In April, lawmakers in Russia’s lower chamber consider a bill at first reading that would raise the minimum fine for violations of hunting rules. The proposed increase could lift the baseline penalty from 500 rubles to higher levels, with reports in media indicating possible fines reaching two thousand rubles, depending on the infraction and its severity. The draft text outlines this potential shift along with other adjustments to administrative penalties related to hunting governance.
The amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation were drafted by the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan. The proposal also includes a stricter approach to license discipline, proposing a minimum deprivation period of one to two years for those who lose their hunting privileges due to violations. This additional measure aims to reinforce regulatory compliance and deter repeated offenses among hunters and communities connected to hunting activity.
The bill’s explanatory note states that a state duty of 650 rubles would be required to obtain permission for the extraction of hunting resources, while the calculated damage from illegal duck hunting could amount to 1.8 thousand rubles. At the same time, the draft places a cap on penalties for poaching offenses at 500 rubles, underscoring a complex balance between revenue collection, deterrence, and enforcement practicality. This framing invites debate about whether the proposed financial penalties align with environmental protection goals and the costs associated with enforcement and monitoring in various regions.
Data from the State Policy and Regulation of the Ministry of Natural Resources on hunting indicates that over the period from 2019 to 2021 more than 121 thousand hunting-rule breaches were identified across Russia. The draft notes that in excess of 80 percent of these cases resulted in fines at or above the 500 ruble level, while the period also saw 5,452 criminal matters opened and 1,091 individuals brought to prosecution. The aggregate damage to hunting resources during these years was estimated at 79.8 million rubles, illustrating the scale of the issue and the economic stakes involved in enforcement and compliance efforts. These figures provide context for the proposed changes and the ongoing discussion among policymakers, conservationists, and hunting communities about how best to protect wildlife resources while maintaining lawful access for responsible participants.
The Communist Party expressed willingness to back the bill, highlighting the substantial environmental harm caused by breaches of hunting rules. Yet many experts and experienced hunters question whether simply raising the minimum penalty will shift behavior on the ground. They emphasize that enforcement effectiveness, regional differences in wildlife resources, and the practicality of policing hunting activities will influence outcomes as much as monetary penalties themselves. The ongoing conversation reflects a broader concern with aligning legal provisions to deter illegal harvest, support habitat protection, and ensure fair sporting opportunities for compliant hunters across diverse regions.
Earlier reports described an incident in the Krasnoyarsk Territory involving a hunter who selected a vehicle based on the discovery of a badger concealed beneath the hood. Such anecdotes underscore the unpredictable challenges that accompany wildlife interactions and the importance of coherent policy design that supports both animal welfare and lawful hunting practices. The evolving framework aims to establish clearer consequences for unlawful acts while preserving legitimate access to hunting resources for licensed participants, guided by contemporary standards of conservation and public safety and without compromising rural livelihoods and recreational traditions.