Argali Sheep Conservation and Research Activities in Mongolia

RESEARCH ARGALI SHEEP CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN MONGOLIA Richard P. Reading, Sukhiin Amgalanbaatar, and Ganchimeg Wingard INTRODUCTION Mountains and the mountain massifs and rocky outcrops of the Gobi Desert in southern rgali are the largest mountain sheep in the Mongolia (Reading et al. 1998; Schaller 1998; Aworld, with some males in Mongolia Amgalanbaatar and Reading in press). A few weighing in at over 200 kg and sporting impres- argali apparently survive in the mountains near sive, spiraling horns that reach over 165 cm long Lake Khuvsgul in the north of the country. Two (Schaller 1977, 1998; Valdez 1982; Mallon et al. putative Mongolian subspecies are described in 1997). Argali have relatively long, thin legs and the literature, the Altai and Gobi argali, compact bodies, built for running speed. As such, although the taxonomy requires clarification they prefer rolling hills, plateaus, and gentle (Tsalkin 1951; Dulamtseren 1970; Sopin 1982, slopes to rugged mountainous terrain (Schaller Zhirnov and Ilyinsky 1985; Geist 1991). The 1977; Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000). northern and northwestern of these populations Argali inhabit the cold, arid grasslands of moun- are contiguous with Russian argali populations, tains, steppe-covered valleys, and areas with while the southern and southwestern popula- rocky outcrops in Central Asia, including por- tions are connected to populations in China tions of Mongolia (Shackleton 1997). Currently, (Mallon et al. 1997). their populations are patchily distributed in the Little is known about argali, although it is northwestern and western Altai Mountains, the clear that the species is declining and it is listed central Khangai Mountains, the Trans-Altai as threatened in Mongolia and internationally 25 THE OPEN COUNTRY № 3 (FALL 2001) (Shiirevdamba et al. 1997, Amgalanbaatar and Mongolia’s transformation to a democracy and Reading 2000). Despite this, some researchers free market economy in the early 1990s led to suggest that argali are relatively widespread and several changes with ramifications to argali not threatened. These different opinions are (Bruun and Odgaard 1996; Reading et al. 1999a). based on population estimates that vary from As law enforcement became more and more lax, 10,000 to 50,000 animals (see review in poaching activity increased (Lushchekina 1994). Lushchekina 1994). More systematic, rigorous, Today, many local people readily admit to and comprehensive surveys for and ecological shooting argali for meat. In addition, livestock research on argali are clearly required. numbers increased dramatically following priva- Mongolia’s Argali Wildlife Research Center, tization of herds from 26 million head in 1992 to the Denver Zoological Foundation (DZF), and 33 million in 1998 (Amgalanbaatar and Reading the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (MAS) are 2000). As the nation’s human and livestock cooperating on several argali sheep (Ovis ammon) numbers increase, overgrazing and displacement conservation and research projects in Mongolia. by livestock reduces and degrades argali habitat We initiated research projects in an attempt to (Sheehy 1996; Biodiversity... 1996; Reading et al. better understand the species’ taxonomy, ecolo- 1999a). Solutions are difficult, as many nomadic gy, and population dynamics. The results of this herders live a marginal existence, barely able to work will hopefully enable us to better conserve feed and clothe their families. On a more posi- these magnificent animals. tive note, most Mongolians also want to conserve nature and wildlife, which they view as part of STATUS AND THREATS their cultural heritage (Myagmarsuren 2000). Trophy hunting of argali is a contentious Although argali appear to be declining, accu- issue both locally and internationally (Reading rate population estimates are difficult. Most et al. 1998, 1999a; Amgalanbaatar and Reading biologists agree that the species is experiencing 2000, in press). Most local people and many marked population declines and fragmentation international conservation organizations oppose (Mallon et al. 1997). As such, argali are listed as trophy hunting, expressing concern for the sta- “Threatened” in the Mongolian Red Book and tus of the species and disdain for rich foreign as “Rare” by the country’s newly enacted Law on hunters (Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000). Fauna (Shiirevdamba et al. 1997). Both this law Despite the relatively small number of animals and the Law on Hunting permit argali hunting officially killed each year by trophy hunters pursuant to obtaining a permit from the Ministry (usually around 25, although the actual number of Nature and Environment (MNE). They are may be as much as twice that number), many also included on Appendix II of the Convention local people blame trophy hunters for argali on International Trade of Endangered Species declines. Fewer Mongolians (mostly in hunting (CITES); designated as “Threatened” on the guide companies) and foreign trophy hunters U.S. Endangered Species List; and listed as argue that trophy hunting may provide an “Vulnerable” on the 1996 IUCN Red List of important source of income for argali conserva- Threatened Animals (Nowak 1993; Baillie and tion, as well as local communities. Indeed, argali Groombridge 1996). are greatly sought by foreign trophy hunters, Argali population declines appear to be pri- who spent over US$20 million to harvest 1,630 marily a result of subsistence poaching (shooting rams in Mongolia from 1967 through 1989 animals illegally for food) and competition with (Lushchekina 1994). However, a tiny fraction of domestic livestock for forage and habitat (Mallon this money went to the local communities or et al. 1997; Reading et al. 1997, 1998, 1999a). the conservation and management of argali. 26 RESEARCH Under the Mongolian Hunting Fee Law of programs (Amgalanbaatar and Reading in press). 1995, revenue generated from argali trophy Our colleagues and we have been fortunate hunting was divided among the federal govern- enough to work on a wide variety of argali eco- ment’s general funds (70%), the local Sum (or logical and conservation issues in Mongolia, county) government (20%), and the hunting including distribution, population dynamics, organization (10%) (Reading et al. 1999). Very behavior, social structure, genetics, the level of little, if any, of that money went directly to competition between argali and domestic sheep conservation and the government did not and goats, and protected area use (Reading et al. actively manage argali (Amgalanbaatar and 1997, 1999b; Tserenbaata et al. 2000). During Reading 2000). This situation may be changing, most of this work, we enlisted the help of several as a new Hunting Law was passed in 2000 with Mongolian Pedagogical University and Mon- stronger conservation and management provi- golian State University students, including sions and the new Minister of Nature and the Onon Yondon, Adya Yadamsuren, Naranbaatar, Environment appears ready to begin direct con- Z. Chinzorig, and Bat-Erdene. servation management activities. In addition, a There are no easy solutions to argali con- new law requires that 50% of all resource use servation in the face of increased grazing pres- fees be redirected to conservation. Directing sure, but the first step is to better understand the resources from trophy hunting to conservation situation. As such, we have initiated a research and management of the species seems to provide project to examine the extent of dietary overlap a win-win-win situation, as it would benefit between argali and livestock. This study is com- trophy hunters, the government of Mongolia paring feeding rates, vigilance, plants in fecal (through the revenue generated), and, most material, and other aspects of the feeding ecolo- importantly, argali and the ecosystems they gy of argali and domestic sheep and goats inhabit (Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000). (although we may expand the study in the future Indeed, local hunting companies have recently to examine other species of livestock). The work expressed an interest to help support conserva- remains in its preliminary stages. In late 2000, tion activities. Only time will tell if these posi- we collected pilot data on argali diets and feeding tive words are translated into action. behavior, refining our techniques and developing data forms. Samples of argali and ibex fecal CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES material are being analyzed in U.S. labs. Of course, simply demonstrating dietary overlap Very few studies have researched argali in does not prove that competition exists. Hope- detail. As a result, the ecology, status, popula- fully, this study will be expanded in the future to tion dynamics and trends, and behavior of the more directly explore potential competition for species are poorly understood, and the species resources between domestic animals and argali. receives very little active management (Reading Our work on potential argali-livestock con- et al. 1998, 1999a). To help rectify this situa- flicts is important because limited grazing is per- tion, we are working with a number of other mitted in all Mongolian protected areas. As an organizations (German Technical Advisory extension of this work, we are therefore working Group [GTZ], University of Denver [DU], The with protected area managers, conservationists, Denver Museum of Nature and Science [DMNS], and local herders to zone protected areas and Nature Conservation International, the Wilds, devise management plans that are satisfactory to and the University

Load more