Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
S C I E LN NC EC A
E / n^ r )I D I R E C T <
ELSEV IER
BIO LO G IC A L
C O N SER V A TIO N
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 o f 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 M arch 2004; accepted 30 April 2004
Abstract
M anagement 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 N uruu N ational Park in western M ongolia 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 w ithout compensation. Because past protectionist approaches to argali conservation in western M ongolia and the
greater Altai- Sayan ecoregion have not achieved effective habitat conservation or anti - poaching enforcement, alternative m an ­
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; M anagem ent; Conservation; M ongolia; Altai - Sayan
1. Introduction
M anagement and conservation activities for argali
(wild sheep) Ovis ammon in M ongolia historically have
been linked to trophy hunting. Although government
sanctioned trophy hunting has occurred since the 1960s
(Luschekina and Fedosenko, 1994), the M ongolian
M inistry for N ature and Environm ent (M NE) has yet to
adopt a national management plan for argali (Am galanbaatar et ak, 2002). In the absence of formal plans,
national conservation and management strategies have
focused on increased law enforcement and continued
development of protected area adm inistrations (see
M allon et ak, 1997; A m galanbaatar and Reading, 2000;
W orking Group, 2000). These efforts, however, largely
have overlooked the direct involvement of or impacts on
pastoralists within argali habitat.
Present address: N atural Resources Conservation Service, Bethel
Field Office, 311 Willow St., Building 3, P.O. Box 1869, Bethel, A K
99559-1869. Tel.: +1-907-543-7157; fax: +1-907-543-3855.
E - mail address: ryanmaroney@ fastm ail.fm (R.L. Maroney).
0006-3207/$ - see front m atter © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.024
In recognition of these shortcomings, recent discus ­
sions to reform M ongolia’s trophy hunting practices
have led to proposals for Community Based Wildlife
M anagement (CBWM) programs for trophy hunting
(Schuerholz, 2001; A m galanbaatar et ak, 2002). Al ­
though the market - based approach to m anagement and
conservation that underlies trophy hunting proposals
allows for local involvement in a select num ber of viable
trophy hunting locales, it does not address significant
argali populations in protected areas where trophy
hunting is not permitted.
Acknowledging the need for regional and site-spe­
cific conservation and m anagement strategies for
argali, this study addresses Altai argali Ovis ammon
ammon in non - trophy hunted areas of western M on ­
golia and adjacent countries. The Altai - Sayan ecore ­
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
address conditions and conservation challenges unique
to Altai argali including transboundary - zones, larger
hum an and domestic livestock populations, and high
R.L. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
232
SpfT '
r ^ \
R U S S I A
KAZAKHSTAN
MONGOL I A
^aii
C H
N A
Ob
‘
A!
,
Mongolia
Protected A reas
National Park
Current range of Altai argali
Nature Reserve
Known Altai argali distribution
Strictly Protected Area (orZapovednik)
Fig. 1. Protected area netw ork and known range and distribution o f Altai argali O. a. ammon in western M ongolia and tlie Altai - Sayan ecoregion as
described by Fedosenko (2000), The M ongolian Institute o f Biology (unpub. data, 2001), M aroney and D avarkbayar (unpub. data, 2002), and
Paltsyn and Spitsyn (2002). Argali distribution in the Chinese Altai remain approxim ate due to incomplete field surveys, (modified from M aroney
and Paltsyn, 2003).
ethnic and cultural diversity (M aroney and Paltsyn,
2003).
2. Background
2.1. Altai argali
The Altai subspecies of argali is the largest wild sheep
in the world and occurs in the Altai m ountains of
M ongolia and adjacent regions of Russia, China and
Kazakhstan (Geist, 1991; Shackleton, 1997; Am ­
galanbaatar and Reading, 2000). Although the Altai
argali is one of the m ost sought after species of wild
sheep by trophy hunters and commands high fees, its
current population status remain poorly understood
(Shackleton, 1997; Reading et ak, 1999a, 2001;
A m galanbaatar and Reading, 2000; Schuerholz, 2001).
Argali populations were once more common throughout
large tracts of the Altai. However, habitat disturbance
and deterioration resulting from com petition with do ­
mestic livestock and poaching appear to have contrib ­
uted to population declines, habitat reduction and
fragm entation and, in some cases, localized extirpation
of Altai argali in Mongolia, China, Russia and K a ­
zakhstan (Shackleton, 1997; A m galanbaatar and
Reading, 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002).
Prom pted by national and international concern
over the status of argali in Mongolia, in 2001, the
M ongolian Academy of Sciences undertook the first
nation - wide argali survey employing a standardized
random sampling technique (Institute of Biology,
2001). Although potentially biased for reasons noted
by Schuerholz (2001), the survey reported a substan­
tially smaller argali population than any previous of ­
ficial national estimate (Institute of Biology, 2001).
N ational survey findings support other reports (see
Shackleton, 1997; A m galanbaatar and Reading, 2000;
W orking Group, 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002) that
m arked declines in argali populations have recently
occurred across much of its range, that threats to argali
conservation are increasing, and that appropriate steps
toward better m anagement and conservation are
needed.
K L . Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
The Altai argali is now at high risk across its entire
range in M ongolia due to dram atic declines or localized
extirpations, highly fragmented habitat, and high and
increasing densities of hum ans and domestic livestock
(Shackleton, 1997; A m galanbaatar and Reading, 2000).
The total population of Altai argali in M ongolia is well
below 3000 animals (Reading et ak, 1999b). Similar
conditions are documented for Altai argali in adjacent
countries, with population declines or extirpations noted
in the U kok plateau, southern Altai, Mogun - Taiga,
western Tannu-Ola, Sangilen highland, and the Sailugem and Chikhacheva ranges (Smirnov, 1990; Shackl ­
eton, 1997; Fedosenko, 1999; Paltsyn and Spitsyn,
2002).
National governments and international regulatory
bodies have sought varying degrees of protection for
O. a. ammon based on these and other findings. The
Altai argali is designated as Vulnerable by the lU C N
(Hilton - Taylor, 2000); carries Appendix II status by the
Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species (CITES) and is listed as Threatened on the US
Endangered Species List (Johnson, 2002). The Peoples’
Republic of China list O. a. ammon as a Class II species
(Shackleton, 1997), roughly analogous to the Threa ­
tened status accorded by the M ongolian government
(Shiirevdamba et ak, 1997), while Russia has assigned it
Endangered status (Shackleton, 1997).
A num ber of protected areas have been established in
western M ongolia and adjacent countries specifically for
argali and snow leopard conservation (Fig. 1); and
proposals exist for the creation of transboundary bio ­
sphere reserves in the region (Badenkov, 2002). Yet,
233
large portions of known argali distribution remain
outside of the current network of protected areas
(Shackleton, 1997; Reading et ak, 1999c), and a number
of biologists have questioned if even existing protected
areas can safeguard argali because the areas lack suffi­
cient funding, resources, training and personnel to carry
out basic management activities (Shackleton, 1997;
Reading et ak, 1999c; A m galanbaatar and Reading,
2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002).
U ntil more direct investments in biodiversity conser ­
vation are possible in areas that lack argali trophy
hunting opportunities, m anagement and conservation
initiatives may have to rely on a system of incentives and
benefits other than the financial compensation provided
by CBWM trophy hunting programs. Integrated ap ­
proaches to management and conservation that recog ­
nize local livelihood security needs and incorporate the
ecological knowledge of resident people can lead to
more informed and effective m anagement and conser ­
vation programs (Reading et ak, 1999c; Fernandez Gimenez, 2000; Siebert and Belsky, 2002; Schmidt et ak,
2002). In this study, results from interviews with resident
pastoralists of a protected area in western M ongolia
provide insight into local resource use patterns and
community concerns, and attitudes tow ard wildlife.
2.2. Study area
Siilkhemiin N uruu (Sailugem Range) N ational Park
(SNNP) is located in M ongolia’s western m ost province
of Bayan ­Olgii (Fig. 2). SNNP was created in 2000
primarily for the protection of Altai argali and is divided
L egend
N a tio n a l B o rd e r
■■•
0
1
P r o te c te d A re a B o rd e r
Russia
in te rv ie w L o c a tio n s
I A rgali W in te r F o r a g e
A re a s
S ailugem R efuge
S u m m e r P a s tu r e A r e a s
U tilized By H e rd e rs
As n n p - b
Fall, w i n t e r a n d S p rin g
P a s tu r e A r e a s U tilized
By H e r d e rs ____________
SNNP -A
20km
N
Mongolia
Fig. 2. Siilkhemiin N uruu N ational Park (SNNP) is divided into A and B zones. SN NP A - Zone is adjacent to Russia ’s Sailugem Refuge. Interview
locations and predom inate seasonal pasture usage o f herders interviewed are illustrated. Argali winter forage areas identified by M aroney and
D avarkhbayar (2004) are also depicted. Seasonal movement patterns o f pastoralists prevent direct observation o f argali for m any in SNNP.
234
R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
into two sections, which cover a combined area of
140,080 ha (M yagmarsuren, 2000). Spanning portions of
Ulaankhus and Nogoon N uur provincial counties,
SNNP is one of four protected areas under the m an ­
agement of the M ongol Altai N uruu Special Protected
Areas Adm inistration (MANSPAA) in Bayan - Olgii
province. As with many protected areas in the region,
M ANSPAA and its three rangers in SNNP have had
little involvement in the area due to limited resources.
The Sailugem m ountains form part of the Mongo lian - R ussian border and intersect the Chikhacheva
range at the borders of the Altai and Tuvan republics.
This alpine and m ountain steppe environment is char ­
acterized by high plateaus, broad valleys, and undulat ­
ing hills ranging in elevation from 2473 m at the Bor
Borgusen river to 4029 m at Ikh Turgen peak. W eather
in this region is characterized by a strong continental
climate with severe winters, a short growing season, and
approximately 300 -
400 m m of annual precipitation
(Hilbig, 1995). The Sailugem and Chikhacheva ranges
were once considered some of the best wild sheep
hunting grounds in Central Asia as reflected in Demid o lfs (1900) and C arruthers’ (1913) accounts of hunting
trips to the region.
Pastoralists have grazed livestock in the region that
makes up SNNP for over 3000 years, and extensive
petrogylph sites throughout the eastern portion of the
park document the rich history of former inhabitants’
interaction with wild ungulates and other wildlife dating
back to the late Pleistocene (Jacobson et ak, 2001). In
the mid 1800s, K azakh nomadic pastoralists from
Xinjiang began entering the area that is now far -western
Mongolia, and have seasonally grazed livestock there
for several generations (Finke, 1999). Kazakhs now
comprise the largest ethnic m inority group in M ongolia
and in Bayan -
Olgii province they constitute over 90% of
the population (Finke, 1999; Bayan -Olgii Office of Sta ­
tistics, 2002). In addition to transhum ant pastoralists,
several M ongolian N ational Border Posts are located
along the length of SNNP and many are inhabited year
round by soldiers, their families, and livestock herds.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, collective
herding in M ongolia gave way to privatization in 1992,
as the country rapidly transitioned from a command to
m arket economy (Schmidt, 1995). The accompanying
loss of previous Soviet subsidies and guaranteed markets
for livestock products, coupled with the breakdown of
community regulatory institutions and high rates of
unemployment in urban centers led to a dram atic in ­
crease in the num ber of privately owned livestock across
much of M ongolia (Mearns, 1993; Bruun, 1996; Fer -
nandez -Gimenez, 1997). Consequently, rangeland deg ­
radation has occurred in many areas over the last decade
(Bedunah and Schmidt, 2000). These trends are present
in the counties where SNNP is now located (Fig. 3), and
overgrazing is an increasing concern for m any pasto ­
ralists there. Consecutive zuud (drought and severe
winter) in 2000 and 2001, however, decreased livestock
numbers by almost 20“/o from 1997s peak levels (Bayan Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002).
Recent emigration and re - immigration of M ongolian
Kazakhs have not significantly affected herder and
livestock density in rural areas of western Mongolia. In
1989, approximately 123,000 Kazakhs made up roughly
6“/o of the total M ongolian population (Finke, 1999).
During the period beginning with K azakhstan’s inde ­
pendence in the early 1990s through 2001, 60,100
Mongolian Kazakhs emigrated to Kazakhstan, of
which about 10,000 have since returned to M ongolia
(Bayan ­Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002). Consequently,
re - immigration by Kazakhs is not a m ajor factor in the
overall increase in livestock numbers experienced in
much of western Mongolia, and should not be viewed as
a substantial cause of increased pressure on Altai argali
as suggested by M allon et al. (1997) and Reading et al.
(1998). In fact, out -
m igration of M ongolian Kazakhs to
Kazakhstan reduced the total num ber of individuals
who might have otherwise migrated from urban to rural
areas following the economic transition, as was com ­
monly documented in other provinces of M ongolia
(Finke, 1999). M ongolian K azakh pastoralists can be
viewed as typical of m ost herders in western M ongolia
(Finke, 1999).
Resource use regulations in national parks in M on ­
golia are designated into Special, Travel and Limited
Use Zones (Wingard and Odgerel, 2001). The M NE,
however, has not yet finalized the boundaries of these
zones in SNNP. M ongolian law stipulates that livestock
grazing can occur within a p ark ’s Limited and Travel
Zones, and even permits limited grazing in otherwise
restricted Special Zones during pasture shortages
(W ingard and Odgerel, 2001). In addition to park zones,
military regulations prohibit all activity within 5 km of
the M ongolian-R ussian border (Colonel Yo. Ganhuupers. comm., 2002). During the consecutive zuud years
of 2000 and 2001, local herders petitioned and received
grazing access to border areas in SNNP and continued
to graze these areas in 2002 and 2003. W ith park zonation unclear and access to border regions approved,
uncontrolled livestock grazing is widespread in all re ­
gions of the park.
Argali in SNNP make seasonal, transboundary mi ­
grations and are known to winter in M ongolia pre ­
dominately on relatively sheltered southern slopes
(D avarkhbayar et ak, 2000). As is true for much of
western Mongolia, habitat disturbance and overgrazing
have displaced many argali to marginal pastures in
SNNP (D avarkhbayar et ak, 2000; Institute of Biology,
2001; Schuerholz, 2001; A m galanbaatar et ak, 2002). In
addition, poaching of argali for m eat and sport is a
noted problem in SNNP (M aroney and D avarkhbayar,
2004), although the full extent of the problem is
K L . Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
235
100000
A
0)
E
3
40000
Yaks and Cows
2001
Fig. 3. Change in num ber and composition o f livestock within administrative units th at m ake up SNNP (1st, 2nd and 3rd Bags o f U laankhus Soum,
and U laanchuluu Bag o f N ogoon N uur Soum) between 1982 and 2001. Camel num bers increased from 348 in 1982, to 369 in 2001. H um an pop ­
ulation in 2001 for this area was 4615, an increase o f 578 individuals since 1982 (Bayan - Olgii Office o f Statistics, 2002).
unknown. Despite the qualitative nature of much of
the poaching inform ation for this region, enforcement
of the hunting ban is likely incomplete and irregular; in
fact, there has been only one fine for argali poaching in
the northern portion of Bayan - Olgii province near
SNNP in the last 10 years (Bayan -Olgii Office of Sta ­
tistics, 2002).
Adjacent to SNNP, the Sailugem or Khosh Agach
Refuge (241,300 ha) is located on the Russian side of the
Sailugem range and was created in 1973 for protection
of argali (Fig. 2) (Paltsyn and Spitsyn, 2002). Poaching
by both local residents and visiting Russian hunters is
commonly reported for this area (M aroney and Paltsyn,
2003); however, lower stocking rates create significantly
less grazing com petition between argali and domestic
livestock than found in SNNP (Paltsyn and Spitsyn,
2002). C ooperation between the governments of M on­
golia and Russia for m anagement of these protected
areas currently does not occur.
3. Methods
A 36 item questionnaire regarding local perceptions
and general ecological knowledge concerning Altai ar ­
gali was developed to provide respondents with an op ­
portunity to share their knowledge, opinions and
experiences pertaining to a variety of wildlife and range
m anagement issues. Interviews lasting approximately 25
minutes were conducted with 98 individuals from dis ­
tinct family units in SNNP between August 6 and 10,
2002 (Fig. 2). Official records of pastoralists’ seasonal
pasture locations in SNNP are not m aintained by the
local government, therefore, individuals were selected
for interview based on their summer quarters’ proximity
( < 2 km) to a predetermined course through known
inhabited areas of SNNP. The first adult encountered
from each family unit, frequently the male, head of
household, was solicited for interview. Male (n = 77)
and female (« = 21) respondents ranged in age from 18
to 82 years (median = 41 years). While conducting argali
surveys in SNNP in November of 2001 (M aroney and
D avarkhbayar, 2004), some pastoralists were hesitant to
discuss open - ended questions concerning wildlife
poaching or grazing conflicts. By utilizing a question­
naire form at and incorporating questions in which re ­
spondents are asked to rank general categories of threats
to wildlife, herders could address controversial issues
w ithout self implication. Additionally, all respondents
were informed that their responses would be confiden ­
tial. M any Kazakh herders in SNNP find speaking
M ongolian either difficult or uncomfortable, therefore,
interviews were conducted in K azakh by two assistants
trained in interview methodology. The author observed
all interviews and participated in discussions when
appropriate.
R.L. Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
236
Table 1
Pastoralists ’ responses to selected questions concerning argali conservation and grazing land use in SN NP (n ­
Questions
Responses
%
Is it im portant to protect argali here?
Yes
Uncertain
No
91
3
6
W ould you like m ore inform ation about the protected area network and environmental laws here?
Yes
Uncertain
No
93
0
7
D o you know th at you live in a protected area or its buffer zone?
Yes
Uncertain
No
94
0
6
D o you know th at argali are a protected anim al both in M ongolia and Internationally?
Yes
Uncertain
No
79
0
21
Is argali range currently increasing, decreasing, or unchanged?
Increase
Unchanged
Decrease
Uncertain
7
58
18
16
D o you think the num ber o f argali in your area is currently increasing, decreasing, or stable?
Increase
Unchanged
Decrease
Uncertain
40
26
21
13
D o argali in SN NP stay in M ongolia all year?
Yes
Uncertain
No
2
16
82
Is it currently possible for argali and livestock to co -exist in the same area?
Yes
Uncertain
No
28
12
60
D o herder and livestock movements affect argali movem ent patterns?
Yes
Uncertain
No
51
18
31
If the num ber o f herders and livestock continue to increase in this area, will the population and range o f argali
increase, decrease, or stay the same?
Increase
Unchanged
Decrease
Uncertain
12
45
29
14
Does any form o f land use m anagem ent currently exist to avoid grazing conflicts?
Yes
Uncertain
No
34
3
63
A t present, do local herder communities or local county governments w ork together in any way?
Yes
Uncertain
No
7
3
90
D o you desire m ore, less, or the same num ber o f livestock for your family?
Increase
Unchanged
Decrease
Uncertain
55
38
3
4
H as the condition o f rangeland improved (increased), decreased, or remained unchanged in the last five years?
Increase
Unchanged
Decrease
Uncertain
21
18
56
4
Note. Some rows ’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
4.
Results
A large m ajority (91% ) of pastoralists in SNNP
believed it is im portant to protect argali and 93“/o
expressed
protected
(Table 1).
indicated
interest in receiving further inform ation on
areas and their environmental regulations
Following interviews, several individuals even
a willingness to participate in argali conser-
R L . Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
237
Table 2
Ranking o f the m ost comm on groups to poach argali in SN NP as perceived by local pastoralists
R ank o f group
Herders
25%
22
Visitors
M
R
4%
13
0%
13
Foreign trophy
hunters
4%
16
2%
13
41
Border Soldiers
M
R
6%
0
52%
19
4%
6
63%
25
48
32
Each row value represents the % o f people ranking th at colum n category as the num ber 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 o f threats to conservation o f argali as perceived by pastoralists in SNNP
R ank o f threat
Overgrazing
Poaching
Predators
N atural disasters (zuud)
U ncertain (no response)
1
2
3
25%
31
32
29%
36
18
38%
18
32
0%
2
1
9%
13
17
Each row value represents the % o f people ranking th at colum n category as the num ber 1 (2 or 3) threat (n = 1
Note. Some rows ’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
vation efforts. W hen respondents were asked why they
thought conservation of argali was im portant, m ost re ­
m arked that argali are “rare and magnificent animals”
deserving of protection. A minority (6%), considered
protection of argali unnecessary and viewed them as a
nuisance th at could limit access to certain pasturelands.
Typical comments from this latter group included:
These argali are not our responsibility and do not need our pro ­
tection. They only come into M ongolian border territory and
really belong to the Russians.
M ost (94% ) respondents knew they were in a pro ­
tected area and 79“/o were aware that argali are a pro ­
tected species (Table 1). Only 18“/o of respondents
thought that argali range had decreased and m ost be ­
lieved that argali numbers were either increasing (40“/o)
or stable (26“/o) in SNNP (Table 1). A high proportion of
the respondents who were uncertain of argali population
and range trends were women. O f the 21 women inter ­
viewed, half (52“/o) indicated they were not informed
enough to comment on argali because they seldom dis ­
cuss issues involving wildlife with the men of their
families and do not often venture far from their homes.
Even w ithout regular observation of argali, most
(82“/o) pastoralists are aware of general argali movement
patterns (Table 1), and realize that hum ans and domestic
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
pastoralists acknowledged that herder and livestock
movements affect argali movement patterns (Table 1).
W hen respondents were asked how an increase in herder
and livestock numbers would affect argali in the area,
however, the largest num ber (45“/o) believed argali pop ­
ulation and range would remain unchanged (Table 1).
Only a small num ber (14“/o) of those interviewed re ­
ported to have hunted or knew specifically about a case
of someone hunting argali in the area; while, in a sep ­
arate question regarding the types of hunters, over half
(52%) of the respondents claimed no knowledge of ar ­
gali hunting. Respondents willing to rank categories of
poachers perceived Russian border soldiers (52%) to be
the m ost common group hunting argali, followed by
41“/o who considered non - resident M ongolian and R us ­
sian visitors the second largest group (Table 2). R e ­
spondents recognized fellow pastoralists as poachers
with 25“/o ranking herders as the m ost common poach ­
ers, while 22“/o believed herders were the second largest
group (Table 2).
A m ajority (63“/o) of respondents indicated th at no
form of land use management is in place to avoid
grazing confficts, and 90“/o reported no cooperation be ­
tween local county governments or resident pastoralists
(Table 1). M ore than half (55“/o) of those interviewed
desired additional livestock, and 56“/o believed rangeland
conditions had decreased in the last 5 years (Table 1).
W hen asked to rank threats to conservation of argali in
the area, the largest num ber (38“/o) of respondents in ­
dicated that natural predators are the leading threat.
Responses were mixed, however, and many considered
both poaching and overgrazing serious threats (Table 3).
5. Discussion
Results indicate pastoralists in SNNP are generally
aware of and support environmental laws concerning
argali. Interviews with M ongolian pastoralists con ­
ducted in 1998, by Bedunah and Schmidt (2004) in Gobi
G urvan Saikhan National Park, also documented a
238
R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
large m ajority (83% , n = 11) of pastoralists were aware
of the local protected area. However, only 37“/o of their
respondents had any knowledge of land use regulations
associated with the p ark ’s Special Zone (Bedunah and
Schmidt, 2004). Once Special Use Zones are defined and
managed for argali in SNNP and herder’s access be ­
comes restricted, it is likely that the 6“/o of pastoralists
currently opposed to argali conservation will find in ­
creased support for their views.
Only a small num ber (18“/o) of respondents in SNNP
thought that argali range had decreased and m ost be ­
lieved th at argali numbers were either increasing (40“/o)
or stable (26“/o) (Table 1). These findings support the
general perception documented by M cCarthy (2000),
who found a majority of herders (n = 57) in M ongolia’s
three western provinces believed that argali populations
were increasing (37“/o) or stable (37“/o), while only 26“/o
thought argali num ber were declining. It is significant to
note that a majority of pastoralists surveyed in western
M ongolia believe that argali numbers are either stable or
increasing, contrary to reports of declining argali pop ­
ulations by M ongolian and foreign biologists.
This discrepancy can be partially explained by con ­
sidering argali displacement by herders and livestock,
herder seasonal movement patterns and general eco ­
logical knowledge. Argali are highly mobile and easily
displaced by the seasonal movements of herders and
livestock (Harris and Bedunah, 2001; Schuerholz, 2001).
Therefore, it is unlikely that many pastoralists are able
to observe argali unless they make an effort to do so.
Outside of formal interviews, a num ber of herders re ­
ported th at they cannot regularly view argali, because
“argali move away from people and do not return until we
move to different seasonal pastures.” Known spatio tem poral land use patterns of pastoralists in SNNP
support this claim, revealing that many herders do not
come into direct proximity of argali because they only
inhabit argali winter forage areas during the summer
and early fall (Fig. 2). As m any herders’ seasonal
movements reduce the opportunity for regular obser ­
vation of argali, it is probable that these pastoralists do
not have sufficient experience to speak accurately about
population trends. Gender issues also factor into general
awareness levels and ecological knowledge of pastoral ­
ists in SNNP.
Pastoralists that use remote areas when argali can be
regularly observed, however, likely have more informed
views on trends in argali population and range. In
speaking with a herder who has observed argali and
other wildlife from one such winter home during the
course of his lifetime, he described with regret the cur ­
rent status of argali:
Argali have become frightened o f hum ans and livestock and
don ’t mingle with our flocks anymore. Large ram s are becoming
less comm on and there are m any m ountains th at no longer have
argali.
While some pastoralists have limited experience with
argali and likely do not know about hunting issues,
several respondents in informal discussions following
interviews conceded that their concern over speaking of
hunting a protected species prevented them from openly
discussing issues of poaching. It is likely that some re ­
spondents chose not to answer questions concerning
poaching because they feared reprisal even though all
respondents were notified prior to interviews th at the
inform ation obtained through the questionnaire would
be confidential. These findings differ from reports by
Reading et al. (1998, 2001) and A m galanbaatar et al.
(2002), who found discussions with herders in other
areas of M ongolia concerning poaching of argali open natured, and the findings illustrate the variety of
perceptions within M ongolia towards government
authority.
5.1. Management implications fo r SN N P
Forage competition with livestock, disturbance as ­
sociated with people and livestock, and habitat loss re ­
sulting from range deterioration are significant threats
to the future of Altai argali populations in SNNP. These
threats are not specific to SNNP, but are occurring
throughout the Altai - Sayan ecoregion. M anagement of
rangeland for the benefit of wildlife is often difficult as it
generally involves restrictions or changes on the re ­
source use patterns of resident pastoralists (Am ­
galanbaatar et ak, 2002). As protected areas begin to be
managed for wildlife, increased conflict between herders
and protected area authorities can be expected (Harris
and Bedunah, 2001; Bedunah and Schmidt, 2004).
W hen livestock numbers were lower, habitat parti ­
tioning between argali and domestic herds occurred and
provided some degree of separation between livestock
and wildlife in the region (Schuerholz, 2001). However,
seasonal movements of herders and livestock now in ­
creasingly encroach on argali habitat that was previ ­
ously lightly grazed or ungrazed by livestock. This
change in livestock use largely displaces argali into
marginal areas inaccessible or otherwise unsuitable to
livestock (Luschekina and Fedosenko, 1994; Schuer ­
holz, 2001). Schuerholz (2001) believed that high m or ­
tality rates would characterize argali populations
displaced into areas w ithout sufficient winter forage, or
if existing argali winter forage areas are not managed
appropriately. Consequently, identification, protection
and, in some cases, reclamation of historic argali winter
forage areas should be a key com ponent of conservation
and m anagement program s for argali (Luschekina and
Fedosenko, 1994; H arris and Bedunah, 2001; Schuer­
holz, 2001).
To successfully develop and implement a multiple use
management strategy to protect wildlife habitat within
SNNP, real benefits m ust be provided to local stake ­
K L . Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
holders willing to work toward shared conservation
goals. As dem onstrated in this case study, many pasto­
ralists revere argali, are aware of national environmental
laws and recognize that some level of range partitioning
is necessary to provide argali with sufficient pasture re ­
sources. These herders have a strong conservation ethic
concerning the importance of protecting argali, but
more than half (55%) desire additional livestock and less
than a third (29%) believe an increase in livestock
numbers will negatively impact argali population and
range (Table 1). As a result, many pastoralists may not
be inclined to limit or discontinue grazing certain pas ­
tures for the benefit of argali. M oreover, even if pasto ­
ralists were so inclined, community institutions are not
in place to coordinate such range management. Devel­
opm ent of effective program s and community incentives
to reconcile pastoralists’ cultural value for argali with
their material needs and desires for increased domestic
herds is likely the greatest challenge facing argali con ­
servation in SNNP.
A public education campaign that acknowledges the
cultural respect of pastoralists for argali and draws at ­
tention to recent declines for argali in the greater region
could encourage local stewardship and reduce incidents
of poaching (Am galanbaatar and Reading, 2000), but
would not address the underlying economic factors in­
fluencing pastoralists’ decisions concerning resource use
patterns and herd sizes. Indeed, much of the biodiversity
loss which occurs in M ongolia and elsewhere is perpe­
trated by individuals who value nature, but act in what
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
compensation to create economic incentives are often
more successful in achieving their conservation goals
(Bruner et ak, 2001; Ferraro and Kiss, 2002), and argali
trophy hunting has the potential to provide considerable
funding (Harris and Pletscher, 2002; Hofer, 2002).
If CBWM trophy hunting programs are successfully
established and managed, they could subsidize argali
conservation program s outside of hunting reserves. Al ­
ternatively, protected areas that can support sustainable
argali trophy hunting operations could petition the
M N E for revision of environmental law to sanction
CBWM trophy hunting programs in protected areas or
their buffer zones, as suggested by Bedunah and Schmidt
(2004). In either case, development of sustainable trophy
hunting programs will take considerable time. In the
interim, management activities in protected areas are
needed and incentives could be developed to encourage
community groups to form and work with protected
area adm inistrations and other government bodies to ­
ward conservation of argali and argali habitat.
M any herders in M ongolia are familiar with and
value the benefits that previous Soviet-era community
institutions provided before their breakdown in the early
239
1990s. During socialist times, the negdel (local collective
organization) coordinated joint management of live­
stock production and provided for both economic and
social needs of community members (Bruun, 1996). The
development of community institutions in SNNP could
provide benefits to local pastoralists and facilitate the
development and implementation of collaborative
m anagement strategies and should be initiated by
MANSPAA. Additionally, identifying and working
with key inform ants from these communities could in ­
crease success rates of collaboration and provide
M ANSPAA with detailed inform ation concerning
SNNPs wildlife.
Elsewhere in Mongolia, herders living in protected
areas in the Gobi and other regions of western M ongolia
have recently formed community groups to improve
their livelihoods and better interact with protected area
adm inistrations (Schmidt et ak, 2002; Bedunah and
Schmidt, 2004). The conservation and development
projects described by Schmidt et ak (2002) and Allen
and M cCarthy (1999), have employed a diverse set of
strategies and incentives that have m et with positive
results in these communities. Some of the benefits these
projects have provided to community groups committed
to conservation, and applicable to SNNP, include: the
development of performance based small business op­
portunities, the creation of locally owned and operated
inform ation and resource centers and the support of
community requested training for livelihood improve­
ment (Allen and M cCarthy, 1999; Schmidt et ak, 2002).
5.2. Management implications fo r the Altai-Sayan ecore­
gion
Community based strategies for conservation and
m anagement of wildlife can be effective, but too often are
based on oversimplified assessments of large and diverse
regions and their resident communities (Belsky, 1999;
Wilshusen et ak, 2002). Generalized approaches can re ­
sult in gross inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, and their
failings often provide impetus for movement toward
more authoritarian policies, ultimately reducing the po ­
tential for long term conservation (Wilshusen et ak,
2002). Considering Altai argali within the Altai - Sayan
ecoregion as a separate m anagement unit will allow for
the development of bio-regional as well as site-specific
multiple use management plans. O f the noted threats to
conservation of Altai argali, habitat loss and deteriora ­
tion caused by grazing competition is likely the most
significant (Schuerholz, 2001), and range management
of these communal lands is essentially a community
oriented process requiring collaborative approaches
(Schmidt et ak, 2002). M anagement plans for argali in the
Altai-Sayan could be developed collaboratively with
resident communities and participation encouraged with
240
R.L. Maroney I Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
direct benefits. Moreover, protected area administrations
and local government organizations should act to facili­
tate this process to ensure that m anagement and con ­
servation goals are adequately addressed.
Errors in understanding or interpretation are solely the
author’s responsibility.
References
6. Conclusion
Opportunities for collaboration exist both within
SNNP and across the border in Russia. The transboun ­
dary nature of the argali populations in the Sailugem and
Chikhacheva ranges necessitate joint management and
research efforts between Russian and M ongolian gov ­
ernments. Im portant winter forage sites, lambing
grounds and other seasonal pasture areas of Altai argali
in both countries, and in other portions of its range, re ­
quire further identification and protection. This could be
achieved if M ongolian and Russian pastoralists and
border soldiers are encouraged to work with park rangers
and protected area biologists toward reducing inci­
dents of poaching, as well as gathering inform ation on
the distribution and status of argali in the transfrontier
zone.
Developing and implementing effective community
based m anagement and conservation strategies to re ­
solve grazing conflict between pastoralists, protect im ­
portant wildlife habitat, bridge transboundary zones,
and ensure the livelihoods of resident pastoralists will be
extremely difficult, but the alternative of employing so ­
lely protectionist approaches has not proven successful
in many areas of M ongolia and will inevitably result in
increased conflict between resident pastoralists and
government authorities. Anti - poaching measures and
protection of core wildlife zones are necessary, but
should not be the only interaction protected area ad ­
m inistrators or government officials have with herders.
A policy shift from a primary focus on law enforcement
activities toward more integrated m anagement incor ­
porating participatory approaches and providing direct
local benefits offer the potential to improve conservation
effectiveness while developing links between communi ­
ties and governments.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study came from the International
Snow Leopard Trust, W orld Wide Fund for N ature
Mongolia, and the United States Peace Corps. The au ­
thor thanks R. Harris, R. Reading and two anonymous
reviewers for improvements to this manuscript; an ear ­
lier version was improved by suggestions from S. Siebert
and D. Bedunah. Special thanks to A. Atai, I. Bordo naro, C. Canat, S. Cooper, D. Davarkhbayar, Erkin,
P. Erzat, K. K adirkhan, M. Kin, W. Kruger, P. M aro ­
ney, M. M urphy, M. Paltsyn, S. U ndarga, G. Wingard.
Allen, P., M cCarthy, T., 1999. K nitting for snow leopards. C at News
30, 24 - 25.
A m galanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., 2000. Altai argali. In: Reading,
R.P., Miller, B. (Eds.), Endangered Animals: Conflicting Issues.
Greenw ood Press, W estport, CT. pp. 5 -9.
A m galanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., Lhagvasuren, B., Batsukh, N.,
2002. Argali sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia.
Pirineos 157, 129-150.
Badenkov, Y.P., 2002. Altai m ountain knot: between conservation and
development - syndromes o f globalization. International H um an
Dimensions Program on G lobal Environm ental Change Newslet ­
ter: IH D P U pdate N o. 1.
Bayan-Olgii Office o f Statistics, 2002. Olgii city, Bayan-Olgii province,
Mongolia.
Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2000. Rangelands o f G obi G urvan
Saikhan N ational Conservation Park, M ongolia. Rangelands 22
(4), 18-24.
Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2004. Pastoralism and protected area
m anagem ent in Mongolia: the case o f G obi G urvan Saikhan
N ational Park. Development and Change 35, 167-191.
Belsky, J.M ., 1999. Misrepresenting communities: the politics of
comm unity - based rural ecotourism in Gales Point M anatee, Belize.
R ural Sociology 63 (4), 641 -666.
Bruner, A.G ., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001.
Effectiveness o f parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science
291, 125-128.
Bruun, O., 1996. The herding household: economy and organization.
In: Bruun, O., Odgaard, O. (Eds.), M ongolia in Transition, N ordic
Institute o f Asian Studies. In: Studies in Asian Topics, N o.22.
Curzon Press, G reat Britain, pp. 65 -89.
Carruthers, D., 1913. U nknow n Mongolia: A R ecord o f Travel and
Exploration in N orth - W est M ongolia and Dzungaria. Hutchinson
and Co., London.
D avarkhbayar, D., Atai, A., Beibet, Kh., 2000. Study on argali (Ovis
ammon ammon) distribution, location and resources in some parts
o f the M ongolian side o f the Altai Sayan Ecoregion. W W F
Mongolia, U laanbaatar.
Demidoff, E., 1900. After W ild Sheep in the A ltai and M ongolia.
Row land W ard, London.
Fedosenko, A .K ., 1999. State and condition o f Altai Argali Sheep (Ovis
ammon ammon) populations in the Altai - Sayan region. In: Global
Change and Uvs N uur: Sustainable Development o f the Altai ­
Sayan Ecoregion and T ransboundary N ature Conservation Issues ­
International Conference. M ongolia, pp. 186 -192 (in Russian).
Fedosenko, A.K., 2000. A rkhar (Ovis ammon) in Russia and adjacent
countries. Moscow, p. 292 (in Russian).
Fernandez - Gimenez, M .E., 1997. Landscapes, livestock and liveli­
hoods: social, ecological and land - use change among the nomadic
pastoralists o f M ongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University o f Cali ­
fornia, Berkeley, CA.
Fernandez - Gimenez, M .E., 2000. The role o f M ongolian nomadic
pastoralists ’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management.
Ecological Applications 10 (5), 1318 -1326.
Ferraro, P.J., Kiss, A., 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity.
Science 298, 1718 -1719.
Finke, P., 1999. The Kazaks o f western M ongolia. In: Svanberg, I.
(Ed.), C ontem porary Kazaks. St. M artin ’s Press, New Y ork. pp.
103-139.
G anhuu, Yo., 2002. Colonel o f 285th Army Border Division. Tsagaan
N uur, Bayan -Olgii, Mongolia.
R L . Maroney / Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 231 - 241
Geist, V., 1991. On taxonom y o f giant sheep (Ovis ammon Linneaus,
1766). C anadian Journal o f Zoology 69, 706 -723.
H ardin, G ., 1968. The tragedy o f the commons. Science 162, 12431248.
H arris, R.B., Bedunah, D.J., 2001. Sheep vs. sheep: argali and
livestock in western China. U npublished final report to the
N ational G eographic Society. University o f M ontana, Missoula,
p. 51.
H arris, R.B., Pletscher, D .H ., 2002. Incentives tow ard conservation of
argali Ovis ammon: a case study o f trophy hunting in W estern
China. Oryx 36 (4), 372 -381.
Hilbig, W ., 1995. The Vegetation o f M ongolia. SPB Academic
Publishing, Am sterdam , Netherlands.
Hilton - Taylor, C., 2000. 2000 lU C N Red List o f Threatened Species
(Compiler) lU C N , G land Switzerland, Cambridge, UK. p. 61.
Hofer, D., 2002. The lion ’s share o f the hunt. T rophy hunting and
conservation: a review o f the legal Eurasian tourist hunting m arket
and trophy trade under CITES. T R A F F IC Europe, Brussels,
Belgium.
Institute o f Biology, 2001. Population assessment o f argali in M on ­
golia, 2001. Institute o f Biology, M ongolian Academy o f Sciences.
U laanbaatar, M ongolia (in M ongolian).
Jacobson, E., Kubarev, V.D., Tseveendorj, D., 2001. Mongolie D u
Nord - oest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga. R ertoire des Petroglyphes d ’Asie
Centrale, Fascicule N o. 6, vol. 2, De Boccard, Paris.
Johnson, K., 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
retention o f threatened status for argali in Kyrgyzstan, M ongolia,
and Tajikistan. Federal Register 67 (99), 35942 -35957.
Luschekina, A., Fedosenko, A., 1994. The status o f argali in
Kirgizstan, Tadjikistan, and M ongolia. R eport to the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office o f Scientific Authority. W ashington,
DC, p. 44.
M allon, D.P., Bold, A., Dulamtseren, S., Reading, R.P., A m galanba ­
atar, S., 1997. M ongolia. In: Shackleton, D.M . (Ed.), W ild Sheep
and G oats and their Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation
Action Plan for Caprinae. lU C N , G land, Switzerland, pp. 193 201 .
M aroney, R.L., D avarkhbayar, D., 2004. Altai argali (Ovis ammon
ammon) surveys in M ongolia ’s Siilkhemiin N uruu N ational Park.
M ongolian Journal o f Biological Sciences 1, 33-36.
M aroney, R.L., Paltsyn, 2003. Altai argali status and distribution in
western M ongolia and the Altai -
Sayan. lU C N C aprinae News,
October 4 -
7.
M cCarthy, T.M ., 2000. Ecology and conservation o f snow leopards,
G obi bears, and wild Bactrian camels in M ongolia. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University o f M assachusetts Am herst, M A, p. 133.
M earns, R., 1993. Territoriality and land tenure among M ongolian
pastoralists: variation, continuity and change. N om adic Peoples 33,
73 -103.
M yagm arsuren, D., 2000. Specially protected areas o f Mongolia.
M ongolian Environm ental Protection Agency and the Germ an
Technical Advisory Cooperation. U laanbaatar, Mongolia.
Olson, D.M ., Dinerstein, E., 1998. The global 200: a representation
approach to conserving the worlds m ost biologically valuable
ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12 (3), 502 -515.
241
Paltsyn, M .Y., Spitsyn, S.V., 2002. Recom m endations for conserva ­
tion o f argali sheep population in Chikhacheva Range. In: Study
and Conservation o f Altai-Sayan M ountain C ountry - Conference
Book, pp. 107-111. Gorno-A ltaisk, Russia (in Russian).
Reading, R.P., A m galanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1998. Recent Conserva ­
tion Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in M ongolia - Part 1.
lU C N Caprinae News, January 1-3.
Reading, R.P., Mix, H., Lhagvasuren, B., Blumer, E.S., 1999a. Status
o f wild Bactrian camels and other large ungulates in south - western
M ongolia. Oryx 33 (3), 247 -255.
Reading, R.P., A m galanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1999b. Recent Conser ­
vation Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in M ongolia - P art 2.
lU C N Caprinae News, August 1 ^ .
Reading, R.P., Johnstad, M ., Batjargal, Z., A m galanbaatar, S., Mix,
H., 1999c. Expanding M ongolia ’s system o f protected areas.
N atural Areas Journal 19 (3), 211 ­222.
Reading, R.P., A m galanbaatar, S., W ingard, G., 2001. Argali sheep
conservation and research activities in M ongolia. The Open
C ountry No. 3, pp. 25 -32.
Shackleton, D.M . (Ed.), 1997. W ild Sheep and G oats and their
Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation A ction Plan for
Caprinae. lU C N , G land, Switzerland, p. 390.
Schmidt, S., 1995. M ongolia in Transition: The Im pact o f Privatiza ­
tion on R ural Life. Bielefelder Studies on the Sociology of
Development. Saabrucken, Germany.
Schmidt, S., G ansukh, G., K am al, K., Swenson, K ., 2002. Com munity
organization - a key step towards sustainable livelihoods and co ­
m anagem ent o f natural resources in M ongolia. Policy M atters 10,
71 -74.
Schuerholz, G., 2001. Com munity based wildlife m anagem ent
(CBW M) in the A ltai Sayan Ecoregion o f M ongolia feasibility
assessment: opportunities for and barriers to CBW M. R eport to
W W F ­ M ongolia. U laanbaatar, M ongolia, p. 49.
Shiirevdamba, Ts., Shagdarsuren, O., Erdenjav, G., Amgalan, T.s.,
Tsetsegma, T.s., (Eds.), 1997. M ongolian Red Book. M inistry for
N ature and the Environm ent o f M ongolia. U laanbaatar, M ongo ­
lia, p. 388 (in M ongolian, with English Summaries).
Smirnov, M .N ., 1990. Argali in Tuva. In: Ecological and Economical
Aspects o f Conservation and Rational Utilization o f Gam e Species
and Plant Resources o f Siberia - Conference Book. Shushenskoe,
pp. 137 -
140 (in Russian).
Siebert, S.F., Belsky, J.M ., 2002. Livelihood security and protected
area m anagement. International Journal o f W ilderness 8 (3), 3 8 ^ 2 .
Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C., 2002.
Beyond the square wheel: critique o f a resurgent “ protection
paradigm ” in international biodiversity conservation. Society and
N atural Resources 15, 17-40.
W ingard, J.R., Odgerel, P., 2001. Com pendium o f environmental law
and practice in M ongolia. G TZ Commercial and Civil Law Reform
Project. U laanbaatar, M ongolia, p. 409.
W orking G roup, 2000. Conference Results. In: Batsukh, N. (Ed.),
Strategic Planning for Conservation o f M ongolian Argali Sheep
(Ovis ammon) N ational Seminar, pp. 85 - 88. M inistry for N ature
and the Environm ent o f M ongolia and W W F - M ongolia, U laanba ­
atar, M ongolia, p. 96 (in M ongolian).