Wildlife Hunting in Eastern Mongolia: Economic and Demographic Factors Infl Uencing Hunting Behavior of Herding Households
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
© 2017 Journal compilation ISSN 1684-3908 (print edition) http://mjbs.num.edu.mn Mongolian Journal of Biological http://biotaxa.org./mjbs Sciences MJBS Volume 15(1-2), 2017 ISSN 2225-4994 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.22353/mjbs.2017.15.05 Original Ar cle Wildlife Hunting in Eastern Mongolia: Economic and Demographic Factors Infl uencing Hunting Behavior of Herding Households Kirk A. Olson1, 2 and Todd K. Fuller2 1Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Country Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 2Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Abstract Keywords Much of Mongolia’s rangelands are under state control and managed via traditional Communal lands, land use practices and are habitat for numerous wildlife species harvested for their Livestock, Mongolia, meat and fur. Political and economic transformations that have been occurring since Subsistence hunting, the early 1990’s continues to aff ect all aspects of Mongolian society. To cope during Pastoralist, Wildlife periods of economic hardship, many turned to harvesting wildlife resources for management income and subsistence and this resulted in precipitous declines of some populations, marmots for example. Interviews with herding households in Mongolia’s eastern steppe region were conducted to better determine how wildlife resources (Mongolian gazelle, Siberian marmot, red foxes, corsac foxes, and gray wolf) are utilized and valued by herding families. Hunting, carried out by 65% of interviewees, returned Article information: an average of $103±172 dollars per household. T e number of individuals hunted of Received: 20 June 2017 any particular species during the previous year ranged widely - 46% of households Accepted: 16 Oct. 2017 hunted an average of 8±9 Mongolian gazelles (the equivalent of a small cow), 31% Published online: hunted 5±5 corsac foxes, 29% hunted 42±47 marmots, 22% hunted 3±3 red foxes, 17 Oct. 2017 and 17% hunted 3±2 gray wolves. Diff erences in mean annual income between hunting and non-hunting households were similar ($1,292±1,132 vs. $1,080±1,196) however the median diff erence was greater ($1,009 vs $749). However, non-hunting households owned signif cantly more livestock than hunting households (168±183 vs. 93±92 Livestock Units), and the proportion of hunting households living below Correspondence: the poverty line was higher. Households that were larger or had few numbers of kirkaolson@hotmail. livestock were more likely to engage in hunting than smaller households with more com livestock. Household and livestock variables were also signif cant predictors of a households likelihood of hunting Mongolian gazelle, Siberian marmot, and corsac fox, but not for red fox or gray wolf. Wildlife management policies will likely receive greater acceptance and compliance if subsistence hunting needs were incorporated. Cite this paper as: Olson, K. A. & Fuller, T. K. 2017. Wildlife hunting in eastern Mongolia: economic and demographic factors inf uencing hunting behavior of herding households. Mong. J. Biol. Sci., 15(1-2): 37-46. Introduction Conservation and management of wildlife land, which is under strictly protected status resources takes place across a range of property to complete and open access (Berkes, 2007; rights systems varying from highly restricted Cole & Ostrom, 2012). In landscapes managed and exclusive access on private lands to public according to communal or open access property 37 38 Olson & Fuller. Household hunting in Eastern Mongolia use rights, commonly implemented traditional wide ranging ecological eff ects and reduce the land use practices include pastoralism, shif ing perceived value of the land, thus increasing agriculture, hunting and gathering. Where its vulnerability to other more intensive and hunting is concerned, open-access harvesting of destructive land use practices (Peres, 2000). wildlife resources is recognized as a major threat Improving property use rights, aligning wildlife to biodiversity in tropical forest and savanna hunting regulations so they are logical for local ecosystems around the world, and harvesting of people to follow, and improving enforcement this nature is especially prevalent in developing capacity conducted by a wildlife management nations (Redford, 1992; Milner-Gulland et al., agency are believed to be necessary steps to take 2003; Norton-Griffi ths, 2007). In Mongolia, in order to ensure a positive future for Mongolia’s unoccupied rangeland is owned by the state, and wild heritage (Wingard & Zahler, 2006; Reading where herders reside, managed through a system et al., 2010; Scharf et al., 2010). of formal and informal property use rights Eff orts aimed at improving management (Mearns, 1993). Wildlife resources are under of Mongolia’s rangeland commons have state protection, but adequate enforcement across predominately been centered on pasture vast and empty landscapes is lacking. Recent management and fostering community based political and economic changes have raised natural resource management models through many questions regarding the future status of the formation of herder cooperative groups biodiversity in Mongolia’s grasslands (Reading et to increase their resilience to severe weather al., 2010). events, with some attention paid to monitoring of Mongolia retains the conditions that allow a natural resources within designated pasture use vibrant pastoralist culture to exist and hunting is areas (Scharf et al., 2010; Fernandez-Gimenez et a part of that (Wingard & Zahler, 2006; Reading al., 2015). Conservation and management eff orts et al., 2010; Scharf et al., 2010). T e political, for Mongolia’s biodiversity have been largely economic, and social transformations resulting focused on the establishment and management from Mongolia’s transition to a democratic of protected areas, which currently account for system and embracement of a free market slightly over 24% of the country’s territory via a economy continue to unfold (Reading et al., combination of national and local designation 2010). T e discovery and exploitation of rich (Reading et al., 2010). Grasslands, however, oil and mineral deposits have dramatically remain poorly represented in these formal quickened the pace of these transitions, which protected areas, making up only about 2% of the in turn is greatly aff ecting the utilization and area while the remaining consists of a patchwork management of wildlife resources (Reading et al., of settlements, livestock pasture, extractive 2010; Smith, 2014). industry activities, transport networks, and open Reported declines in Mongolia’s wildlife uninhabited rangeland and thus also where most populations have been due to a variety of reasons, of the region’s wildlife resides (Reading et al., including armed conf ict, the introduction of 2010). new technologies, social upheaval, and economic Wildlife use for meat and fur has been a part hardship (Hibbert, 1968; Reading et al., 1998; of rural Mongolian life through the ages and Wingard & Zahler, 2006). T e recent surges in managed in piecemeal fashion partly following wildlife harvesting largely were the result of an cultural norms regarding ethical hunting, increase in rural poverty coupled with ineff ective Soviet-style controlled quota hunting system, hunting regulations and rejuvenated trade and the sale of individual hunting licenses by opportunities with China (Pratt et al., 2004). environmental protection authorities for trophy T e economic value gained from harvesting hunting (Reading et al., 1998; Scharf et al., 2010). of Mongolia’s wildlife resources, at what were Estimating the abundance and distribution of most likely unsustainable rates, had been once intensively harvested populations across their estimated at ~$100 million annually (more than range is diffi cult as there are few national level cashmere) and thus an important contributor to programs with the f nancial capacity and human Mongolia’s economy (Wingard & Zahler, 2006). resources available to monitor the long-term Overhunting and the consequent reduction trends of these species (Reading et al., 1998, of wildlife diversity and abundance can have 2010). Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences 2017 Vol. 15 (1-2) 39 Given Mongolia’s size, sparsely distributed intact grassland ecosystems in the world (Yu rural population, and minimal resources et al., 2004; Batsaikhan et al., 2013) (Figure 1). available for enforcement of wildlife harvesting Evidence of hunting by humans in the region regulations, successful wildlife management goes as far back as the Upper Paleolithic era must include the involvement and support of (Germonpre & Lbova, 1996). Semi-nomadic local people in natural resource conservation pastoralists in their current cultural context (Murray & Yelland, 2005; Berkes, 2007). T us, have been grazing livestock in the region for knowledge of how wildlife resources are valued approximately 3-4,000 years (Sneath, 1998; and at what scale they are harvested by local Gunin et al., 2000). T e entire region is highly people is important information that can be used accessible via a number of roads and dirt paths, to develop appropriately targeted conservation and few physical barriers to impeded vehicle interventions and for establishing baselines for travel off -tracks. which future change can be compared. Commonly hunted wildlife species in T e aim of this work is to provide information eastern Mongolia include: Mongolian gazelle on the prevalence of wildlife hunting by herding (Procapra gutturosa, IUCN, Least Concern), households