen and how was it before?

— For all this production, a processing industry must be developed. We were essentially selling raw materials, just like with timber. During the period when the network of state animal farms and state industrial farms was developed, the processing industry was also very advanced. And then we were not dependent on China. It all comes down to investment and processing — these areas need to be developed. We should not trade raw materials, as we do today, for example, with musk deer musk. But unfortunately, it turns out differently.'

— Let's return to the bears: how many bears needed to be killed per year back then? Was there a specific target number?

— Currently, we count 22,000 bears. Given that the territory of the Irkutsk region is very large, saying there are too many bears is all relative. Based on the productivity of our region's lands, it can support 147,000 bears. These are official data from scientific studies conducted in 2019. However, the economically viable number for us is 18,000. Thus, there is a difference of 4,000 individuals between the actual number and the economically viable number. The limit for hunting is 4,000 bears per year.”

So, the Russian Taiga can accommodate several times more bears, and it confirms that the permissible number for hunting is also relative. But it’s just that the management system decided that the 'economic viability is as we said.'

I won't even comment on that. That's our management system for you.

Let's summarize.

The material has already become quite extensive, but in my study, I see a widespread trend: they suddenly stirred up a 'bear invasion,' then brought forward their own scientific experts who publicly gave interviews following the exact same script about how important it is to kill bears quickly, and complained about the ban on exporting bear paws to China.

Well, of course, these are all just coincidences. Right?

© PAVEL PASHKOV