P

POPULAT

Facu

TION STALA

Depaulty of For

Arid A

ATUS OF ASPUR VA

SHOA 06

artment of restry, Ra

Pir MAgriculture

P

SNOW L

ALLEY, C

AIB HAME6-arid-606

f Wildlife Mange Mana

Mehr Ali She UniversiPakistan

2010

LEOPARDCHITRAL

EED 6

Managemagement ahah ity Rawalp

D (Uncia uL

ment and Wildli

pindi

ncia) IN

ife

POPULATION STATUS OF SNOW LEOPARD (Uncia uncia) IN LASPUR VALLEY, CHITRAL

By

SHOAIB HAMEED (06-arid-606)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Philosophy in

Wildlife Management

Department of Wildlife Management Faculty of Forestry, Range Management and Wildlife

Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi,

Pakistan 2010

CERTIFICATION

I hereby undertake that this research is an original one and no part of this

thesis falls under plagiarism. If found otherwise, at any stage, I will be responsible

for the consequences.

Name: Shoaib Hameed Signature:

Registration No. : 06-arid-606 Date: 25-10-2010

Certified that the contents and form of the thesis entitled “Population Status of

Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) in Laspur Valley, Chitral” submitted by Shoaib

Hameed have been found satisfactory for the requirement of the degree.

Supervisor: _______________________

(Dr. Tariq Mahmood)

Co-supervisor: _______________________

(Dr. M. Ali Nawaz)

Member: _______________________

(Dr. Maqsood Anwar)

Member: ______________________

(Dr. M. Sajid Nadeem)

Date of Viva Voce:19-10-2010 External Examiner:______________________ (Dr. Ejaz Ahmad) Chairman: Director Advanced Studies:

CONTENTS Page

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Acknowledgments ix

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Study Objectives 5

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 13

3.1 STUDY AREA 13

3.2 STUDY DESIGN 15

3.2.1 Snow Leopard Surveys 15

3.2.1.1 Questionnaires, interviews and sighting

reports

15

3.2.1.2 SLIMS surveys 16

3.2.1.3 Camera trap 20

3.2.2 Ungulates Surveys 23

3.2.2.1 Fixed-point method 23

3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 24

4 RESULTS 25

4.1 HUMAN PERCEPTION ABOUT SNOW LEOPARD 25

4.2 POPULATION ASSESSMENT OF SNOW LEOPARD 25

4.2.1 SLIMS 25

4.2.1.1 SLIMS Surveys in Bashqar Gol 2009 30

4.2.1.2 SLIMS Surveys in Bashqar Gol 2010 30

4.2.1.3 SLIMS Surveys in Phargram Gol 2010 30

4.2.1.4 SLIMS Surveys in Shandur 2010 34

4.2.2 Camera Trapping 34

4.3 POPULATION OF WILD PREY 36

4.4 HUMAN-CARNIVORE CONFLICTS 36

5 DISCUSSION 45

SUMMARY 50

LITERATURE CITIED 52

APPENDICES 63

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page

4.1 Total Sign Frequencies of Snow Leopard in Laspur Valley

in SLIMS Surveys in 2009 and 2010. 28

4.2 Transects summary of all blocks in Laspur Valley. 28

4.3 Summary of SLIMS in Bashqar Gol 2009 31

4.4 Summary of SLIMS in Bashqar Gol 2010 31

4.5 Summary of SLIMS in Shandur 2010 32

4.6 Detail of Camera Placement and Capture Histories of Snow Leopard and other animals.

35

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. Page

3.1 Map of study area (Laspur valley) 14

3.2 Interview with a local person in Laspur valley. 17

3.3 Searching Snow Leopard sign during SLIMS surveys in Bashqar Gol

2010.

17

3.4 Setting a camera in Bashqar Gol. in May-June 2010 22

3.5 A camera trap in Bashqar Gol (CamTrakker™ Ranger, Wattkinsville,

GA, USA).

22

4.1 Community perception about carnivores in Laspur Valley during

Questionnaire Surveys in 2009 and 2010.

26

4.2 Occurrence of Snow leopard signs in Laspur Valley during SLIMS

Survey in 2009 and 2010.

29

4.3 Ratio of different Age classes of Snow leopard signs. 29

4.4 Snow Leopard scats found in Shandur during SLIMS Survey in Jun,

2010.

32

4.5 Snow leopard feces found in BashqarGol during SLIMS survey in

2010. 33

4.6 Fresh pugmarks of Snow Leopard found during SLIMS in Bashqar

Gol in May-Jun, 2010.

33

4.7 Ibex population counts in Laspur Valley during survey in December,

2009.

37

4.8 Scrap of a Snow Leopard seen in BashqarGol during SLIMS Survey in

May-Jun, 2010. 38

4.9 Snow Leopard Capture in Infrared Camera trap in BashqarGol in

May-Jun, 2010. 38

4.10 Snow Leopard Capture in Infrared Camera trap in BashqarGol in 39

May-Jun, 2010.

4.11 Himalayan Ibex Captured in Camera trap in BashqarGol in May-Jun,

2010.

39

4.12 Himalayan Ibex Captured in Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-Jun,

2010.

40

4.13 Snow cock Captured in Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-Jun,

2010.

40

4.14 Photo of rat taken by Infra red Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-

Jun, 2010.

41

4.15 A group of 11 Ibex was sighted during Survey in BashqarGol in May-

Jun, 2010.

41

4.16 Percentages of damages by Carnivores in Laspur valley from 2005-

2010.

42

4.17 Percentage of Livestock killed by Snow leopard in five years. 42

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Almighty Allah, the compassionate and merciful, who

knows about whatever is there in the Universe, hidden or evident and has enabled

me to elucidate a drop from the existing ocean of knowledge, all praises be to Holy

Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), a star brightening the path of faith

and knowledge and luminary to the truth and justice.

Words cannot say the gratitude that I feel for my parents whose affection

and prayers have always been the key to my success.

I am thankful to Prof. Dr. Iftikhar Hussain, Chairman, Department of

Wildlife Management and Prof. Dr. Sarwat Naz Mirza, Dean Faculty of Forestry,

Range Management and Wildlife (FRM&W) for providing me the facilities to

complete this research work.

I feel highly privileged in taking opportunity to express my profound

gratitude, sincere thanks and sense of obligation to my supervisor, Dr. Tariq

Mehmood, Assistant Professor, Department of Wildlife Management for his keen

interest, skillful guidance, valuable suggestions and dynamic supervision during the

entire study program, that I would prepare this manuscript.

I also owe debt of gratitude and my sincere thanks to my Co-supervisor Dr.

Muhammad Ali Nawaz, Country Director Snow Leopard Trust, Pakistan for his

experienced guidance and friendly discussion on my day by day collected research

data. I am also highly grateful to him for being so patient, reviewing many drafts

and being available whenever I need his guidance. It was his support and

encouragement that I could be able to achieve these results.

I will never forget the moral as well technical support and helping attitude

of honorable members of the supervisory committee Dr. Maqsood Anwar,

Associate Professor, Department of Wildlife Management and Dr. Muhammad

Sajid Nadeem, Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology for always being

affectionate and reviewing the draft of this manuscript. Their encouragement and

personal interest in my work can not be underestimated

I am also thankful to Snow leopard Trust (SLT) for providing me such a

great opportunity. My whole research work was funded and supported by SLT.

They also provided me the required equipments, facilities and trained field staff. I

will never forget the logistic support and kind cooperation of all the staff members

of WWF-P/SLT Chitral office especially Jaffar ud Din and Siraj Khan. I am

very grateful to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife Department for their kind

favor at many occasions during field surveys. I am also thankful to Yaqoob Shah

and Zahir Shah, Wildlife watchers for their cooperation and guidance in the field.

I am also very thankful to my friends Basit, Waqas and Khalid for their support and encouragement when I was in the field and in university.

Words can’t express my feelings of love, devotion, thanks and gratitude to

my dearest brothers, sisters and other family members for their best wishes that

enlightened my way throughout this task. I also want to say thanks of all those who

always prayed for me in every field of my life.

Those whom I have failed to mention, and there are many, please accept my

apologies but their efforts are always appreciated.

Shoaib

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Snow leopard (Uncia uncia) is a member of family Felidae, subfamily

Pantherinae (Blomqvist, 1978; Nowak and Paradiso, 1983). On the basis of distinct

morphology and specific behavior it is placed alone in a separate genus (Pocock,

1917; Hemmer, 1972; Peters, 1980; Rieger, 1980). The historical range of snow

leopard is restricted to the mountains of central Asia, with core areas in the Altay,

Tien Shan, Kun Lun, Pamir, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalaya ranges

(Hussain, 2003). It is very thinly distributed across an area of 1.2 to 1.6 million

square kilometers (km2) and probably as much as 3 million square kilometers (Fox,

1994; Hunter and Jackson, 1997; Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Sunquist and

Sunquist, 2002).

It occurs at elevations of 3000 to over 5000 meters (m) in the Himalaya and

Tibetan Plateau, but as low as 600m in Russia and Mongolia (Sunquist and

Sunquist, 2002). It was also reported to migrate to lower elevations during winter in

northern Pakistan and some other countries, following movements of ibex and

markhor which are its prey species (Jackson and Hunter, 1996).

Snow leopard habitat consists of cold, arid and semiarid shrub land,

grassland or barren areas (Jackson and Hunter, 1996). Low temperatures, high

aridity, and harsh climatic conditions make its habitat among least productive of the

world’s rangelands (Mishra, 2001) and due to this, populations of prey are also

very low (McCarthy et al., 2005). Mostly snow leopards favor steep terrain broken

by cliffs, ridges, gullies, and rocky outcrops but if adequate cover to hide is present

they can occur in relatively flat or rolling terrain. Common travel routes and

marking sites comprise of mountain ridges, cliff edges, and well-defined drainages

(Ahlborn and Jackson, 1988).

Population density of snow leopard throughout its range is from less than

0.1 to over 10 individuals per 100 km² (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). The total snow

leopard population is judged between 4,500 and 7,500 across 12 countries of Asia

including China, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan,

Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Mongolia (Jackson et al.,

2005). However, its actual status is yet unknown. Even its currently occupied range

is poorly mapped because of limited funding, lack of trained wildlife biologists,

and difficult logistics which severely constrain surveys across the snow leopard’s

high, inhospitable terrain (Jackson et al., 2006).

In Pakistan, snow leopard is found throughout the mountain ranges of the

north, in all the districts of the Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA), in

Chitral, Dir, Swat and Kohistan districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and in the

northern part of Neelum Valley, District of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Malik,

1997). The total snow leopard habitat available in Pakistan is about 80,000 km2 of

which about 40,000 km2 is considered to be its prime habitat (Fox, 1989). It occurs

in the Hindu Kush range in the Chitral District (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), and in the

Karakorum Range of the Gilgit-Baltistan in the Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan

districts. A good population of snow leopard is also reported from Shimshal area in

Hunza, but no density estimate is available (Wegge, 1988).

Snow leopard is categorized as “Endangered” according to The IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species (2009.1) and is listed in Appendix-I of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which means that trade in

the animal and its body parts is illegal.

Snow leopard is legally protected in the Khyber Pakhtunkhawa, Gilgit-

Baltistan and in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through individual Wildlife Acts. The

NWFP Wildlife Act of 1975, prohibits the hunting, capturing and killing of any

‘protected animal’. Section 14 of the Act, specifically refers to trade and prohibits

the trade and/or sale in snow leopard, its trophies and its meat (Khan, 2002).

The long-term future of the snow leopard in Pakistan is under threat, mainly

due to retaliatory killings by farmers, and poaching for pelts and other body parts.

Species-focused conservation policies, particularly those targeting ungulates for the

promotion of trophy hunting, may constitute an additional threat to snow leopard

conservation in the region (Hussain, 2003). Snow leopard is under a number of

threats which are grouped into four broad categories by McCarthy and Chaperon

(2003). Category 1 (Habitat and Prey Related) includes habitat degradation and

fragmentation, reduction of natural prey due to illegal hunting, reduction of natural

prey due to legal hunting, reduction of natural prey due to competition with

livestock, reduction of natural prey due to disease, and fencing that disrupts natural

migration. Category 2: (Direct Killing or Removal of Snow Leopards) includes,

killing of snow leopards in retribution for livestock depredation, poaching snow

leopards for trade in hides or bones, museum collection of live animals, traditional

hunting of snow leopards, secondary poisoning and trapping of snow leopards, and

diseases of snow leopards. Category 3 (is about Policy and Awareness) involves

lack of appropriate policy, lack of effective enforcement, lack of trans-boundary

cooperation, lack of institutional capacity, lack of awareness among local people,

and lack of awareness among policy makers. Category 4 includes Other Issues

which are war and military related activities, climate change and human population

growth and poverty, an indirect threat (McCarthy and Chaperon, 2003).

More recent information on snow leopard’s population in Pakistan is

lacking. Based on surveys undertaken in the early 1970s, Schaller (1976) estimated

the total population of snow leopards in Pakistan to be around 150 to 200 animals.

Malik (1997) reported that the number could be around 400 animals. Recent

surveys undertaken in the Baltistan District of the Gilgit-Baltistan resulted in an

estimate of 90-120 animals in that District and 300-420 animals throughout

Pakistan (Hussain, 2003).

There are certain limitations and gaps in population estimates in Pakistan

because mostly these estimates are based on anecdotal information or interviews

and expert judgments. Thus their reliability is questionable. In few areas some

interviews and tag-based efforts have been done to determine the status of snow

leopard. These include Chitral Gol National Park (Malik, 1997), Khunjerab

National Park (Wegge, 1988) and some selected areas in Baltistan (Hussain, 2003).

These were the only areas where some field work was done to determine the

distribution and population size of snow leopard while majority of rest of its range

in Pakistan has not been yet surveyed.

Study Objective

The present study was designed to determine the status of snow leopard in

Laspur valley, Chitral (Khyber Pakhtunkhawa) by using multiple census methods.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Snow leopards is found in 12 countries across central Asia, China, Bhutan,

Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,

Kazakhstan, Russia, and Mongolia. China contains as much as 60% of the snow

leopard’s potential habitat. Inaccessible and difficult terrain, along with the

secretive nature of this rare cat helps account for the fact that either large parts of

its range have yet to be surveyed, or have been surveyed only rarely. Mostly snow

leopard is distributed along very sensitive international borders which make it

difficult to establish a reliable current status and distribution of species. Moreover,

the existing data base may be outdated because it mostly based on those surveys

which were conducted over a decade ago (McCarthy and Chaperon, 2003).

The population of snow leopard was estimated around 2000 in the early

1970’s. Fox (1989) placed the total snow leopard range at 1.23 million km2, with a

world population of 3,350-4,050 animals. These figures were updated 4,510 to

7,350 snow leopards within a total potential habitat area of 1,835,000 km2 (Fox,

1994). However, on the basis of available habitat, there could easily be as many as

6,000 to 8,000 snow leopards, especially given densities in known “hotspots” of the

order of 5-10 individuals per 100 km2 (Jackson et al., 2005).

The potential snow leopard range estimated in different countries includes;

117,653km2, 1,824,316km2, 103,000km2, 95,000km2, 131,000km2, for

Afghanistan, China, Mongolia, India and Russia, respectively (Chundawat et. al.,

1988; Hunter and Jackson, 1997; McCarthy, 2000; Poyarkov and Subbotin, 2002).

In Bhutan snow leopard range was calculated about 15,000km2 by Fox (1994)

while 7,349km2 was provided by Hunter and Jackson (1997) while in Nepal,

Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan it is 30,000km2, 131,000km2, 126,162km2,

71,079km2, respectively (Koshkarev, 1989; Hunter and Jackson, 1997). Potential

habitat in Uzbekistan is 13,834 km2 was estimated by Hunter and Jackson (1997).

The population estimates of snow leopard available for various countries

include; 2000-2500 animals in China with as much as 60 percent of all snow

leopard ranges, 800-1700 individuals in Mongolia (McCarthy, 2000), about 500

individuals in India (Fox et. al., 1991), and 150-200 in Russia (Poyarkov and

Subbotin, 2002). There would be about 100 snow leopards in Bhutan (Jackson and

Fox, 1997) whereas Nepal has 350-500 individuals (Jackson and Ahlborn, 1990),

150-200 snow leopards are estimated to live in Russia (Poyarkov and Subbotin,

2002) and 113-157 snow leopards were estimated in Kyrgyzstan by Koshkarev

(1989). In Tajikistan snow leopard population was calculated at 200-300 by Sokov

(1990) population and 80-100 snow leopards by Buzurukov and Muratov (1994).

The total population of snow leopard in Uzbekistan was estimated at about 50

animals (Sludskiy, 1973; Braden, 1982).

Population estimates of snow leopards are really a guestimate based upon

surveys which were mostly undertaken over a decade ago, and or in the case of the

Central Asia Independent States when protected areas were in better shape than

they are today (McCarthy and Chaperon, 2003).

Fox (1994) estimated snow leopard range in Pakistan about 80,000 km2,

while the total number was placed at 100-250 by Schaller (1976) and at 300-420 by

Hussain (2003). A 300 km2 area in Chitral, known for snow leopard, was searched

but evidence of only four or possibly five were found (Schaller, 1976). Density

estimates are lacking, but assuming a mean density of 1/250 km2, the total

population for Pakistan would be no more than about 320 snow leopards. Snow

leopards also occur in the Hindu Kush range in the Chitral, and in the Karakorum

Range of the Northern Areas in the Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan Districts. A good

population of snow leopard is also reported from the Shimshal area in Hunza, but

no density estimate is available (Wegge, 1988). Its presence in Azad Jammu and

Kashmir remains unconfirmed (Roberts, 1977).

Different methods have been used for population estimation of large

carnivores. Questionnaires, interviews, and sighting reports from local informants

have been used to get an approximate picture of carnivores distribution (Gittleman

et al., 2001) and sometimes animal abundance, of different species of large

canivores (e g., Henke and Knowlton, 1995; Hussain, 2003; Henke and Knowlton,

2005; Mishra et al., 2006). This is especially useful for rare species that have a

wide distribution. Chances of biases are always present (Linnell et al., 1998).

Hussain (2003) used an open-ended questionnaire for interviewing local herdsmen

about snow leopard presence in Baltistan. Sign surveys are probably the most

commonly used method for monitoring large carnivores. Transects are searched for

tracks, scats, scrape marks or any other sign of a passing carnivore (Linnell et al.,

1998). Several different methods of sign surveys have been used to determine

species distribution of most carnivore groups (Gittleman et al., 2001). Proper and

consistent identification of tracks, scats, burrows, and hair samples is a major

problem. Sign surveys are subject to observer bias (Long et al., 2007; McCarthy et

al., 2008).

Sometimes individuals are identified subjectively by comparing the

differences in track measurements and their numbers summed up per larger

carnivore species (Gusset and Burgener, 2005). Track counts can also be used for

population estimation of large carnivores (Siira et al., 2009). Wilting et al. (2006)

combined track classification method with a capture-recapture model to study

elusive cats which showed that the method is also practicable for a small area and

small population of carnivores. This technique is more efficient and best for most

species active in winter (Gittleman, 2001; Silveira et al., 2003; Wilting et al.,

2006). Failure to find tracks of animals (Silveira et al., 2003; Wilting et al., 2006)

and environmental conditions, vehicular traffic, and unworkable substrates validate

or invalidate a survey (Silveira et al., 2003; Henke and Knowlton, 2005).

Vocalizations can potentially be used to indicate the presence of the species

in an area (DeMatteo et al., 2004; Bauer, 2007) and sometimes can be used as an

estimate or index of relative animal abundance for social carnivores that utilize

long-range vocalizations (roars, howls, or whoops) to communicate (Gittleman et

al., 2001). They can potentially be used to indicate presence of the species in an

area (DeMatteo et al., 2004). Low response of animals to calls leads to non-

detections which results in severe underestimations of the population size

(DeMatteo et al., 2004; Kiffner et al., 2007). Spotlight surveys are a cost effective

method typically used for assessing the relative abundance of nocturnal animals.

Spotlight counts can be used to estimate population size (Henke and Knowlton,

2005). Factors which Influence animal activity might also influence counts (Henke

and Knowlton, 2005). Spotlight counts do not work well in areas containing low

densities of carnivores (Gittleman et al., 2001). In prey biomass method, both prey

and carnivore densities are measured and then compared to estimate the carnivore

abundance. Karanth et al. (2004) proposed a mechanistic model that predicts tiger

density as a function of prey density. McCarthy et al. (2008) used ungulate surveys

to estimate ungulate biomass and the potential density of snow leopards

supportable by that biomass. Sampling and detectability are two issues that

frequently present problem in macro ecological studies of animal populations.

Depredation surveys can also be used to estimate carnivore distribution but it needs

a lot of care during collecting the predation reports otherwise data will be severely

biased (Linnell et al., 1998; Gittleman et al., 2001).

DNA analysis techniques appear to provide an accurate, less costly and less

invasive alternative to population estimates derived from intensive capture and

radio-collaring efforts (Pool et al., 2001). DNA is extracted from hairs (Pool et al.,

2001; Mowat and Paetkau, 2002; Proctor et al., 2005; Long et al., 2007) and scat or

feces (Gompper et al., 2006; McCarthy et al., 2008). Extracted DNA is then

analyzed (Mowat and Paetkau, 2002). This technique may solve the problems of

misidentification and identification of individual animals collected and can also be

used to estimate population size (Gittleman et al., 2001). This allows both the

determination of sex and individual identity. One problem with this technique is

that extraction of DNA analysis may be failed (Long et al., 2007). Transportation

of samples to lab is a very big issue to this technique (McCarthy et al., 2008).

One of the modern techniques to study the large carnivore animals is

camera trapping (Wang and Macdonald, 2009). Active and passive are two sensor

systems available for camera trapping. Passive camera systems have wider zones of

detection than active systems (Swann et al., 2004; Goosem, 2005). Where aerial

resighting is difficult, camera-traps can also be used to provide recapture

observations (Linnell et al., 1998). It provides data that are difficult to obtain using

other methods. A permanent photographic record is available for examination by

other researchers (Gittleman et al., 2001). Camera trapping also have some

problems like initial cost (Silveira et al., 2003), theft or damage of cameras

(Gompper et al., 2006), shortage of camera sites, false triggers, failure to

photograph and camera or sensor failure (Swann et al., 2004; Long et al., 2007;

Kauffman et al., 2007). Camera-trapping of snow leopards, although in its infancy,

has had initial success as well (McCarthy et al., 2008). Capture-mark-recapture can

provide relatively accurate estimates of population size if sample sizes are

adequate, data collection techniques are unbiased, and the basic assumptions for the

population estimator are not violated (Linnell et al., 1998; Gittleman et al., 2001).

It does provide a reliable estimate of population size for many carnivore species. A

disadvantage of this technique is the lack of knowledge of what proportion of the

population was missed or not captured, moreover mark-recapture is fairly time

consuming, labor intensive, and costly (Gittleman et al., 2001).

Snow leopard and some other felids can be individually identified from

their unique pelage so, it is possible to photographically ‘‘capture’’ and

‘‘recapture’’ them on one or more sampling occasions. Most reliable method which

tells the exact number of individuals of a population is total count. While the

opportunity to directly observe carnivores may be considered rare, there are certain

species living in national parks or reserves with open habitats that allow for direct

observation and identification of all individuals (Gittleman et al., 2001) in the study

area. Total counts, based on individual recognition, are time intensive and

applicable in a very limited environment (Kiffner et al., 2007).

Population estimates of snow leopard have mainly been relied on

interviews, questionnaire surveys and sign surveys (Hussain, 2003; Mishra et al.,

2006; Ale et al., 2007; McCarthy et al., 2008; Maheshwari et al., 2010).

Questionnaire surveys provide baseline data about the presence or absence of snow

leopard in an area. Based on presence absence information sign surveys are done in

an area to find the relevant distribution and even population estimation. Snow

leopard Trust has prepared SLIMS (Snow Leopard Information Management

System) which is a standardized protocol for snow leopard sign survey (Jackson

and Hunter, 1996). SLIMS is used most of the snow leopard range. Most recently

camera trapping technique has been adapted in most of the countries to study the

population of the snow leopard. Camera-trapping of snow leopards, although in its

infancy, has had initial success as well (Jackson et al., 2005; McCarthy et al., 2008;

Subbotin and Istomov, 2009). A detailed survey of the past literature imposes an

urgent need to conduct updated field surveys using a standardized protocol such as

SLIMS (Snow Leopard Information Management System). If conservationists are

to ensure that populations of large predators like the snow leopard persist, they

need to know far more details about each species’ distributional pattern and

population trends over manageable time periods (McCarthy and Chaperon, 2003).

Chapter 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. STUDY AREA

The present study focused snow leopard (Uncia uncia) inhabiting Laspur

valley (Fig. 3.1), in Chitral district, NWFP. Laspur valley is situated in Mastuj sub-

division at a distance of about 115km in north-east of Chitral town. It lies at 34o

45/-36o 13/ north latitude and 72o 09/-72o 31/ east longitude and spreads over an area

of approximately 1393.6km2. It has Mastuj town in the north and Dir and Swat

Kohistan in the south, Gilgit in the east, Golen Gol in the west. The main nullahs or

sub valleys are Shandur Gol, Bashqar Gol, Rezhun Gol, Phargram Gol and Shachu

Gol, which drain into Laspur River. The altitude ranges between 2400 meter at

Onshot and 6210 meter at Ghochar sar (MACP, 2001). Total population of Laspur

valley is nearly 12,000 individuals and number of households is more than 2,000.

Main villages of the valley are Unchut, Shahi Das, Gasht, Herchin, Raman (Porth),

Brok, Balim and Sor Laspur. Major ethnic groups are; Baramay, Bujukay, Ukilay

(Wazirbagay), Doshay, Kalamay, Zonday, Badoray, Syed, Doranay and Donzay.

Laspur valley lies out of the monsoon rains area in arid temperate zone. The

precipitation in winter is in the form of snow while in summer rainfall occurs

occasionally. December and January are the coldest months during which entire

valley get covered with snow and mercury falls several degrees below freezing

point. The depth of snow varies with altitude and topography. Some of peaks are

covered with snow all the year round.

Fig.3.1 Map of Study Area (Laspur Valley).

The valley inhabits variety of wild animals and plants associated with arid

temperate and alpine zone. The prominent animal species include ibex, snow

leopard, brown bear, Indian wolf, Himalayan Lynx, Indian fox, Himalayan snow-

cock and Chukar. Migratory waterfowls also visit the valleys during their migration

seasons. Besides this, variety of resident waterfowls, raptors like coots, Kestrel,

Golden eagle, Black redstart, horned lark, Stone chat, Rock bunting and Rosefinch

are also found in the valley. The dominant plant species of the valley are Juniper

(Juniperrus macropoda and Juniperus communis). Sea buck thorn, Birch

(Betulautilis), Salix spp., Tamarix spp. Rosa webbiana, Ephedra spp. and Artimisia

spp (MACP, 2001). Agriculture and livestock rearing is the main source of

livelihood of the inhabitants of the valley. Some people are serving in the

government departments, NGOs and also work as daily laborer.

3.2. STUDY DESIGN

The present study employed the use of questionnaires and interviews with

local informants, to collect information about snow leopard. SLIMS sign surveys

and camera trapping technique were carried out to estimate the population of snow

leopard in the study area. The surveys were conducted in two phases;

3.2.1. Snow Leopard Surveys

3.2.1.1. Questionnaires, interviews, and sighting reports

One of the simplest methods to determine species distribution, and to gain a

subjective estimate of animal abundance, is to collect sighting evidence and general

impressions from various people in the field. Therefore, human-carnivore

interaction questionnaire surveys were carried out in Laspur valley, in July, 2009

and May-June, 2010, to collect information from local informants on snow

leopard’s presence and depredation for past five years (2005-2010). The sample

size for questionnaire surveys was calculated using Raosoft Sample Size Calculator

(http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html). The calculator provided recommended

minimum sample size at 30, by setting parameters at: Confidence level = 90%,

Margin of error = 15%, population size (total no. of households) = 2000.

We collected data of 59 households from Raman, Balim and Sor Laspur

villages of the Laspur valley. Head of a household or an adult person was

interviewed to gather information about his livestock, depredation by carnivores,

sighting of carnivores and perception about snow leopard and other carnivores. In

case of sighting of snow leopard, it was further confirmed by asking general and

specific questions about snow leopard appearance. Extreme care was taken during

interviews to avoid biases in the data but it was very difficult to test the honesty of

a person about his statements.

Questionnaires, interviews, and sighting reports were used to determine the

presence-absence of snow leopard and human-carnivores conflict in the study area.

3.2.1.2. SLIMS surveys

Snow Leopard Information Management System (SLIMS) second order

survey (Jackson and Hunter, 1996) was used to estimate snow leopard density,

status of prey species and habitat use in the study area. SLIMS is considered as a

Fig. 3.2 Interview with a local person in Laspur valley

Fig. 3.3 Searching Snow Leopard sign during SLIMS surveys in Bashqar Gol 2010.

comprehensive computerized database on snow leopard populations, protected

areas and key habitat attributes across their entire range. SLIMS surveys are based

on the tallying of signs such as scrapes, pugmarks, feces, rock scents and claw rake

found along fixed transects ranging from 0.3 to several kilometers in length and 10

meter wide. The present study was done in collaboration with the Snow Leopard

Trust (SLT) and World Wide Fund for nature, Pakistan (WWF-P) field staff having

vast experience of snow leopard surveys and snow leopard signs identification.

Transects were placed along routes most likely to be traveled by snow

leopards and data was recorded and decoded as per SLIMS protocols (Jackson and

Hunter, 1996). At starting point of each transect, information like GPS position,

location, date, observer name and starting elevation were filled out on transect

survey forms. Transects were walked slowly searching the signs of snow leopard

up to 5 meter distance of either side of transect rout. Whenever a sign was found,

its distance along transect from the starting point, site number (a site is a place with

snow leopard sign covering an area no greater than 5 meters in length), number and

kind (pugmark, scrape, feces or scent mark) of sign present at each site and age of

each sign item was recorded. All distinguished signs in five meters distance were

assigned to same site. Age of each sign item was determined by its freshness

following description provided by Jackson and Hunter (1996); Age Class 0 = very

old, Age Class 1 = old, Age Class 2 = fresh and Age Class 3/4 = very fresh.

Signs from other predator were also recorded. At the ending point,

elevation, total distance walked and GPS position were noted. Information about

dominant topography of transect, primary habitat type, grazing status, ruggedness

and overall aspect of the transect were also recorded.

Transects were plotted by randomly selected feasible landforms where snow

leopards sign was likely to be found, such as ridgelines, cliff bases, river bluffs

(Jackson and Hunter, 1996; McCarthy, 2000). Transects were kept short (minimum

and maximum lengths of transect were 0.256km and 1.168km respectively) and run

along landform edges.

First of all, SLIMS sign transect surveys were conducted on one side of

Bashqar Gol in the second week of August, 2009. A river (Laspur river) divides the

area into two parts. Nine transects were laid. Major topographic features of the site

were ridgeline, cliff base and hillside. The minimum and maximum elevation noted

during the transect walk were 3249m and 4174m. Total length of all transects for

this survey site was 8.045km.

In the last week of May, 2010, SLIMS surveys were carried out in

Phargram Gol. Eight transects were walked for snow leopard signs. Transect were

laid in snow leopard potential sites like ridgeline, cliff base and hillside. The

minimum and maximum elevations were 3416m and 4043m respectively. In this

site total length of all transects was 4.846km.

In Bashqar Gol, SLIMS surveys were conducted second time in first week

of June, 2010 but this time survey site was at the opposite side of the site which

was surveyed in 2009. Eight transects were searched for snow leopard signs on

ridgeline, cliff base and hillside. The minimum and maximum elevation noted

during the transect walk were 3496m and 3981m respectively. Mean length of the

transects was 0.626km while total 5.011km distance was covered during transect

walk.

SLIMS sign transect surveys were conducted in Shandur during the third

week of June, 2010. Sixteen transects were laid considering ridgeline, cliff base and

hillside as major topographic features. The minimum and maximum elevation

noted during the transect walk were 3477m and 4501m respectively. Total transects

length was 9.165km.

Snow Leopard Survey and Conservation Hand book by Jackson and Hunter

(1996) was followed to analyze the distribution and abundance of snow leopard and

its prey base. According to them, it is assumed that the greater the density of sign,

the greater the relative abundance of snow leopard within a particular area. Snow

leopard numbers were guessed by computing the average sign frequencies for each

survey block, and classifying these according to the relative density classes of high

(more than 20 items per kilometer), medium (5 to 20 items per kilometer), and low

(less than 5 items per kilometer). High density sign sites could be indicative of

snow leopard densities as high as 10 or more cats per 100km2, while low density

sites may have only one or two cats in the same area.

3.2.1.3. Camera trap

Camera trapping methods were adapted from Jackson et al. (2005). Twenty

passive infrared cameras (CamTrakker™ Ranger, Wattkinsville, GA, USA) were

set in BashqarGol for 30 days from May 24, 2010 to June 22, 2010. The system is a

waterproof unit housing a 35mm camera, requiring four AA-1.5v lithium, and one

6v rechargeable lead acid batteries. The system is triggered when a moving animal

with a higher body temperature than the ambient temperature crosses the camera

detection zone. This system can be set for a 20 second up to a 45 minute delay

between pictures, and also set for day, night, or continuous operation. The delay

function limits the number of pictures taken when a non-target species trips the

system or remains in front of the camera for a period of time, reducing the chance

that a complete roll of film could be taken of a single, non-target species.

To maximize the possibility of capture success, camera traps were placed

strategically along possible traveling routes of carnivores, including sharp

ridgelines, near scrapes, cliff bases, rock faces, and along game trails. Cameras

were either faced directly up or down to anticipate travel in order to obtain close-up

photographs of the face for quick identification or oriented at angles from animal’s

anticipated travel path to capture simultaneous photographs of either side of the

animal’s body. Cameras were generally faced towards the north or south to avoid

erroneous pictures caused by direct sunlight. Cameras were placed in rock piles or

on metal stakes approximately 45-50cm above the ground. The camera sensors

were placed in such a position that there was no vegetation in the foreground that

could trigger the camera. Cameras and infrared sensors were concealed and

covered (Jackson et al., 2006) to protect against poor weather conditions. After

setting, camera traps were checked every week and batteries and films (if needed)

were replaced. The number of trap days was calculated for each camera location

from the time of mounting to the time of retrieval (Johnson et al., 2006).

Fig. 3.4 Setting a camera in Bashqar Gol in May-June 2010.

Fig 3.5 A camera trap in Bashqar Gol (CamTrakker™ Ranger, Wattkinsville,

GA, USA).

Trap cameras were distributed across the core zone of the study area and all

the trap stations were spaced about one kilometer apart. A large separation between

cameras might allow animals with small home ranges to avoid the cameras. At the

end of the trapping period, cameras were retrieved and films were processed.

Individual animals were identified on the basis of their distinct pelage

patterns according to the guidelines provided by Jackson et al. (2006) for

identification of animal from photographs. Photo rate was calculated by dividing

number of individual photo events by total number of trap nights. Criteria of

McCarthy et al. (2008) was used to consider a photo or set of photo to a single

photo event.

Due to low density of cat in the area capture rate was very low and capture-

mark-recapture model could not be applied. For snow leopard extremely low

capture rates and associated high standard errors suggest that under some

circumstances this method may be vulnerable to logistical constraints (McCarthy et

al., 2008). Jackson et al. (2006) suggested a larger sample size to get an accurate

estimate of population density and abundance based on capture-mark-recapture

models.

3.2.2. Ungulate Surveys

3.2.2.1. Fixed–point counts

Fixed point counts were conducted using the methods detailed by Jackson

and Hunter (1996) to assess the population of major prey species (Himalayan Ibex)

of snow leopard in the study area. Five different sites; Bashqar Gol, Rezhun Gol,

Phargram Gol, Shachu Gol/ Shahdas Gol, and Shandur were selected for ibex

population counts. Counting was undertaken from high vantage points by using

Bushnell binocular-10x and spotting scope (15-45x) to locate maximum animals.

Minimum two observers were present at a point to record the observations. Each

observation site was set depending upon the visibility and topography of area.

Surveys were carried out in early morning and late afternoon, as these are the most

active periods of ungulates in a day and sun direction makes them visible

(McCarthy et al., 2008). Peak rut season; last week of December was selected for

survey to get maximum information. Sources of biases were tried to be minimize

by following Jackson and Hunter (1996). Data was recorded using standard criteria

and age classes (Jackson and Hunter, 1996). Overall population status in each site

and the whole study area was calculated from the data recorded.

3.3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The results obtained regarding the surveys of ungulates in the study area

were analyzed and interpreted using chi square test.

Chapter 4

RESULTS

4.1. HUMAN PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SNOW LEOPARD

Total 59 individuals were randomly selected from three villages for

questionnaire survey in Laspur valley. About 34% individuals confirmed the

sighting of snow leopard in the area. Some of them also reported sighting of cubs

with snow leopard, which indicates reproductive activity of the animal in the area.

Community perception about snow leopard was divided; however 58%,

respondents wanted to increase the population, 36% people wanted to stabilize the

existing population, and only 6% people were in favor of reducing the population.

No respondent urged to eliminate cat from the area.

Snow leopard was also considered as less dangerous animal as compared to

wolf and lynx. Communities were asked to rank four carnivore species (snow

leopard, wolf, lynx and brown bear) according to their perceived danger. Majority

of communities (58%) considered wolf as most dangerous (Fig. 4.1), lynx was

considered second most dangerous. Snow leopard was perceived as less dangerous

from the former two species, but more dangerous than brown bears.

4.2. POPULATION ASSESSMENT OF SNOW LEOPARD

4.2.1. SLIMS

To estimate the population density of snow leopard SLIMS signs surveys

Fig. 4.1 Co

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Perc

enta

ge

ommunity p

Ques

Rank I

perception a

stionnaire S

I Rank

Inte

about carniv

Surveys in 2

k II Ra

ensity of Da

vores in La

009 and 201

ank III R

anger

spur Valley

10.

Rank IV

y during

Snow LWolfLynxBrown

Leopard

Bear

were conducted in three different sites of the valley which were indicated as most

potential sites by local peoples and herders. One of these three sites was bifurcated

by a permanent river so it was surveyed twice on both sides of the river, once in

2009 and second time in 2010. Sign frequencies were very low in all sites which

resulted in failure of finding any sign in one of the surveyed site; Phargram Gol,

which was also indicated a potential site. In this site it was also came to know about

killing of two snow leopards few years back in reaction to massive depredation in

the area.

A total of 41 transects were placed in the study area (in three study blocks)

having 27.067km in length with 660m mean transect length. Mean sites per transect

were 0.83 while total 34 sites were found. Maximum sites per transect were 6 while

there was no site recorded in some transects also. Sixty-nine signs were recorded in

total 34 sites. Average sign per km were 2.55, showing low density of the cat in the

survey area (Table 4.1). Among the signs, pugmark frequency was highest

(65.22%) followed by feces (18.84%), and scrapes (15.94%) (Fig. 4.2). Similarly,

the signs recorded were both fresh and old and fell into the four age classes; Age

Class 0 (41.79%), Age Class 1 (17.91%), Age Class 2 (1.49%) and Age Class 3

(38.81%) (Fig. 4.3). The sign density was not uniform among different study sites.

Higher sign encounter rate was found in Bashqar Gol, during surveys in 2010, with

5.99 mean signs/km while lowest sign density was found in Phargram Gol with no

sign item (Table 4.2). Based on sign surveys, the population density of 1-2 snow

leopards was estimated in the Laspur valley following the criteria of Jackson and

Hunter (1996). Details of SLIMS finding in each study block are given below:

Table 4.1 Total Sign Frequencies of Snow Leopard in Laspur Valley in SLIMS

Surveys in 2009 and 2010

Sites All Sign Pugmarks Scrapes Feces

Totals 34 69 45 11 13

Average 0.83 1.68 1.10 0.27 0.32

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 6 22 22 3 2

Sign/km 2.55 1.66 0.41 0.48

Percent 65.22% 15.94% 18.84%

Table 4.2 Transects summary of all blocks in Laspur Valley

Block Number of

Transect

Length

(km)

Sign

Site

Mean

site/km

Sign

(all)

Mean

sign/km

Bashqar Gol-

2009 9 8.05 17 2.11 29 3.60

Phargram Gol 8 4.85 0 0.00 0 0.00

Bashqar Gol-

2010 8 5.01 10 2.00 30 5.99

Shandur 16 9.17 7 0.76 10 1.09

Total 41 27.07 34 1.26 69 2.55

Mean Total 13.67 9.02 11.33 0.42 23.00 0.85

F

Fig. 4.2 Occu

Fi

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%

urrence of Sn

ig. 4.3 Ratio

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Pug

%%%%%%%%%%

Age

now leopard

in 20

of different

gmarks

0 A

d signs in La

009 and 201

t Age classes

Feces

Age 1

spur Valley

0.

s of Snow le

s

Age 2

during SLIM

opard signs

Scrapes

Age 3/4

MS Survey

4

4.2.1.1. SLIMS survey in Bashqar Gol 2009

Seventeen sites containing 29 signs items with 19 pugmarks (65.52%), 7

scrapes (24.14%), and 3 scats (10.34%) were reckoned while searching for Snow

leopard’s signs in 9 transects. Mean sign per site was 1.89 sites per kilometer. Sign

density of all transects for this survey site was 3.6 signs per kilometer indicating

low density of snow leopard in the area (Table 4.3). Signs were either old or very

old i.e. 55.56% signs were of Age Class 0 and 44.44% signs fell into the category

of Age Class 1.

4.2.1.2. SLIMS Survey in Bashqar Gol 2010

Snow leopard signs were searched in 8 transect and total of 30 signs were

documented consisting of 26 pugmarks (86.67%), 1 scrapes (3.33%), and 3 scats

(10.00%) in 10 sites. Mean sign site was 1.25 per kilometer. Sign density of all

transects for this survey site was 5.99 signs per kilometer indicating low density of

snow leopard in the area (Table 4.4). Most of the signs were fresh but some were

very old and they fell in three categories i.e.; Age Class 0 (10.00%), Age Class 2

(3.33%) and Age Class 3 (86.67%).

4.2.1.3. SLIMS survey in Phargram Gol 2010

A total of eight transect were searched but no sign of snow leopard was

found at all (Table 4.2).

Table 4.3 Summary of SLIMS in Bashqar Gol 2009

Sites Signs Pugmarks Scrapes Feces

Total 17 29 19 7 3

Average 1.89 3.22 2.11 0.88 0.33

Minimum 1 1 1 0 0

Maximum 4 12 7 3 2

Sign/km 3.60 2.36 0.87 0.38

Table 4.4 Summary of SLIMS in Bashqar Gol 2010

Sites Signs Pugmarks Scrapes Feces

Total 10 30 26 1 3

Average 1.25 3.75 3.25 0.13 0.38

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 6 22 22 1 1

Sign/km 5.99 5.19 0.20 0.60

Table 4.5 Summary of SLIMS in Shandur 2010

Sites Signs Pugmarks Scrapes Feces

Total 7 10 0 3 7

Average 0.44 0.63 0.00 0.19 0.44

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 2 3 0 3 2

Sign/km 1.09 0.00 0.33 0.76

Fig 4.4 Snow Leopard scats found in Shandur during SLIMS Survey in

June, 2010.

Fig 4.5 Snow leopard feces found in Bashqar Gol during SLIMS survey in 2010

Fig 4.6 Fresh pugmarks of Snow Leopard found during SLIMS in Bashqar Gol in

May-June, 2010.

4.2.1.4. SLIMS in Shandur 2010

In Shandur 16 transect were walked and 7 sites containing 10 signs items

with three scrapes (30.00%) and seven scats (70.00%) were reckoned. Mean sign

site was 0.44 sites per kilometer. Mean sign per kilometer was 1.09 reflecting very

low density of snow leopard in the area (Table 4.5). All signs found were old

belonging to Age Class 0.

4.2.2. Camera Trapping

Twenty passive infrared cameras (CamTrakker™ Ranger, Wattkinsville,

GA, USA) were set in Bashqar Gol for 30 days from May 24, to June 23, 2010. We

deployed cameras over a period of 30 days in the study areas at 20 stations (Table

4.6). Transferring equipment between different sites was time consuming and it

prolonged the study period. Number of trap-nights was 640 and was a function of

the number of camera stations and number of days they remained operable. Capture

rate (no. of different identifiable individuals captured/100 trap-nights) was low

(0.16).

Three snow leopard photos were captured but they were multiple pictures of

the same animal in the same capture period and that is why only 1 capture event

was recorded, which limited the results of camera trapping to a minimum

population of one.

Total 38 photos were taken in all 20 cameras. Among them, majority were

of livestock (53 %), followed by snow cock (24 %) and Ibex (11 %). Only seven

cameras took photos of animals while rest of 13 remained inactive (Table 4.6). A

Table 4.6 Detail of Camera Placement and Capture Histories of Snow Leopard and

other animals

Camera IDs Latitude Longitude Snow Leopard Ibex Snow cock Livestock Rodents Total

47 35.92211 72.33205 0 0 0 6 0 6

44 35.95876 72.32745 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 35.95090 72.32626 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 35.95119 72.33243 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 35.92303 72.33839 0 0 0 0 0 0

43 35.93745 72.33675 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 35.94191 72.33495 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 35.94400 72.34492 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 35.94810 72.33491 0 0 0 0 1 1

37 35.98524 72.29742 0 0 0 0 0 0

45 35.96560 72.31927 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 35.98347 72.31017 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 35.98675 72.30915 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 35.98249 72.30033 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 35.99035 72.30259 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 35.94518 72.33291 0 0 0 0 1 1

14 35.96670 72.36158 0 0 8 0 0 8

31 35.94094 72.33418 3 4 1 0 0 8

9 35.92083 72.33558 0 0 0 13 0 13

18 35.94066 72.34263 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 3 4 9 20 2 38

big proportion of photos were due to false triggering of cameras and there was

nothing to see except scenery.

Camera trapping did not produce data sufficient to test capture-mark-

recapture model to get an accurate estimate in whole area. It only confirms that at

least one snow leopard is present in the study area. Due to low cat density in the

area and low capture rate, we could only get one photo event and it restricted our

results because data was not sufficient.

4.3. POPULATION OF WILD PREY

Point vantage counts for population counting of ungulates in the study area

revealed a population of 174 animals; with breakdown among study blocks as 73 in

BashqarGol, 11 in RezhunGol, 30 in PhargramGol, 29 in ShachuGol/ ShahdasGol,

and 31 in Shandur, respectively (Fig. 4.7). Lambs constituted a dominant part of the

population (39.7%); while females and males were 33.3% and 27%, respectively.

However, this difference in female to male ratio was not significantly different

from 1:1 (χ²=0.227, P=0.634).

4.4. HUMAN-CARNIVORE CONFLICTS

There were 23.64 ± 9.79 (SD) animals owned by a household on average in

the valley. Goat constituted 36%, sheep 36% and cattle were 22% while yaks and

donkey were 6% of the total livestock holdings. The total livestock population of

the valley was estimated to be 48,000 in 7 villages of the Laspur Valley.

Fig. 4.7 Ibex population counts in Laspur Valley during survey in December, 2009.

29

612 10 12

22

4

1210 10

22

1

69 9

BASHQAR GOL REZHUN GOL PHARGRAM GOL

SHACHU GOL/ SHANDAS GOL

SHANDUR

Ibex Population Counts

Lamb Females (Adults) Male(Adults)

Fig. 4.8 Scrap of a Snow Leopard seen in Bashqar Gol during SLIMS Survey in

May-Jun, 2010.

Fig. 4.9 Snow Leopard Capture in Infrared Camera trap in BashqarGol in May-Jun,

2010.

Fig. 4.10 Snow Leopard Capture in Infrared Camera trap in BashqarGol in May-

June, 2010.

Fig. 4.11 Himalayan Ibex Captured in Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-Jun,

2010.

Fig. 4.12 Himalayan Ibex Captured in Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-June,

2010.

Fig. 4.13 Snow cock Captured in Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-Jun, 2010.

Fig. 4.14 Photo of Rat taken by Infra red Camera trap in Bashqar Gol in May-June,

2010.

Fig. 4.15 A group of 11 Ibex was sighted during Survey in BashqarGol in May-

June, 2010.

F

F

ig. 4.16 Perc

year

ig. 4.17 Perc

2010

centage of d

rs from 2005

centage of L

0.

Lynx21%

Brown Bea0%

Other (Y43

amage cause

5-2010.

Livestock kil

ar

Unkn10

Yak etc.)%

ed by Carniv

led by Snow

W

nown0%

vores in Lasp

w leopard in

Snow Le25%

Wolf44%

Goat28%

Cattle29%

pur valley du

five years fr

opard%

uring five

rom 2005-

Sheep0%

A total of 199 depredation cases to three carnivore species (snow leopard,

wolf and lynx) were reported in five years, affecting 38 households (64% of

surveyed sample). Among these damages, 37% were goat, 43% sheep, 13% were

cattle, and 7% were other animals. Total loss in the entire valley (2000 households)

in five year was estimated to be 6800 animals. It gives an annual loss of 1360

animals; 503 goats, 585 sheep, 177 cattle and 95 other livestock. The annual loss to

predation per household is estimated to be 0.68 animals, which equates to

economic loss of PKR 5,800 (US$ 70) per household, assuming average market

values of 4500, 3500, 25000 for goat, sheep and cattle, respectively.

Looking at the predation losses by type of predator, wolf contributed

maximum damage, followed by snow leopard and lynx (Fig. 4.16). No losses were

reported to brown bears. The snow leopard contributed losses were 25% (Fig.

4.17), which means that economic loss imparted by snow leopard was PKR 1450

(25% of total estimated value).

Almost all predation cases (98%) were occurred in pasture while free

grazing while only in a few (2%) cases depredation occurred because of having no

proper care to livestock. Both adults and young ones were killed but the proportion

of adults (94%) was much more than young ones (6%).

By using multiple census method to determine the status of snow leopard, a

minimum population of 1-2 snow leopards was estimated in the Laspur Valley of

Chitral district. Population of ibex (snow leopard primary prey) also indicated the

presence of at least one snow leopard in the area. Human-carnivore conflict surveys

showed that snow leopard is not considered as much dangerous as some other

carnivore like wolf and lynx.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Laspur valley is a remote area of district Chitral bordering Gilgit-Baltistan

on one side and district Swat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on the other side. Total area

of the valley is about 1393.6km2. No density estimates were available for snow

leopard and status of this endangered species was unknown in the area. This study

provided first ever information about the population status of snow leopard in

Laspur valley using standardized sign surveys and camera trapping.

Human-carnivore interaction surveys were conducted in three villages of

the valley in 2009 and 2010 which indicated the presence of snow leopard in the

area. About 34% respondents confirmed the sighting of snow leopard in the area.

Though this sighting rate was quite lower than the reported rate from Baltistan

(80%, Hussain, 2003), it provided basis for exploring occurrence of snow leopard

in the valley through standardized survey.

In 41 SLIMS transects, sign density was estimated at 2.5 per km2, which is

lower than densities documented from other areas of the Chitral District. Sign

densities recorded from the Torkhow Valley (Din and Nawaz, 2010) and Chitral

Gol National Park (SLT, 2008) is 5.8 per km2. Densities reported from other parts

of snow leopard range are even higher. McCarthy et al. (2008) found an average

sign/km as16.4, 40.7 and 94.6, respectively in three different sites in Kyrgyzstan

and China. Khatiwada et al. (2007) found 6.1 signs per km in Nepal. Consulting

SLIMS guidelines (Jackson and Hunter, 1996) a population of 1-2 individuals was

estimated in the Laspur valley. Camera trapping in a potentially good habitat for

snow leopards; Bashqar Gol yielded three photographs of the same snow leopard.

Thus, camera trapping results supported sign survey findings and confirmed a

population of at least 1 snow leopard in the area. However camera trapping data

was not sufficient enough to allow testing any modeling for population estimation.

It was challenging to carry out one month camera trapping in Bashqar Gol

for multiple factors. Two big factors were heavy snow fall and land sliding which

restricted the movement and access to many points. Snow falling continued in most

of our study time and it kept temperature very low which also reduced batteries life

of camera and it increased our visits to the camera stations to check and replace

batteries. Factor of camera security could not be ignored because of huge number

of livestock herders in the area. Topography of the area was also quite different and

sometimes it was confusing to select a suitable place for camera trap. Despite of all

preventions we found some of our camera damaged due to unknown reasons.

However, all the film rolls were recovered and developed successfully.

Sign densities were low in all sites. A reason for low sign frequency was

movement of livestock, as the area become accessible for tracking, local people

immediately used to shift their livestock to the pasture. Poor weather might also

destroy signs.

Due to all these factors camera trapping did not produce substantial results

in this study, which would helpful to find the population status of species in the

area. Based on camera trapping at least one snow leopard is confirmed in the study

area. Population estimates are based on sign surveys however, camera trapping was

helpful to confirm the presence of snow leopard in the area. We could not apply

Capture-mark-recapture model to our results of camera trapping because of very

low cat density and only one photo event. Capture-mark-recapture would be

applied if photo events were more than one (McCarthy et al., 2008).

Ungulate surveys supported findings of sign surveys and camera trapping

(Jackson et al., 2006). Estimated population of ibex (174) also supports presence of

snow leopard in the valley, as distribution of predator is generally influenced by the

prey population (Karanth et al., 2004). However, these counts are based on single

observation and short term so that population of ungulates might exceed from these

calculations. Higher population was found in Bashqar Gol where snow leopard

signs encounter rate was also higher and this was the same site where a snow

leopard was photographed. A relatively higher ibex count (429 individuals) was

made in Torkhow valley, which is supporting a population of 2-3 snow leopards

(Din and Nawaz, 2010).

Total 199 depredation cases were reported in five years with an annual loss

rate of 0.68 animals per household. Wolf (44%) was responsible for most

predations followed by snow leopard (25%) and lynx (21%). Sheep (43%) was

most predated followed by goat (37%). Expected economic loss per household of

one village (330 households) per year is about PKR 5800 (70 $USD) while total

economic loss in whole village in one year is expected to be PKR 1,914,000

(22,786 $USD). Namgail et al. (2007) assessed the intensity of livestock

depredation by snow leopard and other large carnivores in India and reported 295

animals in 2.5 years with an annual loss rate of 2.9% of their livestock holdings. In

most of the cases the predator was wolf followed by snow leopard and lynx. They

estimated total annual loss of about $USD 12,120 in three villages and $USD 190

per household per year.

Snow leopard is one of the poorly studied species in Pakistan. Population

estimates of snow leopard are not based on rigorous data. Most of its range is not

surveyed yet by using standardized methods and reliable technique like camera

trapping. Snow leopard population in Pakistan is generally speculative, thus their

reliability is always questioned. Questionnaires and interviews are based on

personal views and might be misleading as well. In this study we used multiple

methods and similar findings of all enhance confidence on results. The

questionnaire surveys and interviews confirmed sighting and depredations of snow

leopard in the area. Sign surveys further confirmed presence, and along with

camera trapping provided minimum estimate of the population. It is however,

recommended that molecular techniques might be used to evaluate findings of the

present study.

Livestock depredation by snow leopard and other carnivores results in the

retaliatory killing of carnivore species. This is a major issue faced by

conservationist addressing the conservation programs of large carnivore species

(Mishra et al., 2003). Economic conditions of the people of the study area poor.

Agriculture and livestock rearing is the only source of income for most of the

households. Predation losses thus pose a serious economic threat to the community,

and also make conservation efforts very difficult. Snow leopard is worldwide under

threats of retaliatory killing. Community based conservation programs that could

address grievances raised by predations would help conserve this endangered cat by

changing public attitudes (Mishra et al., 2003). For example, Snow Leopard

Enterprise program in Mongolia reduced dependence on livestock and helped

change people attitude towards predators. This ultimately eliminated snow leopard

poaching in the area (Mishra et al., 2003). As it was revealed from the present

study that population of snow leopard is very low in the area so, conservation

programs must be initiated to protect the species.

SUMMARY

Snow leopard (Uncia uncia) is a solitary felid of cryptic nature and

occupies a habitat that makes very difficult to enumerate it. Most of the information

available on snow leopard status and distribution in Pakistan is largely based on

anecdotal evidence. So, the conservation and management of species may be

compromised due to the lack of reliable information. The species is found in

northern parts of the country. Although a few studies are available regarding snow

leopard in Pakistan but no detailed scientific studies have been carried out yet so

far along most of its range in the country. Thus, there was an urgent need of

conducting a scientific investigation on snow leopard to get accurate information

about its current status. The present study had been designed to assess its

population status in Laspur Valley, district Chitral (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). Total

area of Laspur valley is approximately 1393.6km2.

The study employed the use of questionnaires, interviews from local

informants, SLIMS (Snow Leopard Information Management System) survey and

camera trapping to estimate its population in the study area. The basic aim of the

study was to measure the status of snow leopard in the area and its conflict with

local people. During questionnaire surveys 20 out of 59 households confirmed the

sighting of snow leopard in the study area. Community perception about snow

leopard was also good and most of the people either wanted to increase (58%) or

stabilize (36%) the population of snow leopard. Nobody gave snow leopard to rank

of very dangerous animal, majority (58%) ranked it as low danger to community as

compared to wolf (Rank I= 58%) and lynx (Rank I= 42%).

Results of SLIMS survey estimated 1-2 snow leopard in the area with an

average 2.55 signs per km in total 27.1 km area in three different blocks; Bashqar

Gol, Phargram Gol and Shandur. Furthermore, the findings of questionnaires and

SLIMS sign surveys were confirmed by camera trapping with photos of a Snow

leopards. Camera trapping results could not be tested by capture-mark-recapture

model because this model works for large sample size but on the basis of camera

trapping at least on snow leopard in the area is confirmed.

Population of ungulates was counted by point vantage counts and it

revealed the population of 174 ibex in Laspur valley. This is a justified number of

ungulates to support the population of one or two snow leopard in the area. Human-

Carnivore conflict was also measured by comparing livestock number and damages

to carnivores. Total number of livestock in all 8 villages was calculated at nearly

48000 animals while nearly 6800 animals were lost to depredation in five years

from 2005-2010. Total 199 losses were claimed in 59 households, selected for

interviews, during last five year with an annual loss to predation per household is

estimated to be 0.68 animals. An economic loss of PKR 5,800 (US$ 70) per

household was calculated in the valley. Wolf (44% predation cases) dominated the

predation followed by snow leopard (25%) and lynx (21%). No loss was reported

to brown bears. The snow leopard contributed losses were 25%.

LITERATURE CITED

Ahlborn, G. G. and R. M. Jackson. 1988. Marking in free-ranging snow leopards in

west Nepal: a preliminary assessment. In H. Freeman, editor. Proceedings

of the 5th International Snow Leopard Symposium, 13–15 October 1986,

Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India, pp 25–49.

Ale, S. B., P. Yonzon and K. Thapa. 2007. Recovery of snow leopard Uncia uncia

in Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park, Nepal. Oryx, 41: 89–92.

Bajimaya, S. 2001. Snow Leopard Manual. Field techniques for the kingdom of

Nepal.

Bauer, H. 2007. Status of large carnivores in Bouba Ndjida National Park,

Cameroon. Afr. J. Ecol., 45: 448–450.

Blomqvist, L. 1978. Distribution and status of the snow leopard, Panthera uncia.

International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 1: 6-21.

Braden, K. E. 1982. The geographic distribution of snow leopards in the USSR:

maps of areas of snow leopard habitation in the USSR. International

Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 3: 25-39.

Buzurukov, A. and R. Muratov. 1994. Snow leopards in Tajikistan. in: J. L., Fox

and Du Jizeng (editors). Proceedings of the Seventh International Snow

Leopard Symposium (Xining, Qinghai, China, July 25-30, 1992), pp 29-32.

Chundawat, R. S., W. A. Rodgers and H. S. Panwar. 1988. Status Report On Snow

Leopard. In Indiain: H. Freeman, editor. Proceedings of the Fifth

International Snow Leopard Symposium. International Snow Leopard Trust

and Wildlife Institute of India, Seattle, Washington. pp. 113-120.

DeMatteo, K. E., O. Carrillo, G. L. Zuercher, S. Ramírez, K. Smith, and I. J.

Porton. 2004. A technique for attracting bush dogs (Speothos venaticus) in

the wild. Canid News, 7.6 [online]

Din, J. U. and Nawaz, M. A. 2010. Status of Snow Leopard and Prey Species in

Torkhow Valley, District Chitral, Pakistan. J. Anim. and Plant Sci.,

Accepted for, 20(2).

Fox, J. L. 1989. A Review of The Status and Ecology of the Snow Leopard

(Panthera uncia). Unpublished Report. International Snow Leopard Trust,

Seattle, Washington, pp. 40.

Fox, J. L. 1994. Snow leopard conservation in the wild-a comprehensive

perspective on a low density and highly fragmented population. In:

Proceedings of the Seventh International Snow Leopard Symposium.

Editors J.L. Fox and Du Jizeng. July 25-20, 1992, Xining, Qinghai, China,

pp 3-15.

Fox, J. L., S. P. Sinha, R. S. Chundawat and P. K. Das. 1991. Status of the Snow

Leopard (Panthera uncial) in North-west India. Biol. Conserv., 55: 283-

298.

Gittleman, J. L., S. M. Funk, D. W. MacDonald and R. K. Wayne (Eds.). 2001.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and The Zoological Society of

London. Carnivore Conservation, pp. 372–396.

Gompper, M. E., R. W. Kays, J. C. Ray, S. D. Lapoint, D. A. Bogan and J. R.

Cryan. 2006. A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore

communities in northeastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin,

34(4): 1142–1151.

Goosem, M. W. 2005. Wildlife Surveillance Assessment Compton Road Upgrade

2005: Review of Contemporary Remote and Direct Surveillance Options for

Monitoring. Report to the Brisbane City Council. Cooperative Research

Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management. Rainforest CRC,

Cairns. Unpublished report.

Gusset, M. and N. Burgener. 2005. Estimating larger carnivore numbers from track

counts and measurements. Afr. J. Ecol., 43: 320–324.

Hemmer, H. 1972. Uncia uncia. Mammalian Species, 20: 1-5.

Henke, S. E., and F. F. Knowlton. 1995. Techniques for Estimating Coyote

Abundance. In: Symposium Proceedings—Coyotes in the Southwest: A

Compendium of Our Knowledge. University of Nebraska–Lincoln., pp. 71-

78.

Henke, S. E., and F. F. Knowlton. 2005. Techniques for Estimating Coyote

Abundance. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. Symposium Proceedings—

Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of Our Knowledge.

Hunter, D. O. and R. Jackson. 1997. A range-wide model of potential snow leopard

habitat. in: R. Jackson and A. Ahmad (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th

International Snow Leopard Symposium, Islamabad, November 1995.

International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle and WWF-Pakistan, Lahore. pp.

51-56.

Hussain, S. 2003. The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with

local farmers. Oryx, 37(1): 26-33.

IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1.

<http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on July 10, 2009.

Jackson, R. and D. O. Hunter. 1996. Snow Leopard Survey and Conservation

Handbook. International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, Washington and U.S.

Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Colorado, pp.154 and

appendices.

Jackson, R. and G. G. Ahlborn. 1990. The role of protected areas in Nepal in

maintaining viable populations of snow leopards. International Pedigree

Book of Snow Leopards, 6: 51-69.

Jackson, R. and J. L. Fox. 1997. Snow leopard conservation: accomplishments and

research priorities. R. Jackson and A. Ahmad (eds.). In Proceedings of the

8th International Snow Leopard Symposium. WWF Pakistan and

International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, WA. pp. 128–45.

Jackson, R. M., J. D. Roe, R. Wangchuk and D. O. Hunter. 2005. Surveying Snow

Leopard Populations with emphasis on camera trapping: a Handbook. The

Snow Leopard conservancy, Sonoma, California, pp. 73.

Jackson, R. M., J. D. Roe, R. Wangchuk, D. O. Hunter. 2006. Estimating Snow

Leopard Population Abundance Using Photography and Capture–Recapture

Techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3): 772–781.

Johnson, A., C. Vongkhamheng, M. Hedemark and T. Saithongdam. 2006. Effects

of human–carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations

in Lao PDR. Anim. Conserv., 9: 421–430.

Karanth, K. U., J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, W. A. Link and J. E. Hines. 2004.

Tigers and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance.

PNAS., 101(14): 4854–4858.

Kauffman, M. J., M. Sanjayan, J. Lowenstein, A. Nelson, R. M. Jeo and K. R.

Crooks. 2007. Remote camera-trap methods and analyses reveal impacts of

rangeland management on Namibian carnivore communities. Oryx, 41(1):

70–78.

Khan, J. 2002. Report on Snow Leopard Pelt Trade Survey. TRAFFIC Europe

unpublished report.

Khatiwada, J. R., M. K. Chalise and R. C. Kyes. 2007. Survey of Snow Leopard

(Uncia uncia) and Blue Sheep (Pseudois nayaur) populations in the

Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA), Nepal. Final report Submitted to

Snow Leopard Trust USA, Seattle.

Kiffner, C., M. Waltert, B. Meyer and M. Muhlenberg. 2007. Response of lions

(Panthera leo LINNAEUS 1758) and spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta

ERXLEBEN 1777) to sound playbacks. Afr. J. Ecol., 46: 223–226.

Koshkarev, E. P. 1989. The Snow Leopard in Kirgizia. Ilim Publishers, Frunze,

Kirgizia, USSR. 98 pages. (In Russian).

Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, A. Landa and T. Kvam. 1998. Methods for

monitoring European large carnivores-A worldwide review of relevant

experience. NINA Oppdragsmelding, 549: 1-38.

Long, R. A., T. M. Donovan, P. Mackay, W. J. Zielinski and J. S. Buzas. 2007.

Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying

carnivores. J. Wildl. Manage., 71(6): 2018–2025.

Maheshwari, A., J. Takpa, K. Sandeep and T. Shawl. 2010. An investigation of

carnivore-human conflicts in Kargil and Drass areas of Jammu and

Kashmir. Report submitted to Rufford Small Grant.

Malik, M. M. 1997. Status and Conservation of Snow Leopard in Pakistan. In: R.

Jackson and A. Ahmad (eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Snow

Leopard Symposium, Islamabad, November 1995. International Snow

Leopard Trust, Seattle and WWF-Pakistan, Lahore, pp.11-20.

McCarthy, K. P., T. K. Fuller, Ma Ming, T. M. McCarthy, L. Waits, K. Jumabaev.

2008. Assessing Estimators of Snow Leopard Abundance. J. Wildl.

Manage., 72(8): 1826– 1833.

McCarthy, T. M. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Snow Leopards, Gobi Brown

Bears and Wild Bactrian Camels in Mongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp.133.

McCarthy, T. M., T. K. Fuller and B. Munkhtsog. 2005. Movements and activities

of snow leopards in Southwestern Mongolia. Biological Conservation, 124:

527–37.

McCarthy, T. M. and G. Chapron (Eds.). 2003. Snow Leopard Survival Strategy.

International Snow Leopard Trust and Snow Leopard Network, Seattle,

USA, P.105.

Mishra, C. 2001. High altitude survival: conflicts between pastoralism and wildlife

in the Trans-Himalaya. PhD dissertation, Wageningen

University,Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Mishra, C., M. D. Madhusudan and A. Datta. 2006. Mammals of the high altitudes

of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: An assessment of threats

and conservation needs. Oryx, 40(1): 29–35.

Mishra, C., P. Allen, T. McCarthy, M. D. Madhusudan, A. Bayarjargal and H. H.

T. Prins. 2003. The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow

leopard. Conserv. Biol., 17: 1512–20.

Mountan Areas Conservancy Project (MACP) NWFP-Chitral. 2001. Livestock

enumeration report of Laspur Valley. Unpublished report.

Mowat, G. and D. Paetkau. 2002. Estimating marten Martes americana population

size using hair capture and genetic tagging. Wildl. Biol., 8: 201-209.

Namgail, T., J. L. Fox and Y. V. Bhatnagar. 2007. Carnivore-caused livestock

mortality in Trans-Himalaya. Environmental Management, 39: 490–496.

Nowak, R. M. and J. L. Paradiso. 1983. Walker’s mammals of the world. Fourth

ed. Vol. II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1362 pages.

Nowell, K. and P. Jackson. 1996. Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation

Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Peters, G. 1980. The vocal repertoire of the snow leopard (Uncia uncia, Schreber

1775). International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 2: 137-158.

Pocock, R. I. 1917. The classifi cation of existing Felidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.,

Ser., 8(20): 329-350.

Poole, K. G., G. Mowat, D. R. Fear. 2001: DNA-based population estimate for

grizzly bears Ursus arctos in northeastern British Columbia, Canada. -

Wildl. Biol. 7: 105-115.

Poyarkov, A. D. and A. E. Subbotin. 2002. The Snow Leopard status in Russia.

pp.139-141 in: Proceedings of the Snow Leopard Survival Strategy Summit,

May 2002, Seattle, USA. International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, USA.

Proctor, M. F., B. N. McLellan, C. Strobeck3 and R. M. R. Barclay. 2005. Genetic

analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding

vulnerably small populations. Proc. R. Soc., B 272: 2409–2416.

Reiger, I. 1980. Some aspects of the history of ounce knowledge. International

Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 2: 1-36.

Roberts, T. J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn, London and

Tonbridge, pp.361.

Schaller, G. B. 1976. Mountain Mammals in Pakistan. Oryx, 13: 351-356.

Siira, A., J. Keränen and I. Kojola. 2009. Large carnivores snow-track counting in

Kainuu 2008. Riista- ja kalatalous – Tutkimuksia, 1/2009. 30 p.

Silveira, L., T. A. Anah, Ja´ comoa, F. Jose´ Alexandre. Diniz-Filho. 2003. Camera

trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biol.

Conserv., 114: 351–355.

Sludskiy, A. A. 1973. The snow leopard or irbis- Panthera (Uncia) uncia Schreber

(1976). In The distribution and population of wild cats in the USSR Works

of the Institute of Zoology, Kazakh Academy of Sciences, 34. (Russian,

English transl., K.E. Braden). pp 74-83.

Snow Leopard Trust. 2008. Annual report of the snow leopard conservation

program in Chitral, Pakistan. Unpublished Report.

Sokov, A. I. 1990. The present status of snow leopard (Uncia uncia) population in

the south-western Pamir-Altai Mountains (Tadzhistan). International

Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 6: 33-36.

Sunquist, M. E. and F. Sunquist. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Swann, D. E., C. C. Hass, D. C. Dalton, A. Sandy. 2004. Infrared triggered cameras

for detecting wildlife: An evaluation and review. Wolf Source: Wildlife

Society Bulletin, 32(2): 357-365.

Wang, S. W. and D. W. Macdonald. 2009. The use of camera traps for estimating

tiger and leopard populations in the high altitude mountains of Bhutan. Biol.

Conserv., 142: 606–613.

Wegge, P. 1988. Assessment of Khunjerab National Park and environs, Pakistan.

Unpub. Report, IUCN, Gland, pp.25 and appendices.

Wilting, A., F. Fischer, S. A. Bakar and K. E. Linsenmair. 2006. Clouded leopards,

the secretive top-carnivore of South-East Asian rainforests: their

distribution, status and conservation needs in Sabah, Malaysia. BMC

Ecology, 20: 6-16.

APPENDIX-I HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

HUMAN-CARNIVORE INTERACTION SURVEY

Enumerator Name______________________________Date _____________________________________

Respondent Name _________________________________ Village Name ________________________

Education____________________________________ Age______________________________

Ethnic background_____________________________Occupation_________________________

Household Size: _______________________________________

Household Composition:

Females Males Boys Girls Total

How many earing members are there in the househol? __________________________

How much agricultural land your family own? __________________________________

Predators Status:

Did you sight any of following species in past five years?

Snow Leopard Wolf Lynx Brown bear Markhor Ibex

Numbers

Status (Common/Rare/Absent

Population of which species you wish to increase/maintain/reduce/eliminate from your area:

Snow Leopard Wolf Lynx Brown bear Markhor Ibex

↑/→/↓/×

Which one is most dangerous for livestock, rate 1-4 (from high to low):

Snow Leopard Wolf Lynx Brown bear

Livestock

How many livestock your family own?

Livestock Goats Sheep Cattle Other

Numbers

Vaccinated

Livestock sold in 1 year:

Livestock Goats Sheep Cattle Other

Numbers

Total income in Rs.

Mortality due to disease in 5 years:

Livestock Goats Sheep Cattle Other

Numbers

Predation in 5 year:

Goats Sheep Cattle Other

Snow Leopard

Wolf

Lynx

Brown Bear

Details of Predation:

Predator Month, year Location Prey type, no. Prey sex Prey Age Circumstances

APPENDIX-II SECOND ORDER: Form No. 2 Snow Leopard Sign Transect Form ___ of___________ Observer(s): __________________________ Date: ______________________ Transect No: __________ Length of Transect: _____________ (Fill in at the end of transect in meters) Lat/Long (at beginning): _______________________X_______________________ Elevation (at beginning): ___________ Lat/Long (at end): ____________________________X_______________________ Elevation (at end): _________________ Country: _______________ Province: _______________District: ___________ Tehsil: ___________________ Protected area: ____________________________ Location: ________________________________________

Site #

Obs #

Sign Type Age Distance Featured Marked

Substrate Type

Coordinates Site Characteristics

Pu Sc Fe Re Cl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

PU= pug mark SC= scrapes FE= feces RC= scents spray CL= claw rake Age codes: Very Old 0 Old 1 Fresh 2

Transect Summary Total sign _________ (a) Total length of Transect in km _________ (b) Sign per km (a / b) __________ *********************************************************************************** Dominant topographic feature: Cliff base __________ Ridgeline ________ Hillside ________ Valley bottom ________Terrace _________Stream bed _________ Other _________________ (specify) General comments on topography: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Primary Habitat type: Barren ___________ Grass ___________Shrub ___________ Forest ____________ General comments on habitat: Grazing Status: Year-round ___________ Seasonal __________ Non-grazing __________ General comments on grazing: Ruggedness: Flat __________ Rolling __________ Slightly broken _________ Moderately broken _________ Very broken _________ General comments on ruggedness: Overall aspect of transect: ___________________________________________________________ Other wildlife seen and numbers: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Other comments on conservation concerns (recent depredation in area, human impacts, etc): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Should this transect be repeated on regular basis? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, clearly mark on map and note GPS location. Recommendations for re-survey: (season, support required, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________