According to the Silava forest research institute, at least 190 brown bears now roam Latvia – a figure that exceeds the count from five years ago by more than a factor of two. The rapid increase has moved the species from the remote woodlands into the public eye, with incidents ranging from a bear ambling through the streets of Jēkabpils to a mushroom‑picker scrambling up a birch tree.

Why the numbers are rising

Senior researcher Jānis Ozoliņš attributes the rebound primarily to successful local breeding rather than an influx of animals from neighbouring countries. He told UnionPress, "Last year we documented at least 18 mothers with cubs less than a year old in eastern Latvia," and added, "The population is no longer just passing through, it is establishing itself." These observations suggest that the bear community is now reproducing and settling across the eastern part of the country.

Public reaction and political pressure

The resurgence has divided opinion. Many rural residents welcome the return of a native predator, while others worry about property damage and the risk of attacks. Some politicians have floated the idea of reopening bear hunting to curb potential problems.

Why hunting may backfire

Ozoliņš warns that re‑introducing a harvest could undo the recovery. He notes that intensive hunting was the main cause of the species’ disappearance from the Baltic region in the past, and that current numbers are still too low to sustain a regulated quota without risking a reversal of the gains. Moreover, bears benefit from strict protection under European wildlife directives throughout most of the continent.

Non‑lethal management options

Instead of lethal control, the researcher proposes a suite of preventative measures: securing livestock and beehives, clarifying what damage is compensable, and creating rapid‑response teams trained to deal with bears that pose a threat. Latvia currently lacks both the legal framework and specialised personnel to remove a bear deemed dangerous.

Lessons from neighbours

Estonia, home to over 1,000 bears, combines a long hunting tradition with a monitoring system that has recently faced legal challenges from animal‑rights groups, illustrating that even well‑established regimes can encounter difficulties. Sweden, Croatia and Slovenia offer additional examples, pairing systematic monitoring and public‑education campaigns with tightly regulated hunting quotas to achieve coexistence.

What to do if you meet a bear

Ozoliņš also gave practical advice for anyone who might encounter a bear. He advises against running. If the animal has not noticed you, back away quietly. If it has, make your presence known by speaking, singing or clacking a branch, then retreat slowly. He stresses that trying to appear dominant is ineffective; a bear that follows is usually curious rather than predatory.

Reducing attractants

Since bears are drawn to the same forest resources as people – berries, mushrooms and occasionally beehives – reducing easy food sources on farms could lower the likelihood of encounters.

Broader policy context

The Latvian case arrives as the European Union reviews its biodiversity strategy, aiming to halt species loss by 2030. A thriving bear population could be hailed as a success for habitat restoration, yet it also tests national capacity to manage human‑wildlife conflict without resorting to lethal measures.

Farmers’ unions are already lobbying for clearer, faster compensation rules, arguing that existing schemes are vague and slow. If bears continue to expand into agricultural zones, damage costs could rise, adding pressure to rural households already coping with high energy prices and inflation.

Tourism operators see a commercial upside. Wildlife‑watching tours in the Baltic region have grown in popularity, and a healthy bear population could attract visitors, providing a boost to local economies.

Future distribution and the border fence

A fence along Latvia’s eastern border with Russia, erected for security reasons, may start influencing bear movement within the next five years. Ozoliņš predicts the barrier could concentrate animals in the western part of the country, where human density is higher, potentially increasing encounters.

Experts argue that proactive policies now – better farm protection, trained intervention units and public education – will prevent panic‑driven decisions later. The message to the public is clear: coexistence is possible, but it requires preparation, investment and a willingness to favour non‑lethal solutions.