“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))
Informing decisions on trophy hunting: A Briefing Paper regarding issues to be taken into account when considering restriction of imports of hunting trophies.
The main threats are poaching (for meat), competition, displacement and possibly disease transmission by domestic livestock, and habitat loss. In general, argali appear to be extremely intolerant of human disturbance (Fedosenko 1999; Namgail 2004; Maroney 2006; Namgail et al. 2007; Harris 2007; Schaller and Kang 2008) although observations in areas without poaching and disturbance by livestock and dogs (see Young et al., 2011), e.g., the Kumtor Gold Mine and Sarychat Ertash Strictly Protected Area, suggest that argali can become habituated to human presence. International border fences present a barrier to movement and dispersal of argali, prevent access to optimal seasonal grazing sites and increase fragmentation and genetic isolation (Luikart et al. 2011; Rosen 2012; CMS 2014; Hussain et al. 2018). These threats appear to vary little among argali populations, even though habitats vary.
Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Ovis ammon
Common Name(s)
Argali
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Roe, D., Cremona, P. (2016) Informing decisions on trophy hunting: A Briefing Paper regarding issues to be taken into account when considering restriction of imports of hunting trophies.
In 2003 WWF-Mongolia initiated a community-based wildlife management project, based primarily on Altai Argali hunting, in the Uvs administrative region of northwest Mongolia. A major project goal was to enable local herder families and communities to take over wildlife management responsibilities from regional and national authorities. To this end, a financial mechanism was established– funded largely by trophy hunting fees– to compensate communities for their management work, and open-access regime of wildlife use was replaced by exclusive use by seven local community groups.
Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record