Abstract: Applied ecology lies at the intersection of human societies and natural systems. Consequently, applied ecologists are constantly challenged as to how best to use ecological knowledge to influence the management of ecosystems (Habel et al. 2013). As Hulme (2011) has pointed out, to do so effectively we must leave our ivory towers and engage with stakeholders. This engagement is especially important and challenging in areas of the world where poverty, weak institutions and poor governance structures conspire to limit the ability of local communities to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These communities often bear disproportionate costs in the form of curtailed access to natural resources, ecosystem services, and developmental
programmes, and also suffer wildlife-caused damage, including injuries or loss of human life, and economic
and psychological impacts (Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). It is well-recognized that conservation efforts in large parts of the world historically have been perceived to be discriminatory by local people (Mishra 2016). The need for engagement with local communities is therefore embedded in the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets and is widely thought to be critical to the success of conservation efforts. However, although the need for engagement is clear, as ecologists and practitioners we often have little formal training in how we should engage with local communities and how we can recognize the pitfalls and opportunities provided by developing genuine partnerships. The practical challenges of achieving effective engagement are considerable (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Waylen et al. 2010, 2013), and such forays are fraught with difficulties and ethical considerations (Chan et al. 2007). When they are done badly, conservation interventions
can damage relationships and trust, and lead to serious injustice to local people and setbacks for ecological
outcomes (Duffy 2010). Much has been written on knowledge exchange and participatory research approaches (e.g. Reed et al. 2014 and references therein). This Practitioner’s Perspective
seeks to focus on the next logical step: the elements that practitioners and researchers need to consider when
engaging with communities to effect conservation. Engagement around the management of protected areas
has been discussed and formalized (e.g. Dudley 2008). Considerable literature has also emerged, particularly
from Africa, on the use and co-management of natural resources, commonly referred to as community-based natural resource management or CBNRM (e.g. Fabricius 2004; Roe, Nelson & Sandbrook 2009; Child & Barnes
2010). There have been attempts to draw general principles for CBNRM (e.g. Thakadu 2005; Gruber 2010). In
the related field of community-based conservation, however, while there have been efforts to draw lessons (e.g. Berkes 2004), little exists in terms of frameworks or guidelines for effectively working with local communities to effect biodiversity conservation in multi-use landscapes
(Mishra 2016). The eight principles for community-based conservation outlined here (Fig. 1) build on ideas developed in fields as diverse as applied ecology, conservation and natural
resource management, community health, social psychology, rural development, negotiation theory, and ethics
(see Mishra 2016). They have been developed, challenged and tested through 20 years of community experience andour own research on the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia and its mountain ecosystems, in South and Central Asia. We suspect that with contextual adaptations, their relevance for applied ecologists and practitioners may be universal.

Abstract: Article examines the problems existing in conservation of the snow leopard in Kirgizia after break-up of the
USSR. Unfortunate situation is common to most of the 14 countries in the snow leopard range, but seems
especially sharp to Kirgizia. Yet half of the century ago Kirgizia has had about 1.5 thousand of the snow
leopards, and today there remains no more than 1/10. In Soviet time Kirgizia was a global supplier of the
snow leopards for the zoo-export � to create a reserve number of endangered cats in captivity. Today, at
least half of the snow leopards in the Zoos of the world are individuals, caught in Kirgizia or their
descendants.
Since independence, Kirgizia has set new records. In Sarychat-Irtash reserve � the best for the snow
leopard in Central Asia, and probably in the whole range � this species was completely destroyed after 3
years of reserve opening... and 17 years later � revived... Situation comes presently back to the worst-case
scenario, and not only for the snow leopard. Author shows how work in this direction social and economic
levers, and what kind future he would like to see in Kirgizia, where he lived for 12 years and was at the
forefront of pioneering research of the snow leopard and its conservation.

Abstract: After 30 years of searching for the mysterious Beringian snow cat in vast space of Koryakia and Chukotka
one of the five cameras recorded finally this beast at night in September 2014. This is not so much a
sensation as a real scientific discovery, saying that the hearts of the snow leopard population resettlement are
not in 5000 km from the main range boundaries, but much closer. Where? � will show further studies.
In addition to the snow leopard in the North-Eastern Asia, it found two more endangered large
mammal species: the Amur tiger and the relict of the Ice Age � the Irkuyem-bear. Author has given these
animals his life and his article devoted to this topic.

Abstract: Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) is an elusive endangered carnivore found in remote mountain regions of Central Asia, with
sparse distribution in northern Pakistan, including Chitral and Baltistan. The present study determined the food habits of snow leopard,
including preferred prey species and seasonal variation in diet. Fifty-six scat samples were collected and analyzed to determine the
diet composition in two different seasons, i.e. summer and winter. Hair characteristics such as cuticular scale patterns and medullary
structure were used to identify the prey. This evidence was further substantiated from the remains of bones, claws, feathers, and other
undigested remains found in the scats. A total of 17 prey species were identified; 5 of them were large mammals, 6 were mesomammals,
and the remaining 6 were small mammals. The occurrence of wild ungulates (10.4%) in the diet was low, while livestock constituted a
substantial part (26.4%) of the diet, which was higher in summer and lower in winter. Mesomammals altogether comprised 33.4% of
the diet, with palm civet (Paguma larvata) as a dominant (16.8%) species, followed by golden marmot (Marmota caudate) (8.8%), which
was higher in winter. There was a significant difference in seasonal variation in domestic livestock and small mammals. The livestock
contribution of 26.4% observed in the present study indicates a significant dependence of the population on livestock and suggests
that the study area is expected to be a high-conflict area for snow leopards. The results of the current study would help improve the
conservation efforts for snow leopards, contributing to conflict resolution and effective management of this endangered cat.

Abstract: Understanding species distributions, patterns of
change and threats can form the basis for assessing the conservation
status of elusive species that are difficult to survey.
The snow leopard Panthera uncia is the top predator of the
Central and South Asian mountains. Knowledge of the distribution
and status of this elusive felid and its wild prey is
limited. Using recall-based key-informant interviews we estimated
site use by snow leopards and their primary wild
prey, blue sheep Pseudois nayaur and Asiatic ibex Capra
sibirica, across two time periods (past: �; recent:
�) in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India. We
also conducted a threat assessment for the recent period.
Probability of site use was similar across the two time periods
for snow leopards, blue sheep and ibex, whereas for wild
prey (blue sheep and ibex combined) overall there was an
% contraction. Although our surveys were conducted in
areas within the presumed distribution range of the snow
leopard, we found snow leopards were using only % of
the area (, km). Blue sheep and ibex had distinct distribution
ranges. Snow leopards and their wild prey were not
restricted to protected areas, which encompassed only %
of their distribution within the study area. Migratory livestock
grazing was pervasive across ibex distribution range
and was the most widespread and serious conservation
threat. Depredation by free-ranging dogs, and illegal hunting
and wildlife trade were the other severe threats. Our
results underscore the importance of community-based, landscape-
scale conservation approaches and caution against reliance
on geophysical and opinion-based distribution maps that have been used to estimate national and global snow leopard ranges.