Bear Harvest Quota Register in Russia

The independent bear extermination register was created as part of the research work of Pavel Pashkov's projects. Its purpose is to compile official data on permitted bear hunting quotas across Russian regions in one place and to show how these figures change year by year.

Data is collected manually from official decrees and regulatory documents of regional authorities. For each region, the number of permitted quotas for hunting seasons is recorded. The current version of the register contains data from the 2019/2020 season to 2026/2027.

The register specifically shows the number of bears allowed to be hunted and reflects the scale of officially permitted hunting, allowing for regional comparisons, identifying sharp changes in quotas, and tracking dynamics over several years.

The project will be updated annually. Based on this data, regions can be studied separately, comparing quota increases with bear encounters with humans, forest fires, deforestation, land development, and other changes in the natural environment.

The bear is a large territorial predator that requires extensive and continuous natural areas, a stable food base, and a relatively low level of constant anthropogenic pressure. Therefore, what happens to bears is directly related to the condition of large forest ecosystems: habitat destruction, fires, logging, development of the wilderness, and reduction of the available food base.

At the same time, in various regions of Russia, there are reports of bears approaching humans and tragic conflicts. Against this backdrop, official quotas for their culling have significantly increased in many regions over recent years. The register itself shows the scale of this process: according to the collected official decrees of the regions, the number of bears permitted for culling increased from 24 405 in the 2019/2020 season to 52 074 in the 2026/2027 season.

This is why the situation surrounding bears holds special research significance for us. The dynamics of bear approaches to humans, conflicts, and permitted culling scales need to be compared with logging, forest fires, land development, and other changes in the natural environment. This allows the events concerning bears to be used as an indicator of what is happening with large natural systems as a whole.

There is no exact answer today. Moreover, official estimates of bear numbers in Russia vary so widely that they cannot be used as indisputable grounds for increasing hunting quotas.

In 2018, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation reported that the brown bear population had decreased by 36% in just two years — from 225 thousand individuals in 2015 to 143 thousand in 2017. The prosecutor's office specifically noted that despite the decline in numbers, the limit on permitted hunting continued to rise and proposed adding the brown bear to the Red Book of Russia.

In the same 2018, the FSB of Russia developed proposals to include brown and Himalayan bears in the list of strategically important resources due to illegal killing and smuggling of their parts. Subsequently, the Russian government indeed made corresponding changes to the list.

And just about two years later, the picture changed dramatically. The Ministry of Natural Resources materials featured an estimate of over 300 thousand bears. That is, after official reports of 143 thousand individuals and a sharp population decline, the population on paper more than doubled in a few years. Simultaneously, state policy moved towards expanding the hunting industry, and the number of bears allowed to be hunted continued to grow.

So where did these hundreds of thousands of bears come from, and how reliable are these counts? Especially since this is unrealistic on the scale of a vast country for an animal with an extremely slow life cycle.

Specialists in the field directly question the quality of such accounting. Andrey Ivanov, chairman of the Bear World Fund, says: "Reliable bear accounting has not been conducted for many years." Doctor of Biological Sciences Nikita Ovsyannikov calls the existing statistics "guesswork." Zoologist Andrey Kuznetsov specifically points out the biological limitation of population growth: a female bear usually gives birth to one to three cubs and reproduces at long intervals, so a rapid "explosion" in numbers contradicts the biology of the species.

An additional problem is the accounting system itself. A significant portion of regional information is formed through hunting management and users, that is, structures that simultaneously work with the distribution of hunting resources. In our materials, we specifically note that accounting methods are largely based on surveys and information from hunting users, and therefore such estimates cannot automatically be accepted as the exact number of the wild population.

Therefore, the figure of 300 thousand or more bears is not the established number of animals actually living in Russia, but an official estimate whose reliability raises serious questions among specialists in the field. The picture is stark: in 2017, there were 143 thousand bears and demands from law enforcement agencies to strengthen species protection; a few years later, there are already about 300 thousand on paper, expansion of the hunting industry, and further growth in permitted hunting.

The conclusion is this: there is no reliable nationwide bear population count confirmed by a full independent comprehensive survey. Therefore, any statements that there are "too many" bears and they need to be massively hunted require extremely serious verification.

One of the main reasons is the deterioration of habitat conditions and the reduction of the natural food supply. Forest fires, logging, development of the wild, road construction, and other infrastructure destroy and fragment the areas where bears live and feed.

When natural food is scarce, bears begin to move more and are more likely to approach populated areas. Additional factors include landfills, food waste, tourist campsites, leftover food, and other accessible food sources near humans.

A bear approaching people is not in itself evidence of an increase in their population. It may be a result of hunger, habitat destruction, reduction of the food base, and overall pressure on natural territories.

Therefore, the increase in conflicts should be considered along with data on forest fires, logging, economic development of territories, the state of the food base, and the scale of shooting. Only in combination do these data allow us to understand what is really happening with bears and their habitat.

For many years, there has been a lobbying campaign attempting to legalize winter hunting of bears while they are hibernating. This fact may largely be related to the expansion of bear hunting and the spread of panic about bears approaching humans.

In 2020, the Ministry of Natural Resources approved new Hunting Regulations and extended the autumn brown bear hunting season until 31 December. Previously, hunting ended on 30 November. For much of Russia, this is already a period of winter rest: bears usually hibernate in October–November, depending on the region, weather, and food supply.

In 2024, this regulation was challenged in the Supreme Court of Russia. The lawsuit explicitly stated that the deadline of 31 December allows animals to be hunted in their dens. The Ministry of Natural Resources cited natural and climatic differences, the timing of snow cover establishment, and the need to consider regional conditions. At the same time, the ministry officially acknowledged that regional authorities are capable of promptly considering local natural and climatic conditions and, if necessary, shortening the hunting season. Thus, a special mechanism for regional regulation already exists.

On 24 April 2024, the Supreme Court refused to cancel the hunting period until 31 December. And already on 24 May, just a month after the court's decision, the Ministry of Natural Resources posted a new draft amendment to the Hunting Regulations. This time, it was proposed to allow the hunting of brown bears from 1 July to 28 or 29 February, and Himalayan bears also until the end of February. In fact, this was about legalizing hunting throughout the entire winter hibernation.

In the materials accompanying the changes in hunting regulation, the development of the hunting industry was directly linked to increasing its investment attractiveness. This is not an accidental wording. In state regulation of the hunting industry, the indicator "investment attractiveness of activities in the field of hunting management" is officially established as one of the indicators of the hunting control system. It is calculated, in particular, through monetary fees for the use of wildlife objects when issuing permits for extraction. The state strategy for the development of the hunting industry also directly provides for ensuring the investment attractiveness of entrepreneurial activity in this area.

Against this background, extending bear hunting until the end of February acquires a very specific economic meaning. The bear is one of the most expensive objects of trophy hunting. Den hunting allows the location of the animal's wintering place to be discovered in advance, a client to be brought there, and an almost guaranteed encounter with a specific animal to be organized. This service is especially attractive for paid trophy hunting and hunting tourism.

The technology of this hunt has been known for a long time. A sleeping bear is forced to leave its shelter: dogs, long poles, noise, shots, and pyrotechnics are used. In the case of Himalayan bears, which winter in the hollows of old trees, methods with sawing or opening the shelter, as well as using smoke and fire to drive the animal out, are described. After the bear exits, it is shot directly near the den.

The winter period is especially dangerous for females. Cubs are born directly in the dens, usually in winter. From the outside, it is impossible to reliably determine whether a male, a pregnant female, or a female with newborn cubs is inside. Meanwhile, the current Hunting Regulations prohibit the hunting of females with cubs born in the current year. In practice, when opening or driving out of the den, this cannot be determined in advance.

Bear specialists opposed such changes for this very reason. It was pointed out that extending the hunt until the end of February would lead to the appearance of orphaned cubs only a few weeks or months old, which are unable to survive on their own. For the Himalayan bear, there is another problem: the destruction or damage of hollow trees destroys the very wintering and breeding shelters that animals can use for decades.

The 2024 project caused a massive negative reaction. On the federal portal of regulatory acts, it collected about 9,6 thousand negative ratings and more than 700 negative proposals and comments. The Public Chamber and bear specialists opposed it. After public pressure, the Ministry of Natural Resources stopped developing the project.

The sequence of events looks like this: first, the federal hunting period was extended to 31 December, then this regulation had to be defended in the Supreme Court, and almost immediately after the court decision, there was an attempt to extend the hunt until the end of February. At the same time, state policy in the field of hunting management is officially oriented, among other things, towards increasing the investment attractiveness of the industry.

Therefore, the commercial factor cannot be ignored here. Winter hunting turns a bear in its shelter into a convenient and expensive object of a paid trophy service. It is den hunting that creates the opportunity to sell the client not just a license, but a pre-organized hunt with a high probability of capturing a specific animal.

According to our register, the scale of permitted bear hunting in Russia has approximately doubled in recent years. After correcting data for the Irkutsk region, the working total for the 2019/2020 season is about 25,9 bears, while for the 2026/2027 season, the official quota is 52 074 bears. This is an increase of about 101%.

The growth was not strictly linear each year, but after a decline in the 2022/2023 season, each subsequent season set a new maximum: 2023/2024, 2024/2025, 2025/2026, and 2026/2027. In many individual regions, limits have increased several times over the years.

This process coincides with the commercialization of hunting management. According to Roslesinforg, almost 36 million hectares of forests have been transferred to private hunting enterprises — about a third of Russia's available forest lands. The agency pointed to approximately 1 300 private lessees and directly linked such enterprises with the development of paid hunting tourism.

For regions, hunting tourism is seen as a source of private investment, taxes, and income. Private hunting enterprises sell not only the right to hunt animals but also accommodation, guidance, transportation, ranger services, and the organization of hunts for specific species. In this system, the bear is one of the most expensive trophy hunting targets.

At the same time, the number of registered hunters in the country has reached about 5 million people. This figure has been repeatedly cited by representatives of relevant government agencies. However, this refers to holders of hunting licenses, not the five million people who necessarily go hunting every year.

Since the late 2010s, legislation has consistently expanded the opportunities for the hunting industry. Hunting with bows and crossbows was legalized, and sports and amateur hunting of animals in semi-free conditions and artificially created environments were regulated. Certain procedures for hunting users were simplified, and the Rules of Hunting and the timing of hunting certain species were changed.

Separately, hunting as a paid service has developed. Legislation explicitly allows the provision of services in the hunting sector, and state policy in the industry uses indicators of the investment attractiveness of hunting management. Against this backdrop, the increase in bear quotas cannot be viewed separately from the economics of the hunting industry. The more regions and private enterprises are interested in attracting hunting tourists, the higher the demand for permits, available hunting targets, and a stable volume of hunting resources.

According to our register, the permitted volumes of bear hunting have approximately doubled over several years. In many regions, limits have been consistently increased, and some entities have set new maximums for several consecutive years. Therefore, any statements about the need for further increases in hunting must be accompanied by a rigorous verification of the initial data on animal populations. In conditions where the hunting industry itself is interested in increasing the volume of hunting, the quality of accounting becomes crucial.

Bears are species with a slow life cycle and low reproductive rate. Females do not reach sexual maturity immediately, pregnancy lasts several months with the characteristic delayed implantation for bears, and cubs are born in the winter den.

Typically, a female bear gives birth to one to three cubs. After birth, the offspring stay with the mother for a long time, and a new pregnancy usually does not occur every year. The interval between litters is often several years. This means that the bear population is physically unable to recover quickly after a significant removal of adult animals. The death of adult females is particularly critical: with the loss of one female, the population loses not only that individual but also future generations she could have produced over many years.

Bears do not have a biological model for rapid reproduction. They are not a species capable of compensating for large losses in one or two seasons. Recovery of numbers takes years, and with constant high hunting pressure, habitat destruction, and reduced food supply, recovery may not occur at all.

The lack of pine nuts directly impacts the bear's food supply. Pine nuts are one of the important high-calorie foods, especially during the preparation for winter hibernation. In lean years or where pine forests are heavily harvested by people, bears lose a significant part of their autumn diet.

The problem is exacerbated by industrial harvesting. Pine forests in some regions are virtually stripped bare, and the collection is not for local consumption but in commercial volumes. In 2025 year, the export of pine nuts from Russia to China increased by 6,4 times. It was officially acknowledged that unscrupulous harvesters send organized teams into the forest to collect nuts in industrial quantities, using methods that damage the trees themselves.

For bears, this means a direct loss of food. But the chain doesn't end there. Pine nuts feed many other animals and birds. If the population of small and medium-sized species that depend on pine forests decreases, the available prey for predators also decreases. As a result, several levels of the food chain are disrupted.

A similar situation occurs with fish. In regions where bears depend on salmon and other fish, the construction of dams, hydraulic structures, changes in riverbeds, and blocking of migration routes reduce animals' access to natural spawning grounds. If fish do not move upstream, bears lose another major seasonal food source.

This is especially important before winter hibernation. Bears need to accumulate significant fat reserves. If the harvest of nuts, berries, and other plant foods decreases simultaneously, and access to fish is reduced, the animal begins to seek alternative food sources.

Then it approaches roads, settlements, dumps, tourist camps, and other places where food waste can be found. This does not prove that there are too many bears. In many cases, it shows that there is less available food in the natural environment.

There are also direct scientific observations. Studies of brown bears in Hokkaido noted that in years of sharp decline in pine nut and salmon consumption, bears were significantly more often seen near people, and among the animals, emaciated individuals were recorded. Researchers linked such occurrences directly to the deficit of natural food sources.

Therefore, the chain is simple: humans take the nuts, destroy or damage the pine forests, block rivers, reduce fish resources, cut down forests, and develop territory. The food supply decreases. Bears begin to move more. The number of encounters with people increases. After this, the consequences of habitat destruction are presented as evidence that there are too many bears.

We propose conducting a federal interagency audit of the bear situation in all regions where there is a simultaneous increase in conflicts with humans, rising quotas for culling, and significant pressure on natural territories. The audit should include data on forest fires, industrial and sanitary logging, road construction, mineral extraction, hydraulic structures, the state of spawning rivers, industrial harvesting of wild plants, the condition of cedar forests, landfills, tourist load, land use changes, and habitat fragmentation.

Every registered bear encounter with humans should be mapped and compared with territorial changes over previous years. If conflicts concentrate near recently logged forests, burned areas, blocked rivers, large landfills, or areas of intensive development, the state must investigate this connection. A separate audit is necessary for the animal accounting system itself. The data used to calculate harvest limits must undergo independent state verification. It is essential to prevent situations where population estimates are made by entities economically interested in increasing hunting volumes.

We propose conducting an independent federal re-evaluation of bear numbers using multiple methods simultaneously: camera traps, genetic analysis of biological material, route observations, data from scientific organizations, and TFET. Methodologies, source data, survey areas, and statistical errors should be published openly. Until such an audit is completed in regions with a sharp increase in conflicts or quotas, a moratorium on further increases in harvest limits should be imposed. If the state cannot reliably show how many animals are in the area and why they are increasingly approaching humans, expanding culling is unacceptable.

All cases of sharp increases in regional quotas should undergo separate scrutiny. A multiple increase in the limit must have a public biological justification that can be verified with primary data. Quotas cannot be increased solely based on claims of population growth. The region must provide data on population numbers, food base, habitat conditions, mortality, previous culling, and conflict dynamics.

A unified federal registry of human-bear conflicts is necessary. Each case should record coordinates, date, circumstances, animal condition, presence of a landfill or other food source, surrounding forest condition, nearby fires and logging, infrastructure, and the final decision regarding the animal. The killing of a specific animal posing an immediate threat to humans must be distinguished from the mass increase in hunting quotas. These are different tasks. Handling a dangerous animal should be conducted by specialized services after assessing the specific case circumstances.

A permanent ban on hunting bears in dens and any intentional destruction, opening, smoking, or other impact on winter shelters is necessary. The winter period should be completely excluded from commercial and sports hunting. In the most disturbed areas, territories of complete prohibition of sports hunting and economic intervention should be created, migration corridors and feeding areas restored, cedar forests protected from industrial depletion, fish passage in rivers restored, and sources of food waste that constantly attract animals to humans eliminated.

The economic aspect should be separately examined. If there is simultaneous growth in the officially declared animal population, hunting quotas, the number of commercial enterprises, and income from paid hunting, the state must eliminate conflicts of interest between population conservation and economic interest in increasing the number of animals available for harvest. The results of the federal audit should be fully published: maps, accounting methodologies, primary materials, population dynamics, habitat conditions, culling data, and reasons for each significant quota change.

The main task is to establish the cause of conflict growth. If a bear emerges from a destroyed, burned, or food-deprived environment, further destruction of animals does not eliminate the source of the problem. It only conceals the consequences of ecosystem destruction.