Review of the draft law on the shooting of endangered animals listed in the Red Book.

Inside the government there is a huge bloc of lobbyists for “sport” entertainment hunting — they have their own “elite clubs,” travel the world, kill the rarest animals, and collect trophies. They compete, keep rankings, boast about their weapons and about who can kill bigger and more “impressive” animals. Alongside this, the country’s forest sector has long been pushed toward the industry of sport hunting, attracting “clients” from all over the world who want to pay enormous sums to kill animals in the Russian Taiga.

This hunting lobby, which includes high-ranking officials and representatives of big business, has repeatedly tried to break the system of wildlife protection by allowing trophy hunting of endangered animal species — that is, the very animals listed in the Red Book, on the brink of complete extinction.

The logic is simple: trophy hunting has one task — to find and kill the rarest or the largest, most “spectacular,” unique animal. That is why wealthy people are willing to pay unreal sums to kill, say, an endangered mountain sheep, a Siberian tiger, or any other animal. And where there are clients, “supply” appears.

But here is the problem: killing rare animals through trophy hunting is prohibited by law. Animals are listed in the Red Book precisely because so few remain, and the remaining populations must be protected by all means — not finished off.

KILLING RED BOOK ANIMALS

We have already stopped similar draft laws before, but society was stronger then and had more capacity to influence such problems. Now the situation has changed: society is suppressed and distracted, and so lobbying groups within the authorities try again and again to push through the legalization of shooting the rarest animals.

Unfortunately, a few years ago we were unable to stop one of the draft laws through which the authorities legalized the killing of Red Book animals. They chose to do it carefully back then, without directly touching trophy hunting, because they could not achieve it otherwise — society defended animals too fiercely.

Officials pushed through a draft law that legalized a broad list of permitted reasons for shooting rare animals: monitoring the condition of populations; protecting the health of people and livestock (eliminating the threat of mass diseases); preventing a threat to human life; and also “preventing suffering.” A special clause is “ensuring the traditional way of life of indigenous small-numbered peoples” — a favorite scheme: they take a “local” person who is formally allowed to kill a rare animal, while in reality the trigger is pulled by a wealthy trophy hunter.

Even so, that law was limited: it did not allow mass killings and did not permit direct trophy hunting. Now, with society suppressed, they have launched the next draft law to expand the first one and begin mass direct killing within the framework of trophy hunting.

Another draft law, No. 165677, has been launched on the Federal Portal of Draft Regulatory Legal Acts, and there is a high probability that this time they may push it through.

On our side, a Public Initiative against this madness has already been launched; all possible resources are being engaged to raise public attention. We are preparing statements to agencies and authorities, and we will look for mechanisms of opposition through the media and our people inside the Government. But honestly, the chances are very small, because the main force — mass public attention and demands to leave wildlife alone — is absent. People are tired; attention is scattered by political and social collapses; and many are intimidated by constant pressure, blocking, and restrictions.

REVIEW OF THE DRAFT

The draft law includes a main document that introduces amendments to current laws and must be signed if adopted. I will now go through it quote by quote and explain what exactly the problem is, so you understand the scale of the madness unfolding before our eyes.

“On Approving the Rules for Taking Wildlife Species Listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the Red Books of the Subjects of the Russian Federation (excluding the taking (catching) of aquatic biological resources)”

This is the key phrase: “taking” is being legalized not only for the federal Red Book, but also for regional Red Books. In practice, it would allow animals on the brink of extinction to be “taken” across the entire country, in every region.

The point is that, scientifically, regional populations are often the most vulnerable: they are small, fragmented, and dependent on a limited number of reproductive individuals and movement corridors. Any removal, even a single individual, can cause devastating demographic damage — a collapse in reproduction, loss of dominant males and strong genes, disruption of social structure, and so on. The consequences would be catastrophic: in essence, officials are proposing, for their selfish “trophy” interests, to “drive the final nail into the coffin” of endangered animal species.

“2. Control over compliance with the Rules approved by this Resolution shall be carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Usage and its territorial bodies… and by the authorized bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation…”.

Here it is stated directly that the destruction of endangered animals will be handed over to regional authorities — meaning that at the level of “local fiefdoms” it will be decided which animals to shoot and how many individuals to allocate for this. Reasons will always be found. It is important to understand that regions are now driving a race for mass trophy hunting: they saw huge money, “trophy tourists” from abroad began to arrive, ready to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an “all-inclusive tour” to kill animals of the Russian Taiga.

The new draft law essentially gives regional authorities the ability to legalize the “taking” of animals listed in the Red Book at the discretion of officials themselves. No real federal oversight.

“3. This Resolution shall remain in force until 1 September 2032.”

This is a standard bureaucratic tactic that has been used increasingly in recent years. The problem is that passing permanent laws often fails because of public backlash. So they “buy” time, implying: this will be an “experiment, and then we’ll see.” As if there is nothing to fear — just six years of shooting animals that are already on the brink of extinction.

In reality, such resolutions are easily extended later or made permanent. There is no urgent necessity — scientific or administrative — to begin a “cleanup” of Red Book wildlife over the next six years. None.

“1. These Rules establish the procedure for taking wildlife species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, the red books of the subjects of the Russian Federation… and are mandatory for legal entities and individuals, including individual entrepreneurs, on the territory, continental shelf, and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation.”

Here they expanded the circle of subjects to include LEGAL ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUAL ENTREPRENEURS, which directly indicates a purely self-interested motive. The wording creates a legal infrastructure that is convenient for commercialization around rare species. For example, a decision is made to kill a tiger and it is handed to a local individual entrepreneur who runs a private hunting enterprise and organizes paid killings of animals. That entrepreneur then “as a service” resells the right to kill to another wealthy person or official. In other words, the final shot will be taken by whoever pays the most to shoot a tiger.

These are basic things that officials are now writing in plain text in the new draft law. If approached scientifically, it is unacceptable in the protection of rare animals for regimes that can lead to death to be available to a broad circle of applicants.

“3. The taking of wildlife species shall be carried out only on the basis of a permit… …If a wildlife species is listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and in the red books of the subjects of the Russian Federation, the issuance of the permit shall be carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Usage.”

There is nothing to discuss here: the decision of who to kill and when will be made by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Given that they have recently officially pushed draft measures for killing hibernating bears throughout the winter, are attempting to legalize clear-cutting of protective mountain forests, and the destruction of specially protected natural areas, it is clear that there will be no real scientific basis for shooting Red Book animals at all.

The text contains nothing stating that conservation science must be mandatory. It only says that an official will decide, in the official’s own interests. Where is the scientific justification for permissible removal? Who will work on a population viability model, assess allowable offtake by sex and age, analyze cumulative mortality, and quantify uncertainty?

There is NOTHING except that an official will decide.

Next comes an especially interesting clause; as I understand it, they are legally setting everything up for the further issuance of permits to shoot rare animals to those same hunting enterprises (individual entrepreneurs and legal entities).

“4. …is carried out by making an entry in the register of permits… which is formed and maintained electronically… A decision on issuing a permit or refusing… is notified… using the unified portal of state and municipal services… …permits… in relation to species… in the red books of the subjects… are issued in the manner established… by a subject of the Russian Federation.”

If they are moving this into a digital register — the very issuance of permits — it means they plan to DESTROY animals constantly and in large numbers. For rare, point interventions there is no need to create a digital register; but purchasing licenses to kill animals is already handled through the State Services portal, and now the destruction of rare Red Book species is being moved there as well.

“5. For each taking, the person who received the permit draws up an on-site act indicating the number of wildlife specimens taken, time, place, tools used, and the surnames of persons responsible and those involved in the taking.”

Here we see a rule introduced that effectively normalizes “killing by act.” The document describes what is essentially a hunting production process and turns the death of a rare animal into a standard bureaucratic procedure.

Pay special attention to the wording “persons involved in the taking” — explicitly in addition to those responsible. In effect, they are telling us in plain text that trophy hunters will be the ones killing rare animals.

“6. Upon completion of the taking… within a 2-month period submits a report… …The report indicates the number of specimens actually taken… the date and place… as well as the record number in the register… The report forms… and the procedure for submitting them are approved by the authorized bodies…”

This is a meaningless action that is deliberately stretched out for two months, during which any reports can be fabricated “as convenient.” The most dangerous part is that the report forms and procedure are established by the authorized bodies themselves — i.e., critically important control parameters are moved out of the rule and into ведомственный discretion, where they can be changed without public discussion.

In other words, if the goal were protective, the document would have to set SPECIFIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS DIRECTLY IN THE RULES, including independent verification by relevant experts.

“The permit indicates its period of validity. The periods are determined by the authorized body… in accordance with the purposes of taking wildlife species.”

Here officials again emphasize that this will be “taking” (a purely hunting term). From the outset, almost in bold, they set a priority of killing Red Book animals instead of prioritizing non-lethal methods, such as rescue and rehabilitation, relocation in the case of an immediate threat, or scientific monitoring where it is proven impossible to obtain data non-invasively.

Any economic and especially commercial motives must be explicitly excluded, but the text does not do so.

Everything else there is simply lobbying for the interests of the hunting industry, for which this draft law is being advanced — to legalize the shooting of animals listed in the Red Book.

Separately, I studied the document “explanatory note” attached to the draft law. One quote is enough:

“No negative socio-economic, financial, or other consequences of implementing the proposed decisions… implementation of the resolution… will entail.” “...there are no mandatory requirements… information about the type of permitting activity… liability…”.

I honestly cannot even understand, allies, how this can be written at all. No — WHO wrote this nonsense?!!

“Will entail no negative consequences” — we are talking about a document that legalizes the “taking” of Red Book animals. Any management error can be irreversible, up to complete local extinctions, degradation of genetic diversity, and the destruction of social-spatial structure in large predators and ungulates. How can these “geniuses” claim it will have no negative consequences?!! Did they calculate it on a pocket calculator?!!!

That is the situation, allies. Everything is very serious — they may be able to push the draft law through. We will now try to stop this madness, but without your support we will not cope. We are already recording a sharp decline in public activity; the struggle is extremely difficult.

Study the draft law on the official state website — this is a direct link; there you can also download the documents that are analyzed above.

Study the draft law

Also take part in our Public Initiative — sign it, receive a participant’s certificate. Share it, track the status of requests sent to agencies and authorities, and wait for instructions (we will act step by step, trying to stop the destruction of endangered animals). The initiative itself is our coordination center on this issue; it is important to gather as many people as possible.

  Public initiative

Terrible times. A lack of knowledge and a complete misunderstanding of biological processes even within federal agencies responsible for the preservation and protection of our nature. In leadership positions are business lobbyists calculating momentary profit in their selfish interests. And the scientific community has been pushed into the farthest corner.

Let us try to stop this madness. There is still a little time.

© PAVEL PASHKOV