|
|
Fox, J. L., & Freeman, H. (1984). An Internationally cooperative fiels study of the snow leopard in Northern India. In L.Blomqvist (Ed.), (Vol. 4, pp. 39–42). Helsinki, Finland: Leif Blomqvist and Helsinki Zoo.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E. (2000). What has happened to the snow leopard after the break-up of Soviet Union? (Vol. 4 (19)).
Abstract: It describes status of snow leopard in republics of the former Soviet Union, main reasons for poaching and negative and positive experience on species conservation. The total number of snow leopard in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the 1980's was at least 1200-1400. In Kazakhstan the snow leopard population totaled 180-200, in Uzbekistan around 100, and in Russia 150-200. The number and natural habitat of the species were in universal decline. Losses in Kyrgyzstan from poaching alone were no less than 30 animals per year in 1960-1980's. During this period the population in this area decreased by half, and the natural habitat by one third. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, poaching of the snow leopard and its pray grew by at least a factor of 3-4. It was estimated that 500-600 animals reduced the Kyrgyz snow leopard population in the 1990's. The population that remains today can barely be more than 150-200 individual snow leopards. The population has been physically decimated. Number of snow leopard in existence today in the former Soviet Union does not exceed 700-900 individual animals.
|
|
|
|
Mallon, D. (1984). The snow leopard in Ladakh. International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 4, 23–37.
Abstract: Reports on 1 summer survey and four winter surveys covering some 3100 km in Ladakh, India. Reports on snow leopard sign commonly found, distribution, prey, attacks on livestock and peoples reaction, mortality factors and conservation status. Suggest recomendations for preventing unnecessary killing of snow leopards and estimates population of 100 to 200 snow leopards in Ladakh
|
|
|
|
The Snow Leopard Conservancy. (2002). A Survey of Kathmandu-based Trekking Agencies: Market Opportunities for Linking Community-Based Ecotourism with the Conservation of Snow Leopard in the Annapurna Conservation Area. Report prepared for WWF-Nepal Programme (Vol. SLC Field Series Document No. 4). Los Gatos, California.
Abstract: In 2001 the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), Annapurna Conservation Area (ACAP), Snow Leopard Conservancy (SLC) and WWF-Nepal initiated a collaborative project aimed at enhancing ecotourism in the Manang area, in ways that strengthen benefits to local communities while also protecting the environment and the local culture. Manang is known for its relatively dense snow leopard population, along with supporting good numbers of blue sheep, the endangered cat's principal prey through much of the Himalaya. However, snow leopards periodically kill many livestock, leading to retributive killing by herders along with other associated people-wildlife conflict. In order to encourage the local people to better co-exist with snow leopards and other wildlife, SLC, WWF-Nepal and ACAP agreed to explore ways of providing tourism benefits to local communities as an incentive to protect this rare predator and conserve its alpine habitat. Key in this regard is the possibility of developing locally guided nature treks, and accordingly, this survey was conducted in order to assess existing market opportunities and constraints to such ecotourism enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Khanyari, M., Dorjay, R., Lobzang, S., Bijoor, A., Suryawanshi, K. (2023). Co-designing conservation interventions through participatory action research in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 4(e12232), 1–14.
Abstract: 1. Community-based conservation, despite being more inclusive than fortress conservation, has been criticized for being a top-down implementation of external ideas brought to local communities for conservation's benefit. This is particularly true for Changpas, the pastoral people of Changthang in trans-Himalayan India who live alongside unique wildlife.
2. Our main aim was to co-design conservation interventions through participatory action research. We worked with two Changpa communities, to understand the issues faced by them. Subsequently, we co-designed context-sensitive interventions to facilitate positive human–nature interactions. We did so by integrating the PARTNERS (Presence, Aptness, Respect, Transparency, Empathy, Responsiveness, Strategic Support) principles with the Trinity of Voice (Access, Standing and Influence).
3. In Rupsho, we facilitated focus group discussions (FGDs) led by the community. We found livestock depredation by wildlife was primarily facilitated by the weather. This led to co-designing of a new corral design, which was piloted with seven households, safeguarding 2385 pashmina goats and sheep. Approximating the value of each sheep/goat to be USD125, this intervention amounts to a significant economic protection of USD c. 42,500 for each household. This is along with intangible gains of trust, ownership and improved self-esteem.
4. In Tegazong, a restricted area adjoining the Indo-China border with no previous research records, we worked with 43 Changpa people to co-create research questions of mutual interest. Wildlife presence and reasons for livestock loss were identified as areas of mutual interest. The herders suggested they would record data in a form of their choice, for 6 months, while they live in their winter pastures. This participatory community monitoring revealed nutrition and hypothermia to be a key cause of livestock death. Subsequently, we delimited two previously untested interventions: lamb cribs and provisioning of locally sourced barley as a feed supplement. The wildlife monitoring recorded the first record of Tibetan Gazelle Procapra picticuadata, outside of their known distribution, in Tegazong.
5. We aim to highlight the benefits of co-designing projects with local communities that link research and conservation, while also discussing the challenges faced. Ultimately, such projects are needed to ensure ethical knowledge generation and conservation, which aims to be decolonial and inclusive.
|
|
|
|
Kovalev A.K. (1990). Markhor in the Ramit nature reserve, Tajikistan (Vol. Vol.3.).
Abstract: The marchor habitat in Tajikistan is fragmented. The animals are reproduced in enclosures of the Ramit nature reserve and released into wildlife in Khel canyon. Two females were killed by snow leopard.
|
|
|
|
The Snow Leopard Conservancy. (2002). Visitor Satisfaction and Opportunity Survey, Manang, Nepal: Market Opportunities for Linking Community-Based Ecotourism with the Conservation of Snow Leopards in the Annpurna Conservation Area. Report prepared for WWF-Nepal Programme (Vol. SLC Field Document Series No 3).
Abstract: For the past two decades, the Manang or Nyeshang Valley has become one of the most popular
trekking routes in Nepal, attracting over 15,000 trekkers annually (Ale, 2001). The 21-day
circular trek takes the visitor from the lush southern slopes of the Annapurna massif around to
its dry northern slopes more reminiscent of Tibet, through a landscape of spectacular mountain
scenes, interesting villages and diverse cultures. The Manang region also offers prime habitat
for the endangered snow leopard, supporting an estimated 4.8 – 6.7 snow leopards per 100 sq.
km (Oli 1992). This high density has been attributed to the abundance of blue sheep, the snow
leopard's primary large prey species across the Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau.
|
|
|
|
Grachev Yu.A. (1978). Snow leopard, or irbis Uncia uncia (Vol. Part 1. Vertebrate animals.).
Abstract: Snow leopard is rare and endangered species. At present it is met in Tien Shan and the spurs: in the ridges of Pskem, Ugam, Karjantau, Talas, Kyrgyz, Zailiyskiy, Ketmene, Kungei Alatau, Terskey Alatau, as well as Jungar Alatau, Tarbagatai, Saure, and Altai. In 19th century, snow leopard used to be met in the Karatau ridge (the Syrdarya ridge). Over the last two decades population of snow leopard reduced due to increased development of mountainous areas and reduction of wild animal populations (ibex, argali, morals, marmots, etc.). In Kazakhstan, snow leopard is protected in the Aksu-Djabagly and Alma-Ata nature reserves.
|
|
|
|
Grachev Yu.A. (1991). Snow leopard Uncia uncia Sch. 1775 (Vol. Vol. 1. Animals.).
Abstract: Snow leopard is a rare species with shrinking habitat and decreasing population (category III). It is distributed in Tien Shan (the ridges of Karjantau, Ugam, Talas, Kyrgyz, Zailiyskiy, Kunghey, Terskey, Ketmen), Djungar Alatau, Tarbagatai, Saur, and South Altai. This species has disappeared in the Syrdarya Karatau and the mountains of North Tien Shan. Its total number in Kazakhstan is estimated to be 180-200 animals. The threats are reduction of mountain ungulates and poaching. Snow leopard is protected in the Aksu-Djabagly, Alma-Ata, and Markakol nature reserves and the Alma-Ata, Lepsin, and Tokhta sanctuaries. The Djungar nature reserve needs to be established.
|
|
|
|
Grachev Yu.A. (1996). Snow leopard (Vol. Vol.1.Animals. Part 1.Vertebrates.).
Abstract: Status: rare (Category III). Distribution: Tien Shan mountains, Tarbagatai, Saur and Altai mountains. Total number in Kazakhstan does not exceed 200 individuals. The main threats are poaching and reduction number of preys. In Almaty Zoo captive breeding was successful in 1976 and 1985. Snow leopard is protected in Aksu Jabagly, Almaty and Markakol nature reserves. To ensure the survival of the species it is necessary to establish a reserve in Dzhungar mountains and to improve protection in existing nature reserves.
|
|
