Russia seeks new bear-control rules after fatal encounters spread across Siberia

Federal review follows a deadly summer

Russia’s Natural Resources Ministry began collecting regional proposals on September 11 for changes to the rules governing bear-population control, after a succession of fatal encounters across Siberia and the country’s Far East. Meduza documented at least four deadly cases between August 19 and September 7 in the Altai Republic, Krasnoyarsk Krai and Buryatia. The ministry’s intervention turns a series of local emergencies into a federal policy question: how should authorities protect residents without adopting an indiscriminate campaign against a major native predator?

Restrictions and killings have already expanded

Several municipalities declared heightened-alert regimes, restricted entry to parks or reserves and changed daily routines. Authorities in the Turochaksky district imposed a curfew and adjusted school schedules after a tourist was killed near Artybash. Night access was prohibited in Krasnoyarskiye Stolby National Park, while other protected areas issued warnings or limited entry. Regional agencies also authorised extensive killing: officials reported more than 50 bears shot in the Altai Republic and more than 180 animals classified as potentially dangerous killed in Krasnoyarsk Krai.

Population claims need careful scrutiny

The federal ministry estimates Russia’s brown-bear population at 307,900, about 2.3 times its 1990 level. Officials have linked the increase in encounters to poor berry, mushroom and pine-nut harvests, wildfires, accessible rubbish and rising animal numbers. Meduza noted, however, that several official explanations remain insufficiently demonstrated. Statements that bears entering settlements necessarily teach the behaviour to later generations, for example, were not supported by the scientific literature cited in the report.

Long-term research catalogued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s AGRIS system offers a more complex picture. A study of Russian incidents from 1932 through 2017 found that known attacks most often followed a bear being disturbed or surprised, while a smaller share appeared predatory. The authors recommended education about carnivore behaviour and better management of human activity in bear habitat. That evidence does not rule out targeted removal of dangerous animals, but it cautions against treating population size as the sole cause.

What authorities must decide next

The immediate challenge is to separate emergency protection from durable wildlife management. Regional submissions could lead Moscow to loosen culling rules, but scientists quoted by Meduza argued that killing every animal seen near a settlement would not solve problems created by waste sites, land use and accidental encounters. The next indicators will be the ministry’s legislative proposal, transparent population methodology and whether local governments invest in rubbish control, public warnings and trained response teams. A harsh winter could also test predictions of another wave of hungry bears emerging in spring 2027.