788 C. Hacker et al.
ownership were correlated with number of livestock lost, suggesting these practices alone may not be sufficient to pre- vent loss, are not deployed effectively or are implemented post-predation. However, the model including the predictor variable livestock guarding was numerically closely com- petitive in the final model shaping positive attitudes, and therefore may be playing the largest role among the deter- rent methods assessed in this study. Dogs can spread disease (Mamaev et al., 1995), stress,
harass and kill wildlife (Lenth et al., 2008; Young et al., 2011), and compete with native species for resources (Vanak et al., 2009). The number of dogs reported in our study is probably a small portion of the total population be- cause ownership is informal, with limited spaying/neuter- ing, leading to free ranging and feral individuals (Home et al., 2017). In trans-Himalayan India, dogs were respon- sible for 40%more livestock mortalities than snow leopards (Suryawanshi et al., 2013). Research examining how dogs may be affecting wildlife and livestock is needed. Nearly half of the herders who reported livestock losses
possessed insurance. In China, compensation is targeted towards losses caused by protected animals (Pettigrew et al., 2012). Herders did not comment on insurance, but it is widely accepted that the programmes are insufficient (Madhusudan, 2003). Conservation performance payments that compensate herders for achieving goals that benefit carnivores may be an alternative in areas with inadequate financial coverage of livestock losses (Zabel & Holm- Müller, 2008; Kunkel et al., 2016). Herders indicated comparatively high numbers of snow
leopards, blue sheep Pseudois nayaur, and argali Ovis ammon on the Likert scale provided to them. Although re- ports of wildlife abundance may have limited consistency across herders, they provide useful information (Davis & Wagner, 2003). We had planned to conduct counts of prey, to substantiate the responses of the interviewed her- ders, but most of the wild ungulate populations had at the time moved to higher elevations as a result of higher tem- peratures and increased human activity (X. Ran, pers. comm., 2018), making this infeasible. For snow leopard abundance, scat surveys as part of a separate, contemporan- eous study examining snow leopard population genetics in- dicated the presence of six females in the area (Zhang et al., 2019). Pastoralists depend on their environment and can serve as strong conservation allies (Foggin & Torrance- Foggin, 2011), and local perceptions and scientific studies can be in agreement regarding the status of wildlife popula- tions (van der Hoeven et al., 2004; Danielsen et al., 2014), although more research on this is needed in our study area. Predation was considered the primary threat to livestock
by 43% of herders, followed by disease at 37%. Predation has been reported to be of the greatest concern in other studies, even when disease caused more mortality (Dar et al., 2009). Grassland degradation was the third ranked threat, at 20%,
with herders implicating the pika Ochotona curzoniae as a pest that kills grass roots and competeswith livestock for vege- tation (Zhou et al., 2004). Drought and other weather condi- tions were not reported as being threats, probably because major climatic events are relatively infrequent in this area. Our study contributes to previous studies of herder atti-
tudes towards snow leopards in China, and provides data 7 years after a previous survey in the same area (Li et al., 2013). Similar to findings by Li et al. (2013), herders had positive views towards snow leopards, with formal educa- tion playing a significant role in greater positive attitudes and fewer negative attitudes. It is unlikely that older adults harbouring negative views will change their views through conservation education alone and compensation for actions that protect apex predators may be required (Conforti & de Azevedo, 2003). How livestock loss shapes attitudes to- wards snow leopards is unclear; more research is needed to determine livestock factors impacting tolerance, includ- ing species (i.e. sheep, goat or yak), and age and quality of animal lost. Predator proof corrals, guarding and dogs do not appear to reduce losses significantly, but this finding could be influenced by inconsistent implementation and temporal shifts in management practices. Herders may be effective sources of information on relative wildlife abun- dances, but this should be corroborated with population surveys. Our results support the notion that Tibetan beliefs play an important role in protecting snow leopards (Li et al., 2013), exemplifying the role of societal and cultural norms in perceptions of wildlife (Dickman, 2010).
Acknowledgements We thank translators X. Ran, T. Ding, Z. Xi, G. Bao and C. Ren; A. Phelps for assistance with statistics; and two reviewers for their valuable comments. This work was supported by the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo Asia Seeds Grant Program, the Panthera Sabin Snow Leopard Grant Program, The Snow Leopard Conservancy, The Britton Foundation, the Public Welfare Project of the National Scientific Research Institution of China (No. CAFYBB2018ZD001) and the National Key Programme from Min- istry of Science and Technology of China (No. 2017YFC0506405).
Author contributions Survey design: CH, LM; survey translation: YuguangZ; interviews: YD, YC, YuZ, YuguangZ; survey response translation: YuZ; data analysis: CH, LM; data interpretation: CH, JJ, LM; writing: CH.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards An Institutional Review Board exemption was granted by Duquesne University as no identifiable information was gathered. The research otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ALEXANDER, J., CHEN, P., DAMERELL, P., YOUKUI,W., HUGHES, J., SHI, K. et al. (2015) Human wildlife conflict involving large carnivores in Qilianshan, China and the minimal paw-print of snow leopards. Biological Conservation, 187, 1–9.
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 783–790 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001315
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
