|
|
Panwar, H. S. (1988). Report on the snow leopard research project of Wildlife Institute of India.
Abstract: Snow leopard survey conducted in Indian Himalayas between November 1985 and July 1986.
|
|
|
|
Green, M. J. B. (1982). Status, distribution and conservation of the Snow leopard in North India. In International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards (pp. 7–10).
|
|
|
|
Government of India. (1988). The snow leopard conservation scheme.
|
|
|
|
Saberwal, V. K. (1996). Pastoral Politics:gaddi grazing, degradation and biodiversity conservation in Himachal Pradesh, India. Conservation Biology, 10, 741–749.
|
|
|
|
Rishi, V. (1989). Snow leopards breed at Darjeeling Zoo. Zoo's Print, , 1–4.
|
|
|
|
Fox, J. L. (1997). Conflict between predators and people in Ladakh. Cat News, 17, 18.
Abstract: During a six-week period in Hemis National Park, Ladakh, India, snow leopards killed 10 sheep and goats and one leopard gained access to a livestock pen and killed many of the animals inside. Dholes also killed sheep and goats, and a wolf killed a young horse. Residents routinely remove snow leopard cubs from their dens to limit future damage by this species. How to deal with the plight of the people living in the area while still protecting the endangered species are major concerns of the International Snow Leopard Trust, which manages Hemis National Park. lgh.
|
|
|
|
Fox, J. L. (1989). A review of the status and ecology of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia).
|
|
|
|
Raj, R. D. (1999). A Green Chief Minister in a Green State.
Abstract: As chief minister of the Indian state of Sikkim, Pawan Kumar Chamling has the onerous job of protecting one of the hottest biodiversity properties in the world. Chamling has been more than equal to the task. Last month, he earned the title of “greenest chief minister” of India's 22 federal states for policies that range from banning plastic bags to cancelling a major hydro-electric project.
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
