Supreme Court Rules Bear-Hunting License Revocation "Illegal" — Hunter Wins Landmark Reversal (March 2026)

On March 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Japan's Third Petty Bench (Chief Justice Michiharu Hayashi) ruled that the revocation of a hunter's firearms license after a bear cull was "illegal." The decision was unanimous among all five justices. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of civilian shooting during government-requested wildlife control — a landmark decision with nationwide implications for pest-control operations.

Haruo Ikegami (age 77), president of the Sunagawa Branch of the Hokkaido Hunters' Association and a part-time public servant serving as a "Wildlife Damage Control Team Member," was called into action:

• August 2018: Ikegami responded to a request from Sunagawa City to cull a brown bear (higuma)
• City officials and police were present at the scene
• He fired one rifle shot, successfully killing the bear
• No injuries or property damage occurred

• April 2019: The Hokkaido Public Safety Commission revoked Ikegami's firearms license
• Reason: the shot was fired in a direction where bullets could potentially reach nearby buildings, violating the Wildlife Protection and Management Act

The District Court emphasized that no bullet actually struck any building or caused any damage, ruling the revocation illegal and ordering it overturned.

The High Court focused on the poor visibility at the shooting site and the risk of ricochets, finding that bullets could have struck fellow hunters. It ruled the revocation legal and reversed the first-instance decision.

While acknowledging that some risk to fellow hunters existed, the Supreme Court ruled the revocation illegal for the following reasons.

The Court concluded that the punishment was "excessively severe" and constituted an abuse of administrative discretion.

Ikegami's shot was part of a culling operation requested by the city and was "an activity of significant importance for protecting the living environment of surrounding residents."

While the potential for bullets to reach buildings or endanger colleagues was acknowledged, no actual personal injuries or property damage resulted from the shot.

Revoking a hunter's license in these circumstances would not only be harsh on Ikegami personally but could "discourage team members from carrying out their duties." If hunters fear punishment for responding to government requests, community safety would suffer.

This ruling is closely connected to Japan's nationwide hunter shortage:

• The number of hunting license holders has been declining, with significant aging of the workforce
• Crop damage and human injuries from bears, boar, and other wildlife are increasing
• Punishing hunters who respond to government culling requests accelerates the exodus from the profession

After losing at the High Court level, the Hokkaido Hunters' Association had signaled it might refuse future bear-culling requests from municipalities, arguing that "hunters bear all the responsibility." The Supreme Court ruling is expected to ease these concerns.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Hokkaido Public Safety Commission reportedly apologized to Ikegami.

• Municipal officials: Establish clear safety protocols before requesting culls — including line-of-fire verification and evacuation zones — to avoid placing undue responsibility solely on hunters
• Hunters: This ruling does not mean all shooting is permissible. The Court weighed the government request, public interest, and absence of actual harm as a whole. Safety precautions remain essential
• General public: As bear encounters increase across Japan, this ruling provides important legal protection for the hunters who stand on the front line of community safety