Law Reforms and Human–Wildlife Conflicts in the Living Communities in a Depopulating Society: A Case Study of Habituated Bear Management in Contemporary Japan

Simple Summary

Human–wildlife conflicts in Japan, especially with Asiatic and brown bears, have risen due to habitat re-expansion. Short-term measures under the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Management Act focuses on emergency culling but lacks long-term planning and public education. This study advocates multi-layered policies integrating U.S. experiences for sustainable conflict management and community resilience.

Abstract

Human–wildlife conflicts can be broadly categorized from the perspective of human activities into conflicts (a) caused by the expansion of human activities into wildlife habitats, and (b) resulting from the re-expansion of wildlife habitats due to the decline of human activities. The first type of conflict has been managed through the systematic training of wildlife managers, field specialists, and well-organized institutional frameworks. In Japan, Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) have increasingly come into human contact because of habitat re-expansion. Short-term measures to protect human life and property include the implementation of the 2024 and 2025 revisions of the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Management Act, which designated bears as “managed wildlife” and “dangerous wildlife” and permitted emergency culling in residential areas. However, Japan’s approach remains limited in scope and depth, relies on ad hoc responses by local hunters, and lacks adequate public education and effective long-term sustainability planning. This study highlights the necessity of a multi-layered policy framework that integrates human–wildlife conflict management, particularly human–bear conflict, by comparing U.S. laws and policies and incorporating them into medium- and long-term strategies for community resilience and national land conservation. This approach may serve as a model for countries and regions facing similar demographic and ecological challenges.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Rationale

In Japan, population decline—driven by low birth rates and an aging society—as well as the concentration of people in a few major metropolitan areas, has led to severe depopulation and labor shortages in regions outside the large cities [1]. As of October 2023, Tokyo was the only prefecture that recorded population growth, resulting in what is often described as overconcentration in the Tokyo metropolitan area (Tōkyō-ken e no ikkyō shūchū) and the decline of regional communities (Chihō no hihei) [2]. In non-urban areas, the population is increasingly composed of older adults, and the shortage of the so-called working-age population has become critical in sectors such as healthcare, nursing care, transportation, and education. Moreover, entertainment and recreational facilities are decreasing, making these regions progressively less livable for the working-age population [1,3].

The human population is declining in certain countries and regions. According to World Population Prospects 2024 published by the United Nations, as of 2024, 63 countries and areas were estimated to have “reached their peak populations and entered a phase of decline” [4]. Representative examples include China, Germany, Japan, and Russia; these countries are expected to experience a population decline of approximately 14% each for the next 30 years [5]. Among the advanced economies, Japan is considered to have experienced the most rapid pace of demographic decline [6].

Such demographic shifts have had significant impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. Cafaro et al. [7] argued that an excessive human population has historically been the principal driver of biodiversity loss on a global scale, and that population decline may create opportunities for ecological restoration. Conversely, in Bulgaria, following the collapse of communism, depopulation and village abandonment led not to ecological “restoration,” but rather to invasions by aggressive monodominant invasive species (e.g., Solidago canadensis) and further biodiversity degradation [8]. Ecological “restoration,” in this context, entails expanding wildlife ranges into peri-urban or rural human-dominated areas. Such expansion increases the likelihood of human–wildlife conflicts, resulting in economic losses, animals injured and, at times, direct threats to human safety [9].

When large mammalian species emerge within human settlements, they are considered existential threats [10]. Bears within residential zones are termed “habituated bears” [11] or “urban bears” [12]—hereafter referred to as a “habituated bear”—and governments worldwide are compelled to respond. Generally, a boundary exists between human and wildlife habitats, and these cases can be classified into: (a) incidents wherein conflicts with wildlife occur because human living areas and activities have expanded, and (b) incidents wherein conflicts increase because human living areas and activities have contracted, allowing wildlife habitats to re-expand. Category (a) includes cases where people intrude into wildlife habitats and suffer personal harm. Category (b) includes cases where hunting pressure has decreased—either intentionally or unintentionally—resulting in bears losing their fear of humans. Reasons for the decline in hunting pressure can vary. For example, in Japan, it is caused by the depopulation of rural areas [13] and changes in recreational activities [14]; whereas in countries such as Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania, hunting management is not permitted even when wildlife populations are excessive [15,16].

In Japan, where population decline is progressing ahead of other countries, cases of category (b) have been increasing. Legal measures enabling emergency responses to protect human life in the field are being implemented; however, they remain insufficient in some respects. Japan’s legal responses to human–wildlife conflicts in a depopulating society can provide valuable insights for other countries that may face similar category (b) situations in the future.

1.2. Legal Responses to Wildlife

Incidents of type (a) have been extensively studied. Examples include compilations of best practices for field responses in North America [17], practical reviews of policy and evidence in the United States [18], and global surveys of brown bear (Ursus arctos) encounters near urbanized areas [19]. Baruch-Mordo et al. [20] demonstrated that the number of years of natural food scarcity in the United States was correlated with increases in habituated bear activity. Cimpoca et al. [21] analyzed cases in Romania where the expansion of human settlements generated bear-related conflicts. Zarzo-Arias et al. [22] further noted that European brown bears, although highly sensitive to human presence and activity, retained the capacity to thrive within human-modified landscapes.

In contrast, the case addressed in this study, category (b) incidents follow a distinct trajectory: population decline leads to a re-expansion of wildlife distribution, ultimately culminating in intensifying human–wildlife conflict. As hunting pressure and land management weaken due to depopulation (e.g., abandoned farmland and unmanaged plantations), wildlife more readily invades human settlements; this trend has become prominent in Japan.

In Japan, the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), sika deer (Cervus nippon), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Japanese serow (Capricornis crispus), and Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) have expanded their range [14]. Baek et al. [23] empirically demonstrated that an increase in abandoned farmland and declining snowfall facilitated the expansion of these six species. Their ranges, formerly confined to mountainous areas, have expanded toward human settlements, increasing the risk of conflict. The clear causal nexus between farmland abandonment, wildlife range expansion, and increased human–wildlife conflict is highly instructive. Tsunoda and Enari [24] analyzed depopulating rural communities in Japan, where the redistribution of large mammals (including bears) has aggravated crop damage and broader ecological impacts, calling for strategic land management interventions.

With respect to the Asiatic black bear and brown bear inhabiting Japan [25], a multi-layered response is necessary in the short term to safeguard human life and property, in the medium term to reconstruct industrial structures in depopulated rural areas. That is, it is necessary not only to concentrate employment opportunities for young people in major cities, but also to establish industries in regional areas where the working-age population can reside. Accordingly, in the long term, reconfiguration of national land policies from the perspective of land conservation is required. The Act on Protection and Management of Wildlife, and the Optimization of Hunting (Chōjū Hogo Kanri-hō) Act No. 88 of 2002—hereinafter referred to as the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (WPMA)—underwent two amendments in 2024 and 2025, representing near-term reactive interventions. In this regard, “Protection” refers to “increasing the population of wildlife and expanding the habitats to an appropriate level” as defined in Article 2(2), whereas “Management” refers to “decreasing the population of wildlife and reducing the habitats to an appropriate level” under Article 2(3), introduced by the 2014 amendment of WPMA [26] (p. 26).

Specifically, the two amendments address bear management. On 16 April 2024, the Ministry of the Environment designated brown bears and Asiatic black bears as “specified managed wildlife,” thereby authorizing capture with national subsidies [27,28,29]. Incidentally, prior to this WPMA amendment, only Sus scrofa and Cervus nippon were accordingly designated.

In April 2025, the provisions related to Article 38 of the WPMA were amended to permit capture in residential areas. This reform was partly precipitated by the Sapporo High Court judgment dated 18 October 2024 (LEX/DB No. 25573869), wherein a hunter who discharged a firearm within a residential area to protect residents from a bear was found to have acted unlawfully, resulting in the revocation of his firearm license [30]. This decision provoked strong opposition from hunters, particularly in Hokkaidō, and ultimately triggered a 2025 amendment to the WPMA. The reform established an emergency shooting regime (amendments related to Article 38, establishing an exemption), allowing the use of firearms against bears within human settlements, under conditions ensuring public safety [31,32,33]. Nevertheless, implementation challenges remain substantial.

The 2024 and 2025 amendments to the WPMA represent Japan’s first serious legislative response to category (b) incidents. However, these reforms have largely reinforced the reliance on existing hunters (many of whom are recreational) as a stopgap measure. In contrast, other countries, especially the United States, have accumulated extensive experience in habituated bear management. A comparative analysis revealed that Japan’s measures remain shortsighted, failing to integrate the medium- and long-term strategies necessary for sustaining rural communities and national land stewardship. The present study aims to illuminate these deficiencies and proposes directions for future reform.

This study recognizes that Japan’s demographic decline has intensified human–wildlife conflicts. It aimed to evaluate the necessity of legal reform and policy shifts to reduce conflicts and promote appropriate demarcation between the human and wildlife spheres. Compared with the United States, where responsibility does not fall exclusively upon local hunters but is instead institutionalized through organized professional trappers and systematized responses at the societal level, this study identified shortcomings in the current Japanese legal framework. The present study further aspires to provide practical insights for other countries and regions facing population decline in the coming decades.

2. Legal and Institutional Responses in the United States

2.1. General Responses in the United States

In the United States and parts of Europe, systems have been established to train wildlife managers responsible for natural resource conservation and professional specialists skilled in capturing large animals such as bears. These institutions are accompanied by administrative structures through which such professionals execute wildlife policy in an organized and systematic manner [34,35,36,37]. For instance, in Finland, local hunters provide auxiliary administrative support to police by conducting on-site confirmation and interventions in wildlife-related incidents [38]. In contrast, county administrations in Sweden maintain a considerable workforce specifically tasked with monitoring and managing large carnivores [39]. Given the subject of this study—legal responses when bears suddenly intrude into human settlements—it is particularly appropriate to examine the institutionalized practices developed in the United States, where such measures are highly systematized [40,41].

When a bear, typically a brown bear (Ursus arctos) or black bear (Ursus americanus), appears in an urban or residential area, posing a risk to human life and property, the wildlife in question is regarded as a state-owned resource. Responses are carried out under the authority of the relevant state [16,42,43,44,45].

Upon sighting a bear, citizens must notify the state police or the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rangers or wardens are dispatched to assess the animal’s species, age, and behavior—including whether the bear exhibits aggression. Depending on the assessment, the following measures may be employed: (i) harassment, wildlife harassment, or bear harassment—which are technical terms in wildlife protection and management, referring to driving bears and other wild animals away from human settlements by non-lethal means; (ii) tranquilization and relocation to forested or mountainous areas; or (iii) in cases where the animal poses imminent danger to human life, euthanasia, which is avoided whenever possible [40,41].

State wildlife agencies follow standardized protocols such as “BearWise,” which involve warnings, hazing, tagging, and documentation [46]. Typically, the operational sequence progresses from trapping (non-lethal physical restraint) to hazing (using sound, light, or rubber bullets) and, if necessary, lethal removal (euthanasia or shooting). Where danger to human life is imminent, lethal measures may be undertaken in coordination with the state veterinary authorities or police forces.

If the animal involved is a federally protected species (e.g., the grizzly bear), the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) applies, requiring compliance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance [47]. Such unintentional encounters between humans and bears are formally classified as “conflicts.” Legal rules require post-incident reporting and administrative recordkeeping (see 50 C.F.R. §§17.32, 17.40, as well as state wildlife management laws and guidelines such as the Human–Black Bear Conflicts Response Guidelines) [18]. Consequently, every case becomes part of an administrative archive, enhancing institutional learning and accountability. Additionally, in bear habitat areas, state statutes and municipal ordinances prohibit improper disposal of “attractants,” namely food waste and other materials that may draw bears into human settlements [48,49].

2.2. Responses from California

Each state enacts statutes and regulations addressing habituated bears in the United States, and federal laws and agency guidelines are applied as necessary. California is a representative example of comprehensive legislation under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) [50]. Under this Code, bears and other wildlife are designated state assets to be conserved and managed.

The responsibility of capturing lies primarily with CDFW. To manage conflicts systematically between humans and black bears (Ursus americanus), California has developed the Black Bear Policy (2022) and accompanying guidelines under FGC §§3950,4181,4181.1, 4181.2 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR §401) [51].

Title 14 CCR §401 explicitly authorizes emergency measures, including lethal removal, where wildlife poses an “immediate threat” to public safety. This regulation further states that federal, state, or local officials responsible for natural resources, flood control, or public safety may capture or remove predatory animals under permits issued pursuant to this authority [52].

The Human–Black Bear Conflict Response Guidelines [53,54] distinguish between (i) “Habituated Bears,” which have become accustomed to human presence, and (ii) “Public Safety Bears,” defined as bears that have injured persons, exhibited aggressive behavior, or repeatedly threatened residential communities. The guidelines prioritize non-lethal measures—hazing, capture, and relocation—for the former, while authorizing lethal removal for the latter. Where lethal removal is required, the CDFW often acts jointly with California State Parks [55].

In addition, certain state statutes and municipal ordinances have been enacted to prevent the negligent disposal of attractants, foodstuffs, or related materials that may draw bears into human settlements [56,57,58]. This regulatory framework typically encompasses multiple prohibitions and obligations. For instance, with respect to fruit trees and vegetable gardens, some jurisdictions impose a duty of timely harvesting and removal of fallen produce because ripe fruits and vegetables left unattended are potent attractants for bears [57].

Similarly, waste management is subject to specific mandates, including designated areas where bear-resistant containers are compulsory. This requirement is particularly stringent near Yosemite National Park, where statutory feeding prohibitions have reinforced the regulations [57]. These laws proscribe intentional and negligent wildlife feeding, broadly defined as conduct that directly or indirectly causes animals to obtain anthropogenic food sources [56].

Additional restrictions are often placed on managing livestock feed and pet food, which cannot be stored or left outdoors under unsecured conditions. Collectively, these measures are codified under provisions such as the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 251.3 Prohibition Against Feeding Big Game Mammals [59], as well as through guidelines and administrative directives issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

A recent application of these rules occurred on 23 June 2025, in South Lake Tahoe, where a female black bear classified as a “danger to public safety” under the Black Bear Policy (2022) was designated for “immediate removal” and lethally dispatched in a joint operation by California State Parks and the CDFW. The CDFW subsequently issued a public statement affirming that the measures were consistent with state laws, regulations, and established protocols [60].

Morgan Kilgour, Regional Manager for CDFW’s North Central Region, stated: “As wildlife professionals who devote our careers to the health and well-being of California’s fish and wildlife species, euthanasia is a measure of last resort. However, our foremost responsibility is protecting human life and the safety of the Tahoe region” [60].

The CDFW further disclosed that the bear had been the subject of 911 emergency calls and recurrent conflicts. The animal was the mother of two 5-month-old cubs transferred to a wildlife rehabilitation facility for protection and training before their eventual release. The CDFW emphasized that cubs would receive behavioral conditioning to maintain their distance from human settlements before reintroduction into the wild [60].

3. Current Situation of Bears in Japan and the 2024 Legal Amendment

Incidents of human–bear encounters in Japan have been increasing in recent years, and in 2024, bears have been designated as Specified Managed Wildlife under the WPMA. The designation under Article 2(5) of the Act applies to species causing severe damage to ecosystems or human living environments, thereby enabling the use of state funds for their capture [27,28,29].

3.1. Increase in Human Casualties Caused by Bears

In recent years, the boundary between “spaces of everyday human activity” and “spaces inhabited by wildlife” has become blurred, resulting in growing threats to safety in daily life. Climate change and transformations in satoyama (traditional rural landscapes) have contributed to the increased occurrence of bears and wild boars in urban areas [61], creating difficulties in preserving living environments. The degradation of satoyama landscapes is partly the result of structural changes in Japan’s economy: agricultural and forestry workers have declined and aged rapidly, and rural vitality has correspondingly diminished [13,62,63].

Consequently, some wildlife populations have increased because of protective policies, whereas others have expanded their habitats northwards due to climate change; this has made the spatial separation between humans and wildlife increasingly difficult, raising the risk of dangerous encounters in rural areas [23,24].

Demographic projections suggest that depopulation of rural areas will continue [63,64,65], making human–wildlife conflict an even more significant issue in the coming decades. According to the Population Strategy Council, municipalities projected to lose more than 50% of their young female population between 2020 and 2050 are designated as “potentially vanishing municipalities.” Analysis has indicated that 744 municipalities—43% of the total—fall within this category, encompassing over half of Japan’s national territory by land area.

As human activity zones contract, conservation and management become more difficult, allowing greater encroachment on wildlife. The Ministry of Environment maintains a website disseminating public information and initiatives concerning bears [66]. According to Ministry data, Figure 1 shows that news reports of bear sightings have become frequent. In fiscal year 2023 (Reiwa 5), recorded bear-related injuries reached their highest level since statistics began: 198 incidents involving 219 victims [67]. In 2025, the incidence of bear-related human casualties exhibited a marked escalation. Between April and July, 55 individuals nationwide were injured or killed in bear attacks, a figure that already approached the record-high levels documented in 2023. By the end of September, the situation had further intensified, with 108 injuries and 7 fatalities reported nationwide, representing the highest numbers recorded since the commencement of official statistics in fiscal year 2006 (Heisei 18) [68].

In addition, prefectural governments issue and update “Bear Maps” showing reported sightings [69]. These measures were intended to minimize casualties through public awareness.

In response to this growing problem, the WPMA was effectively amended on 16 April 2024. Article 2(5) now expressly designates Ursus arctos (brown bear) and Ursus thibetanus (Asiatic black bear)—excluding populations in Tokushima, Kagawa, Ehime, and Kōchi Prefectures—as Specified Managed Wildlife (Enforcement Regulation (shikō kisoku) Art. 1–3) [28,29]. Recognizing that bears remain rare and ecologically significant in certain regions, the species may be subject to authorized capture for management purposes; however, restrictions such as being subject to regional restrictions prohibiting hunting are applicable [27].

3.2. Hunting and Authorized Capture

Despite the 2024 amendment, misunderstandings persist in public discourse and reports occasionally suggest that bears cannot be adequately captured under the law. For instance, in August 2024, a major newspaper reported that a bear appearing in human settlements in the Mie Prefecture could not be dispatched because the Ministry of the Environment designated the species as endangered and was subject to capture restrictions. The report further noted that the Mie Prefecture requested the relaxation of such restrictions.

The relevant restriction derives from Article 12 of the WPMA, which prohibits or limits the capture of game species in designated regions; this is a restriction applicable only to recreational hunting (shuryō) and does not extend to authorized captures (kyoka hokaku) of nuisance wildlife (yūgai chōjū) [70]. Therefore, the newspaper’s assertion that “authorized capture” could not be undertaken was founded on a legal misunderstanding.

Hunting for recreation (recreational hunting) and authorized capture (including the capture of Specified Managed Wildlife) are distinct legal categories [71]. Misunderstandings arise because authorized captures are frequently carried out by local hunters at the request of municipalities, leading to confusion between the two practices.

Regulations also extend to wildlife and avian eggs, for which the general principle is the prohibition of capture or collection (Article 8, Chapeau Act on Protection and Management of Wildlife). Two categories of exceptions to this prohibition were recognized (

Table 1. Recreational hunting vs. authorized capture of specified managed wildlife.

	Recreational Hunting (Shuryō)	Authorized Capture (Including Specified Managed Wildlife)
Target species	Game species (46 species, excluding chicks and eggs)	All wildlife and eggs, including non-game species
Legal basis	WPMA, Art. 12 (restrictions on capture of game species)	WPMA, Arts. 8–13
Purpose	No justification required	Must fall within statutory purposes (e.g., nuisance control, research)
Procedures	Hunting license required; annual registration before hunting season	Permit issued by prefectural governor (sometimes delegated to municipalities)
Season	Restricted to statutory hunting season (generally October 15–April 15)	Year-round, as authorized
Methods	Limited to lawful hunting methods (firearms, traps, nets)	Methods not restricted, except for prohibited dangerous practices

(Source: [70], compiled by the author).

). The first is “hunting (recreational hunting),” defined as the taking of designated game species through statutorily prescribed methods of hunting (id., Article 2, paragraph 8) [26] (pp. 87–88). Such hunting may be conducted through only three methods—firearm hunting, trapping, and netting—and requires acquiring a hunting license. In principle, the hunting season was fixed from October 15 to April 15 of the following year. Furthermore, restrictions are imposed on the capture of designated game species depending on regional conditions (id., Article 12) [70].

The second exception was authorized capture (id., Articles 8(1)(i)–(iii), 9, 11, 13); this refers to the capture of wildlife under authorization granted by the Minister of the Environment or prefectural governors in cases such as (i) when damage to agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, or to human life and property is at issue (nuisance control); (ii) when required for academic research; (iii) when protection of injured or sick wildlife is necessary; or (iv) when capture is required for exhibitions in museums, zoos, or similar institutions. Unlike recreational hunting, authorized capture may be authorized year-round, including within wildlife protection areas. All wildlife species, including game species, may be subject to such permits, and the use of otherwise prohibited hunting methods may be allowed, subject to conditions [70].

When bears appear in human-inhabited areas, they fall under the category of authorized captures. However, in Japan, such basic matters remain insufficiently recognized; moreover, neither adequate training systems for licensed captors nor well-established organizational structures exist [71,72]. This has led to frequent misunderstandings, particularly the erroneous assumption that such captures are subject to the same limitations as recreational hunting. Further complicating the matter, Japanese bears constitute a rare apex species within ecosystems [73], include many regionally endemic taxa closely tied to local ecological systems [74,75], and, owing to the growing prominence of animal welfare concerns, lethal capture by firearm has been subject to criticism from segments of the public [76,77,78]. Municipal bear captures frequently trigger extensive protest—through mass emails or defamatory remarks on social media—on animal welfare grounds. Such reactions have, in some cases, substantially impaired municipal administrative functions. Consequently, a heightened degree of caution is required when implementing capture measures [79].

3.3. Securing Hunters and Professional Capturers

Not all hunters can function as capturers; moreover, only a limited number of license holders are authorized to conduct firearm hunting [80]. Rural and mountainous areas are declining, and hunters, few in number, are aging. However, bear hunting has always been a dangerous activity requiring large groups, and only a few hunters have historically engaged in such activities. Hunting has largely been recreational, with many hunters primarily engaging in bird shooting (toriuchi) [81]. As these hunters moved to urban areas and became salaried workers, recreational activities gradually shifted to golf and other pursuits since the 1970s [81].

The capture of harmful wildlife has most effectively been carried out by specialized capturers [14]. To encourage hunters to participate in harmful wildlife control, some regions offer monetary rewards; however, such rewards have sometimes been viewed by hunters as convenient pocket money, fostering misconduct, leading to repeated crackdowns, and prompting review following the recommendations of the Board of Audit [82,83,84]. In contrast, in some regions, hunters find it difficult to cooperate due to insufficient rewards and no subsidies for ammunition [85]. The Dai Nippon Ryoyukai (Japan Hunting Association), which organizes hunters, has shifted its policy to emphasize public interest, aiming to position hunters as stewards of ecosystem conservation [86].

Therefore, in cases of unexpected bear appearances, it is often necessary to rely on local hunters for capture. Given these circumstances, hunters in depopulated rural areas need to be trained and fostered as professional capturers, and local governments must collaborate with them. Furthermore, the number of government-employed hunters needs to be increased, and efforts are being made toward this goal.

4. Bear Appearances in Residential Areas and the 2025 Legal Amendment in Japan

4.1. Before the 2025 Amendment

Before the 2025 Amendment, the responsibility of capturing bears that appeared in human-living areas remained unclear. When a bear enters a residential zone, residents typically report the incident to the municipal Wildlife Protection and Management Division and/or police. As such cases involve threats to human life, both municipal officials and police officers were expected to respond. However, these officials rarely assumed responsibility for shooting the bears. In practice, members of local hunting associations are summoned to the scene and compelled to serve as actual shooters under municipal authorization—often issued verbally [87].

Furthermore, Article 38 of the WPMA regulates the use of firearms. Article 38(2) prohibits firearms for hunting in residential or densely inhabited areas. In contrast, Article 38(3) forbids shooting “in the direction of any person, domestic or captive animal, building, train, automobile, vessel, or other vehicle where a bullet may reach.” Violation of these provisions may result in revocation of a firearm license under Article 11(1) of the Act for Controlling the Possession of Firearms and Swords (Jūtō-hō) Act No. 6 of 1958—hereinafter “Act for Firearms and Swords” [26].

For a hunter to discharge a firearm lawfully in a residential area, an explicit shooting order must be issued by the attending police officer under Article 4(1) of the Police Duties Execution Act (Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkō-hō) Act No. 136 of 1948—hereinafter “Police Duties Act” [88]. However, this order legally compels civilians to fire in the direction of the police, thereby imposing responsibility on them for the outcome. Consequently, such orders are rarely issued [89].

Therefore, even when municipal permits were granted for wildlife capture, hunters could not fire without risking violations of Article 38. Hunters thus found themselves in the paradoxical position of being authorized to capture but could not shoot safely or confidently.

4.2. The Sunagawa Litigation and Hunters’ Dissatisfaction in Hokkaidō

In practice, the responsibility of shooting bears appearing in human settlements was imposed on local hunters at the request of municipal officials or police. However, many hunters were deeply reluctant; even in the name of public safety, they did not wish to risk unlawful discharge of firearms [87,90]. Nevertheless, when police refrained from issuing orders, hunters often faced community pressure and sometimes had no choice but to fire at bears in order to protect human life, as in the case in the Sunagawa Incident, which occurred at approximately 7:45 a.m. on 21 August 2018, in the residential area of Sunagawa City, Hokkaidō [90]. In this case, a hunter acting as a designated shooter without any police order under the Police Duties Act discharged his firearms at a bear. He was subsequently subjected to an administrative disposition by the Hokkaidō Public Safety Commission, revoking his firearm license—hereinafter “the disposition”. The hunter (plaintiff) sought judicial review, arguing that the disposition failed to meet statutory requirements under the Act for Firearms and Swords and constituted an abuse or excess of administrative discretion (see

Table 2. Chronology of the Sunagawa Case.

Date	Event
21 August 2018	Brown bear appeared in a residential area in Sunagawa, Hokkaido. Sunagawa City requested removal by the Hokkaido Hunting Association; one hunter discharged his firearm and killed the bear. Police officers were present at the scene; however, no shooting order was issued.
24 April 2019	Hunter’s firearm license revoked by the Public Safety Commission for firing toward a building potentially within the bullet’s range (violation of WPMA Art. 38-3).
12 May 2020	Hunter filed a lawsuit challenging the revocation.
17 December 2021	District court ruling: hunter won. Public Safety Commission appealed.
18 October 2024	High court ruling: Public Safety Commission won. Hunter filed a final appeal.
18 April 2025	WPMA amended.
25 April 2025	Amended WPMA promulgated.
1 September 2025	Amended WPMA came into effect.
October 2025	Case under review in the Supreme Court (final appeal).

(Source: Compiled by the author based on court judgments).

) [90].

The Sapporo District Court (17 December 2021, LEX/DB No. 25591359) [90] ruled in favor of the hunter. The court acknowledged that the act of firing might fall within the scope of Article 38(3) of the WPMA and thus violate Article 10(2)(i) of the Act for Firearms and Swords. However, it was found that the revocation of the license was socially disproportionate and thus constituted an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court annulled this disposition [91,92].

However, as illustrated in

Table 3. Sunagawa litigation: District court and high court outcomes.

Lawsuit and Court Decisions	Differences in the District Court and High Court Decisions	Plaintiff’s Claim
District Court Ruling: Hunter (Plaintiff) Won	District Court: “The bullet remained inside the bear’s body. There is no evidence that it penetrated the bear and subsequently ricocheted.”	Plaintiff’s Claim: “There was an embankment approximately 8 m high, serving as a backstop.” The residents of the houses located behind the embankment likewise did not consider there to be any risk that the bullet would reach their homes. The distance was only 16.62 m, and at such a short range it was inconceivable that the plaintiff, with approximately 38 years of hunting experience, would miss the target. (General View: “If, as seen through the sight, there is a slope or the ground behind the game, it is regarded as an earthen backstop.”) Plaintiff’s Claim: “An earthen backstop was present.”
High Court Ruling: Public Safety Commission Won	High Court: “The bullet penetrated the bear in question and struck the stock of the hunting rifle held by B (a hunter present at the scene), passing through it. The bullet could also have ricocheted off vegetation or rocks. Behind the bear, there was no embankment or other structure sufficient to stop the bullet.”

(Source: Prepared by the author based on the judgments of the Sapporo District Court (17 December 2021) and the Sapporo High Court (18 October 2024).)

, the High Court (Sapporo High Court, 18 October 2024, LEX/DB No. 25573869) reversed the decision on appeal. It emphasized that the hunter had committed a dangerous act without a police order in both a formal and substantive sense, violating Article 38(3). The court noted: “Even if the bullet had struck the bear directly, it is reasonable to recognize that there remained a risk that the trajectory could shift and strike any of the five houses in the vicinity.” Accordingly, the court held that the disposition was not unlawful, overturned the lower court’s ruling, and dismissed the hunters’ claims. As a result, the revocation of the firearm license has remained valid and has not been overturned [93].

This appeal and judgment provoked strong reactions from hunters across Japan. Many expressed that discharging firearms against bears in human settlements—already stressful and risky—should not expose them to the permanent revocation of firearm licenses. They argued that such rulings would produce a chilling effect; hunters, fearing license revocation, would hesitate to shoot even in life-threatening emergencies [94]; and this would in turn make bear control increasingly difficult, undermining public safety [95].

4.3. The 2025 Amendment

Triggered partly by the Sunagawa case, the WPMA was amended in April 2025 to ensure that cooperative hunters would not suffer disproportionate legal disadvantages [69]. By July 2025, the Ministry of the Environment had issued relevant ministerial ordinances and practical guidelines, with a formal implementation date of 1 September 2025 [96,97]. The guidelines were also published by the Ministry of the Environment on 8 July 2025 [98]. This legislative response was unusually rapid.

The amendment allows the use of firearms against bears and other dangerous wildlife appearing in human living spaces, provided that public safety measures are secured (Revised Article 38). A new statutory category, “Life-threatening Wildlife” (Kiken chōjū), was introduced under Article 2(6), defined by Cabinet Order as “wildlife species that, when appearing in human daily living spaces, pose a significant risk to life or bodily integrity.” Capture of such wildlife by firearms, when deemed urgently necessary, was designated “emergency shooting” (Kinkyū jūryō) under Article 34-2(1). Emergency shooting was exempt from the restrictions of Article 38 (

Table 4. The 2025 amendment to the WPMA: Flow of Emergency Shooting Implementation.

Role of Municipalities	Capturers (Hunters Commissioned by Municipalities Included)	Police/Prefectural Government
A report is received from local residents and similar others that a bear has been sighted.
Contact is made with capturers and the police (and, if necessary, request cooperation from the prefectural government).
Gather at the site.	Gather at the site.	Gather at the site.
Share information, confirm the situation on site, and coordinate among relevant parties.	Cooperate with the municipality.	Cooperate with the municipality.
“Take measures to ensure the safety of surrounding areas.	Cooperate with the municipality.	Cooperate with the municipality.
Issue an order to the capturer(s) to conduct emergency shooting.	Implementation of emergency shooting.
Confirm the captured individual.	Cooperate with the municipality.	Cooperate with the municipality.
Restore the site to its original condition.		Cooperate with the municipality.
Lift the safety measures taken for surrounding areas.		Cooperate with the municipality.

Source: Prepared by the author based on the [99,100].

) [99].

Furthermore, the amendment clarified the responsibility of vesting authority with the municipal mayors. Mayors may delegate emergency shootings to hunters or qualified individuals and issue evacuation orders and traffic restrictions to safeguard residents. Importantly, if accidents occur during emergency shooting, the locus of responsibility is legally defined [99].

The amendment established procedural safeguards (guideline including checklist formats [98], pp. 63, 68.) and substantive compensation measures. Loss compensation for property damage arising from emergency shootings (Art. 34-6) is borne by municipalities, typically through insurance schemes (

Table 5. Compensation and liability framework.

Category	Legal Basis	Description
No compensation	Constitution (Kenpō), Art. 29(2)	Losses within the tolerance of property rights; no compensation required.
Compensation for loss	Constitution, Art. 29(3); WPMA (as amended), Art. 34-6	Where individuals bear a “special sacrifice,” municipal mayors must compensate for ordinary losses. Property damage is expected to be covered by insurance.
State liability	State Redress Act (Kokka Baishō-hō), Art. 1	Envisions claims for life, bodily integrity, and health damage.

Source: Compiled by the author.

) [98].

Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the competence standards of hunters entrusted with emergency shooting tasks. If an accident occurs (damage to property or injury to life, body, or health), liability may extend to (i) the prefecture granting a hunting license, (ii) the municipality selecting an inadequately trained shooter, or (iii) the municipality failing to foster qualified personnel. Alternatively, discharge under proper legal authority may be construed as a lawful act of public duty. These issues remain controversial.

The enforcement of the Act commenced on 1 September 2025. Immediately prior to enforcement of this act, both the National Police Agency and representatives of the hunting community articulated their respective positions. On 22 August 2025, the National Police Agency issued a directive to the prefectural police headquarters nationwide, which included the position that even if a hunter engaged in emergency shooting were to cause damage to buildings or other property, such conduct should not, in itself, constitute grounds for the administrative revocation of the firearm possession permit [100]. The Hokkaidō Hunting Association has accordingly informed its members that hunters can refuse such assignments even when municipalities request cooperation [101].

Against this backdrop, on 14 October 2025, emergency shooting was carried out for the first time in Japan, in a residential area of Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture [102]. Since then, orders to conduct emergency shooting with firearms have continued to be issued by municipality leader (mayors and village heads) across various regions. According to the Ministry of the Environment, as of 4:30 p.m. on 31 October 2025, a total of 14 cases across Japan were determined to warrant emergency shooting, of which actual firing took place in 10 cases [103].

However, hunters in the field have voiced concerns such as, “We cannot readily follow orders from mayors or village heads who are amateurs and never come to the site,” and “We want the decision to be made by someone who can actually assess on-site whether emergency shooting with firearms is feasible” [104]. That is, although the legal framework for emergency shooting was established through the legal amendment, building local consensus and developing human resources for its implementation remain future challenges.

5. Discussion

The preceding sections examined statutory reforms and policy transformations concerning incidents of contact and conflict (human–wildlife conflict) between humans and wildlife within human-inhabited areas, with particular reference to policy and institutional frameworks addressing so-called “habituated bears.” In the United States, initiatives to mitigate human–wildlife conflict have a long historical trajectory, with institutionalized and professionalized mechanisms in place. Legal provisions and administrative guidelines define appropriate procedures, and the due process is well established. Furthermore, professional personnel, such as wildlife managers responsible for comprehensive natural resource management and technical specialists qualified to capture large mammals such as bears, are formally trained, and social recognition of such professions is firmly entrenched. The widespread public awareness campaign directed toward residents and visitors to natural parks is equally significant, emphasizing the prohibition of leaving refuse or food attractants at the human–wildlife boundary.

In Japan, where population decline is progressing, increasing conflicts caused by the contraction of human living areas and the re-expansion of wildlife habitats have been on the rise cases of category (b). In response, legal measures have begun to be introduced. The recent legal amendment, which enables quicker and smoother on-site responses, is a positive development. However, this is only the beginning.

In this paper, the increase in bear–human conflict cases in Japan and the subsequent legal reforms as examples are presented; this information, through comparison with countermeasures in the United States, offers valuable insights for other countries facing potential population decline—which may help them to prepare in advance and avoid repeating the same mistakes. The issue is not limited to bear control; it also highlights that human society cannot freely expand, contract, or transform its industrial structure solely for its own convenience. Rather, it must pursue such transformations while constantly considering how to coexist and interact with wildlife.

5.1. Implications for Japanese Legal Policy

In comparison, the scale and depth of Japan’s policy measures remain conspicuously limited, particularly with respect to the availability of professionals possessing specialized expertise and the institutional support provided to hunters. Notably, the 2024 amendment to the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (WPMA) designated bears as specified managed wildlife, thereby enabling the use of public subsidies for their capture. The 2025 amendment provided a legal framework enabling hunters to respond lawfully upon request through the partial delegation of authority to municipalities, in local field settings, even when bears appeared within residential zones. Nevertheless, responses remain ad hoc and dependent on local hunters forced into service with little systemic support. A system that allows legal capture was merely established as one of the available options, while the responsibility to build an operational framework for its implementation was newly imposed on each local municipality. Additionally, a clear societal recognition of the necessity to delineate wildlife habitats and human boundaries is lacking, and public education campaigns remain insufficient. Consequently, normative criticisms, especially from people who do not experience fear of bears in their daily lives, against the lethal control of bears—expressed in the refrain that “it is unacceptable to kill bears”—continue to exert significant influence [79]. This comparative study shows three implications for human–wildlife conflict management in Japan.

First, in light of the aging hunter population, as demonstrated in the United States, it is imperative to foster the development of wildlife managers and technical specialists in capture and institutionalize professional organizations for wildlife conservation and management. However, given the demographic decline of rural Japan, the shortage of human resources has extended beyond wildlife specialists. Thus, promoting dual work models requires individuals to acquire multiple skill sets (e.g., combining agriculture with wildlife management expertise or municipal services with capture training), thereby sustaining regional communities. Such professionalization must be founded upon a conceptual distinction between “recreational hunting” and “permitted capture” (for self-defense or public purposes). By definition, hunters are not wildlife control specialists, and statistical evidence suggests that effective nuisance wildlife control is achieved predominantly by professional capturers rather than recreational hunters [14,81]. Accordingly, increasing the number of hunters per se does not necessarily result in enhanced nuisance control. Instead, the development and support of scientifically trained and operationally mobile wildlife control units are required.

The necessity of this distinction has been formally recognized. On 1 August 2019, the Science Council of Japan issued its “Report on Wildlife Management in a Population-Declining Society” (“the Report”), explicitly recommending the separation of “hunting, motivated by individual recreation,” from “capture for self-defense or public purposes” [105]. The same report emphasized the urgent need to create advanced educational programs to cultivate professionals capable of integrating wildlife management with regional societal issues and engaging in scientific planning, implementation, and monitoring at the local level. It called upon the state to support establishing and strengthening new specialized curricula at the university and graduate school levels [105]. Prompt implementation of these measures is imperative.

Second, policies must address the sociocultural dimensions of bear control. In Japan, bears have long been regarded as deities or sacred beings—for example, the Kumano Sanzan shrines (‘Kuma’ means bear) [106]; wolf worship also exists, wherein the mythical wolf is revered as a divine messenger, as seen in Musashi Mitake Shrine [107], and in modern times, killing animals is often viewed as cruel. Moreover, firearms, including hunting rifles, are culturally distinct from ordinary life. Thus, even where bears routinely appear in human settlements, capture operations remain highly specialized activities that a few people undertake. To enable broader participation, it is necessary to develop capture methods congruent with Japan’s sociocultural context. Historically, since Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s Sword Hunt Decree (Katanagari-rei) of 1588, the possession of swords and firearms by the general populace has been restricted, and both the state and public remain circumspect regarding the possession of firearms [108]. This restrictive approach extends to hunting firearms [90]. Unlike in the United States, where the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” Japan constitutionally and statutorily denies such a right. Although firearm regulations are strict, even in U.S. states such as New York and California, the U.S. Supreme Court recently invalidated aspects of New York State’s firearm restrictions [109].

Against this backdrop, state-led budgetary allocations must be directed toward developing culturally appropriate bear control methods. Possible measures include cage traps, net guns, and aversive conditioning techniques—e.g., rubber bullets, pepper spray, firefighters, and alarms. However, each alternative is less mobile and effective than rifle-based hunting, underscoring the need for continued technological innovation.

Third, in a declining population, current Japanese policy lacks a long-term perspective on sustaining local communities. Despite the 2024 and 2025 amendments to the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (WPMA), current measures remain reactive and shortsighted. While legal authorities and procedural frameworks have been clarified, there has been no parallel increase in the number of skilled capturers or state budgetary support, nor is there a reason to expect a decline in bear incidents. In reality, in rural areas, going forward, a smaller and increasingly aged group of hunters will be required to control a greater number of life-threatening wildlife.

As argued at the outset, effective policy for human–wildlife conflict requires, at a minimum, mid-term restructuring of regional industrial structures in line with demographic realities, and long-term reconstruction of policy frameworks from the perspective of national land conservation. As rural populations and economic activities continue to decrease, human settlements must be intelligently downsized, “smart downsizing” to ensure sustainable land use and community safety. Inevitably, this will result in greater expansion of unmanaged natural land. Even in this era, human society must strengthen its preparedness to ensure regional security and sustainability. A central theme in this preparedness is the development of institutional and technological responses to bears and other wildlife. Accordingly, Japan must explicitly incorporate strategies for managing abandoned natural spaces within mid- and long-term policy frameworks, implementing sustainable wildlife management, and redefining wildlife habitat–human boundaries.

5.2. Limitations and Prospects

This article presents a comparative legal study examining Japan’s wildlife conservation and management system in relation to countries that have developed more advanced legal frameworks. By comparing primarily with the U.S. system, it demonstrates that Japan faces a shortage of professional wildlife managers. However, valuable insights can also be gained from other countries’ systems; therefore, future research should pursue broader comparative legal studies.

Furthermore, this review emphasizes the importance of establishing a system that enables professional managers to conduct wildlife capture directly in the field lawfully and introduces relevant legal reforms. Nevertheless, even if national legislation authorizes local governments to allow the use of firearms for emergency control, it remains essential to monitor whether such legal provisions are being appropriately implemented at the municipal level.

In regions facing labor shortages, individuals are often required to take on multiple roles, and there is still no clear method to distinguish between ordinary hunters and professional managers based on their skills, purposes, or involvement in hunting. Thus, the development of an educational system that can train and nurture hunters into professional wildlife managers is strongly needed.

6. Conclusions

Category (b) incident—where human living areas have contracted and wildlife habitats have re-expanded, leading to an increase in conflicts—may appear at first glance to be a confrontation between wildlife and human society. However, upon closer examination, the root cause lies not with wildlife but within human society itself; that is, it is essentially a human-to-human problem. It stems from issues related to industrial structures and regional development within human communities. Conflicts arise precisely because human activities that should have been carried out with an awareness of wildlife have instead been reduced or abandoned without such awareness. Therefore, these conflicts can be viewed as the social consequences—can be regarded as the debt incurred by neglected responsibilities—of abandoning the natural resources humans once developed and the human habitats they had expanded, without assuming the corresponding responsibility for their management. By contrast, the United States—the primary subject of comparative analysis in this paper—has established the fields of Wildlife Management and Wildlife Law, which serve to warn, prepare, and regulate human society in relation to wildlife. Japan must carefully study and implement similar approaches.

From a short-term perspective, the 2024 and 2025 amendments to the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (WPMA) have delegated certain authorities to municipalities, creating a system that facilitates on-site bear capture operations. However, this represents only the first, spot-level step toward a broader solution. In the medium term, it will be necessary to restructure regional industrial systems in light of demographic trends affecting the sustainability of local communities. In the long term, within the broader framework of national land and environmental policy, Japan must explicitly incorporate approaches for managing abandoned natural spaces and wildlife, and for redefining the boundaries between human living areas and wildlife habitats.