Estonian court rules bear hunting permits unlawful in four of five areas
An Estonian administrative court has ruled that the Environmental Board unlawfully authorized brown bear hunting in four areas last year, as it failed to adequately consider alternatives to killing. Only one of the five permits met legal requirements.
An administrative court in Estonia has ruled that the country's Environmental Board unlawfully authorized the hunting of brown bears in four of five areas last year. The court found that the authority did not adequately consider alternatives to killing the animals. The ruling concerns how strictly exceptional permits for hunting a protected species must be justified in Estonia.
What was authorized
On October 3 last year, the Environmental Board issued an order allowing a total of five brown bears to be hunted in five areas to prevent damage. According to the order, between June and October bears had destroyed six beehives and 37 silage bales and killed at least 27 sheep. They had also repeatedly raided a cemetery in the Kivinõmme hunting district and damaged grain fields.
The nonprofit Estonia's Large Predators filed an appeal. The court partially upheld it, finding the order unlawful in four areas. In only one area did the authorization meet legal requirements.
The court's reasoning
The court noted that the EU Habitats Directive lists the brown bear as a species requiring strict protection. Killing a bear is allowed only in exceptional circumstances, and the decision must rest on precise and adequate justification. The board must be able to show, using reliable scientific data, that an exceptional permit is an appropriate means of reaching its goal, such as protecting people or property. A satisfactory alternative cannot be dismissed simply because it would be costly or inconvenient, and lethal action is justified only as a last resort.
In the four cases, the board had not adequately shown that no effective alternative measures existed. During the proceedings, it also acknowledged that in several areas possible alternatives had not been analyzed in detail, or their use had not been documented.
In the one area where the permit was upheld, a bear had killed at least 27 sheep in five attacks and raided one beehive. Measures there included electric fences for apiaries and sheep, bringing livestock indoors at night, and keeping livestock guardian dogs on some properties.
The court stressed that proving a risk of serious damage does not remove the need to prove that no satisfactory alternative exists, and that burden rests with the Environmental Board. The ruling can be appealed to Tallinn Circuit Court by December 7.
