Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Kazakhstan has demonstrated an astonishing ability to radically change its position on regulating saiga populations in recent months. The editorial board of FBRK decided to compile the department's latest statements, and once again, contradictions in the approaches, methods, and even the fundamental positions of the ministry are evident.
Quite recently, in March 2025, the Minister of Ecology Yerlan Nyssanbayev stated possible methods of regulation, including "corrals, nets, and culling," adding the rhetorical question "how else?". At the same time, in April, the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife of the Ministry of Ecology planned to exclude saigas from the public service for issuing permits for animal removal. In effect, this could have meant abandoning population regulation through culling. So, while one department of the ministry was preparing documents to exclude saigas from the list of regulated species, the head of the agency was publicly discussing the possibility of culling them.
Even more telling is the evolution of rhetoric regarding the humaneness of methods. In March, the ministry solemnly announced a "rejection of methods contrary to humanism" in accordance with the instruction of the Head of State. The department detailed alternative approaches: monitoring migration via satellites, creating corrals, and supporting farmers with subsidies for fencing. The ministry emphasised that it adhered to the principle "protecting nature — protecting people" and sought solutions based on international experience.
However, by the end of May, the tone had changed dramatically. Vice-Minister Nurken Sharbiyev was already openly speaking about a "transition to a system of sustainable saiga population regulation" and the admissibility of removing up to 20% of the total population. And in June, Minister Nyssanbayev at a briefing in the Senate discussed the possibility of allowing hunters to cull saigas, albeit with a caveat about the risks and recollections of the Soviet experience, when "the entire steppe was littered with the bodies of saigas with sawn-off horns."
The transformation of the attitude towards natural mortality of the animals looks particularly strange, something our editorial board previously detailed wrote about. At the end of March, the ministry reported the discovery of more than 5,200 dead saigas in various regions, explaining this as "natural mortality" and citing data from the Institute of Zoology that, under normal conditions, about 20% of the population dies annually. When animals die naturally, it is a natural process requiring no intervention. But when, two months later, the need arises to justify potential removal, the same 20% can easily become a scientifically justified limit for culling.
The contradictions concern not only fundamental approaches but also specific implementation mechanisms. In March, the ministry promised humane population management methods through creating corrals and directing animals along special corridors. By June, the talk is of industrial processing: 13 meat processing plants are ready to receive 3,700 head per day, processing plants are planned for seven regions, and the meat is promised for retail sale.
There is also a surprising inconsistency in risk assessment. In March, the minister warned of the possibility of epizootics and the need for a "maximally balanced approach." In June, the same minister discussed the risks of allowing hunting, recalling the unsuccessful Soviet experience.
The ministry claims it has "taken into account the bitter experience of 2023" and approached the issue "more responsibly" this year. However, the very fact of changing position every few weeks calls into question the existence of any well-thought-out strategy. It creates the impression that the department makes decisions under the influence of current circumstances, without a clear understanding of long-term goals and consequences.
The return to the idea of partially allowing hunting looks particularly alarming. Minister Nyssanbayev himself acknowledges the enormous risks of such an approach, recalling how "the entire steppe was littered with the bodies of saigas with sawn-off horns." At the same time, he proposes allowing hunting "only on females", which from a biological point of view looks even more questionable than culling males for their horns.
Worthy of special attention is the recent statement by Minister Nyssanbayev that "next week they will find out the exact number of saigas". This means that all previous figures — 4.1 million individuals in 2024, an expected 5 million after calving in 2025, on the basis of which fundamental decisions about the need for regulation were made — were inaccurate? If the ministry is only now going to determine the "exact population," on what data did Vice-Minister Sharbiyev confidently state the admissibility of removing 20% of the population?
Meanwhile, the department continues, time and again, to cite data from the Institute of Zoology, speaking of biological justifications and international experience. But if the decisions are truly science-based, why do they change so radically every month? The scientific data on saiga biology hasn't seemed to have changed in that time.
The story of the saigas is becoming a telling example of how animals become hostages of bureaucratic confusion, where decisions are made not on the basis of scientific data, but seemingly under the influence of short-term political considerations. In such a situation, any talk of "scientific validity" and "international experience" sounds more like a cover for a return to practices that once already brought saigas to the brink of extinction.