Is it true that the bear population in Russia has more than doubled and now exceeds 300,000 individuals?

We continue to explore the issue of bears in Russia. In an earlier article, I included comments from scientists and experts stating that the actual bear population in the country is unknown and largely just “bureaucratic guesses.” This is the opinion of specialists who directly study bears in the wild.

But today I want to discuss another phenomenon surrounding the population numbers. The fact is, we are currently being presented with statistical data as justification for the need to kill bears all winter while they sleep in their dens, and to lift limits on their hunting, claiming that the population has supposedly more than doubled in recent decades.

On September 30, 2026, this was publicly announced by the authorities. They claim there are now over 300,000 bears, whereas in 1990 there were 130,000 animals. So, it seems they have multiplied excessively and there's nowhere to put them.

Now let's examine this issue based on real data.

So, we take the current stated population — 307.9 thousand bears in 2026 — and compare it to 130,000 individuals in 1990, resulting in an increase of 2.37 times, or +136.8%.

Authorities refer to the fact that in the vast Soviet Union, there were half as many bears as in modern Russia. 

This even leads to systemic paradoxes. The association 'Rosokhotrybolovsouz', which appealed to the government with a request to allow them to kill bears without limits, pay bonuses from the budget for this, and legalize the hunting of bears during winter hibernation, cited the increase in population as their reason.

They published material on their site, and I will quote:

"There is a widespread belief, even among specialists, that people have started hunting bears less, which is why they have become bolder. But the statistics say otherwise. If in 1981, with a population of about 80,000, 3,000 bears were officially hunted, then by 2025, both figures have increased exactly 4 times — 300,000 and 12,000. So the issue lies elsewhere."

"...no one knows the exact population. There are no methods to count every single bear in the forest. Our population figures are subjective estimates, nothing more. Nevertheless, the number of conflicts already makes it clear that something needs to be done about the bears."

Such is the paradox. They used even older data on population, yet at the same time confirm that no one knows the actual numbers! 

Now let's turn to real scientific works from those years when it was claimed there were about 130,000 bears. First and foremost is a fundamental and very large scientific work titled «Some Comments on Different Methods of Counting Brown Bear, L., 1758, Populations Used in the Former USSR»by Igor Chestin from the Department of Vertebrate Zoology and General Ecology at Moscow State University.

PDF · 206.6 KB Study the research (PDF)

The study was published in 1994, meaning the data presented pertains to the turn of the 1990s. Chistyin, in his work, analyzes the system of methods for accounting for the brown bear used in the former USSR, including European Russia, the Caucasus, Altai, Sayan Mountains, Krasnoyarsk Krai, the Far East, Kamchatka, Chukotka, and other territories.

He divides the methods into local (for reserves and individual hunting grounds) and large-scale — for regions, republics, and ultimately, estimates at the national level. This study is important to us because it specifically examines the methodological reliability of the population figures, which were then used to form the bear population indicators for Russia and the USSR.

And our officials also refer to Chistyin's work in their assessments.

Now let's look at the study itself, verbatim: "There is still no single standard method for accounting for bears." In other words, the scientist explicitly states that there is no standard method for accounting for bears at all.

Further: 

"The count is usually conducted over a small area with subsequent extrapolation to the entire habitat area." 

That is, researchers DID NOT COUNT BEARS ACROSS THE ENTIRE TERRITORY. They surveyed selected areas and then simply extrapolated the results to vast territories. This is GUESSWORK, NOT A RELIABLE POPULATION COUNT.

"In almost all cases, such zones are determined arbitrarily, and this is likely a weak point in the population estimation process." 

Here, the scientist openly acknowledges methodological problems: the number obtained in one area was extrapolated to the area chosen by the researchers, with the boundaries of homogeneous zones determined arbitrarily.

"The first category of local methods seems unsuitable for counting bears, and these methods have no value as a standard methodology for the country."

This refers to the fact that data obtained from concentrations of animals at feeding sites, spawning rivers, slopes, etc., cannot simply be converted into a reliable nationwide population count.

"It is quite difficult to determine what exactly such accounting provides: does it reflect the actual dynamics of the bear population or merely the relative attractiveness of a given area for bears?"

It's all very simple: the change in the number of animals observed might indicate not a change in population, but a change in the feeding situation and animal movements.

"Counting brown bears on routes to winter dens also does not seem reliable." 

This is about the fact that bears go into dens before the snow appears and are missed in the count, and migration can occur in just a few days. Naturally, these animals are simply overlooked in any count and assessment.

"Extrapolating data collected on migration paths can cause additional errors, as it is unclear from what area bears come to a specific place." 

This literally means that local observations cannot be turned into an exact number of animals over a vast area. Let me remind you, we are talking about the vast Soviet Union and modern Russia thereafter.

Further, Chastin confirms that large-scale methods are not really counts, but merely estimates. The phrase literally goes: "Strictly speaking, these are estimation methods, not counting methods." 

So when an official tells us that the population was such and such, historically similar figures were merely estimates, not the result of direct animal population counts.

Is it necessary to say that, essentially, THERE WAS NO METHOD FOR COUNTING BEARS IN THOSE YEARS? The study that officials refer to directly refutes this; moreover, the study itself discusses the reliability of the methods.

Let's assume, now look at what Chastin writes in his work: 

"The first attempt to estimate the population of brown bears across the country was made by Vereshchagin (1972), who used records from offices that purchased bear skins from hunters."

So, even in the 1970s, there was no assessment of the bear population, and they were counted based on the purchase of bear skins. Additionally, some estimates were made through surveys of foresters and interviews with hunters. That's it! That's all the statistics.

Moreover, Chastin in his study notes discrepancies in the data from the State Hunting Registry: 

"The origin of these data varied between administrative units: it could either be an expert assessment by hunting management workers or an extrapolation of actual count results."

This is extremely important. It turns out that the overall figure for the country was actually composed of different values. In some places, expert assessments, in others, surveys, extrapolation, and local counts. Then they were combined. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS CONDUCTING A UNIFIED STANDARDIZED NATIONAL COUNT OF BEAR POPULATION IN RUSSIA.

Thus, there is no real confirmation that in the 1990s we had 130,000 bears. The counting methods were just emerging, they were varied, questionable, and this is confirmed by the same studies that officials refer to now.

As early as 1997, Igor Chestin released another work indicating that, based on literary sources and postal surveys of hunters, the bear population was approximately 130,000 individuals. This was not a proven number, but rather based on all the distorted and fragmented data available at the time.

Let's move on.

By 2010, the state assessment showed about 182,000–183,000 animals, a time when methodologies improved, exploration of natural territories increased, and humans ventured deeper into the taiga. Yet, even here, the data varied: one section of the Ministry of Natural Resources indicated 181,900 individuals, while the state inventory summary reported 183,000 brown bears. The state report itself states: "based on the results of the assessments, the stock of this species is estimated." So, even according to official terminology, this is an approximate resource estimate, not an exact count of all animals.

In 2012, the Ministry of Natural Resources itself acknowledged the problem and confirmed the need for proper comprehensive monitoring, stating in the report: 

"To obtain reliable information on the number of game animals in Russia, a comprehensive state monitoring effort is necessary."

And in the same year, 2012, scientists attempted to count the population in a local area. Almost two decades after Chestin, the authors compared Russian practices with modern genetic methods. Both Russian scientists and international specialists participated in the study. The work is titled «Non-invasive genetic sampling of brown bears and Asiatic black bears in the Russian Far East: A pilot study». They studied the bear population in the Far East. That is, locally.

PDF · 808.8 KB Study the research (PDF)

I quote:

"Unfortunately, reliable and consistent estimates of population numbers and densities, which could be used to assess and monitor the status of both bear species, are generally lacking." 

This means that there are no reliable estimates of the population status at all when it comes to the brown and black bears found in our region.

"Methods for assessing the distribution and numbers of bears in Russia were based on expert knowledge, winter route/track surveys, and visual observations."

"Despite the widespread use of these methods, they are considered less rigorous than modern methods of recapture and DNA-based techniques used in other countries."

"Only slight progress has been made in estimating these populations, and these estimates cannot be relied upon to reflect real population processes."

It's quite simple: any counts are superficial, the data cannot be trusted, they are unreliable. I remind you, this is about the Far East as of 2012. Twenty years after the publication of Chestin's work, which officials refer to when citing bear numbers from those years.

The authors further present a study in their work where:

"The population estimate for one year in a three-year study had a bias of more than 200%."

Again, it's very simple: the cause was not a collapse or explosion in numbers, but a poor harvest of the food base, causing bears to move over greater distances. So if you see a different number of tracks or animals, it doesn't indicate a population boom, as officials portray, but points to problems in their habitat. This changes spatial distribution, food base, movement range, detection probability, seasonal concentration of animals, and so on.

And the errors in population estimates JUST BECAUSE OF THIS in the example provided by the authors exceeded 200%. Suppose you have 100,000 bears, and you draw an additional 200,000 on top and consider that the population suddenly became 300,000 individuals just because, say, the spatial distribution of the population changed.

And the most interesting thing is what the scientists, who were specifically engaged in DNA-based population estimates of bears in a limited area and studied this problem thoroughly and deeply, report, I quote:

"Regional wildlife management authorities currently lack the resources for systematic population surveys."

The material has already become extensive, but I think the problem needs to be fully disclosed. Otherwise, people will never learn about it on a large scale.

Look. Let's move on to the years 2015–2017.

The official figures start to contradict each other, with a discrepancy of 102,000 bears.

The Ministry of Natural Resources stated that as of 2017, there were 245.1 thousand bears, and at the same time, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation stated that if there were 225.1 thousand in 2015, then by 2017, only 143 thousand remained due to total extermination. That is, the difference with the Ministry's data is 102,100 bears, or the Ministry's estimate is 71.4% higher than the Prosecutor General's figure.

You cannot simultaneously have both 143,000 and 245,000 animals in one country in one year and consider both figures as accurate population counts. And this already indicates that within federal agencies, apparently, no one understands the real situation with bear numbers at all.

And from 2015 to 2020, scientific literature associates part of the "growth" depicted by officials from the Ministry of Natural Resources with changes in methodologies. The studies indicate: 

"Officially reported population figures should be treated with caution."

These are the conclusions of scientists and relevant experts, not my whim. Scientists say: official figures should be treated with caution.

And here's why.

In the same year, 2017, when there was a scandal over the figures from the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding the bear population, a scientific paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which includes states, scientific institutions, and conservation organizations, indicated that in Russia, according to their data, the bear population was only about 100,000 individuals.

Take note:

The Ministry of Natural Resources reports a population of 245,000.

The Prosecutor General's Office states that there is a total extermination of bears, and the population is already only 143,000 individuals, and the agency even requested that bears be included in the Red Book of Russia.

Meanwhile, international scientific papers provide data on approximately 100,000 individuals across the entire country. It is worth noting that in those years, many organizations were not banned, and a very large independent monitoring effort was conducted openly in the country. This means that fires were identified, deforestation was tracked, and cross-referencing with global databases on wild animal populations was done.

Then comes 2021, and the Federal Center for the Development of Hunting Management (note the name of the organization) declares a population of 300,147 bears.

This figure was immediately 'shot down' by bear expert Mikhail Krechmar at the Russian Geographical Society platform. He noted that such results should be considered with at least a 20–25% margin of error, as there is still no unified methodology for Russia. Moreover, he himself is an active hunter, represents the interests of the hunting lobby, and actively promotes the need to increase the killing of bears. This is very important to understand! 

Be sure to note: from the data of the 1990s, where it was reported that there was no real count of bear numbers, nor any methodologies, to 2021, when even hunting experts confirm that no one is still accurately counting bears.

And it's not hard to assess a 25% margin of error, which roughly translates to minus 75,000 bears right away. Quite a "miscalculation," isn't it? The range of uncertainty is comparable to entire decades of claimed growth.

And already the next year, which is 2022 for us, researchers stated that they were unable to verify the accuracy of the estimates. Moreover, the scientists worked specifically with official data from the 'Centrohotcontrol' and regional authorities.

The study is called «Brown bear-caused human injuries and fatalities in Russia are linked to human encroachment», a very high-quality work by our Russian scientists. It covers all of Russia, divided into European Russia, Siberia, and the Far East, and analyzes the period from 2001 to 2018.

PDF · 841.8 KB Study the research (PDF)

The scientists studied officials' data on animal numbers. The conclusions are extremely simple, I quote:

"We were unable to verify the accuracy of these estimates."

And in the same study, scientists examined bear attacks on humans and concluded that the increase in attacks is NOT RELATED TO POPULATION GROWTH.

In plain terms:

"In Siberia, the number of victims was not related to the number of bears."

Instead, they indicated that it was related to the density of roads and the presence of cedar forests, where both people and bears concentrate due to food resources.

Note once again that this is not some journalist's commentary or even my personal opinion, but direct statements from scientists. They analyzed road density, compared attacks, the increase in injuries and deaths, overlaid all this on a model, and proved a specific statistical result.

In fact, the study itself is literally translated as "Human injuries and deaths caused by brown bears in Russia are linked to human encroachment into natural territories."

Quotes from there:

"Our study shows a link between habitat degradation and human-wildlife conflict."

"Our study also revealed a persistent link between habitat degradation... and traumatic encounters between large predators and humans."

"The increase in road density enhances human access to remote areas and causes forest fragmentation—a critical factor in human-wildlife conflicts."

"The ultimate cause of the decline in predator numbers, including bears, is human persecution."

Furthermore, scientists suggest that to solve the problem, we should NOT INCREASE ANIMAL SHOOTINGS, but "Reduce human access to areas where resources are used by both bears and humans, including, where possible, closing or eliminating relevant dirt roads."

And for those who blame the bears, scientists checked 310 recorded victims from 2001–2018. The statistics are as follows: 22% were gathering wild plants, 17% were hiking, 13% were working outdoors, 10% were fishing, and another 10% were hunting. Only 16% of attacks occurred in populated areas. Thus, almost all cases resulted from spatial overlap between humans and bears, not "terrifying beasts coming to devour us in towns and villages."

Such is the study.

In 2022, Russian scientist Puchkovsky from Udmurt State University published a study "Sources of Growth in Brown Bear Population Numbers in Russia.". 

I quote: 

"It is likely that the figures in federal information sources, based on expert assessments, are somewhat inflated."

Again, it’s simple: the bear population in the country is a subjective opinion of experts, not an actual count, and most likely, the data is inflated.

In the same year, 2022, brown bear specialist Sergey Pazhetnov, when asked about the current population in Russia, replied: "Probably around 120–130 thousand."So, here another expert suggests that in 2022, the bear population in our country was only about 120–130 thousand individuals.

In the following year, 2023, a contemporary Russian scientific work describes track-based accounting as subjective. 

I quote: 

"For this very reason, track-based accounting is subjective in principle." 

Interestingly, leading scientist Ogurtsov cites an earlier conclusion by Yu. P. Gubar that bear counts are labor-intensive, diverse, applied inconsistently, and at the initial stage often "differ little from opinion."

And in 2023, the Ministry of Natural Resources itself acknowledges the fundamental problem of accounting. In its own justification, it states:

"As a hibernating animal, the bear is not recorded by such a primary method for Russia as ZMU <...> this creates significant difficulties in assessing the size of its population."

They also refer to scientist V. S. Pazhetnov, who acknowledges that "this accounting cannot reflect reliable population figures."

So even the agency itself officially recognizes serious problems in counting and assessing the bear population in Russia.

And here we come to the most important point — our year 2026. Suddenly, the Ministry of Natural Resources announces that the bear population is now 307.9 thousand individuals, having doubled since the 1990s, when there were supposedly only 130 thousand bears.

However, there is no reliable data indicating that the actual biological population of bears in Russia is this large. On the contrary, all scientific data, expert assessments, scientists' opinions, and even statements from officials suggest otherwise.

Yet, this is precisely what is used to justify the need to kill bears throughout the winter in their dens. This year, quotas were signed to shoot over 52 thousand bears across the country, and there is talk of considering the removal of any limits on "harvesting."

© PAVEL PASHKOV