Conservation of Argali (Ovis Ammon) in Mongolia and the Altai- Sayan

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

S C IEL N N C E C A/nr) E ^ I D I R E C T < BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION

ELSEVIER Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 241-

WWW. eIsevier.com/Iocate/biocon

Conservation of argali Ovis ammon in western Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan

Ryan L. Maroney *

International Resource Management Program, College of Forestry and Conservation, The University o f Montana, 32 Campus Drive 0576, Missoula, M T 59812, USA

Received 8 December 2003; received in revised form 16 March 2004; accepted 30 April 2004

Abstract

Management of argali in Mongolia historically has been tied to improving biological research and anti poaching- activities within the framework of trophy hunting. Argali populations in protected areas, where trophy hunting does not occur, have received little attention, and conservation or management plans for these areas generally do not exist. In this study, results from interviews with pastoralists in Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park in western Mongolia indicate that local people revere argali and are generally aware of and support government protections, but may not be inclined to reduce herd sizes or discontinue grazing certain pastures for the benefit of wildlife without compensation. Because past protectionist approaches to argali conservation in western Mongolia and the greater Altai- Sayan ecoregion have not achieved effective habitat conservation or anti poaching- enforcement, alternative man agement policies should be considered. Results from this study suggest local receptiveness to management programs based on community involvement and direct benefit. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Argali; Management; Conservation; Mongolia; Altai Sayan-

1. Introduction In recognition of these shortcomings, recent discus sions to reform Mongolia’s trophy hunting practices Management and conservation activities for argali have led to proposals for Community Based Wildlife (wild sheep) Ovis ammon in Mongolia historically have Management (CBWM) programs for trophy hunting been linked to trophy hunting. Although government (Schuerholz, 2001; Amgalanbaatar et ak, 2002). Al sanctioned trophy hunting has occurred since the 1960s though the market based- approach to management and (Luschekina and Fedosenko, 1994), the Mongolian conservation that underlies trophy hunting proposals Ministry for Nature and Environment (MNE) has yet to allows for local involvement in a select number of viable adopt a national management plan for argali (Am - trophy hunting locales, it does not address significant galanbaatar et ak, 2002). In the absence of formal plans, argali populations in protected areas where trophy national conservation and management strategies have hunting is not permitted. focused on increased law enforcement and continued Acknowledging the need for regional and site spe- development of protected area administrations (see cific conservation and management strategies for Mallon et ak, 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading, 2000; argali, this study addresses Altai argali Ovis ammon Working Group, 2000). These efforts, however, largely ammon in non- trophy hunted areas of western Mon have overlooked the direct involvement of or impacts on golia and adjacent countries. The Altai Sayan- ecore pastoralists within argali habitat. gion, as defined by Olson and Dinerstein (1998), encompasses much of recognized O. a. ammon distri bution (Fig. 1), and serves as a useful bioregion to Present address: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bethel Field Office, 311 Willow St., Building 3, P.O. Box 1869, Bethel, AK address conditions and conservation challenges unique 99559-1869. Tel.: +1-907-543 -7157; fax: +1-907-543 -3855. to Altai argali including transboundary- zones, larger E- mail address: [email protected] (R.L. Maroney). human and domestic livestock populations, and high

SpfT '

RUSSIA r ^ \

KAZAKHSTAN

MONGOLIA

^aii C H N A

O b‘ A! , Mongolia

Protected Areas

National Park Current range of Altai argali Nature Reserve

Known Altai argali distribution Strictly Protected Area (orZapovednik)

Fig. 1. Protected area network and known range and distribution of Altai argali O. a. ammon in western Mongolia and tlie Altai- Sayan ecoregion as described by Fedosenko (2000), The Mongolian Institute of Biology (unpub. data, 2001), Maroney and Davarkbayar (unpub. data, 2002), and Paltsyn and Spitsyn (2002). Argali distribution in the Chinese Altai remain approximate due to incomplete field surveys, (modified from Maroney and Paltsyn, 2003). ethnic and cultural diversity (Maroney and Paltsyn, uted to population declines, habitat reduction and 2003). fragmentation and, in some cases, localized extirpation of Altai argali in Mongolia, China, Russia and Ka zakhstan (Shackleton, 1997; Amgalanbaatar and 2. Background Reading, 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002). Prompted by national and international concern 2.1. Altai argali over the status of argali in Mongolia, in 2001, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences undertook the first The Altai subspecies of argali is the largest wild sheep nation- wide argali survey employing a standardized in the world and occurs in the Altai mountains of random sampling technique (Institute of Biology, Mongolia and adjacent regions of Russia, China and 2001). Although potentially biased for reasons noted Kazakhstan (Geist, 1991; Shackleton, 1997; Am by Schuerholz (2001), the survey reported a substan galanbaatar and Reading, 2000). Although the Altai tially smaller argali population than any previous of argali is one of the most sought after species of wild ficial national estimate (Institute of Biology, 2001). sheep by trophy hunters and commands high fees, its National survey findings support other reports (see current population status remain poorly understood Shackleton, 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading, 2000; (Shackleton, 1997; Reading et ak, 1999a, 2001; Working Group, 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002) that Amgalanbaatar and Reading, 2000; Schuerholz, 2001). marked declines in argali populations have recently Argali populations were once more common throughout occurred across much of its range, that threats to argali large tracts of the Altai. However, habitat disturbance conservation are increasing, and that appropriate steps and deterioration resulting from competition with do toward better management and conservation are mestic livestock and poaching appear to have contrib needed. KL. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 233

The Altai argali is now at high risk across its entire large portions of known argali distribution remain range in Mongolia due to dramatic declines or localized outside of the current network of protected areas extirpations, highly fragmented habitat, and high and (Shackleton, 1997; Reading et ak, 1999c), and a number increasing densities of humans and domestic livestock of biologists have questioned if even existing protected (Shackleton, 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading, 2000). areas can safeguard argali because the areas lack suffi The total population of Altai argali in Mongolia is well cient funding, resources, training and personnel to carry below 3000 animals (Reading et ak, 1999b). Similar out basic management activities (Shackleton, 1997; conditions are documented for Altai argali in adjacent Reading et ak, 1999c; Amgalanbaatar and Reading, countries, with population declines or extirpations noted 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002). in the Ukok plateau, southern Altai, Mogun Taiga,- Until more direct investments in biodiversity conser western Tannu -Ola, Sangilen highland, and the Sailu - vation are possible in areas that lack argali trophy gem and Chikhacheva ranges (Smirnov, 1990; Shackl hunting opportunities, management and conservation eton, 1997; Fedosenko, 1999; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, initiatives may have to rely on a system of incentives and 2002). benefits other than the financial compensation provided National governments and international regulatory by CBWM trophy hunting programs. Integrated ap bodies have sought varying degrees of protection for proaches to management and conservation that recog O. a. ammon based on these and other findings. The nize local livelihood security needs and incorporate the Altai argali is designated as Vulnerable by the lUCN ecological knowledge of resident people can lead to (Hilton- Taylor, 2000); carries Appendix II status by the more informed and effective management and conser Convention on International Trade of Endangered vation programs (Reading et ak, 1999c; Fernandez- Species (CITES) and is listed as Threatened on the US Gimenez, 2000; Siebert and Belsky, 2002; Schmidt et ak, Endangered Species List (Johnson, 2002). The Peoples’ 2002). In this study, results from interviews with resident Republic of China list O. a. ammon as a Class II species pastoralists of a protected area in western Mongolia (Shackleton, 1997), roughly analogous to the Threa provide insight into local resource use patterns and tened status accorded by the Mongolian government community concerns, and attitudes toward wildlife. (Shiirevdamba et ak, 1997), while Russia has assigned it Endangered status (Shackleton, 1997). 2.2. Study area A number of protected areas have been established in western Mongolia and adjacent countries specifically for Siilkhemiin Nuruu (Sailugem Range) National Park argali and snow leopard conservation (Fig. 1); and (SNNP) is located in Mongolia’s western most province proposals exist for the creation of transboundary bio of Bayan Olgii (Fig. 2). SNNP was created in 2000 sphere reserves in the region (Badenkov, 2002). Yet, primarily for the protection of Altai argali and is divided

Legend

National Border

■ ■ • P ro te c ted A rea B o rd er Russia 0 interview Locations

1 I Argali Winter Forage A re a s Sailugem Refuge Summer Pasture Areas Utilized By Herders As n n p- b

Fall, winter and Spring Pasture Areas Utilized By H e rd e rs______

SNNPA-

20km N

Mongolia

Fig. 2. Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park (SNNP) is divided into A and B zones. SNNP A Zone- is adjacent to Russia s Sailugem’ Refuge. Interview locations and predominate seasonal pasture usage of herders interviewed are illustrated. Argali winter forage areas identified by Maroney and Davarkhbayar (2004) are also depicted. Seasonal movement patterns of pastoralists prevent direct observation of argali for many in SNNP. 234 R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 into two sections, which cover a combined area of ralists there. Consecutive zuud (drought and severe 140,080 ha (Myagmarsuren, 2000). Spanning portions of winter) in 2000 and 2001, however, decreased livestock Ulaankhus and Nogoon Nuur provincial counties, numbers by almost20“/o from 1997s peak levels (Bayan- SNNP is one of four protected areas under the man Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002). agement of the Mongol Altai Nuruu Special Protected Recent emigration and re- immigration of Mongolian Areas Administration (MANSPAA) in Bayan- Olgii Kazakhs have not significantly affected herder and province. As with many protected areas in the region, livestock density in rural areas of western Mongolia. In MANSPAA and its three rangers in SNNP have had 1989, approximately 123,000 Kazakhs made up roughly little involvement in the area due to limited resources. 6“/o of the total Mongolian population (Finke, 1999). The Sailugem mountains form part of the Mongo - During the period beginning with Kazakhstan’s inde lian- Russian border and intersect the Chikhacheva pendence in the early 1990s through 2001, 60,100 range at the borders of the Altai and Tuvan republics. Mongolian Kazakhs emigrated to Kazakhstan, of This alpine and mountain steppe environment is char which about 10,000 have since returned to Mongolia acterized by high plateaus, broad valleys, and undulat (Bayan Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002). Consequently, ing hills ranging in elevation from 2473 m at the Bor re- immigration by Kazakhs is not a major factor in the Borgusen river to 4029 m at Ikh Turgen peak. Weather overall increase in livestock numbers experienced in in this region is characterized by a strong continental much of western Mongolia, and should not be viewed as climate with severe winters, a short growing season, and a substantial cause of increased pressure on Altai argali approximately 300- 400 mm of annual precipitation as suggested by Mallon et al. (1997) and Reading et al. (Hilbig, 1995). The Sailugem and Chikhacheva ranges (1998). In fact, out- migration of Mongolian Kazakhs to were once considered some of the best wild sheep Kazakhstan reduced the total number of individuals hunting grounds in Central Asia as reflected in Demid - who might have otherwise migrated from urban to rural olfs (1900) and Carruthers’ (1913) accounts of hunting areas following the economic transition, as was com trips to the region. monly documented in other provinces of Mongolia Pastoralists have grazed livestock in the region that (Finke, 1999). Mongolian Kazakh pastoralists can be makes up SNNP for over 3000 years, and extensive viewed as typical of most herders in western Mongolia petrogylph sites throughout the eastern portion of the (Finke, 1999). park document the rich history of former inhabitants’ Resource use regulations in national parks in Mon interaction with wild ungulates and other wildlife dating golia are designated into Special, Travel and Limited back to the late Pleistocene (Jacobson et ak, 2001). In Use Zones (Wingard and Odgerel, 2001). The MNE, the mid 1800s, Kazakh nomadic pastoralists from however, has not yet finalized the boundaries of these Xinjiang began entering the area that is now far western- zones in SNNP. Mongolian law stipulates that livestock Mongolia, and have seasonally grazed livestock there grazing can occur within a park’s Limited and Travel for several generations (Finke, 1999). Kazakhs now Zones, and even permits limited grazing in otherwise comprise the largest ethnic minority group in Mongolia restricted Special Zones during pasture shortages and in Bayan- Olgii province they constitute over 90% of (Wingard and Odgerel, 2001). In addition to park zones, the population (Finke, 1999; Bayan- Olgii Office of Sta military regulations prohibit all activity within 5 km of tistics, 2002). In addition to transhumant pastoralists, the Mongolian -Russian border (Colonel Yo. Ganhuu - several Mongolian National Border Posts are located pers. comm., 2002). During the consecutive zuud years along the length of SNNP and many are inhabited year of 2000 and 2001, local herders petitioned and received round by soldiers, their families, and livestock herds. grazing access to border areas in SNNP and continued Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, collective to graze these areas in 2002 and 2003. With park zo - herding in Mongolia gave way to privatization in 1992, nation unclear and access to border regions approved, as the country rapidly transitioned from a command to uncontrolled livestock grazing is widespread in all re market economy (Schmidt, 1995). The accompanying gions of the park. loss of previous Soviet subsidies and guaranteed markets Argali in SNNP make seasonal, transboundary mi for livestock products, coupled with the breakdown of grations and are known to winter in Mongolia pre community regulatory institutions and high rates of dominately on relatively sheltered southern slopes unemployment in urban centers led to a dramatic in (Davarkhbayar et ak, 2000). As is true for much of crease in the number of privately owned livestock across western Mongolia, habitat disturbance and overgrazing much of Mongolia (Mearns, 1993; Bruun, 1996; Fer- have displaced many argali to marginal pastures in nandez- Gimenez, 1997). Consequently, rangeland deg SNNP (Davarkhbayar et ak, 2000; Institute of Biology, radation has occurred in many areas over the last decade 2001; Schuerholz, 2001; Amgalanbaatar et ak, 2002). In (Bedunah and Schmidt, 2000). These trends are present addition, poaching of argali for meat and sport is a in the counties where SNNP is now located (Fig. 3), and noted problem in SNNP (Maroney and Davarkhbayar, overgrazing is an increasing concern for many pasto 2004), although the full extent of the problem is KL. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 235

100000 A 0) 3E 40000

Yaks and Cows

2001

Fig. 3. Change in number and composition of livestock within administrative units that make up SNNP (1st, 2nd and 3rd Bags o f Ulaankhus Soum, and Ulaanchuluu Bag of Nogoon N uur Soum) between 1982 and 2001. Camel numbers increased from 348 in 1982, to 369 in 2001. Human pop ulation in 2001 for this area was 4615, an increase of 578 individuals since 1982 (Bayan Olgii- Office o f Statistics, 2002).

unknown. Despite the qualitative nature of much of management issues. Interviews lasting approximately 25 the poaching information for this region, enforcement minutes were conducted with 98 individuals from dis of the hunting ban is likely incomplete and irregular; in tinct family units in SNNP between August 6 and 10, fact, there has been only one fine for argali poaching in 2002 (Fig. 2). Official records of pastoralists’ seasonal the northern portion of Bayan- Olgii province near pasture locations in SNNP are not maintained by the SNNP in the last 10 years (Bayan- Olgii Office of Sta local government, therefore, individuals were selected tistics, 2002). for interview based on their summer quarters’ proximity Adjacent to SNNP, the Sailugem or Khosh Agach (<2 km) to a predetermined course through known Refuge (241,300 ha) is located on the Russian side of the inhabited areas of SNNP. The first adult encountered Sailugem range and was created in 1973 for protection from each family unit, frequently the male, head of of argali (Fig. 2) (Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002). Poaching household, was solicited for interview. Male (n = 77) by both local residents and visiting Russian hunters is and female (« = 21) respondents ranged in age from 18 commonly reported for this area (Maroney and Paltsyn, to 82 years (median = 41 years). While conducting argali 2003); however, lower stocking rates create significantly surveys in SNNP in November of 2001 (Maroney and less grazing competition between argali and domestic Davarkhbayar, 2004), some pastoralists were hesitant to livestock than found in SNNP (Paltsyn and Spitsyn, discuss open ended- questions concerning wildlife 2002). Cooperation between the governments of Mon poaching or grazing conflicts. By utilizing a question golia and Russia for management of these protected naire format and incorporating questions in which re areas currently does not occur. spondents are asked to rank general categories of threats to wildlife, herders could address controversial issues without self implication. Additionally, all respondents 3. Methods were informed that their responses would be confiden tial. Many Kazakh herders in SNNP find speaking A 36 item questionnaire regarding local perceptions Mongolian either difficult or uncomfortable, therefore, and general ecological knowledge concerning Altai ar interviews were conducted in Kazakh by two assistants gali was developed to provide respondents with an op trained in interview methodology. The author observed portunity to share their knowledge, opinions and all interviews and participated in discussions when experiences pertaining to a variety of wildlife and range appropriate. 236 R.L. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241

Table 1 Pastoralists’ responses to selected questions concerning argali conservation and grazing land use in SNNP (n

Questions Responses % Is it important to protect argali here? Yes 91 Uncertain 3 No 6

Would you like more information about the protected area network and environmental laws here? Yes 93 Uncertain 0 No 7

Do you know that you live in a protected area or its buffer zone? Yes 94 Uncertain 0 No 6

Do you know that argali are a protected animal both in Mongolia and Internationally? Yes 79 Uncertain 0 No 21

Is argali range currently increasing, decreasing, or unchanged? Increase 7 Unchanged 58 Decrease 18 Uncertain 16

Do you think the number of argali in your area is currently increasing, decreasing, or stable? Increase 40 Unchanged 26 Decrease 21 Uncertain 13

Do argali in SNNP stay in Mongolia all year? Yes 2 Uncertain 16 No 82

Is it currently possible for argali and livestock to co- exist in the same area? Yes 28 Uncertain 12 No 60

Do herder and livestock movements affect argali movement patterns? Yes 51 Uncertain 18 No 31

If the number of herders and livestock continue to increase in this area, will the population and range of argali Increase 12 increase, decrease, or stay the same? Unchanged 45 Decrease 29 Uncertain 14

Does any form of land use management currently exist to avoid grazing conflicts? Yes 34 Uncertain 3 No 63

At present, do local herder communities or local county governments work together in any way? Yes 7 Uncertain 3 No 90

Do you desire more, less, or the same number of livestock for your family? Increase 55 Unchanged 38 Decrease 3 Uncertain 4

Has the condition of rangeland improved (increased), decreased, or remained unchanged in the last five years? Increase 21 Unchanged 18 Decrease 56 Uncertain 4 Note. Some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

4. Results expressed interest in receiving further information on protected areas and their environmental regulations A large majority (91%) of pastoralists in SNNP (Table 1). Following interviews, several individuals even believed it is important to protect argali and 93“/o indicated a willingness to participate in argali conser - RL. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 237

Table 2 Ranking of the most common groups to poach argali in SNNP as perceived by local pastoralists Rank of group Herders Visitors Foreign trophy Border Soldiers hunters MR MR 25% 4% 0% 4% 2% 6% 52% 4% 63% 48 22 13 13 16 41 13 0 19 6 25 32 Each row value represents the % of people ranking that column category as the number 1 (2) group to poach (n = • M, Mongolian; R, Russian; B, both. Note. Some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Table 3 Ranking of threats to conservation of argali as perceived by pastoralists in SNNP Rank of threat Overgrazing Poaching Predators Natural disasters (zuud) Uncertain (no response) 1 25% 29% 38% 0% 9% 2 31 36 18 2 13 3 32 18 32 1 17 Each row value represents the % of people ranking that column category as the number 1 (2 or 3) threat (n 1 = Note. Some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

vation efforts. When respondents were asked why they Only a small number (14“/o) of those interviewed re thought conservation of argali was important, most re ported to have hunted or knew specifically about a case marked that argali are “rare and magnificent animals” of someone hunting argali in the area; while, in a sep deserving of protection. A minority (6%), considered arate question regarding the types of hunters, over half protection of argali unnecessary and viewed them as a (52%) of the respondents claimed no knowledge of ar nuisance that could limit access to certain pasturelands. gali hunting. Respondents willing to rank categories of Typical comments from this latter group included: poachers perceived Russian border soldiers (52%) to be the most common group hunting argali, followed by These argali are not our responsibility and do not need our pro tection. They only come into Mongolian border territory and 41“/o who considered non- resident Mongolian and Rus really belong to the Russians. sian visitors the second largest group (Table 2). Re spondents recognized fellow pastoralists as poachers Most (94%) respondents knew they were in a pro with 25“/o ranking herders as the most common poach tected area and 79“/o were aware that argali are a pro ers, while 22“/o believed herders were the second largest tected species (Table 1). Only 18“/o of respondents group (Table 2). thought that argali range had decreased and most be A majority (63“/o) of respondents indicated that no lieved that argali numbers were either increasing (40“/o) form of land use management is in place to avoid or stable (26“/o) in SNNP (Table 1). A high proportion of grazing confficts, and 90“/o reported no cooperation be the respondents who were uncertain of argali population tween local county governments or resident pastoralists and range trends were women. Of the 21 women inter (Table 1). More than half (55“/o) of those interviewed viewed, half (52“/o) indicated they were not informed desired additional livestock, and 56“/o believed rangeland enough to comment on argali because they seldom dis conditions had decreased in the last 5 years (Table1). cuss issues involving wildlife with the men of their When asked to rank threats to conservation of argali in families and do not often venture far from their homes. the area, the largest number (38“/o) of respondents in Even without regular observation of argali, most dicated that natural predators are the leading threat. (82“/o) pastoralists are aware of general argali movement Responses were mixed, however, and many considered patterns (Table 1), and realize that humans and domestic both poaching and overgrazing serious threats (Table 3). livestock can displace argali. A majority of respondents (60“/o) believed that argali and livestock could not co exist in the same area (Table 1), and half (51“/o) of the 5. Discussion pastoralists acknowledged that herder and livestock movements affect argali movement patterns (Table 1). Results indicate pastoralists in SNNP are generally When respondents were asked how an increase in herder aware of and support environmental laws concerning and livestock numbers would affect argali in the area, argali. Interviews with Mongolian pastoralists con however, the largest number (45“/o) believed argali pop ducted in 1998,by Bedunah and Schmidt (2004) in Gobi ulation and range would remain unchanged (Table 1). Gurvan Saikhan National Park, also documented a 238 R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 large majority (83%, n = 11) of pastoralists were aware While some pastoralists have limited experience with of the local protected area. However, only 37“/o of their argali and likely do not know about hunting issues, respondents had any knowledge of land use regulations several respondents in informal discussions following associated with the park’s Special Zone (Bedunah and interviews conceded that their concern over speaking of Schmidt, 2004). Once Special Use Zones are defined and hunting a protected species prevented them from openly managed for argali in SNNP and herder’s access be discussing issues of poaching. It is likely that some re comes restricted, it is likely that the 6“/o of pastoralists spondents chose not to answer questions concerning currently opposed to argali conservation will find in poaching because they feared reprisal even though all creased support for their views. respondents were notified prior to interviews that the Only a small number (18“/o) of respondents in SNNP information obtained through the questionnaire would thought that argali range had decreased and most be be confidential. These findings differ from reports by lieved that argali numbers were either increasing (40“/o) Reading et al. (1998, 2001)and Amgalanbaatar et al. or stable (26“/o) (Table 1). These findings support the (2002), who found discussions with herders in other general perception documented by McCarthy (2000), areas of Mongolia concerning poaching of argali open - who found a majority of herders (n = 57) in Mongolia’s natured, and the findings illustrate the variety of three western provinces believed that argali populations perceptions within Mongolia towards government were increasing (37“/o) or stable (37“/o), while only 26“/o authority. thought argali number were declining. It is significant to note that a majority of pastoralists surveyed in western 5.1. Management implications for SNNP Mongolia believe that argali numbers are either stable or increasing, contrary to reports of declining argali pop Forage competition with livestock, disturbance as ulations by Mongolian and foreign biologists. sociated with people and livestock, and habitat loss re This discrepancy can be partially explained by con sulting from range deterioration are significant threats sidering argali displacement by herders and livestock, to the future of Altai argali populations in SNNP. These herder seasonal movement patterns and general eco threats are not specific to SNNP, but are occurring logical knowledge. Argali are highly mobile and easily throughout the Altai Sayan- ecoregion. Management of displaced by the seasonal movements of herders and rangeland for the benefit of wildlife is often difficult as it livestock (Harris and Bedunah, 2001; Schuerholz, 2001). generally involves restrictions or changes on the re Therefore, it is unlikely that many pastoralists are able source use patterns of resident pastoralists (Am to observe argali unless they make an effort to do so. galanbaatar et ak, 2002). As protected areas begin to be Outside of formal interviews, a number of herders re managed for wildlife, increased conflict between herders ported that they cannot regularly view argali, because and protected area authorities can be expected (Harris “argali move away from people and do not return untiland Bedunah,we 2001; Bedunah and Schmidt, 2004). move to different seasonal pastures.” Known spatio- When livestock numbers were lower, habitat parti temporal land use patterns of pastoralists in SNNP tioning between argali and domestic herds occurred and support this claim, revealing that many herders do not provided some degree of separation between livestock come into direct proximity of argali because they only and wildlife in the region (Schuerholz, 2001). However, inhabit argali winter forage areas during the summer seasonal movements of herders and livestock now in and early fall (Fig. 2). As many herders’ seasonal creasingly encroach on argali habitat that was previ movements reduce the opportunity for regular obser ously lightly grazed or ungrazed by livestock. This vation of argali, it is probable that these pastoralists do change in livestock use largely displaces argali into not have sufficient experience to speak accurately about marginal areas inaccessible or otherwise unsuitable to population trends. Gender issues also factor into general livestock (Luschekina and Fedosenko, 1994; Schuer awareness levels and ecological knowledge of pastoral holz, 2001). Schuerholz (2001) believed that high mor ists in SNNP. tality rates would characterize argali populations Pastoralists that use remote areas when argali can be displaced into areas without sufficient winter forage, or regularly observed, however, likely have more informed if existing argali winter forage areas are not managed views on trends in argali population and range. In appropriately. Consequently, identification, protection speaking with a herder who has observed argali and and, in some cases, reclamation of historic argali winter other wildlife from one such winter home during the forage areas should be a key component of conservation course of his lifetime, he described with regret the cur and management programs for argali (Luschekina and rent status of argali: Fedosenko, 1994; Harris and Bedunah, 2001; Schuer holz, 2001). Argali have become frightened of humans and livestock and don’ t mingle with our flocks anymore. Large rams are becoming To successfully develop and implement a multiple use less common and there are many mountains that no longer have management strategy to protect wildlife habitat within argali. SNNP, real benefits must be provided to local stake KL. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 239 holders willing to work toward shared conservation 1990s. During socialist times, the negdel (local collective goals. As demonstrated in this case study, many pasto organization) coordinated joint management of live ralists revere argali, are aware of national environmental stock production and provided for both economic and laws and recognize that some level of range partitioning social needs of community members (Bruun, 1996). The is necessary to provide argali with sufficient pasture re development of community institutions in SNNP could sources. These herders have a strong conservation ethic provide benefits to local pastoralists and facilitate the concerning the importance of protecting argali, but development and implementation of collaborative more than half (55%) desire additional livestock and less management strategies and should be initiated by than a third (29%) believe an increase in livestock MANSPAA. Additionally, identifying and working numbers will negatively impact argali population and with key informants from these communities could in range (Table 1). As a result, many pastoralists may not crease success rates of collaboration and provide be inclined to limit or discontinue grazing certain pas MANSPAA with detailed information concerning tures for the benefit of argali. Moreover, even if pasto SNNPs wildlife. ralists were so inclined, community institutions are not Elsewhere in Mongolia, herders living in protected in place to coordinate such range management. Devel areas in the Gobi and other regions of western Mongolia opment of effective programs and community incentives have recently formed community groups to improve to reconcile pastoralists’ cultural value for argali with their livelihoods and better interact with protected area their material needs and desires for increased domestic administrations (Schmidt et ak, 2002; Bedunah and herds is likely the greatest challenge facing argali con Schmidt, 2004). The conservation and development servation in SNNP. projects described by Schmidt et ak (2002) and Allen A public education campaign that acknowledges the and McCarthy (1999), have employed a diverse set of cultural respect of pastoralists for argali and draws at strategies and incentives that have met with positive tention to recent declines for argali in the greater region results in these communities. Some of the benefits these could encourage local stewardship and reduce incidents projects have provided to community groups committed of poaching (Amgalanbaatar and Reading, 2000), but to conservation, and applicable to SNNP, include: the would not address the underlying economic factors in development of performance based small business op fluencing pastoralists’ decisions concerning resource use portunities, the creation of locally owned and operated patterns and herd sizes. Indeed, much of the biodiversity information and resource centers and the support of loss which occurs in Mongolia and elsewhere is perpe community requested training for livelihood improve trated by individuals who value nature, but act in what ment (Allen and McCarthy, 1999; Schmidt et ak, 2002). they believe is their own economic self- interest to sup port themselves and their families (Hardin, 1968; Ferr aro and Kiss, 2002). Programs that provide direct 5.2. Management implications for the Altai-Sayan ecore compensation to create economic incentives are often gion more successful in achieving their conservation goals (Bruner et ak, 2001; Ferraro and Kiss, 2002), and argali Community based strategies for conservation and trophy hunting has the potential to provide considerable management of wildlife can be effective, but too often are funding (Harris and Pletscher, 2002; Hofer, 2002). based on oversimplified assessments of large and diverse If CBWM trophy hunting programs are successfully regions and their resident communities (Belsky, 1999; established and managed, they could subsidize argali Wilshusen et ak, 2002). Generalized approaches can re conservation programs outside of hunting reserves. Al sult in gross inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, and their ternatively, protected areas that can support sustainable failings often provide impetus for movement toward argali trophy hunting operations could petition the more authoritarian policies, ultimately reducing the po MNE for revision of environmental law to sanction tential for long term conservation (Wilshusen et ak, CBWM trophy hunting programs in protected areas or 2002). Considering Altai argali within the Altai Sayan- their buffer zones, as suggested by Bedunah and Schmidt ecoregion as a separate management unit will allow for (2004). In either case, development of sustainable trophy the development of bio -regional as well as site -specific hunting programs will take considerable time. In the multiple use management plans. Of the noted threats to interim, management activities in protected areas are conservation of Altai argali, habitat loss and deteriora needed and incentives could be developed to encourage tion caused by grazing competition is likely the most community groups to form and work with protected significant (Schuerholz, 2001), and range management area administrations and other government bodies to of these communal lands is essentially a community ward conservation of argali and argali habitat. oriented process requiring collaborative approaches Many herders in Mongolia are familiar with and (Schmidt et ak, 2002). Management plans for argali in the value the benefits that previous Soviet -era community Altai-Sayan could be developed collaboratively with institutions provided before their breakdown in the early resident communities and participation encouraged with 240 R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 direct benefits. Moreover, protected area administrations Errors in understanding or interpretation are solely the and local government organizations should act to facili author’s responsibility. tate this process to ensure that management and con servation goals are adequately addressed. References

6. Conclusion Allen, P., McCarthy, T., 1999. Knitting for snow leopards. Cat News 30, 24- 25. Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., 2000. Altai argali. In: Reading, Opportunities for collaboration exist both within R.P., Miller, B. (Eds.), Endangered Animals: Conflicting Issues. SNNP and across the border in Russia. The transboun Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. pp. 5 9.- dary nature of the argali populations in the Sailugem and Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., Lhagvasuren, B., Batsukh, N., Chikhacheva ranges necessitate joint management and 2002. Argali sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. research efforts between Russian and Mongolian gov Pirineos 157, 129- 150. Badenkov, Y.P., 2002. Altai mountain knot: between conservation and ernments. Important winter forage sites, lambing development- syndromes of globalization. International Human grounds and other seasonal pasture areas of Altai argali Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change Newslet in both countries, and in other portions of its range, re ter: IHDP Update No. 1. quire further identification and protection. This could be Bayan-Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002. Olgii city, Bayan-Olgii province, achieved if Mongolian and Russian pastoralists and Mongolia. Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2000. Rangelands of Gobi Gurvan border soldiers are encouraged to work with park rangers Saikhan National Conservation Park, Mongolia. Rangelands 22 and protected area biologists toward reducing inci (4), 18- 24. dents of poaching, as well as gathering information on Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2004. Pastoralism and protected area the distribution and status of argali in the transfrontier management in Mongolia: the case of Gobi Gurvan Saikhan zone. National Park. Development and Change 35, 167 191.- Belsky, J.M., 1999. Misrepresenting communities: the politics of Developing and implementing effective community community- based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. based management and conservation strategies to re Rural Sociology 63 (4), 641 666.- solve grazing conflict between pastoralists, protect im Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. portant wildlife habitat, bridge transboundary zones, Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science and ensure the livelihoods of resident pastoralists will be 291, 125- 128. Bruun, O., 1996. The herding household: economy and organization. extremely difficult, but the alternative of employing so In: Bruun, O., Odgaard, O. (Eds.), Mongolia in Transition, Nordic lely protectionist approaches has not proven successful Institute of Asian Studies. In: Studies in Asian Topics, No.22. in many areas of Mongolia and will inevitably result in Curzon Press, Great Britain, pp. 65 89.- increased conflict between resident pastoralists and Carruthers, D., 1913. Unknown Mongolia: A Record of Travel and government authorities. Anti poaching- measures and Exploration in North- West Mongolia and Dzungaria. Hutchinson and Co., London. protection of core wildlife zones are necessary, but Davarkhbayar, D., Atai, A., Beibet, Kh., 2000. Study on argali(Ovis should not be the only interaction protected area ad ammon ammon) distribution, location and resources in some parts ministrators or government officials have with herders. of the Mongolian side of the Altai Sayan Ecoregion. WWF A policy shift from a primary focus on law enforcement Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar. activities toward more integrated management incor Demidoff, E., 1900. After Wild Sheep in the Altai and Mongolia. Rowland Ward, London. porating participatory approaches and providing direct Fedosenko, A.K., 1999. State and condition of Altai Argali Sheep(Ovis local benefits offer the potential to improve conservation ammon ammon) populations in the Altai Sayan- region. In: Global effectiveness while developing links between communi Change and Uvs Nuur: Sustainable Development of the Altai ties and governments. Sayan Ecoregion and Transboundary Nature Conservation Issues International Conference. Mongolia, pp. 186 192- (in Russian). Fedosenko, A.K., 2000. Arkhar (Ovis ammon) in Russia and adjacent countries. Moscow, p. 292 (in Russian). Acknowledgements Fernandez- Gimenez, M.E., 1997. Landscapes, livestock and liveli hoods: social, ecological and land use- change among the nomadic Funding for this study came from the International pastoralists of Mongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cali Snow Leopard Trust, World Wide Fund for Nature fornia, Berkeley, CA. Fernandez- Gimenez, M.E., 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic Mongolia, and the United States Peace Corps. The au pastoralists ’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management. thor thanks R. Harris, R. Reading and two anonymous Ecological Applications 10 (5), 1318 1326.- reviewers for improvements to this manuscript; an ear Ferraro, P.J., Kiss, A., 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. lier version was improved by suggestions from S. Siebert Science 298, 1718- 1719. and D. Bedunah. Special thanks to A. Atai, I. Bordo - Finke, P., 1999. The Kazaks of western Mongolia. In: Svanberg, I. (Ed.), Contemporary Kazaks. St. Martin’ s Press, New York. pp. naro, C. Canat, S. Cooper, D. Davarkhbayar, Erkin, 103- 139. P. Erzat, K. Kadirkhan, M. Kin, W. Kruger, P. Maro Ganhuu, Yo., 2002. Colonel of 285th Army Border Division. Tsagaan ney, M. Murphy, M. Paltsyn, S. Undarga, G. Wingard. Nuur, Bayan- Olgii, Mongolia. RL. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 241

Geist, V., 1991. On taxonomy of giant sheep(Ovis ammon Linneaus, Paltsyn, M.Y., Spitsyn, S.V., 2002. Recommendations for conserva 1766). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69, 706- 723. tion of argali sheep population in Chikhacheva Range. In: Study Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243- and Conservation of Altai -Sayan Mountain Country - Conference 1248. Book, pp. 107 -111. Gorno -Altaisk, Russia (in Russian). Harris, R.B., Bedunah, D.J., 2001. Sheep vs. sheep: argali and Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1998. Recent Conserva livestock in western China. Unpublished final report to the tion Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia - Part 1. National Geographic Society. University of Montana, Missoula, lUCN Caprinae News, January 1- 3. p. 51. Reading, R.P., Mix, H., Lhagvasuren, B., Blumer, E.S., 1999a. Status Harris, R.B., Pletscher, D.H., 2002. Incentives toward conservation of of wild Bactrian camels and other large ungulates in south western- argali Ovis ammon: a case study of trophy hunting in Western Mongolia. Oryx 33 (3), 247- 255. China. Oryx 36 (4), 372- 381. Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1999b. Recent Conser Hilbig, W., 1995. The Vegetation of Mongolia. SPB Academic vation Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia - Part 2. Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands. lUCN Caprinae News, August 1^. Hilton- Taylor, C., 2000. 2000 lUCN Red List of Threatened Species Reading, R.P., Johnstad, M., Batjargal, Z., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix, (Compiler) lUCN, Gland Switzerland, Cambridge, UK. p. 61. H., 1999c. Expanding M ongolia’ s system o f protected areas. Hofer, D., 2002. The lion’ s share of the hunt. Trophy hunting and Natural Areas Journal 19 (3), 211 222. conservation: a review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Wingard, G., 2001. Argali sheep and trophy trade under CITES. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, conservation and research activities in Mongolia. The Open Belgium. Country No. 3, pp. 25 32.- Institute of Biology, 2001. Population assessment of argali in Mon Shackleton, D.M. (Ed.), 1997. Wild Sheep and Goats and their golia, 2001. Institute of Biology, Mongolian Academy o f Sciences. Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (in Mongolian). Caprinae. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 390. Jacobson, E., Kubarev, V.D., Tseveendorj, D., 2001. Mongolie Du Schmidt, S., 1995. Mongolia in Transition: The Impact of Privatiza Nord- oest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga. Rertoire des Petroglyphes d Asie’ tion on Rural Life. Bielefelder Studies on the Sociology of Centrale, Fascicule No. 6, vol. 2, De Boccard, Paris. Development. Saabrucken, Germany. Johnson, K., 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Schmidt, S., Gansukh, G., Kamal, K., Swenson, K., 2002. Community retention of threatened status for argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, organization - a key step towards sustainable livelihoods and co and Tajikistan. Federal Register 67 (99), 35942- 35957. management of natural resources in Mongolia. Policy Matters 10, Luschekina, A., Fedosenko, A., 1994. The status of argali in 71- 74. Kirgizstan, Tadjikistan, and Mongolia. Report to the US Fish Schuerholz, G., 2001. Community based wildlife management and Wildlife Service, Office of Scientific Authority. Washington, (CBWM) in the Altai Sayan Ecoregion of Mongolia feasibility DC, p. 44. assessment: opportunities for and barriers to CBWM. Report to Mallon, D.P., Bold, A., Dulamtseren, S., Reading, R.P., Amgalanba WWF Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, p. 49. atar, S., 1997. Mongolia. In: Shackleton, D.M. (Ed.), Wild Sheep Shiirevdamba, Ts., Shagdarsuren, O., Erdenjav, G., Amgalan, T.s., and Goats and their Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Tsetsegma, T.s., (Eds.), 1997. Mongolian Red Book. Ministry for Action Plan for Caprinae. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 193- Nature and the Environment of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongo

201 . lia, p. 388 (in Mongolian, with English Summaries). Maroney, R.L., Davarkhbayar, D., 2004. Altai argali (Ovis ammon Smirnov, M.N., 1990. Argali in Tuva. In: Ecological and Economical ammon) surveys in Mongolia’ s Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park. Aspects of Conservation and Rational Utilization of Game Species Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences 1, 33 -36. and Plant Resources of Siberia - Conference Book. Shushenskoe, Maroney, R.L., Paltsyn, 2003. Altai argali status and distribution in pp. 137- 140 (in Russian). western Mongolia and the Altai Sayan.- lUCN Caprinae News, Siebert, S.F., Belsky, J.M., 2002. Livelihood security and protected October 4- 7. area management. International Journal of Wilderness 8 (3), 38^2. McCarthy, T.M., 2000. Ecology and conservation of snow leopards, Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C., 2002. Gobi bears, and wild Bactrian camels in Mongolia. Ph.D. Beyond the square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, p. 133. paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Mearns, R., 1993. Territoriality and land tenure among Mongolian Natural Resources 15, 17 40.- pastoralists: variation, continuity and change. Nomadic Peoples 33, Wingard, J.R., Odgerel, P., 2001. Compendium of environmental law 73- 103. and practice in Mongolia. GTZ Commercial and Civil Law Reform Myagmarsuren, D., 2000. Specially protected areas of Mongolia. Project. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, p. 409. Mongolian Environmental Protection Agency and the German Working Group, 2000. Conference Results. In: Batsukh, N. (Ed.), Technical Advisory Cooperation. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Strategic Planning for Conservation of Mongolian Argali Sheep Olson, D.M ., Dinerstein, E., 1998. The global 200: a representation (Ovis ammon) National Seminar, pp. 85 88.- Ministry for Nature approach to conserving the worlds most biologically valuable and the Environment of Mongolia and WWF Mongolia,- Ulaanba ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12 (3), 502 515.- atar, Mongolia, p. 96 (in Mongolian).