UNDP/GEF
Conservation of Biodiversity on Kamchatka's 4
Protected Areas
Spring Bear Hunt
On the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Spring Bear Hunt is Debated and Upheld
By Melissa Mooza
Note from the author: The following text was compiled with assistance and information provided by numerous sources. The author would like to especially thank Vsevelod Voropanov , the Head Wildlife Biologist and Deputy Head of the Kamchatka Regional Hunting Resources Management Department.
Russia ’s Kamchatka Peninsula provides habitat to a unique population of brown bear (Ursus arctos beringianus). These bears, which are Eurasia’s largest, are as inextricable a component of Kamchatka’s landscape as are its smoking volcanoes and bubbling geysers. The bears are a treasure, an important part of the peninsula’s natural heritage, valuable for their ecological, cultural, and economic significance.
The bears occupy an important link in the peninsula’s ecological chains. Because they do not entirely consume all the salmon they catch, the bears make salmon biomass available to other animals that live along the peninsula’s many salmon streams. Bears also transport salmon away from spawning areas and to the forest floor and riparian zone, where nutrients from decomposing salmon carcasses are incorporated into the ecosystem by plants and animals. The bears, which contribute to Kamchatka’s mystique as a corner of untamed wilderness, also help attract visitors to this remote “land of fire and ice.” For ecotourists and hunters alike, an encounter with one of Kamchatka’s mythical brown bears is a thrilling and unforgettable experience; for this privilege they are willing to pay handily, and their investment helps support local businesses and service providers.
Yet, how man and bear will coexist on Kamchatka remains a question open to much debate and discussion. One particularly contentious issue, which has solicited active involvement by various stakeholders in recent months, is the issue of the spring bear hunt. Kamchatka’s spring bear hunt, which has been carried out for many years, is a cause of great concern for some conservationists and bear biologists.
They believe that the spring bear hunt is unsporting because the bears are especially defenseless at this time. Snow-covered slopes and denuded forests offer the animals little camouflage, and the bears, having just emerged from their dens after a long hibernation, are sluggish. Lumbering through deep snow, they stand little chance of outrunning hunters, many of whom are pursing the bears in helicopters or on snowmobiles and are equipped with sophisticated weaponry, including telegraphic sights and night vision equipment. Conservationists also worry that, with such an overwhelming advantage over the bears, hunters have the luxury of selectively tracking and shooting the largest members of the species. There is concern that the removal of these large individuals will weaken the genetic pool of bears on the peninsula, thus contributing to an overall size decrease in the population.
It was in late 2002 that specialists from the Kamchatka Oblast Directorate for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection first began formally discussing the introduction of a ban on the spring hunt. A year later, after conducting an analysis of data compiled by nature conservation organizations, they began developing a formal proposal to introduce the ban. The proposal enjoyed support among a number of influential officials and on June 30, 2004, the governor of Kamchatka Oblast, Mikhail Mashkotsev, issued Resolution No. 250, on repealing the brown bear hunt on the territory of Kamchatka Oblast during spring 2005. The resolution stipulates that the spring quota be reallocated to the fall hunt. Thus, the total annual limit, previously divided equally between the two seasons, will not change; rather the entire limit, which generally ranges between 500-550 bears, will be assigned to the fall hunt.
In early July, in the days immediately following the governor’s resolution, a meeting to discuss the ban and measures of its implementation was held in the administration of Kamchatka Oblast under the chairmanship of the head of the Directorate of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Vladimir Rybak. Other participants in the meeting included specialists from the representative office of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Kamchatka Oblast, directors of businesses involved in hunting tourism, representatives of the Kamchatka Regional Hunting Resources Management Department (KamchatOblOkhotUpravlenie), representatives of the peninsula’s nature conservation organizations, and hunters. Participants in the meeting carefully weighed the pros and cons of the spring bear hunt ban. They decided that the ban should be introduced in 2005 and that it should remain in effect until a recommendation from specialists confirms that the stock of especially large individuals has increased.
The governor’s resolution was met with stiff opposition from the peninsula’s hunting management authorities and from game specialists who disagreed with the validity of many of the assumptions underpinning the ban. They claim that concerns about the population status of Kamchatka’s bears are unfounded. Despite widespread concerns that information on the population ecology of Kamchatka’s bears is fragmented, hunting management authorities and game biologists claim to have adequate data demonstrating the relative health of the population according to a number of different parameters, including: total population; gender, age, and social structure; and reproductive potential. They claim that estimates of Kamchatka’s brown bear population over the last ten years indicate that the population is stable and demonstrates a tendency for growth.
They also disagree with assertions that the selective nature of the spring hunt is stripping the population of its largest members, and thus having a lasting effect on the gene pool. Hunting authorities concede that the hunt is selective, but they note that this has always and will always be the case, especially among trophy hunters. Furthermore, they claim that hunters’ selection of the largest individuals, which are generally older males, is compensated for by the gender and age structure of the population. One Kamchatka-based wildlife biologist noted that as bears age, the gender balance within the population shifts in favor of males. From birth, the male-female ratio among bears is 50%-50%; by four to six years of age, the ratio shifts to 58%-42%; and in old age, the gender ratio is 71%-29%, in favor of males. They also note that older male bears do not play a critical role in the reproduction process; instead it is middle-aged individuals, approximately ten to twelve years of age, which play the most important role in the transfer of genetic material within the population. They further claim that the gene for gigantism in brown bears is present in all individuals, regardless of their size, and that the frequency of the gene, and thus the trait, has not been altered. In addition, game specialists suggest that the removal of large males from the population can actually have a positive impact on population growth. Large, older males frequently kill and eat cubs; they also dominate the most productive feeding grounds, which relegates females and cubs to less desirable territories.
Hunting management authorities also have practical concerns about how such a ban will be implemented. Without adequate transportation and gas, they lack the capacity to protect hunting grounds during the spring period and thus to enforce the ban.
Usually hunting companies and tourist hunting agencies, which have a clear financial interest in preserving bears for paying clientele, provide funds to protect bears on their territory from poachers. These companies also support the costs of censuses and monitoring bear populations. In 2002 alone, hunting companies invested 500,000 rubles (approximately U.S.$16,000, given the average annual exchange rate for 2002, which was 31.45 rubles to the dollar) in activities to protect and monitor bears. However, if the spring hunt is banned, these companies will unlikely deploy rangers to protect their territories, over which poachers will consequently have free range. Hunting management authorities assess bear poaching levels over the last ten years at 2,700 ± 500 individuals, which averages out to 220-330 bears a year. These figures will certainly rise if hunting enterprises are no longer patrolling their lands because of the ban.
Opponents of the ban also cite potential economic losses to the local economy and regional and federal budgets. Bear hunting on the Kamchatka Peninsula is big business, for both local and non-local operators. Tour companies advertising on the internet list hunt prices exceeding U.S.$10,000, and experts with KamchatOblOkhotUpravlenie estimate that commercial hunting tours bring up to U.S.$ 1,000,000 to the region’s economy each year. At the same time, hunting and tourist companies pay a certain portion of their profit in federal taxes and fees. The purchase of licenses for the spring bear hunt also infuses money into budgets on various levels each year. Approximately 250 licenses, each costing 6,000 rubles, or U.S.$215, have been awarded in the past for the spring season. Another very real concern is how the ban will affect people whose livelihoods depend on hunting. It is estimated that approximately 500-700 people on Kamchatka will lose a significant part of their income due to the ban. Opponents of the ban surmise that some professional hunters and guides may compensate for this loss by poaching bears for their skulls, gall bladders, paws, and hides, all of which are highly valuable commercially.
Actions against the ban began immediately following the governor’s issuance of the resolution. In July 2004, the head of KamchatOblOkhotUpravlenie Konstantin Kudzin traveled to Moscow, where he met with officials in hopes of persuading them that the spring hunt should not be prohibited. As spring drew nearer, opposition activity intensified and the issue was frequently covered by the local media.
On January 11, 2005, the acting prosecutor of Kamchatka Oblast, Nikolai Malashkin, protested the governor’s resolution. The Prosecutor’s Office claimed that the resolution was issued on the basis of normative acts that were no longer in force; the Prosecutor’s Office also noted that the proposed ban had not undergone a mandatory ecological evaluation, nor did the resolution include a requisite petition from the plenipotentiary organ, KamchatOblOkhotUpravlenie. Malashkin presented his case to repeal the resolution on February 25, 2005, in the Kamchatka Oblast court. After having reviewed the arguments of both sides, the court decided not to award the prosecutor’s claims and the ban on bear hunting on Kamchatka during spring 2005 remains in force.
Shortly after this court decision, the press service of the Administration of Kamchatka Oblast issued a release about a letter received by the governor on March 9 from the Deputy Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Valentin Stepankov. In his letter, Stepankov expressed the Ministry’s support of the ban, which he described as being “necessary, modern, complying with acting legislation of the Russian Federation, and meeting the demands of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).” He also wrote that “the Ministry of Natural Resources finds no basis to overturn the resolution of the Governor of Kamchatka Oblast. Furthermore, the Ministry considers it necessary to develop an action plan for the protection and sustainable use of the brown bear of Kamchatka Oblast, which focuses on increased management effectiveness.”
Many conservation-minded people might view the introduction of the ban as a victory, but in fact, it is too early assess what the long-term effects of this ban will be, both for the peninsula’s bear population and for the many stakeholders—local and non-local—who had depended on income generated from the spring hunt. The spring bear hunt ban will likely be reviewed again after this season, and its supporters and opponents will again begin active advocacy work to influence future decisions about how this valuable resource will ultimately be managed.
Melissa Mooza is the Assistant Editor of Russian Conservation News.
Gerasimov, Nikolai and Anatoly Kovalenkov, letter to Margaret Williams, Executive Editor of RCN, January 21, 2005.
Yablochkov, Andrei, letter to RCN Editors, February 14, 2005.
Kamchatka Oblast Administration, Press Service. Press Release, July 10, 2004.
Karasik, Anton. “Safari po-gubernatorsky: Mikhail Mashkovtsev zapretil svoim postanovleniem vesennyuyu okhoty na Kamchatke s 2005 goda.” (Safari Governor-style: With his resolution, Mikhail Mashkovtsev prohibited the spring hunt on Kamchatka for 2005), Vesti: Ezhednevniye Kamchatskiye Novosti, July 16, 2004.
Fil, V.I. “K zaprety vesennei okhoty na burovo medvedya v Kamchatskoi oblasti.” (On the prohibition of the spring hunt of brown bear in Kamchatka Oblast). Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, February 28, 2005.
Voropanov, Vsevolod, telephone conversation with Laura Williams, April 18, 2005.
Voropanov, Vsevolod and Konstantin Kudzin. “ Kamchatka Brown Bear Population Management System.” Paper presented at the Fourth Workshop of the Brown Bear Working Group of the Northern Forum, Alaska, August 2002.
Fil, V.I. “K zaprety vesennei okhoty.”
Voropanov, Vsevolod and Konstantin Kudzin. “ Kamchatka Brown Bear Population Management.”
Voropanov, Vsevolod, telephone conversation with Laura Williams, April 18, 2005.
Fil, V.I. “K zaprety vesennei okhoty.”
“Okhotniki obratilis v sudyu. A kuda obraschatsya medvedam?” (Hunters appealed to the court. And to whom will the bears appeal?), RIA Novoisti, February 2, 2005.
“MPR RF vstalo na storony gubernatora Kamchatki” (The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation Supported the Governor of Kamchatka), Myagkoye Zoloto Publishing House, March 10, 2005.