|
Schaller, G. B., Tserendeleg, J., & Amarsana, G. (1994). Observations on snow leopards in Mongolia. In J.Fox, & D.Jizeng (Eds.), (pp. 33–42). Usa: Islt.
|
Schaller, G. B. (1972). On the behaviour of Blue Sheep (Pseudois nayaur). Journal of Bombay Natural Historical Society, 69, 523–537.
Abstract: Two or three snow leopards hunted in the study area in eastern Nepal. Describes content of some snow leopard scat
|
Schaller, G. B. (1976). Mountain mammals in Pakistan. Oryx, 13, 351–356.
Abstract: Four or five snow leopards were present in 300 sq km of Chitral District in 1974. Six snow leopards were shot in vicinity of Chitral Gol in winter of 1971-1972, and at least one the next year. Estimates fewer then 250 snow leopards in Pakistan.
|
|
Schaller, G. (1986). Surveys of Mountain Wildlife in China, Report # 4.
|
|
Schaller, G. (1987). Surveys of Mountain Wildlife in China, Report # 6.
|
|
Schaller, G. (1988). Wildlife Survey in Tibet, Report #8.
|
Rowell, G. (1983). China's Wildlife Lament. International Wildlife, 13(6), 4–11.
Abstract: Reports sightings of snow leopard in Qinghai Province. One freshly killed; a 15 yuan bounty exists on snow leopards
|
Rodenburg, W. F. (1977). The Trade in Wild Animal Furs in Afghanistan.
Abstract: Estimated that 70-80 snow leopard pelts were traded annually at the Kabul bazaar.
|
Rashid, W., Shi, J., Rahim, I. U., Dong, S., Sultan, H. (2020). Issues and Opportunities Associated with Trophy Hunting and Tourism in Khunjerab National Park, Northern Pakistan. Animals, 10(597), 1–20.
Abstract: Trophy hunting and mass tourism are the two major interventions designed to provide various socioeconomic and ecological benefits at the local and regional levels. However, these interventions have raised some serious concerns that need to be addressed. This study was conducted in Khunjerab National Park (KNP) with an aim to analyze comparatively the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of trophy hunting and mass tourism over the last three decades within the context of sustainability. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders and household interviews were conducted to collect data on trophy hunting and mass tourism, and on local attitudes towards these two interventions in and around KNP. The results revealed that 170 Ibex (Capra sibirica) and 12 Blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) were hunted in the study area over the past three decades, and trophy hunting was not based on a sustainable harvest level. Trophy hunting on average generated USD 16,272 annual revenue, which was invested in community development. However, trophy hunting has greatly changed the attitudes of local residents towards wildlife: a positive attitude towards the wild ungulates and strongly negative attitude towards wild carnivores. In addition, trophy hunting has reduced the availability of ungulate prey species for Snow leopards (Panthera uncia), and consequently, Snow leopards have increased their predation on domestic livestock. This has, in turn, increased human–snow leopard conflict, as negative attitudes towards carnivores result in retaliatory killing of Snow leopards. Furthermore, according to ocial record data, the number of tourists to KNP has increased tremendously by 10,437.8%, from 1382 in 1999 to 145,633 in 2018. Mass tourism on average generated USD 33,904 annually and provided opportunities for locals to earn high incomes, but it caused damages to the environment and ecosystem in KNP through pollution generation and negative impacts on wildlife. Considering the limited benefits and significant problems created by trophy hunting and mass tourism, we suggest trophy hunting should be stopped and mass tourism should be shifted to ecotourism in and around KNP. Ecotourism could mitigate human–Snow leopard conflicts and help conserve the fragile ecosystem, while generating enough revenue incentives for the community to protect biodiversity and compensate for livestock depredation losses to Snow leopards. Our results may have implications for management of trophy hunting and mass tourism in other similar regions that deserve further investigation.
|
Raghavan, B., Bhatnagar, Y., & Qureshi, Q. (2003). Interactions between livestock and Ladakh urial (Ovis vignei vignei); final report.
Abstract: The Ladakh urial (Ovis vignei vignei) is a highly endangered animal (IUCN Red List 2000) listed in the Appendix 1 of CITES and Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Its numbers had been reduced to a few hundred individuals in the 1960s and 70s through hunting for trophies and meat (Fox et al. 1991, Mallon 1983, Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, IUCN Red List 2000). However, with the protection bestowed by the IWPA 1972, and resultant decrease in hunting, the population seems to have shown a marginal increase to about 1000-1500 individuals in its range in Ladakh (Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, IUCN Red List 2000). Although the species had in the past, been able to coexist with the predominantly Buddhist society of Ladakh, the recent increase in the population of both humans and their livestock has placed immense pressures on its habitat (Shackleton 1997, Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, Raghavan and Bhatnagar 2003). This is especially important considering that the Ladakh urial habitat coincides with the areas of maximum human activity in terms of settlements, agriculture, pastoralism and development, in Ladakh (Fox et al. 1991, Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, Raghavan and Bhatnagar 2003). Increased developmental activities such as construction of roads, dams, and military bases in these areas have also increased the access to their habitat. This has consequently made the species more vulnerable to the threats of poaching and habitat destruction (Fox et al. 1991, Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, Raghavan and Bhatnagar 2002). Pressure from increased livestock grazing is one of the major threats faced by the species today (Shackleton 1997, Fox et al. 1991, Mallon 1983, IUCN Red List 2000 Chundawat and Qureshi 1999, Raghavan and Bhatnagar 2003). In the impoverished habitat provided by the Trans-Himalayas, there is great competition for the scarce resources between various animal species surviving here (Fox 1996, Mishra 2001). The presence of livestock intensifies this competition and can either force the species out of its niche (competitive exclusion) by displacing it from that area or resource, or lead to partitioning of resources between the species, spatially or temporally, for coexistence (Begon et al. 1986, Gause 1934).
|
