STATUS OF THE KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON (FALCO RUSTICOLUS)
POPULATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING IT
E. LOBKOV1, YU. GERASIMOV2, AND A. GOROVENKO3
1

Kamchatka State Technological University, ul. Kljuchevskaja 35, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
683003 Kamchatka Krai, Russia. E-mail: lobkov48@mail.ru

2

Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, 383000, Russia
3

Rare Raptors Rescue Center, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia

ABSTRACT.—Kamchatka, in northeastern Russia, has an area of 432,300 km2 and includes Kamchatka Peninsula, a continental portion, and some islands. An estimated 500 (330–660) pairs of
Gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus) breed on Kamchatka. The Kamchatka Peninsula is also an importantregion for migrating and wintering Gyrfalcons. Within the last 20 years, Gyrfalcons have declinedon Kamchatka by a factor of 2–2.5. We have been unable to identify natural factors that would
explain such a reduction. Phenological conditions in breeding areas are essentially unchanged,
and the dynamics of bird and mammal prey populations appear natural. Peaks in Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) numbers have occurred every 9–11 (usually 10) years, and without synchrony of cycles on Kamchatka Peninsula and in the Koryak uplands.
Anthropogenic factors are negatively influencing the Gyrfalcon population. Whereas economic
activities have irreversibly transformed only 0.3 % of places suitable for Gyrfalcon breeding,increasing road development splits large natural landscape complexes. Shooting of Gyrfalcons
and casual trapping are known to occur, but poaching has produced the largest damage to the population. It began to have a commercial basis in the early 1990s with the mass collection of clutches
and chicks from nests in the Koryak uplands and the northern part of Kamchatka Peninsula, andmore recently, the illegal catching of birds during fall and early winter has greatly increased
throughout. Annually, at least 10–15% of the Gyrfalcon population is removed from Kamchatka
as contraband. Poachers prefer to catch young females and the lightest-colored birds.
We expect the condition of the Gyrfalcon population to deteriorate on Kamchatka. First, we do
not expect poaching to decline. Rather, it continues to increase, despite the growth of penalties.
Second, according to the ‘Strategy of Social and Economic Development of Kamchatka Through2025,’ a priority of regional development is the mining industry, power, and transport communications. Our experience suggests that these will lead to large scale changes of natural habitats andbiodiversity depletion. Received 22 February 2011, accepted 17 April 2011.

279

– LOBKOV ET AL. –LOBKOV, E., YU. GERASIMOV, AND A. GOROVENKO. 2011. Status of the Kamchatka Gyrfalcon(Falco rusticolus) population and factors affecting it. Pages 280–290 in R. T. Watson, T. J. Cade,
M. Fuller, G. Hunt, and E. Potapov (Eds.). Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a Changing World, Volume II. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.4080/gpcw.2011.0127
Key words: Gyrfalcon, Kamchatka, Illegal trade, trapping, population, Russia, Arabian Peninsula.

sance observations and the ability to reach aparticular region. Most of the surveyed areas
were located in isolated and difficult-to-get-to
regions. In many cases heavy all-terrain vehicles were used.

WE STARTED GATHERING information on the
Gyrfalcon in Kamchatka Peninsula and adjoining regions in 1971, concurrently with otherstudies. In 1990, the illegal trapping of thespecies plagued the region, and we have given
more attention to Gyrfalcons since then, while
trying not to publish any new information so
as not to jeopardize the falcons’ breeding locations. By the beginning of the 2000s it was evident that the illegal trappers had studied theKamchatka population well enough, and our
information would not be of any news to them.

While surveying river valleys, mountainslopes, and coasts, we checked cliff faces toascertain their length and looked for the presence of white-wash, pellets, and plucked feathers, as well as the presence of birds. We also
recorded the length of the survey route, andestimated the area surveyed to determine thedensity of birds.

In 2005–2007, within the framework of thegovernment funded federal program “Monitoring of animals of the Red Data Book of Russia” we carried out a survey of the Gyrfalcon
population in the Kamchatka Peninsula (Figure 1). We focused on the middle and southernparts of the peninsula to establish the southern
limits of the species’ distribution, describe nest
sites, study the ecology of the species, andgather anecdotal information from local people(Lobkov et al. 2007a, 2007b, 2008). In thispaper we incorporate the results of the 2005–2010 studies of the species. They include surveys of the Vyvenka River (2008), Penzhina
River basin (2009), and Olytor coast at the
Severnaya and Shlupochnaya bays (2010). We
also include the data on birds confiscated frompoachers, and discuss measures to combat illegal trapping.

We differentiated the coloration types of the
Gyrfalcons as grey, light, or white. We also
mapped the nests and described the nest sites.
Accessible nests were searched for pellets andfood remains, which helped determine the resident species if the birds were not present.

METHODS

Every area that we surveyed in detail wetreated as a study area (Figure 2) and noted thenumber of Gyrfalcons there. Records of birds
in flight that could not be treated as breedingpairs were treated as ‘potential’ pairs. The sizesof the study areas ranged from 9 to 1630 km2.
They had different shapes because of the different landscapes. While surveying in protected areas we used the employees of thoseareas. The majority of the study areas (70%)
were selected at random; the other 30% of thestudy areas were selected in landscapes that weassumed to be very important for Gyrfalcons.

We surveyed potential breeding habitats using
vehicles, helicopters, boats, and on foot using
binoculars and telescopes. Some habitats weresurveyed after getting tips from local people,
some were surveyed on the basis of reconnais-

The counts during non-breeding periods (falland winter) were a combination of car andsnowmobile counts, where the observations
were made at stops in areas with good visibil-280

– KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON POPULATION STATUS –ity. There were usually 2–3 such stops, whichwere selected ‘on the move.’ We always tried
to make observational stops at mountainpasses, in wide areas of river valleys, as well
as at estuaries of rivers and lagoons. The
counts were made in the Elizovsky, Ust-Bolsheretsky, Milkovsky, Bystrinsky, and Ust-Kamchatsky administrative regions (Figure 1). In
the Olga Bay, the observations were carriedout by A. Nikanorov, an employee of the Kronoki State Nature Reserve. The survey stops
lasted 1–8 h, but most frequently were 2–6 h.
Some of the observation sites were visited several times. Sometimes we tried to attract the
Gyrfalcons with tethered pigeons. The durationof the surveys and the distances covered are
given in Table 1.
RESULTSIn the inland regions of the Koryakia, we knowof more than 40 sites with territorial pairs,
broods, and nests of the Gyrfalcon. For the
Kamchatka Peninsula, we have the location of
29 occupied nests and more than 30 sites withpossible breeding. It appears that Gyrfalcons
breed on the entire Kamchatka Peninsula, withthe exception of its most southern regions.
There is solid evidence of nesting events at the
Vachkazhitsy Volcanic massif (nest withchicks) and at the sources of the Opala River(fledged broods). The latter, at 52º 30’–53º, isthe southernmost known nest of the Gyrfalcon.
However, we have to stress that the breedingof the Gyrfalcon in the southern part of theKamchatka Peninsula is sporadic.

Figure 1. Map of the nest locations in

Kamchatka Peninsula.

Extrapolating from the density of Gyrfalcons
recorded by the counts in the study areas, weestimate 500 (330–660) pairs (approximately
2.4 pair per 1000 km2), which constitutes 7–
19% of the total number of this species in the
Russian Federation and 3–8% of the entire
world Gyrfalcon population. Results of thecounts in 2007 demonstrated a 1.5 times
decrease in the numbers of the birds breedingin the southern part of Kamchatka. The Gyrfalcon is most numerous in the mountainous parts

Figure 2. An example of a study area where thenests and passing Gyrfalcons were monitored(Azabachie Lake, lower Kamchatka River) in
2007.

281

– LOBKOV ET AL. –Table 1. Gyrfalcon surveys on Kamchatka Peninsula in 2005–07.

2005

Surveys
2006

2007

31

31

35

25300

16070

27670

Length of snow-machine survey routes, km

300

800

950

Length of boat survey routes, km

915

940

1530

Length of surveys on foot, km

162

150

250

6

4

6

Type of surveys
Road surveys, total number of sorties
Length of car survey routes, km

Length (time in hours) of helicopter surveys, hNumber of study areas to determine breeding density
Total area of the study areas, km2
Study areas as a percentage of the area of Kamchatka(percent of the potential Gyrfalcon breeding area)

18

30

26

8077

10108

8689

3.2 (3.9)

4.0 (4.9)

3.2 (4.2)

Number of observation sites used in the non-breeding period

31

10

36

Total length (time in hours) of observations during non-breeding period

278

58

221

Number of nest descriptions, including from archived data

45

Number of Gyrfalcons with described color morphs– identified using binoculars from a close distance– identified from skins in the museums– identified in photographs– identified from among confiscated birds

249
146
17
17
105

tic in conditions where snow patches remain
on north-facing cliffs.

of Kamchatka, while its density on the plainsof the peninsula is seven times lower. The
Kamchatka Peninsula is one of the key wintering areas for birds breeding in the northernparts of the species’ range. Kamchatka also islocated on the migratory routes of Gyrfalcons
breeding not only in the northern parts ofKamchatka and Koryakia, but also North
America. The peninsula is perhaps similar to alarge geographical “sack” which funnels Gyrfalcons from a large area. On average, one
Gyrfalcon was seen every 40.6 h (25.3–58 h)during 557 h of counts in 2005–07.

The Gyrfalcon population of Kamchatka andKoryakia has a high potential breeding performance (average clutch size 3.9), but has
only 51.6% breeding success (fledged broodsize = 2).
The diet of the Gyrfalcons is based on the Arctic Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus parryii)(50.2%) and Willow and Rock Ptarmigan(48%). A few pairs breeding near the coastline
have diets with a large proportion of waterfowl.
During the non-breeding period the diet of Gyrfalcons living on the coastal plain included
90.7% birds, composed of 67.2% ducks, gulls
and waders, 26.6% crows and pigeons, 4.2%
ptarmigan, and 2% passerines. However someindividuals may focus on small rodents.

Of the 52 nests located, 75% were located oncliffs (Figure 3), 3.8% on sandy-pumice
bluffs, and 21.2% were on trees (Figure 4).
Cliff nests tended to be located on southeastern and southern exposure (71.4%), and14.3% were facing southwest. We suspect thatthe white birds breeding in nests facing north
have some advantages as they are more cryp-

It has become evident that during the 15–20
years before 2005, the number of breeding282

– KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON POPULATION STATUS –Figure 3. Cliff nest site of the Gyrfalcon in

Figure 4. Tree nest site of the Gyrfalcon in

Kamchatka (Photo by A. Gorovenko).

Kamchatka (Photo by A. Gorovenko).

Gyrfalcons in the southern part of the Koryak
highlands and their density on the Kamchatka
Peninsula during winter declined by twice ormore. The decline is probably continuing now.

cliffs for breeding, meaning that the typicalGyrfalcon has many nest-site options in Kamchatka. Moreover, there is no shortage ofplaces during the winter.
Climate Change Trend.— In the past 50 years,
the temperature of the cold period (OctoberMarch) in Kamchatka has increased 1.7 ºC on
average (Shkaberda 2009). Various regions ofKamchatka show different trends of thischange. The most significant changes were in
the coastal regions (Table 2). The temperature
trend for the warm part of the year (April–September) was different for the continental andcoastline areas. The summer change wassmaller than the changes in the winter temperatures. In the southern, eastern, and western
coasts of the Kamchatka Peninsula, the average temperatures increased 0.8–1.0 ºC. In themountain regions and in the Kamchatka rivervalley, spring and summer temperatures
increased 1.6 ºC, whereas the fall season saw
no change. In the continental regions of
Koryakia (namely for the Penzhina river valley) the increase in temperature happened only
during the spring period (1.3 ºC), the summer
had no changes, and in the fall season it
decreased 0.6 ºC (Shkaberda 2009).

DISCUSSION

Possible natural factors contributing to thedecline of the Kamchatka-Koryakia Gyrfalcon
population:
Natural Factors.—We have not found any natural factors which have a significant effect on
the Kamchatka Gyrfalcon population. The
environmental conditions were normal and stable. Therefore, the environmental conditions
did not contribute to the decline.
Nest Site Availability.—A total of 91.2% of theKamchatka Peninsula is suitable for Gyrfalcon
breeding. In 2005–2007, we made a survey ofcliff outcrops. The majority of the cliff outcrops were located in the foothills and mountains, as well as in the isolated mountainmassifs and volcanoes. The sources of most of
the rivers have a great abundance of cliffs.
Lowlands and wide river valleys are usuallyforested and lack cliffs, or have a small number of cliffs on the banks. On average, there is
one cliff outcrop per 32 km2 of area, withsome areas where there is one cliff per 0.8
km2. This indicates that there is no lack ofDespite some increase of the average temperatures in past decades, it looks like the Gyrfalcon breeding phenology in the last 15–20 years283

– LOBKOV ET AL. –Table 2. Temperature changes in regions of Kamchatka Peninsula over the past 50 years (Shkaberda

2009). The meteorological station name is given in brackets.
Average temperature changes,°C
Cold period(October-March)

Warm period(April-September)Southern peninsula (Lopatka Cape)

0.9

0.8

Western coast (Sobolevo, Ust-Khayrusovo, Icha)

2.0

1.0

Eastern coast (Petropavlovks, Ossora)

2.6

0.8

Continental regions (Kamenskoe)

1.3

0.6

Kamchatka river valley (Dolinovka)

2.1

0.7

Mountain regions (Nachiki)

1.2

0.6

Regions of Kamchatka

has not changed significantly. It is important tonote, however, that the snow melt dates
showed some tendency to be earlier.

tion from the local people states that thepeak numbers of ptarmigan in the region
have declined somewhat.

Dynamics of the Major Prey Species.—Small
mammals and birds that are the prey species of
the Gyrfalcon are either in their natural state,demonstrate periodic fluctuations in numbers,or have somewhat declined.

Waterfowl.—In the past 10–15 years, wehave reported some decline in the wintering
numbers of waterfowl in inland waters(Lobkov 2003). However, this decline is
not drastic and, in our opinion, not impacting Gyrfalcons.

Ptarmigan.—Regular counts (1972–1995)
of Willow Ptarmigan (L. l. koreni) in the
Kronoki Nature Reserve detected cyclicalpeaks of abundance at 5–6 year intervals,
with large peaks registered at 10 (9–11)
years. This cyclicity was regular, and there
was no declining trend detected. The numbers of Rock Ptarmigan (L. m. pleske) were
not high enough to detect any cyclicity. It
was noted that the cyclicity patterns ofptarmigan in the southern parts of thepeninsula and in the continental regions aredifferent. The population density of Willow
Ptarmigan in the mountain parts of the continental regions of Koryakia at peak abundance reaches 5.7–30 pairs per km2 indifferent habitats (Oklan highlands, Penzhina basin, 2009), which is higher thanmaximum numbers reported for the southern regions (10–12 pairs per km2). We do
not have reliable data to compare the numbers of ptarmigan in the Koryakia for thelast 50 years. However, anecdotal informa-

Arctic Ground Squirrels and Other Small
Mammals.—We do not have any data on
population trends of these species.
Geomorphology.—Since Kamchatka Peninsula
is located in an active seismological zone andexposed to severe weather conditions (lots ofprecipitation, sudden changes in temperatures),earth-slides off cliffs, and fast erosion of the
sandy-pumice faces used for nesting by Gyrfalcons are quite frequent. We recorded cases
when the fallen rocks partially or completely
covered the nests (Gorovenko 2003). We also
know of cases where nests in trees disappeared
during forest fires. However, the rarity of thesecases lets us rule out their significant role in
the population dynamics of the species.
Possible anthropogenic factors contributing to
the decline of the Kamchatka-Koryakia Gyrfalcon population:284

– KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON POPULATION STATUS –Illegal Removal of Chicks and Clutches from
Nests.—Information on illegal chick removalfrom Gyrfalcon nests was first reported to us
by local people from the Olutorsky region of
Koryakia in 1984–85. In the 1980s, the illegal
nest robbing in Koryakia reached an industrial
scale. According to our questionnaire returns
in the Tilichiki and Korf settlements in 1988–
1991 from the Koryak highlands, a total 20–30
nests were robbed (however the real figure is
probably higher). The number of Gyrfalcons
there declined and, in some regions, theyceased to exist.

Habitat Degradation.—Nest-cliff faces inmountains, along rivers, and along coastlines
are usually located in remote areas, and often
are out-of-reach by people. Transformation ofriver valleys and mountain slopes happened
only in limited places such as active mines andquarries, which at the moment are not thatnumerous (7–8) and are usually located near
populated places. A rough estimation of suchplaces returned only 0.3% of all suitable Gyrfalcon areas (0.2% cliffs and 0.1% of forested
habitats). Roads and utility lines are expanding, and thus fragmenting the natural continuity of the landscapes. Roads also facilitate
forest fires. As a result, the traditional Gyrfalcon areas along the Anavgay-Palana road, andthe Tolmachevo hydroelectric dam areaffected. However, due to the early stages ofthese developments, the real impact of thementioned factors has yet to be observed.

In 1992, when we surveyed our study area
(5000 km2) set in 1989 in the Goven peninsula
and the Vyvenka basin, we found all 16 known
nests empty and found no territorial pairs. The
local people said that the nests were visited bypoachers using helicopters and the services of
local guides. With the decline of Gyrfalcons inthis region, the range of poachers spread to thenorthern regions of Kamchatka including the
Uka river. In the continental parts of the peninsula, they made attempts to penetrate into thePenzhina ridge and central regions of the
Koryak mountains.

Disturbance.—The disturbance factor is progressing, following the construction of roads
and communication lines, use of natural
resources, and tourism development. We estimate that in at least 20% of potential nestingareas, Gyrfalcons have experienced a progressive disturbance. The nests along the Icha roadto the Shanuch copper-nickel mine, in the
Uzon caldera and in the Geyzer valley wereabandoned due to human disturbance.

Thus, at the end of the 1980s and beginning of
1990s, the illegal removal of chicks from theirnests became a factor which started to affectthe population size of Gyrfalcons in the northof the Kamchatka peninsula and started thedecline of the population.

Illegal Shooting.—We have three documented
and 12 undocumented cases of illegal shootingof Gyrfalcons by local people (mostly pigeon
fanciers), revealed by questionnaires in 1972–2005. This is not a large figure compared to theshooting rate in other species. Sometimes
wounded Gyrfalcons were given to the Kamchatka Zoo (Elizovo).

The removal of chicks and the trapping ofadults at nest sites is currently occurring in various regions of Kamchatka, including its
southern regions. In many places in southern
Kamchatka, where the breeding of Gyrfalcons
became known only recently, they ceased toexist, and the distribution of the Gyrfalcons inthese regions has become sporadic.

By-catch in Traps.—Wintering Gyrfalcons
sometimes get into the traps set for Arctic Fox(Vulpes lagopus) in the Commander Islands(Artukhin 1991) and for Red Fox (Vulpes
vulpes) in Kamchatka (Lobkov unpublisheddata).

Illegal Trapping in Fall and Winter.—During
the 1990s, illegal chick removal in the north ofKamchatka was coupled with the trapping ofadults on migration routes and at their wintering285

– LOBKOV ET AL. –Table 3. Number of Gyrfalcons confiscated in

the Kamchatka District (Table 3). These data do
not reflect the recent numbers of birds caught
and exported from Kamchatka. These are only
confiscated birds.

Kamchatka. These data are not verified, as therecords used were from different governmental
agencies which count the confiscated birds
independently. This table does not include birds
that were smuggled from Kamchatka andconfiscated elsewhere. Data for 2010 are notcomplete, as the season was not over at the timeof preparing this paper.

Gyrfalcons began to be confiscated in 1999, assoon as the regional police departments andState Security Service (FSB) began their operation to search for and detain illegal trappers.
Previously, illegal trappers came to the attention of the police only by chance. However theemployees of airlines knew about passengers
with ‘parrots.’ To date, a total of 40 people
have been arrested. Among them were individuals who were trying this ‘business’ for the
first time, as well as organized groups who
were doing it regularly. It is evident that theconfiscated Gyrfalcons were a small proportion of the birds captured. Many birds die
while in transport. Trappers try to find new
ways to conceal the birds in the safe zones of
the airport and bribe their way through. Moreand more passenger and cargo planes wereused to smuggle the birds; there were evenattempts to send the Gyrfalcons by post.

Examined by us
ConfiscatedYear Gyrfalcons

Total

Includingyoung

Young, %

1991

2

-

?

?

1995

2

-

?

?

1999

13

13

8

61.5

2000

36

36

29

80.6

2001

25

22

19

86.4

2002

54

42

38

90.5

2003

19

17

17

100

2004

29

15

15

100

2005

32

22

22

100

2006

23

22

20

90.9

2007

25

25

24

96.0

2008

54

34

34

100

2009

38

-

?

?

2010

17

-

?

?

Total:

369

248

226

91.1

The range of illegal trapping is growing. Thereis no region of Kamchatka where the illegal
trappers have not been known to operate. They
catch falcons near the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, near settlements, and in extremely
remote places. In the inlets of Olutor Bay near
the northern administrative border of Kamchatka, trappers use fishing camps after thefishermen have left. The local population plays
an active part in trapping, and ‘jobs’ at the trapping camp have become a usual routine. The
smuggling is very well organized. According
to the current estimates, a total of tens (Gordienko and Nechitailov 2000) to hundreds (FSB
estimate) of Gyrfalcons leave Kamchatka
annually. To date (2008–10), our estimate ofannual Kamchatka take is 150–200 birds. The
real figure is unknown. The largest confiscatedshipment of Gyrfalcons was 38 birds (11November 2008, Milkovo), whereas the‘usual’ shipment is 2–8 birds.

grounds. The trapping effort took the form of anindustrial operation. At the moment, this is themain method of illegal Gyrfalcon removal fromwild populations. The rough estimates of thenumber of Gyrfalcons confiscated from poachers were provided by the Kamchatka Regional
Authority of the Federal Natural Resources
Bureau for the Russian Federation, the Agency
in charge of the conservation and use of wildlife
in the Kamchatka District, regional police
departments, and the State Security Bureau of286

– KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON POPULATION STATUS –Table 4. Percent of females (by color variation) among confiscated Gyrfalcons. We used only birds

which were sexed reliably.
Number of females
Color variations
Years

N

Total

%

White

%

Grey

%

1999–2000

33

25

75.8

?

?

4

16

2001

5

3

60.0

–

–

3

100

2002

13

13

100

13

100

–

–

2005

18

10

55.6

6

60.0

–

–

Total :

69

51

73.9

19

73.1

7

26.9

done by the non-commercial partnership“Kamchatka Rare Raptors Rescue Center.”Over 7 years, a total of 48 Gyrfalcons were
rehabilitated, and 35 of these were releasedback to the wild (Table 5). Now the Center has
stopped its work due to a lack of funds.

The trapping of Gyrfalcons in Kamchatka isdone with the goal of their subsequent export
to the Arabian Peninsula, where the birds areused for falconry. Russia is the exclusive supplier of Gyrfalcons to the black market(Sorokin 2005), and a majority of these birds,
in our opinion, are from Kamchatka.

Recently, the Cackling Geese Propagation
Center, Elizovo, which is run by the Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography, Far Eastern Division of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, has served as a rehabilitation center for Gyrfalcons. The center isunderfunded, and is unlikely to continue suchwork for the indefinite future.

Selectivity in Illegal Trapping.—The mostexpensive Gyrfalcons on the black market arelarge, well-built, white females. This demandis reflected in the selective trapping of thebirds in Kamchatka (Table 4). In total, 73.9%of the Gyrfalcons were females, and 73.1% of
the females were white. In general, about 90%of the birds attempted to be smuggled from
Kamchaka were young (Table 2). The proportion of young individuals in the past 6 years(i.e., from the time we started to collect the statistics) has increased, and from 2003 we haveseen mostly young individuals in the shipments (90–100%). This observation suggeststhat the Kamchatka-Koryak population is getting younger.

In 2006, 18 Gyrfalcons, probably of Kamchatka and Koryakia origin, were confiscatedat Moscow airports and rehabilitated at theRussian Falconry Center (All-Russian Instituteof the Nature Conservation and Nature Protection, Sadki-Snamenskie, Moscow and the Center for Wild Animal Rescue, Losiniy Ostrov,
Moscow) and re-introduced to the wild.
Another shipment of eight birds confiscated in
Moscow from a plane arriving from Kamchatka was released in Kamchatka in 2010.

The Fate of the Confiscated Birds.—Despitelarge numbers of confiscated birds, Kamchatka
does not have a specialized rehabilitation center. As a result, the majority of confiscatedGyrfalcons are released into the wild as soon
as possible. If that does not happen, theornithologists have to feed and treat the confiscated birds at their own expense. In the period
from 2001–2007, a huge amount of work was

Forecast of the Dynamics of the Kamchatka
Gyrfalcon Population.—If the speed of change
and the amplitude of the average atmospherictemperature in Kamchatka continues to rise at
the same rate as was measured over the past 50
years (Shkaberda 2009), there will be pheno-287

– LOBKOV ET AL. –Table 5. Rehabilitation by “The Kamchatka Rare Raptors Rescue Center,” Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy,

of Gyrfalcons confiscated in 2001–2007.
Gyrfalcons confiscatedRehabilitated in the rescue center

Year

Total

Released upon
confiscation

Admitted to therescue center

Total

Release

Died

2001

25

22

3

3

3

0

2002

54

42

12

12

8

4

2003

19

17

2

4

4

0

2004

29

15

4

5

1

4

2005

32

22

10

11

8

1

2006

22

1

5

5

5

0

2007

8

0

8

8

6

0

Total:

189

119

44

48

35

9

countries of the Arabian peninsula where thespecies is used for falconry.
• High level of incentives, which makes thisbusiness in Kamchatka very profitable.
• Corrupt governmental officials, aviation
crews, as well as other people who facilitate
the smooth delivery of trapping teams into
the wilderness, provide high-tech equipment, provide legislative support and information on the whereabouts of rangers, andmanage to bring the trapped birds throughsafety checks in airports.
• High unemployment rate in the local population and low standards of living in remotesettlements.

logical changes in Gyrfalcon habitats, and subsequent shifts in their breeding dates towards
earlier dates. We think that it is possible that
this might alter the genetic structure of the
population, as the cryptic quality of the birdsof various morphs is not the same. However,climate change will be hardly noticeable in the
coming decade. Whether climate change might
affect the Gyrfalcons’ prey species (ptarmiganand small mammals) is not clear.
We forecast that the Gyrfalcon population in
Kamchatka will continue to decline morebecause of the activities of humans. Such a
conclusion is inevitable if you consider thefollowing:

2. Geographical and demographical features of
the Kamchatka Gyrfalcon population

High Level of Illegal Trapping and Lack of
Measures to Combat It.—There is no evidence
that illegal trapping will stop in Kamchatka. It
seems that it is increasing, despite the fact thatthe penalties for taking a Red Data Book-listed
species have increased. Illegal trapping seems
to increase recruitment which is fueled by:• The highest proportion of white and lightcolor morphs in Eurasia, which have highcommercial value.
• High concentration of breeding population(highest in Russian Federation), and highconcentration of migrating and wintering
Gyrfalcons in fall and winter.
• Suitability of landscapes for commercial
harvest (roads) and concentration of birds inthe coastal areas.

1. Social and economic conditions• Sustainable demand for Gyrfalcons on theinternational black market, mostly in the288

– KAMCHATKA GYRFALCON POPULATION STATUS –ral resources usually triggers noticeablechanges in the landscape and land use, andthus leads to reduction in the biodiversity ofKamchatka. Nevertheless, the problems ofnature conservation and sustainable use were
not mentioned in the “Strategy” and the necessity for development of protected areas andoptimizing the existing nature reserves waslargely ignored.

3. Lack of integral system to combat illegal
trapping, in particular• Lack of preventive measures; governmental
officials tend to react only if the crime has
happened.
• Low (and sometimes sincerely weak) punishment for trappers and accessory people;
the penalties could be easily covered by thenext trapping episode.

Priority Suggestions for Gyrfalcon Conservation in Kamchatka.—In order to overcome
unfavorable development of the situation, we
think it is necessary to:

4. Insufficient legislation• Concerned scientists began trying toincrease penalties long ago. Finally they
have succeeded. Order #107 of the Ministerof the Natural Resources of the RussianFederation on 28 April 2008 made a significant increase in the penalties for damage to
Red Data-listed species. The Gyrfalcon isranked for 250,000 Roubles (> $9,000).
This is a large penalty. However, it is used
only in the case of “destruction, illegal procurement, and removal from the wild.” As aresult, trappers, people hired by them totransport the birds, or people keeping themon their property, are not covered by the current law because it is impossible to prove“destruction, illegal procurement, andremoval from the wild.” They say, “we did
not remove the birds, but were asked tobring the birds to such and such person who
will meet us at the destination.”• Amend the Decree of the Minister of the
Natural Resources #107 of 28 April 2008 to
include making it illegal to “buy, sell, transport, keep, possess, exchange, etc. Gyrfalcons.” The latest legislative initiative of theKamchatka Regional Parliament, which was
supported by the Governor of Kamchatka toamend the Criminal Code of the RussianFederation with the articles dealing withillegal trapping of animals listed in the Red
Data Book of the Russian Federation, wasmost welcomed. The foundation of this legislative initiative was the situation with the
Gyrfalcon in Kamchatka. Finally the MPs
and the Governor have listened to ornithologists.
• Create a regional rehabilitation center within
the Kamchatka regional agency of the Ministry of Nature Resources of Russian Federation. Such a task can be carried out by the
non-commercial partnership “Kamchatka
Rescue Center” which was established in2001 and has the necessary experience.
• Carry out a complex program on the sustainable use of the Kamchatka-Koryakia Gyrfalcon population, which includes limited, butscientifically justified quotas on the commercial use of the population. Such a program has already been drafted by us andadopted by the Scientific Council of the
Pacific Institute of Geography.
• Create new protected areas, including seasonal ones in the areas that have significant

5. Lack of rehabilitation center for keeping
confiscated birds.
Priorities of the Socio-Economic Development.—According to the “Strategy of thesocio-economic development of the Kamchatka Kray [District] to 2025” adopted on 21
July 2010 by the assembly of the Kamchatka
government, the priority was set to develop
marine industries, mining, energy, transport,
and others. The experience of the previous
years suggests that wide development of natu-289

– LOBKOV ET AL. –LOBKOV E. 1991. Die population desRiesenseeadlers Haliaeetus pelagicus Pallas auf Kamtschаtka und probleme ihres
Schutzes. Populationsökologie Greifvogelund Eulenarten 2:141–151. (Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der MartinLuther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. 4:45).
LOBKOV, E. G. 2002. [Negative changes ofSteller’s Sea-eagle Haliaeetus pelagicus
numbers in southeast Kamchatka associated with fishing in Avacha Gulf]. Biology
and Conservation of the birds of Kamchatka (Moscow) 4:86–92 (in Russian).
LOBKOV, E. G. 2003. [Birds of Kamchatka(geography, ecology and conservation strategy)]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Moscow
Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russia(in Russian).
LOBKOV, E., YU. N. GERASIMOV, AND A. V.
GOROVENKO. 2007a. Material on the statusof the Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) population in Kamchatka, the Russian far east.
Ornitologia 34:5–35 (in Russian).
LOBKOV YE. G., YU. N. GERASIMOV, AND A. V.
GOROVENKO. 2007b. Population status of
the Gyrfalcon in Kamchatka. Falco:
Newsletter of the Middle East Falcon
Research Group 30:8–11.
LOBKOV YE. G., YU. N. GERASIMOV, AND A. V.
GOROVENKO. 2008. Illegal trapping of Gyrfalcons in Kamchatka. Falco: Newsletter ofthe Middle East Falcon Research Group
33:11–12.
SHKABERDA, O. A. 2009. [Study of temperature
regime at the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Unpublished M.S. thesis. Department ofMeteorology, Climatology, and Conservation of Atmosphere, Far Eastern University,
Vladivostok, Russia (in Russian).
SOROKIN, A. G. 2005. [On the problem of theinternational falcon trade]. Pages 23–29 in
V. V. Spitsin (Ed.). Birds of Prey and Owls
in Zoos and Breeding Centers, 14.

numbers of breeding Gyrfalcons. At the
moment, all Kamchatka protected areas
have no more than 50 breeding pairs of Gyrfalcons, i.e., less than 10% of the population, which is not enough for theconservation of this population.
• Develop a database of Gyrfalcon nest sites
in Kamchatka and carry out long-termmonitoring of the population to assess its
breeding potential. Such monitoring has
been carried out in the Kronoki Nature
Reserve (Lobkov 1990, Lobkov 1991) andin the South-East Kamchatka (Lobkov
2002).
LITERATURE CITEDARTUKHIN, YU. B. 1991. [Nesting avifauna of
the Commander Islands and humanimpacts on its state.] Pages 99–137 in V. E.
Sokolov (Ed.). Natural Resources of the
Commander Islands: Resources, Status,and Issues with Conservation and Management. Moscow State University Press,
Moscow, Russia (in Russian).
GORDIENKO, T. A., AND YU. I. NECHITAILOV.
2000. [Problems of raptor conservation in
the Kamchatka District]. Pages 111–113 in
R. S. Moiseev (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1st
Scientific Conference: Conservation of
Biodiversity of Kamchatka and its Coastal
Waters, 11–12 April 2000. Kamchatsk
NIRO, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia(in Russian).
GOROVENKO, A. V. 2003. [Unusual cases of
raptor nest perishing in Kamchatka.] Biology and conservation of the birds of Kamchatka (Moscow) 5:118 (in Russian).
LOBKOV, E. G. 1990. [Monitoring of raptor
populations by the cadasters of their nests.]
Pages 193–209 in S. G. Priklonsky, V. A.
Galushin, and V. G. Krever (Eds.). Methods
for the Study and Conservation of Birds ofPrey. Moscow, Russia (In Russian).

290