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 0006-3207/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.024 232 R.L. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005)- 231 241 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