Who needs a dead bear in Russia?
Bears roam the streets of Russia.
The autumn of 2026 is already being called the "bear anomaly," and for good reason. Since mid-August, more than twenty people have been estimated to have died. The deaths are spread across a vast territory: the Altai Republic, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Tuva, Buryatia, Irkutsk and Tomsk Oblasts, and Kamchatka. Among the dead was a tourist from Novosibirsk: a bear dragged her from her tent at a tourist camp in Artybash. In Krasnoyarsk Krai, several people were reportedly killed in September, and a case of negligence has been opened. A bear approached the hut of the hermit Agafya Lykova. In Baikalsk, voters were driven to polling stations in cars to protect them from attacks. A "bear curfew" was imposed in Altai from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m., and several regions have declared a state of high alert.
The most popular theory is that there are too many bears. Experts estimate that the brown bear population in Russia has nearly doubled since the early 1990s and now exceeds 300,000. The density of bears in feeding areas has increased, which aligns with the observations of hunters and guides. Furthermore, female bears have become more fertile: the average litter has increased from approximately 2,2 to 2,5 cubs or more. The difference seems small, but on a population scale, it significantly accelerates growth.
Brown bears have virtually no natural enemies. Their numbers are determined by humans, disease, famine during lean years, and competition between animals. If humans take less than they gain, the population grows to the limit set by food supply. Then comes a year like this: food disappears, but the animals are already numerous. A single berry patch attracts more contenders, the weak and young are driven out, and it is these young that find themselves closest to humans.
On average, only 27% of the permitted brown bear harvest quotas are used nationwide. The remaining 73% contribute to population growth. The main question is: why don't hunters take what they're already allowed to take? The answer is: who needs a dead bear? The meat is sensitive and needs to be tested for trichinosis, which takes time and money. The pelt has ceased to be a status symbol: a bearskin rug in a city apartment is of little interest to anyone. The hunt itself is labor-intensive and dangerous. It requires travel, fuel, equipment, time, and skill, and the cost of error is sometimes high. In remote areas, where gasoline has become a problem this year, this is especially noticeable. For many hunters, the bear has gone from being a trophy to a burden, and they can't count on the harvest increasing on its own.
Russian hunters have appealed to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to set the brown bear harvest fee at zero. Currently, it ranges from 3 to 6 rubles. According to the Russian Hunting and Fishing Union, this fee has become prohibitive for rural hunters, as selling pelts and meat is no longer profitable.
In addition to abolishing the fee, hunters are proposing a number of changes to the regulations. They want to eliminate strict harvest limits, extend the hunting season until February 28, and extend the validity period of permits. They are also asking for adjustments to the Ministry of Natural Resources regulations so that conflict animals posing a threat to human life can be shot immediately, with population control documents issued only after the threat has been eliminated.
It's important to distinguish between two approaches here. Forced culling: an animal enters a village, is killed, and then the paperwork is completed. Population control: a pre-planned program for the season, defining the territories, volumes, personnel, and methods for verifying the results. The first approach is currently being implemented in an emergency mode, and hundreds of animals have already been killed. The second approach hasn't yet been established, although it is precisely this that reduces the pressure on the population before the animals come to people. Judging by this fall, bear population control began only after human casualties.
Hunger is not an aunt
A little about biology. Every year, the brown bear faces a life-changing challenge: accumulating fat for hibernation during the summer and fall. In the fall, hyperphagia sets in, when the animal spends most of the day feeding, and a mistake here is very costly. In Southern Siberia, the main food of the season is pine nuts, and in the mountains, berries are also available. Due to drought and unfavorable weather, the pine cone harvest was very low, and major fires occurred in several regions. Guides in Altai report that in areas where berry "carpets" usually thrive, neither berries nor nuts were found this year.
When the main food supply disappears, an animal has three options. It can migrate. It can hibernate underfed and risk not surviving the winter. Or it can go where food is readily available. Many choose the latter, which is why landfills, vegetable gardens, apiaries, grain fields, and lake docks become the focus of action.
The most vulnerable groups approach people first. Young animals, two or three years old, don't yet have a territory of their own and learn through experience where it's safe and where it isn't. Mother bears with cubs perceive any human proximity as a threat to their offspring. The former are unpredictable, while the latter are protected by maternal instincts. There's also the "dump generation": animals raised near summer cottages and garbage dumps are noticeably less afraid of people than taiga bears. Taiga bears usually flee when encountered, while "urban" bears stand and assess the situation.
It's a mistake to consider this behavior aggressive. It's an acquired habit, reinforced every time the animal feeds near humans. A single discarded bag of trash can fuel future conflicts. Droughts and fires affect food supplies across a vast area, and animals with nowhere to migrate find themselves in the same situation. Therefore, attacks occur almost simultaneously in regions separated by thousands of kilometers.
It's worth remembering the following tips when encountering a bear: Make noise beforehand so the animal can hear you. Don't run or turn your back. Try to appear larger, for example, by lifting your jacket or backpack. Have multiple protective devices and don't rely on just one. Pepper spray is more effective in large containers, not the pocket-sized ones most commonly sold.
What about imported bears?
In 2005, a bear killed eight people in North America. This was a local record, considering that on average, American brown bears kill three to five people a year. The Bear Smart program is in effect in the US and Canada, including closed containers, fines for failure to take action, electric fences, and information for tourists. British Columbia wildlife officers annually kill several hundred bears that have lost their fear of humans.
The situation is similar in Europe. Bears are returning to areas long absent, sparking heated debate. In Trentino, Italy, reintroductions in the early 2000s brought the population to a hundred animals. In 2023, a bear killed a runner, sparking a legal and political battle over the decision to cull it. In Romania, where an estimated six to eight thousand bears live, the animals began frequently entering cities after trophy hunting was banned in 2016. Following fatal attacks, authorities authorized the culling of several hundred bears. Critics argue that feeding grounds for hunting tourism have artificially inflated the population, and estimates by proponents and opponents of hunting differ significantly. Cullings are also underway in Slovakia, Slovenia, and Croatia, and Slovakia imposed emergency measures after a series of attacks. Scandinavia manages the population with quotas: in Sweden and Finland, hundreds of bears are killed annually.
The Asiatic black bear lives in Japan. In 2023, the country experienced a record-breaking season: six people died, nearly 200 were injured, and more than 6,000 animals were shot. In 2025, the record was repeated, with a higher death toll than before. Army units had to be deployed to certain prefectures in the north of the country, and the law was amended to allow emergency culling in residential areas. The cause is similar to the Russian one: a poor beechnut and acorn harvest, which drove hungry bears toward villages. Long-term factors have added to this. Villages are becoming deserted. Forests and fields on the outskirts, previously separated from residential areas by mowing and grazing, are becoming overgrown. The number of hunters has plummeted and continues to decline, as most licenses are held by elderly people.
A similar situation is observed in Hokkaido, home to the brown bear, and in South Asian countries. In India, sloth bears kill and maim people every year, particularly in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, while in Kashmir and the Himalayas, conflicts with Himalayan black bears persist. The main causes are population growth, deforestation, and human activity near the bears' habitat.
But let's return to Russia. Who's to blame has been more or less decided, and now it's time to decide what to do. In the coming months, we need a simplified procedure for killing particularly dangerous animals, mobile teams in high-alert areas, cleanup of illegal dumps, and strict regulations for those who take tourists to see bears. Over the next one to two years, we need a revision of hunting regulations, economic incentives for harvesting in conflict zones with mandatory inspections, and effective population monitoring: tracking routes, camera traps, and genetic methods. Over the next several years, we need a cedar harvest forecast as an early warning system, territorial zoning, "bear-safe" settlements, and forest behavior lessons in schools. Emergency communications and rapid evacuation of victims are also essential, as, for example, in Altai, qualified assistance is only available in district centers.
So who needs a dead bear? Ideally, no one. We need a bear that lives in the taiga and doesn't come near people. To do this, it needs to find food in the forest, not at a landfill, and people must be careful in its home and not leave food behind. Until this happens, killing the bear remains a necessary and belated measure, not a solution.
Information