470 G. Samelius et al.


TABLE 2 Mean number of self-reported losses of herded livestock (goats and sheep) per family at winter camps, before and after the fences were built. The range of losses is provided in parentheses and the information is based on self-reported losses by seven herder families. Fences were built only at winter camps and thus did not reduce losses during the rest of the year (except for one family that did not move and used the fenced corral year-round).


Predator


Snow leopard Wolf


Both predators


Mean number (and range) of herded livestock losses at fenced camps Before building fences Winter 2013–2014 2.4 (0–10)


After building fences Winter 2014–2015 0


1.4 (0–3) 3.9 (0–13)


0 0


Winter 2015–2016 0


0 0


TABLE 3 Mean number of self-reported losses of herded livestock (goats and sheep) per family when away from the fences (i.e. when in the pastures in winter and during the rest of the year, with the latter referred to as summer in the table) for families that received fences, before and after the fences were built. The range of losses is provided in parentheses and the information is based on self-reported losses by seven herder families. Fences were built only at winter camps and thus did not reduce losses during the rest of the year (except for one family that did not move and used the fenced corral year-round).


Mean number (and range) of herded livestock losses away from fences Before building fences


Predator Both predators


Summer 2013 at camps


Snow leopard 0 Wolf


0.7 (0–4) 0.7 (0–4)


Summer 2013 at pastures


0


1.0 (0–6) 1.0 (0–6)


Winter 2013/2014 at pastures


1.7 (0–7) 3.4 (0–8) 5.1 (0–13)


Attitudes towards snow leopards and wolves before and after building fences


The herder community’s attitude in the spring before we built the fences was positive towards snow leopards and negative towards wolves (F = 136,P,0.001), with mean at-


titudes scores of 2.6 ± SD 2.7 and −2.9 ± SD 2.5), respec- tively. After 2 years of the study, the herder community’s attitude towards snow leopards appeared to have improved further (mean attitude score 3.8 ± SD 2.8), although the increase in attitude score was significant only at α = 0.10 (F = 2.94,P = 0.091). The herder community’s attitude to- wards wolves, in contrast, had become more negative


(mean attitude score −4.3 ± SD 1.6;F = 5.29,P= 0.024; Fig. 3). Similarly, the attitudes of the families who had re- ceived the fences also appeared to have improved towards snow leopards (Fig. 3), although the apparent increase was not statistically significant (t = 0.982,P = 0.36). The at- titudes of the families that received the fences were more negative towards wolves after the 2 years of our study (t = 2.96,P = 0.025; Fig. 3).


Discussion


Livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves inside poorly constructed corrals is a major challenge for herders


FIG. 3 Herders’ attitudes toward snow leopards (left panels) and wolves (right panels) before and after the fences were built, with top panels showing attitudes of all herders interviewed (60 families) and the bottom panels showing attitudes of the families that received fences (seven families). Our attitude survey followed the protocol by Suryawanshi et al. (2014), with attitude


scores ranging from −8 (very negative) to +8 (very positive), with 0 being a neutral score.


in the mountains of central Asia (Jackson & Wangchuck, 2004; Namgail et al., 2007; Mohammad et al., 2016). In this study, we found that fences were effective at reducing night- time depredation at corrals, similar to the effects of predator


Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 466–472 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000565 0


0.4 (0–3) 0.4 (0–3)


After building fences


Summer 2015 at camps


Summer 2015 at pastures


0.1 (0–1) 2.6 (0–9) 2.7 (0–9)


Winter 2015/2016 at pastures


4.6 (0–20) 2.7 (0–10) 7.3 (0–21)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164