the elusive and endangered pir panjal markhor inhabits an ......m.k.ranjitsinh conceptualized the...

CONSERVATION ACTION SERIES 20050803

GOATS ON THE BORDER

A Rapid Assessment of the Pir Panjal Markhor in Jammu andKashmir: Distribution, Status and Threats

Nature Conservation Foundation

A SCHALLER CONSERVATION SURVEY

CONSERVATION ACTION SERIES

The elusive and endangered Pir Panjal markhor inhabits an area

exposed to conflicts, disputes, shelling and casualties. Between 280 and

330 markhor were estimated in an area covering three wildlife

sanctuaries and one conservation reserve during a rapid survey carried

out in hostile terrain over two and a half months. This first ever survey

of the markhor conducted in collaboration with the J&K Wildlife

Department and the Nature Conservation Foundation with support from

the Environment and Ecology Cell of the Indian Army also marks the

launch of the Schaller Conservation Surveys by the

Wildlife Trust of India.

SURVEY TEAM

Principal Investigator: Dr. M.K. RanjitsinhAssociate Investigator: Dr. C. M . Seth

Wildlife Trust of IndiaRiyaz Ahmad (Field Officer) Sunil Subba Kyarong (Senior Field Officer)

Nature Conservation FoundationDr. Yash Veer Bhatnagar

Department of Wildlife Protection, Jammu and KashmirField Team Leader: Imtiaz Ahmed Lone (Wildlife Warden Monitoring)

Hirpura:Rashid Naqash (Wildlife Warden, south Kashmir), Shiekh Javed (Range OfficerHirpura), Ab. Rashid Bhat, Ab.Hamid Mir, Gh. Mohiuddin Ganai, Azdullah Wani,Mashoke Ahmad, Rouf Zargar

Gulmarg- Boniyar:Gh. Mohiuddin Lone, Ghulam Nabi, Gh. Nabi Sofi, Irshad Ahmad

Limber WLS:Mohd. Shafi Baccha (Regiponal Wildlife Warden, Kashmir), Imtiaz Ahmad Lone(Wildlife Warden Monitoring), Mohd Maqbool Baba (Wildlife Warden, north Kashmir),Mohd Sadiq Mir (Range Officer, Tangmarg), Mushtaq Ahmad Lone, Ab.QayoomKhan, Gh. Mohmad Lone, Mohd Subhan Lone, Gh. Mohd Dar

Lachipora WLS:Ghulam Mohd. Lone (Range Officer, Kaj-i-nag), Amreek Singh, Ghulam Mohmad

Naganari Conservation Reserve: Mushtaq Ahmad Pir, Kingpal Singh, Ab.Rashid Dar

Shamshabari: Imtiaz Ahmad Lone (Wildlife Warden Monitoring), Ghulam Mohiuddin, FaroaqAhmad Pir, Hafizulla Khan, Mohd Yusuf Gakhud

Poonch:Shabir Ahmad, Nisar Hussain, Dildar Khan, Ab. Rashid, Jeetendra

Bhaderwah- Kishtwar: Abdul Majid (Range Officer, Jammu), Karan Singh

GOATS ON THE BORDERA Rapid Assessment of the Pir Panjal Markhor in

Jammu and Kashmir: Distribution, Status and Threats

M. K. Ranjitsinh, C. M. Seth, Riyaz Ahmad, Yash Veer Bhatnagar

and Sunil Subba Kyarong



Environment and Ecology Cell, Indian ArmyQuartermaster General's BranchArmy HeadquartersDHQ PO New Delhi-110011The Environment and Ecology Cell of the Indian Armybased in the Army Headquarters at Delhi has beeninvolved in habitat restoration and nature conservationactivities.

Citation: M. K. Ranjitsinh, C. M. Seth, Riyaz Ahmad,Yash Veer Bhatnagar and Sunil Subba Kyarong. (2005).Goats on the Border: A Rapid Assessment of the PirPanjal Markhor in Jammu and Kashmir: Distribution,Status and Threats. Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi.

The designation of geographical entities in thispublication and the presentation of material do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of the authors or WTI concerning the legal status ofany country, territory or area, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. All material appearing in thispublication is copyrighted and may be reproduced onlywith permission. Any reproduction in full or part mustcredit WTI as the copyright owner.

Cover photograph : Markhor by Dr George SchallerBack cover : Dr M. K. Ranjitsinh (L) with a local

forester by Vivek Menon, WTITitle page : Markhor in its habitat by

Dr M.K. RanjitsinhLayout by : Athar HussainPrinted by : Lipee Scan Pvt. Ltd. 89. DSIDC

Okhla Ph-1, New Delhi, India

Copyright © Wildlife Trust of India 2007Second editionWildlife Trust of IndiaA-220 New Friends ColonyNew Delhi -110025.Tel: +91 11 26326025/26, Fax: +91 11 26326027Email: [email protected], Website:www.wti.org.in

The Wildlife Trust of India is a non-profit conservationorganization committed to help conserve nature,especially endangered species and threatened habitats, inpartnership with communities and governments.

Nature Conservation Foundation3076/5 IV CrossGokulam ParkMysore-570002NCF is a non-profit organization established in 1996,dedicated to promoting science-based, socially responsiblewildlife conservation in India.

Collaborating Agencies:

Department of Wildlife Protection, J&K Tourist Reception CentreSrinagar-190001The Department of Wildlife Protection of the J&KGovernment is responsible for the conservation of allwildlife in the State and the management of the state'sProtected Areas network

Supported by:

CONTENTS

Preface

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Search for the Enigmatic Markhor

Chapter 2: Markhor In Jammu and Kashmir : The Present Scenario

Chapter 3: Major Threats to Markhor In Jammu & Kashmir

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Chapter 5: The Markhor as the Flagship for Conservation Action in the Pir Panjal

Appendix I: Distribution, Status, Morphology & Biology of the Markhor

Appendix II: Summary of Markhor distribution, level of disturbance and threats

References

4

5

6

7

8

13

18

21

31

39

43

48

The markhor is the largest wild goat in the world. It is also one of the most elusive large mammalsin India. Not only has it never been studied rigorously but even a good photograph of the animalis not available. This realization dawned on me while I was writing the Field Guide to IndianMammals when the final photo options were three photographs, all taken in Pakistan. Luckily, wefound one of the Pir Panjal markhor, the animal that occurs within our limits as well. Thiselusiveness was the same when I tried to research census data or distribution. The most I couldfind was an old shikar map of Kashmir Valley, sixty years old, that tried to block-shade areas thathad the markhor.

It is, therefore, a personal thrill for me to have overseen the conduct of the first-ever markhorsurvey for the country in conjunction with the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Department. It wasequally a high as this survey formally launched the Schaller Conservation Surveys, a dedication tothe foremost wildlife biologist of the world, Dr George Schaller who has been a personal inspirationto me. This survey was made possible in part by the money that Dr Schaller gave so spontaneouslyto the Wildlife Trust of India over a year ago when he was given an international award by theBombay Natural History Society at its gala centenary celebrations for its journal. Dr Schallerwanted the money to remain in India and do some good for Indian wildlife. I hope this survey hasproved equal to his aspirations.

There is a third, less obvious reason for celebration. This survey was conducted through thecollaboration of four institutions—WTI, The Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Department (under thevigorous and inspiring leadership of Mr. C.M.Seth), the Indian Army's Ecology Cell and the NatureConservation Foundation (and our scientific leader Yash Veer Bhatnagar). While the former chiefof Army General Malik was an Advisor to the project, eminent conservationist and WTI Trustee DrM.K.Ranjitsinh conceptualized the whole project. Our two wonderfully tough field officers, Riyazand Sunil, then carried out the most demanding project that WTI has undertaken this year—a twoand a half month trek along the LoC. The area is known for conflicts, disputes, shelling andcasualty and not for counting goats. This survey has shown that this too is possible—for those whowill.

Note to second edition:

This second edition gives me the opportunity to have a fourth reason for celebration. This reporthas turned out to be one of those that we have published that has had immediate and very visibleconservation outcomes. If the declaration of the Kaj-i-Nag National Park and the enlargement ofthe Hirapora WLS is in some way reliant on the findings of this report, I find it extremelyheartening for it justifies the existence of WTI and its conservation mandate. Our research mustserve tangible conservation outcomes and that is what is strived for in each and every one of ourprojects. Often it is not possible. However, whenever it happens, it is an occasion to celebrate andin this the prime kudos must go the agency responsible for this bit of positive action- the Jammuand Kashmir Wildlife Department. To them go the kudos, while we in the conservation fraternitycan be happy that our efforts have paid off in protecting both this magnificent species and itsenchanting home.

Vivek Menon Executive Director

Wildlife Trust of India

PREFACE

4

5

Pir panjal or the Kazinag Markhor (Capra falconari cashmiriensis) is the largest wildgoat in the world found in the North – West Himalayan Biogeographic Region. WithinIndia, Markhor is found only in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Its distribution isrestricted to a handful sites viz Hirpora, Kaj-i-nag and Poonch with an estimatedpopulation of 280 - 330, as revealed through a joint survey conducted by theDepartment of Wildlife Protection, J&K Government, Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhiand the Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore in the year 2005, the results of whichare presented in this report.

Markhor, an elusive large mammal, is a Schedule–I species of the IndianWildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the J&K Wildlife Protection Act, 1978 (Amended upto2002). The State of Jammu and Kashmir is committed to conserving the endangeredspecies and to this effect, the state government has agreed to all the recommendationslaid down by the National Board for Wildlife, while considering the proposal for de-notification of some land of Hirpora Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of the MughalRoad passing through the sanctuary. The Markhor Recovery Plan for Hirpora,Lachipora and Limber Wildlife Sanctuaries formulated by the State WildlifeDepartment has been endorsed by the Government of India, the Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests. Considering all pros and cons for the survival of Markhor, theHon’ble Supreme Court of India has accorded approval to the construction of MughalRoad with some conditions, which are being observed by the State Government. Anadditional forest area of 150 sq.kms is being added to the Hirpora Wildlife Sanctuaryand the areas of the 3 continuous P.As (Lachipora Wildlife Sanctuary, Limber WildlifeSanctuary and the Naganari Conservation Areas) falling in the Kaj-i-nag Range are inthe process of being upgraded as a National Park.

I am happy that a second revised edition of the Markhor Report titled ‘Goats onthe Border’ whose recommendations paved the way for future course of action forMarkhor conservation in the state, has been brought out. I feel confident that thepartnership between the Department of Wildlife Protection and the Wildlife Trust ofIndia, New Delhi will continue to produce meaningful reports and recommendationsproviding lasting solutions to various urgent issues related to the wildlife conservationin the state.

(A.K. Srivastava)Chief Wildlife Warden

J&K Government

Jammu ( J&K)Dated: 05-12-2007

FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

WTI wishes to thank Dr George Schaller for providing half of the award

money presented to him at the Centenary Celebrations of the Journal of the

Bombay Natural History Society. WTI has started a series of conservation

surveys named after Dr Schaller and this survey is the first in the series.

Sincere thanks are due to:

Lt. Gen. Nirbhay Sharma

Brig. Kataria

Col. Prakash Tewari

Col. Sandhu, Col. Roy

All Army and B.S.F. units in Jammu and Kashmir

Nasir Ahmad Kichloo, Regional Wildlife Warden, Jammu

Mushtaq Ahmad Parsa, Wildlife Warden North Kashmir

Ifsha Deewan, Wildlife Warden, Technical

Intisar Suhail, Wildlife Warden, Central Kashmir

Mohd Shafi, Wildlife Warden, Poonch-Rajouri

Tahir Shawl, Wildlife Warden, Kathua

Dr. Francis Rath, Baramullah

Guides: Bashir Ahmad, Ferozudin, Ab. Ahad, Ab. Karim, Ab.Rahim, Mohd

Ramzan Malik and Ab. Rashid

Villagers: Mohd Shafi Shiekh, Masterjee, Numberdar Gagerhill, Mohd.

Ramzan Lone, Gulzar Ahmad Lone, Mohd. Akbar, Mohd. Bashir Mughal,

Master Girdari Lal, Master Akhtar, Mr. Irshad Ahmad Mintoo, Master Mohd.

Alam Khan

Friends: Ishfaq, Nayeem Tajamul and Virkim

M.D. Madhusudhan and Raghunath, NCF for help with producing the maps

Dr. Charudutt Mishra and colleagues at NCF

6

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The markhor is the largest goat in the world. It has alimited geographical distribution in the moist tosemi-arid mountain tracts of Pakistan, India,

Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.

Within India, Markhor is found only in Jammu andKashmir. The state is one of the important areas formarkhor globally, and the primary area for the 'Pir Panjaltype'. The historical distribution of the markhor in Jammuand Kashmir (J&K) was continuous from Banihal pass toShamshabari area of the Pir Panjal range.However, norecent information existed on their status and distributionwithin the state. Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) thereforeundertook surveys within the past distribution range ofmarkhor in Jammu and Kashmir to know their currentstatus and distribution and threats to these populations.These surveys were conducted from 26 October to 20January 2004 and repeated in the spring of 2005 from 23April to 31 May. During the surveys the team coveredareas in the vast stretch of Himalaya from Padder-Kishtwar to Poonch in Jammu region and Hirpura (insouth Kashmir) to Kaj-i-nag and Shamshabari (in northKashmir) in the Kashmir region. The areas of Bhadarwa-Kishtwar were included after getting information ofmarkhor in these areas from some experienced people.

The survey confirmed the presence of markhor in Kaj-i-nag and Hirpura blocks through direct sightings.Thirty-five markhor groups comprising 155 individualswere sighted. All sightings were confined to the twosurvey blocks of Hirpura and Kaj-i-nag.

Poaching, over-grazing and constant conflict at theborder seem to be major threats to markhorconservation in Jammu and Kashmir. Although the main markhor populations fall within theProtected Areas network, yet problems of poaching, over-grazing by flocks of migrant graziers continue to posethreats to their populations.

Hirpura and Kaj-i-nag are priority sites for Markhorconservation.At present, the two sites of Hirpura WLS and Kaj-i-nagrange have the best possibility of population recovery andare potential 'source populations' for conservation andrestocking of the markhor in the rest of its range. Anyconservation program should concentrate on these areasas a priority.

Lachipora WLS, Limber WLS and Naganari CA shouldbe amalgamated into Kaj-i-nag NP and WLS.The Kaj-i-nag range consists of three contiguous PAs—Lacchipora WLS (c. 114km2), Limber WLS (c. 44km2)and the Naganari Conservation Area (c. 20km2). All thethree have markhor at present, and should be merged intoone unit and should be zoned into areas to incorporateinviolate core zones within these.

Collaborative management of Markhor areas with theIndian Army should be worked out: The army provided invaluable support during thesesurveys, and can play an extremely important role inworking jointly with the Wildlife Department and otherinterested agencies in conserving this species. Although ajoint comprehensive conservation program needs to bedeveloped, support is needed primarily in curbingpoaching.

Capacity building of the local wildlife department interms of manpower, resources and training to conservethe markhor needs to be carried out:

The Wildlife Department in general, especially in markhorareas has very few equipped and trained staff. Capacitybuilding is needed in enforcement, wildlife law, wildlifemonitoring and management planning. There is an urgentneed for high- altitude clothing and camping gear for thestaff. Patrolling huts inside the wildlife sanctuaries, atleast in Limber and Hirpura, should be provided toencourage regular patrolling of the area.

Livestock grazing should be controlled in Hirpura WLS: In the Hirpura WLS there seems to be heavy summergrazing by the migrant gujjars and bakerwals in markhorareas that has pushed markhor to sub-optimal regions ofthe protected area. This needs to be urgently controlled sothat markhor populations can recover in the region.

A more detailed understanding of the ecology of thespecies is needed:

This is a step that will greatly help in understanding thepopulation dynamics, specific habitat requirements, foodhabits and also in mapping other potential areas ofmarkhor in Jammu and Kashmir, where animals can be re-introduced (after negating the threats that caused itsextinction).

1.1 Introduction

The words 'mar' and 'khor' in Persian mean 'snake'and 'eater'. This is doubtful etymology as snake-eating has not been recorded in the markhor

(Schaller 1977, Roberts 1997). The name markhorprobably arose as a corruption of the Pushto words'mar' (meaning snake) and 'akhur' (meaning horn)—anapt description of the serpentine shape of its horns.Four distinct subspecies of markhor have beenrecognized on the basis of horn shape (Roberts, 1997).The spiraling horns of markhor have three basicshapes, with variations thereto, including intermittenthorn-types. These are:

(i) The straight-horn shape, e.g (a) the Sulaimanmarkhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni), having tightmulti-spiral horns and (b) The Kabul markhor(Capra falconeri megaceros) with two or threealmost straight spirals (ii) The open-spiral shape e.g. (a) the Pir Panjalmarkhor (Capra falconeri cashmiriensis) (b) thewestern Hindu Kush, Hunza, Kafer Khan, Chitral,Chilas markhor, all having corkscrew shape and (iii) The out-flaring shape, represented by theAstor markhor (Capra falconeri falconeri) with avery spectacular, one and a half twist, out-flaringhorn.

Schaller (1977) reviewed markhor classification indetail after his studies in Pakistan and came to theconclusion that there were really only two distinctsubspecies; a larger flare-horned northern population(C. f. falconeri, Wagner, 1839) inhabiting coldermountains and a smaller variety having straight-horns(C. f. jerdoni, Hutton, 1842) with a tighter twistinhabiting southern, warmer parts of their range. TheIUCN Caprinae Action Plan (Shackleton, 1997),however, accepts a third subspecies as the Tadjikmarkhor (C. f. heptneri, Zalkin, 1945) that also hasflared horns.

In Kashmir, outside Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK),the Pir Panjal markhor is found only in the Pir PanjalRange, the Kaj-i-nag and the Shamshabari Keranmountains of northwestern Himalaya, extending intothe Greater Himalayan range in PoK near Nanga

Parbat (Burrard, 1925; Stockley, 1936; Schaller, 1977).Poaching has been identified as a major threat to themarkhor population since the 19th Century (Lydekker,1898; Burrard, 1925; Stockley, 1936). Markhor is endangered (EN - C2A) as per the IUCN RedList (2000). In India, the markhor is included inSchedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972(Anon., 2002) and Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife(Protection) Act,1978; 2002 amendment (Anon.,2002a). In Jammu and Kashmir, markhor occur inthree wildlife sanctuaries and one conservation reserve,in all covering an area of 251.7 km2. Further details onmarkhor taxonomy, distribution, status, and biologyare given in Appendix I.

Schaller (1977), quoting the Jammu and Kashmir StateWildlife (Protection) Department sources, estimatedthat the total population of markhor may be 250—300in the state. Roberts (1997) speculated that markhor inthe Pir Panjal on both sides of the Line of Control(LoC) have been practically exterminated by troopsstationed in the border region. However, occasional

CHAPTER 1

In Kashmir, outside PoK, the PirPanjal markhor is found only inthe Pir Panjal Range, the Kaj-i-nag and the Shamshabari Keranmountains of northwesternHimalaya, extending into theGreater Himalayan range in PoKnear Nanga Parbat.

Search for the EnigmaticMarkhor

8

departmental surveys such as by Suhail and Baba(2002) confirmed their presence in Limber WildlifeSanctuary (WLS) in the Kaj-i-nag Range.Since the time India got her independence, there hasbeen no published record about markhor in Indiadetailing its distribution, status and ecology. This ispartly due to the turmoil in the state that began aboutfifteen years ago, when even scanty information on thespecies ceased. However, it was certainly known thatthere are a few markhor distributed over a fragmented,turmoil-affected area. During the late eighties, a fewareas with markhor were notified as PAs, but thewildlife department could not start conservation effortsthere and hunting licenses continued to be issued.Markhor primarily occur along the LoC in the stateand the prevailing army presence and shelling mighthave affected them adversely. Roberts (1997) evenconjectured that they were extinct within the Indianterritory. The situation in Kashmir is currentlyimproving and it has become possible to know at thevery least where markhor exist, how many there areand what threats they are facing. Without anyinformation, it would have been impossible to initiateany conservation initiatives. For this purpose, a surveywas conducted from the end of October 2004 to midJanuary, 2005 for a period for 45 days and a repeatsurvey was conducted between 18 April and 24 May2005 with the objectives to assess the following:1. The distribution of the Pir Panjal markhor in

Jammu & Kashmir 2. The current status of the markhor in the state 3. Extant threats to the population in the areas

surveyed

1.2 Survey areas

The survey was conducted in Jammu and Kashmir thathas three geo-political regions — the southern Jammu,the northwestern Kashmir and the northeasternLadakh region. Our survey sites consisted of a vaststretch of Himalaya from Padder-Kishtwar to Poonch inthe Jammu region and Hirpura (in south Kashmir) toKaj-i-nag and Shamshabari (in north Kashmir) in theKashmir region (Figure 1). This region lies in theNorth-West Himalayan Bio-geographic zone (2A)(Rodgers & Panwar 1988). The vegetation in general isTemperate Coniferous and Sub-alpine Forest(Champion & Seth 1968).The selection of the survey blocks was based on the olddistribution records of markhor (Burrard, 1925;Stockley, 1936) and an old Kashmir shikar map(Survey of India, 1947). Further, with the experience ofthe Principal and Associate Investigators, six blocks tosurvey were identified in the vast Pir Panjal range ofthe state covering c. 400 km from east to west. Theblocks were Poonch, Hirpura, Gulmarg-Bonyar, Kaj-i-nag, Shamshabari and Bhaderwah-Kishtwar (Figure 1).The last mentioned area did not have any publishedrecord of markhor occurrence but departmental

records of the Kishtwar National Park suggested thatthey were present there and the area was thus includedin the survey.

The Pir Panjal range runs roughly from south to northKashmir and separates Poonch and Rajouri in theJammu region from the Kashmir region. All the sixblocks are in the Pir Panjal range. Poonch andBhaderwah-Kishtwar lie on the southern slopes of thisrange in the Poonch and Doda districts respectively,while the other areas are in the Kashmir region on thenorthern slopes of the Pir Panjal. Kaj-i-nag andShamshabari are on the northern banks of the Jhelum.At one end Poonch is connected with Hirpura ofdistrict Pulwama in south Kashmir through theMughal road that passes over the Pir Panjal, and at theother end it is connected with Gulmarg in districtBaramullah of north Kashmir.

1.2.1 ClimateThe temperature in the region varies from a minimumof —10°C in winter to a maximum of 30°C in summer.Precipitation is mainly brought by westerlydisturbances during winter and falls largely as snow,and is undoubtedly a factor of importance indetermining the type of forest met with. The fourdistinct seasons in the region are: Spring (March toMay), Summer (June to August), Autumn (Septemberto November) and Winter (December to February).

1.2.2 The Survey BlocksSome information on topography and vegetation ofeach survey block (Figure 1) is given below:

Dr.

Rah

ul K

aul/W

TI

A view of the survey area in Jammu and Kashmir

9

The Pir Panjal range runs roughly from south to northKashmir and separates Poonchand Rajouri in the Jammu regionfrom the Kashmir region. All thesix blocks are in the Pir Panjalrange.

Poonch Survey BlockPoonch district of Jammu and Kashmir is situated atabout 250 km to the northwest of Jammu town.Poonch was a separate state till the 1940s. The teamsurveyed Loren, Mandi, Sawjian, Surankote andChandimad areas of Poonch—areas that are situated inthe foothills on the south of the Pir Panjal. Theprominent vegetation types found here are Low LevelBlue Pine Forests (12/cIf), Western Mixed ConiferousForests (12/c1d), West Himalayan Upper Oak-Fir(12/C2b), West Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/FirForests (14/c1b) and Sub-alpine Pastures (14/DS)(Champion & Seth, 1968). The Low Level Blue PineForests are dominated by kail pine (Pinus wallichiana)and the associated species are fir (Abies pindrow),spruce (Picea smithiana) and oak (Quercussemecarpifolia). Western Mixed Coniferous Forestshave fir and spruce as the main species mixed withdeodar (Cedrus deodara) and kail. By interacting withpeople, we came to know that most of the people inthese areas along with their livestock migrate to thesub-alpine and alpine pastures of Pir Panjal duringsummer. They have established sites called dhokswhere they stay in summer. The famous Mughal roadpasses through Chandimud and goes through theHirpura Wildlife Sanctuary in south Kashmir to thestate capital in Srinagar. This is the main route used bybakerwals of Poonch and Rajouri to reach Kashmir tograze their livestock in different alpine pastures. Lorenis also connected with Kashmir through a differenttrail.

Bhaderwah-Kishtwar Survey BlockBhaderwah and Kishtwar fall in the Doda district ofJammu. Bhaderwah is about 180 km to the east ofJammu and is surrounded by rolling mountainscovered with coniferous forests. Bhaderwah shares itseastern border with the Chamba district of HimachalPradesh and south and south west with Kathua andUdhampur districts. Kishtwar is about 200 km to thesoutheast of Jammu along the Chenab River. Here, theteam concentrated more on the Padder area, about 60km from Kishtwar.

The region up to the Gulabgarh village in Padder blockwas surveyed. This village has been named afterMaharaja Gulab Singh. Unlike Bhaderwah, this area iscovered with steep and moderately steep mountains. Itis contiguous with the Zanskar range in the northeast.The vegetation is similar to that of the Poonch surveyblock.

Hirpura Survey BlockThis block was within the Hirpura WLS (c. 114 km2),which was notified in 1987 and lies in the Pir PanjalRange 70 km south of Srinagar. It is bounded to thenorth by Lake Gumsar, northeast by Hirpura village,east by Rupri, south by Saransar and to the west by thePir Panjal pass. The Old Mughal road crosses the

sanctuary from west to east covering c. 30 km, startingat Poonch and ending at the Hirpura village. The roadcuts the sanctuary into two almost equal parts withdistinct habitats. The slopes are gentle to moderatelysteep on the eastern aspect and very steep with manycliffs on the higher northern and western aspect. Thesouthern and southeastern portions are moderatelysteep.

The vegetation types present here include WesternMixed Coniferous Forests (12/c1d), Deciduous Sub-alpine Scrub (14/1s2) and Sub-alpine Pastures(14/DS1) (Champion & Seth 1968). Western Mixedconiferous forest is dominated by kail pine with spruceand fir as its primary associates. In Hirpura, the WestHimalayan Sub-alpine Forests are dominated by fir(Abies pindrow), while the Deciduous Sub-alpineScrub is dominated by Birch (Betula utilis) and juniper(Juniperus communis) with Rosa spp. as an associate.

The southeastern part has moderately open coniferousvegetation dominated by kail pine and associated withfir and spruce. The vegetation of the more rocky andopen northwestern portion is predominantly sub-alpinescrub forest dominated by Juniper and the kail pine asan associated species. Man-made sub-alpine pasturesalso occur in both northwestern and southeasternparts of the sanctuary.

Gulmarg- Boniyar survey Block This block occupies the southern bank of the RiverJhelum. The western boundary of the block is underLoC fencing and the topography is moderately steep tosteep at places. The area looks moderately open withdifferent forest types including Western MixedConiferous Forest (12/C1d), West Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/Fir Forests (14/C1b) and Sub-alpinePastures (14/DS1) (Champion & Seth 1968).

Kaj-i-nag Survey Block Kaj-i-nag occupies the north bank of the Jhelum andhas three Protected Areas viz. the Limber WLS,Lachipora WLS and Naganari Conservation Reserve(Fig 1), that served as three separate sub-blocks duringour survey. The Kaj-i-nag ridge separates thesesanctuaries from the Hundwara-Shamshabari area (seebelow). The area is approximately 70 km to the west ofSrinagar along the Jhelum River.

Limber Wildlife SanctuaryLimber WLS was notified in 1987 and encompasses anarea of about 44 km2. It is bounded to the north byBhurji forest in Langet Forest Division to the south bythe River Jhelum, east by Katha Forest and west byIslamabad nala. Along the west, it is connected with theLachipora WLS and along the east with NaganariConservation Reserve. Limber WLS is fed by two mainnallahs, Mithwani and Gamalitter, which drain into theLimber nallah, which in turn drains into River Jhelum

10

(Figure 1). The area consists of steep and moderatelysteep slopes broken by rocky cliffs at many places.

Lachipora Wildlife SanctuaryLachipora WLS, which is about 93 km2 in extent wasalso notified in 1987 and lies immediately west of theLimber WLS. It is bounded in the north by KakuaForest in Langet forest division, south by MaidanForest, southeast by the River Jhelum, west by the LoCand east by Bagna and Limber forests. Three mainnallahs, from east to west, that drain this sanctuary arethe Gujjar nallah, Malangan nallah and Ghoretalnallah. These encompass the catchment of KathaNilang, which flows into the River Jhelum. The entirearea is steep and broken by precipitous cliffs.

Naganari Conservation ReserveNaganari Conservation Reserve is about 20 km2 andlies to the east of the Limber WLS and the topographyis similar to that of Limber.

The vegetation types in Kaj-i-nag covering the threesub-blocks are Western Mixed Coniferous Forests(12/C1d), West Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/FirForests (14/C1b), Deciduous Sub-alpine Scrub Forests(14/1s2) and Sub-alpine Pastures (14/DS1) (Champion& Seth 1968). The dominant species in temperateconiferous forest are spruce, fir and kail pine withoccasional deodar in lower slopes. Birch is thedominant species in the sub-alpine forest and juniper inthe sub-alpine scrub. Other plant species includeJuglans regia, Rosa macrofolia, and Viburnumgrandiflorum. Lachipora was however more opencompared to Naganari and Limber.

Shamshabari Survey blockThis block lies approximately 150 km north of Srinagarin the Tangdar area of district Kupwara. This area isjust north of the Kaj-i-nag range (Figure 1) and consistsof rugged mountains with rocky cliffs. The vegetationtypes found here are Western Mixed Coniferous Forests(12/c1d), West Himalayan Sub-alpine Forests(14/C1b), Deciduous Sub-alpine scrub (14/1s2) andSub-alpine Pastures (14/DS1) (Champion & Seth1968).

1.2.3 People

The people of Kashmir are primarily Muslims. InPadder, the majority are Hindus and in Poonch there isa mixed population of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.Most of them are agriculturists and the main crop ismaize. Paddy is also cultivated in the lo wer hills andplains. Livestock consisting of sheep and goats,buffalos, horses, oxen and cows are reared as animportant source of income. Walnut is one of the maincash crops grown here, while apple is also important insome places. There are numerous gujjars andbakerwals, traditional pastoralists, who come intovarious parts of the area with their livestock during

summer. The gujjars primarily herd buffaloes and the

gaddis and bakerwals herd sheep and goats.

Kashmir has a human population of 5,441,341 and theJammu region 3,976,395 based on the recent census(Anon. 2003). In the districts we surveyed, thepopulation totals 3,517,532 (Baramulla-1,166,722,Pulwama-648,762, Kupwara- 640,013, Poonch-371,561,and Doda-690,474). There is no clear estimate of thenumber of families or the population of migratoryherders coming into the area.

1.3 MethodsThe primary goal of the survey was to identify thecurrent distribution and the status of markhor inJammu and Kashmir. The survey was also to identifythe key threats to markhor and wildlife in general inthe surveyed areas. The team also studied habitatutilization, population structure and composition ofmarkhor but due to the vast and scattered nature ofthe survey area and limited time, only preliminaryinformation on these aspects could be obtained. As per old records,markhor were distributed over alarge stretch of area from Poonch in the southernaspect of the Pir Panjal in Jammu, to Uri and Tangdarin Kashmir covering an area of approximately 300km2

(Figure 2a). There has been no comprehensive surveyof the markhor so far, and therefore identifying thepotential blocks for survey was difficult. However, theteam first compiled information based on personalexperiences (the PIs in particular) and other keyinformants such as some local wildlife officials. An oldShikar map of Kashmir (Survey of India, 1947) wasused to identify the blocks to survey. The six blocksidentified were Hirpura, Gulmarg-Boniyar,Shamshabari, Kaj-i-nag, Pooch, and Kishtwar-Bhaderwah. Areas were covered in this order inNovember and December 2004 and January, 2005. Inthe repeat survey during the spring of 2005, the teamsurveyed Hirpura WLS between 23 and 30 April,Limber WLS between 4 and 15 May and NaganariConservation Reserve between 26 and 29 May 2005.

After identification of the survey blocks, both theprimary surveys and secondary sources of informationwere used to obtain data on markhor in a given block.In the secondary surveys, local people, especially theshikaris (hunters) were interviewed for informationabout the occurrence of markhor. In the primarysurveys, areas reported to hold markhor were visited toobtain direct sightings and also indirect evidences likefootprints and pellets. However, due to inclementweather, the team relied only on secondary sources ofinformation to gather data on markhor occurrence inPoonch and Bhaderwah-Kishtwar areas of Jammu.Surveys were conducted in two phases, once in theautumn and winter of year 2004 and thereafter, basedon recommendations of this survey, in spring 2005.

11

1.3.1 Secondary sources - interviews with hunters,villagers and defense personnelAfter reaching the survey block, enquiries were madeabout local shikaris and other people knowledgeableabout wildlife in the region. Presenting themselves asresearchers, the survey took adequate precaution notto intimidate the local people. Once a person was readyto give details, he/she was shown pictures of other wildgoats, sheep and deer (Menon 2003) and asked to namethe ones that they knew. If found knowledgeable, thesubject was queried further on the distribution andrange of markhor in that area. This information wasused to plan surveys within the location.

In all the team covered approximately 418 km on foot,and interviewed 78 people for information on markhorin the six survey blocks. Of these, 40 people gaverelevant information about markhor.

1.3.2 Primary surveys - walks (indirect & directevidences)After the initial exercise of finding out the areas in ablock to be surveyed, two teams comprising of two tothree persons were formed. Since markhor occurred inmoderate to dense and steep pine forests in many areas,it was not possible to scan for them and the team hadto traverse through the forests to look for them.Besides, the teams also looked for markhor by walkingon trails along the valleys and ridges. Because of therelatively dense nature of the markhor habitat, theteam adopted the 'silent drive count method' (Rodgers

1991) to flush out markhor. In this, two to threebeaters would spread out near cliffs and other potentialmarkhor sites to beat through the slopes and drive anymarkhor towards observers sitting at vantage points.

Since the sightings of the markhor were made mostlyin the mornings and evenings, the team tried to be inthe field during this period. Binoculars and a spottingscope were used to scan the areas. Once a markhor wassighted, the time of sighting, location name (pasture,etc), coordinates (if possible), number of markhor inthe group, their sex and age composition (based onSchaller 1977), position on slope, elevation, vegetationtype, slope-steepness, aspect, land-surface ruggedness,distance to cliff, distance to livestock and distance tosettlements were recorded. Besides, other details suchas the starting time and end time and survey blockname were also recorded. Since the animals were quiterare in some areas, indirect evidences like the presenceof pellets and footprints were also noted (especially inareas where sheep & goats were absent). Similarinformation was also recorded for other wild ungulatesin the area.

1.3.3 Mapping the distributionAn important output of the survey is the current spatialdistribution of markhor in Jammu and Kashmir makingit possible for comparison with the past knowndistribution. This was a challenge given the difficultaccess to the maps of these restricted areas. VectorMaps from the Digital Chart of the world were used togenerate Digital Elevation Models of the state on1:1,000,000 scale. The Shikar map was geo-referencedbased on known locations of five places anddistribution of markhor was digitized. Using the fieldnotes, the present distribution of markhor was thendigitised. The Geographical Information Systemsoftwares Manifold and Mapinfo were used for thepurpose.

12

In all the team coveredapproximately 418 km on foot, and interviewed 78people for information onmarkhor in the six surveyblocks. Of these, 40 peoplegave relevant informationabout markhor.

CHAPTER 2

2.1 Occurrence in Kashmir

Markhor was seen only in the Kaj-i-nag range and the Hirpura wildlifesanctuary, while confirmed evidences of their presence were obtainedfrom the Boniyar and Poonch survey blocks (Figure 2b). No recent

evidence of markhor was found in the entire Shamshabari range. The populationshere are either extinct or near extinction. In the Baderwah-Kishtwar block theteam did not find any evidence of their presence, even in the recent past.

Within the Kashmir Valley, markhor were present in approximately 300 km2 in1947 in eight almost isolated populations (Figure 2a, Table 1). One population inShamshabari (No.2) and one in Gulmarg-Boniyar (No.6) are now in the PakistanOccupied Kashmir (SOI map-1947). The maximum distribution range of markhorwas in the Kaj-i-nag range (125 km2), while most others were much smaller areas(Table 1). In the year 2004 also markhor had the largest occurrence in Kaj-i-nag.However, the range had shrunk dramatically in Kaj-i-nag, Boniyar, Gulmarg andPoonch. The populations in Shamshabari may be restricted to very small pockets(see 2.1.4), if at all and the Banihal Pass population and eastwards is extinct.

(Note: For Boniyar & Gulmarg, where direct evidences of markhor were not present,estimates were based on local interviews and checking the area concerned in the field.The area for Poonch is estimated from Departmental records and local shikaris.)

?: Population most probably extinct, but there is insufficient informationX: Population certainly extinct or never occurred in the recent past- : Site outside the survey area in PoK

Thirty-fivemarkhor groupscomprising 155individualswere sighted.All sightingswere confinedto the twosurvey blocksof Hirpura andKaj-i-nag.

Markhor in Jammu and Kashmir:The Present Scenario

S.No Area/Survey Block Area

1947 (km2) 2004 (km2)1 Shamshabari N 25.3 ? 2 Shamshabari Across LoC 28.0 - 3 Shamshabari S 27.3 ? 4 Kaj-i-nag 125.6 43.5 5 Boniyar 17.6 10.0 6 Boniyar (across LoC) 32.2 - 7 Gulmarg (Nilkanth area) 12.1 10.0 8 Hirpura 0 13.0 9 Poonch 30.0 25.010 Banihal pass 6.0 ?11 Baderwah-Kisthwar NA X

Grand Total 304.06 101.5

Table 1: Markhor in Jammu and Kashmir: their past and present range ofoccurrence. Past range was calculated from the 1947 Survey of India Shikar map

13

2.1.1 Markhor in Hirpura The team surveyed about five km of the Rupri nala andthe Hathi Pahad area; in all covering about 25 km ofthe lower portion of the known markhor range of thesanctuary (Figure 3a). The upper slopes of the BegumPathri from Dobchen to Zaznar covering about 20 kmwere trekked. Further, camping at Zaznar, the areas ofSotsal Pathri and Sathran of about 15 km werecovered. Then the Pir Panjal nala for six km wascovered till the Aliabad Sarai, close to the Pir Panjalpass that leads into Poonch.

All the six sightings (25 markhor) were in thenortheastern part of the sanctuary. Two groups wereseen in Zaznar area, two in Dunali near Zaznar, onegroup in Teli and another in Rata Teli (Figure 3a). Thesearch in southeastern part of Rupri nala could notyield any sighting. However, enquiries with localssuggested the presence of markhor in the areas ofKamal Kot, Sotchal Pathri, Begampathri, LacutSathran, Bod Sathran and Yangenad. According tolocals, most of these were sighted during the springseason. It is estimated that the total range of markhorin Hirpura is c. 13 km2. Interestingly, none of the areasin Hirpura are marked in the 1947 Shikar map (Surveyof India 1947). Burrard (1925) and Stockley (1936) alsodo not mention Hirpura specifically for markhorthough the latter suggested that markhor occurredalmost continuously from Banihal pass till Shamsabariwhich would include Hirpura.

The south and northeast portions of the sanctuary arecontiguous with the Poonch area of Jammu wherethere is a small population of markhor and someamount of exchange in populations cannot be ruledout. While 25 markhor were sighted in Hirpura, at leastthree were probably animals sighted on twoconsecutive days, making 22 as the actual number ofanimals counted. Based on local reports it could beguessed that the area may be home to at the most 50markhor with most of them confined to the upperZaznar area. As is true for all other areas, a moredetailed survey in the spring season when markhor areconfined to the lower snow -free areas can yield betterpopulation estimates (see Chapter 4).

In the spring of 2005, 25 markhor in eight groups wereonce again sighted (after eliminating double counts) inthis region.

2.1.2 Markhor in Boniyar-GulmargThe team started from Gulmarg covering the BhutaPathri area and then walking into the Boniyarcatchment over the Naobalan ridge (Figure 1, Figure3b). The plan to directly descend into the Chotalivillage and Somali via Sallar, areas known to havepotential for markhor, had to be changed since deepand hard snow on the ridge made it impassable withoutspecialized equipment. Hence, a diversion of about 20km was taken via Benali to Gagerhill village in order toreach our survey sites. Most of the potential areas ofSallar and Noori could be only scanned from theopposite slope using binoculars and a spotting scope.

Covering a distance of over 30 km, no direct or indirectevidences were seen in Noabalan, Sallar and Nooriareas of the block. However, interviews with poachersin the nearby villages of Somali and Chotali did suggestthe presence of markhor in Sallar and Noori. Thesepoachers also admitted shooting markhor in Sallarsome years back. Sallar was known to be a favouredsite for the Rajas of Nambla to hunt markhor duringthe sixties (Mohd and Beigh, pers. com.). A horn of afemale markhor was seen in one of the houses of apoacher. The animals are present in this area, butappear to be extremely rare at present. They areconfined to the southeastern part of Sallar and thetotal range here may be merely 10 km2. Though noclear idea of their numbers could be obtained, they arealmost certainly less than 30.

While the Gulmarg WLS could not be covered,confirmed reports indicate a small population ofmarkhor in the vicinity of the Nilkanth peak,information that was corroborated in the Poonchsurvey.

2.1.3 Markhor in Kaj-i-nagLimber WLSSome members of the survey team reached one daybefore the start of the survey and camped at Babagail.The areas of Rambra, Geer pajja and Kalanwali weresurveyed on the first day covering about 15 km. Othermembers arrived a day later and camped at Babegail

Sun

il S

ubba

Kya

rong

/WTI

Hirpura Survey area

14

All the six sightings (25markhor) were in thenortheastern part of thesanctuary. Two groups wereseen in Zaznar area, two inDunali near Zaznar, one groupin Teli and another in Rata Teli(Figure 3a). The search insoutheastern part of Rupri nalacould not yield any sighting.

and the team surveyed the areas of Rambra, Hoobal,Kalamund, Malnav Nad, Pahal Pathri and BurzakutTop in all covering about 25 km in the markhor rangein Limber. Subsequently, camping in Rambra caves inMethwaninala, the areas of Safed Fresh, Daddacovering about five km in the markhor range weresurveyed. On the second day, the team walked alongthe nala for about five km. and surveyed the areas ofKalan Wali, Chemb, Methwani Bahak, Kandi Nala andShetlu covering about 12 km. On the final day, theteam again went across the Safed Fresh and surveyedKotherpal and Dadda covering about five km.Subsequently the team camped at Gammalitter andsurveyed the Hokhyan, Lacut Kothenal, Bod Kothenal,Wanten Dekke, Bapal, and Thulthulun areas coveringabout 20 km (Figure 3b).

The largest population of markhor among the surveyedsites was in the Limber WLS of the Kaj-i-nag surveyblock where 113 markhor were sighted in 24 groups(without any double count). Thus, this is the minimumnumber of markhor seen in Limber. Of the 24 groups,three groups each were seen in Rambra, Safed Freshand Hoobal, two groups each in Kotherpal, LacutKothnal and Geer Pajja and one group each inKalamund, Pahal Pathri, Malnav Nad, Dadda, KalanWali, Kandi Nala, Shetlu, Wanten Deke and Hokyan.Based on local reports and sightings, the estimatednumber of markhor in the area may be close to 150.

All of the 24 groups sighted except one in Rambra wereseen in moderately vegetated steep forests consisting ofblue pine, spruce, and fir. Most markhor were sightedon mid to upper slopes.

During the repeat survey in spring, 154 sightings ofmarkhor in 32 groups were recorded in the Limberarea. However, after eliminating double counts, anestimated 92 markhor individuals were seen. Abouthalf of the markhor sightings occurred in Hoobal areaof Methwani nalla. Other sightings occurred in SafedFresh Pud, Kalamund, Wanten Pud, Semiken,Hokhyan, Maven Nad, Kothrpul, Pahal Nala andShatlu.

Lacchipora WLSIn the adjoining Lachipora WLS, only three groupswith five individuals were seen. About five km wascovered in the Malangan nala (Figure 3b) and about 10km in the Ana Dub and Pir ki Jaga slopes. The teamcould not move further in this nala due to securityreasons. In the Gujjar nala, the camp was at theoutskirts of the Lachipora village and the team walkedthrough Jalanmari bahak and Eidnad covering theslopes of Danga pijja and Dadda. Then the Trinadi andBun bahak were covered for about 15 km in themarkhor range. The team then moved to Mainya tosurvey the Ghoretal nala. This nala is right on the LoCand the team could survey a few areas in Kothharan,and Shiddi covering merely about six km in themarkhor range.

Three groups of markhor with five individuals wereseen in Lachipora WLS in Gukki, Ana Dub and Daddain rugged slopes with open to moderate cover of pineand spruce.

Enquiries with locals did suggest the presence ofmarkor in Malangan base, Pir ki Jagah, S.P. Nala,Socerwali, Nadi Matha, Gocha Wali, Kothharan,Khanda Nala, Shiddi, GMG Nala, Trinardi and Eidnad.

Based on the interviews, the estimate of the populationof markhor is about 50 in the three nalas of theLacchipora WLS.

Naganari Conservation AreaIn Naganari, the Lundmari area was surveyed for about10 km and the slopes of Tragen and its opposite slopewere also surveyed in all covering approximately 15 km.Fifteen markhor were seen in two groups. One group ofsix animals was sighted at Lundmari in open pine andspruce forest with moderate cover and the othercomprising nine animals at Tragen in open deodarforest and moderate cover. Based on the observationsand discussions with local hunters and an informedsource, Dr Francis in Baramullah, around 25 markhorcould still be present here.

Burrard (1925) and Stockley (1936) had both talkedhighly about the Kaj-I nag range for hunting andobtaining large heads. However, even in those daysthey had shown concern about the declining markhorpopulations. The range of occurrence may be merely 45km2 having reduced drastically from the range of 125km2 recorded in 1947.

2.1.4 Markhor in Shamshabari As the team trekked along the dense Kail forest toPatni (immediately north of Kaj-i-nag) from theHundwara side of the Shamshabari Range, it startedencountering signs of ungulates. Foot prints were seenon the snow resembling that of markhor but despitethe guide identifying these foot prints as that ofmarkhor the team was not convinced. Some armypersonnel were interviewed, who denied markhorpresence in these parts. About 15 km was coveredsearching for markhor. After this, the team went toKeran, which is above the Kishenganga River. Thepoachers, herders and locals were not familiar withmarkhor. Hence, it is concluded that this is not perhapsamong the present markhor range. The team moved onto Tangdhar in the main Shamshabari range. Further,camping at Pathri, the areas of Kunni Rawal, Ricchi

15

Three groups of markhor withfive individuals were seen inLachipora WLS in Gukki, AnaDub and Dadda in ruggedslopes with open to moderatecover of pine and spruce.

Nala and Yaha Dori, covering about 25 km of markhorrange, in Tangdhar area were surveyed.

No markhor or indirect evidence was seen in theShamshabari survey block. Further, bad weather alsohindered the work to some extent. The informationabout the markhor presence here is relatively old asmost informants accepted that they had not visited thepotential areas for a long time.

Burrard (1925) ranked the Shamshabari among one ofthe best places to secure a good Pir Panjal markhor.However Stockley (1936) reported that markhor inShamshabari had been exterminated at the hands oflocal poachers. According to local reports, markhormay still be surviving in Yahadori, Kunni Rawal,Gagadori, Shamshabri and Tootmari areas.

2.2 Occurrence in Jammu

2.2.1 Markhor in Bhaderwah-KishtwarOnly secondary information was collected byinterviewing 15 people including shikaris and old forestofficials in Bhaderwah, Sartangal, Basti, Halian,Shashu, Shrekhi, Athai and Kishtwar. The secondaryinformation collected indicated that the markhor wasnot present in the area and probably was never presenthere. Enquiries, however, confirmed the presence ofibex and Himalayan tahr (Appendix II).

2.2.2 Markhor in PoonchTwenty-five people including poachers, herders andforest officials were interviewed for secondaryinformation regarding markhor distribution in Poonch,Loren, Skidio, Sawjian, Surankot, and Chandimud.Enquiries with these informants confirmed thepresence of markhor in different areas in Poonch onthe southern slopes of the Pir Panjal. The interviewswith poachers indicated that Kalamund, Tatta Kuti,Nilkant, Khara Gali, Chote Gali, Chatta Pani, Noor PurNaza and the Pattan Kore areas are among the mostpotential markhor areas. The Nilkant, Chote Gali andKalamund were preserved by Maharaja of Poonch asGame Reserves and it is said that people were directedto walk bare footed into these areas to protect the grassfor markhor (Bashir, Skido Poonch, pers. com.). Theother areas where the markhor presence wasconfirmed are Godenuk, Noorpur Naza, Knada, Pathra,Wansi Doke, Nan Sukh Doke, Easa Wali, 12890 pass,Loren, Dorian, Sarian-nadan, Jemia, Jabdi, Chote Wali,Gazain Wali, Chabba Katha, Baglain, OC Doke, KhunWali Doke, Poshana, Goda Bun, Kadu, Baila, Pajja,Kiren and Ander Wala. Informed local sources claimedthat there are at least 60-70 markhor in this area.

Stockley (1936) reported the markhor distribution inthe northeastern part of Pir Panjal near Poonch, whichhad suffered severely and were reduced almost to thepoint of vanishing when the Maharajas of Poonch

began preserving them strictly. He, however, felt thatgujjars and bakerwals continued poaching in theseparts.

2.2.3 Markhor in Bani and Sarthal Block, KathuaPresence of Markhor in the areas adjoining HimachalPradesh state in Sarthal, Sandran and Bani have beenreported. Sarpnalla on south east end of Sarthalmeadow was a famous haunt of shikaris for markhorhunting. The area shall be covered in subsequentsurveys in 2005-06 for an evaluation of the presentstatus.

2.3. Status of Pir Panjal markhor in Jammu andKashmir (other than PoK)

There has not been any earlier range-wide survey of themarkhor in Jammu and Kashmir and most of thereports were confined to parts of their range in thestate. Comparisons become more difficult as now theLoC divides the populations reported in some earliertexts (Burrard 1925, Stockley 1936). According toBurrard (1925), markhor was found in Pir Panjal, butonly where that system lies in the Kashmir Valley.Stockley (1936) reported markhor in Poonch, Hirpura,Boniyar-Gulmarg, Moji nala (on the north flanks of theKaj-i-nag), and Shamshabari. As per existing recordsmarkhor survives in a few small populations in theShamshabari, Kaj-i-nag and the remaining part of thePir Panjal range (Schaller 1977). Based on coarseinformation from the Wildlife Department, Schaller(1977) estimated the number of markhor to be 250-300in Jammu and Kashmir. Roberts (1997) reported thatmarkhor has been exterminated in J&K by the troopsstationed in this region. Suhail and Baba (2002)however, confirmed that they still occurred in theLimber WLS where they sighted 142 markhor in March2002.

The following population estimates are mainly based onthe data collected during the autumn survey as moreareas could be covered then. Thirty-five markhorgroups comprising 155 individuals were sighted. All

WTI

Markhor in its habitat

16

sightings were confined to the two survey blocks ofHirpura and Kaj-i-nag. The largest population ofmarkhor among the survey sites appears to besurviving in the Kaj-i-nag where the team sighted 133markhor (Table 2). A minimum of 155 markhor wereseen during this survey and it is estimated thatapproximately 280-330 markhor may still survive in thefour blocks where their presence has been confirmed inJammu and Kashmir (Table 2). This figure is more thanall previously published records that stated 200-300 asthe population (Schaller & Khan 1975; Schaller 1977;Menon 2003). This does not imply any increase inmarkhor numbers, but is primarily due to the fact thatall earlier reports were coarse guesses and not basedon surveys, and often only included portions in theKashmir valley and not the species' range in the Jammuregion of the state.

The populations can be roughly divided into two–the'north of Jhelum' consisting of almost contiguousShamsabari-Kajinag populations and south of Jhelum consisting of the Boniyar-Poonch-Hirpura populations.

While these two populations may have limitedexchanges within themselves, it was clear thatnumerous possibility to do so are also closed due to

habitat fragmentation and, importantly, the LoCfencing.

In all, 154 individuals could be classified according totheir age and sex. On the whole, more adult males wereseen compared to adult females–for every 100 adultfemales, 134 adult males and 19 young (kids andyearlings) were spotted. The adult female:young ratioappears to be on the lower side compared with otherpopulations of markhor in Chitral that had a ratiofavouring young (100 adult females to 104 to 130young)(Schaller, 1977). Other caprinae such as ibex inPin Valley NP (100:120) and bharal in Kibber WLS(100:43 to 78 young) also had ratios withproportionately more young (Mishra, 1997). This couldindicate relatively high mortality of the young, a factorthat needs further investigation.

Table 2: Number of markhor seen during the survey and the estimatedpopulation for each survey block.

?: Population most probably extinct, but there is insufficient information

Note: The numbers reported here have been arrived at after removing possibleduplications. Estimates are primarily guesses based on numerous local interviews as wellas the minimum numbers seen in the area.

Shamshabari 0 ?Kaj-i-nag 133 180 - 200Boniyar 0 20-30Gulmarg 0 ?Hirpura 22 40-50Poonch 0 40-50Bhaderwah -Kisthwar 0 ?Grand Total 155 280-330

Number ofMarkhor Seen

Area/Survey Block EstimatedPopulation

17

In all, 154 individuals could beclassified according to their ageand sex. On the whole, moreadult males were seencompared to adult females–forevery 100 adult females, 134adult males and 19 young (kidsand yearlings) were spotted.

CHAPTER 3

The survey team identified a variety of threats that could endanger themarkhor in Jammu and Kashmir. Most of these relate to the proximityto conflict zones between India and Pakistan along the LoC. There are

others related to traditional hunting practices in the region. Details of theseare given below:

3.1 Poaching

Markhor is generally considered to be the stalker's greatest prize bysportsmen. "As a trophy when well set up, with his long flowing beard andmagnificent spiral horns and as a stalker's achievement, he deserves to rankfirst" (Burrard, 1925). Poaching has been the main threat to markhorthroughout its range for centuries. Lydekker (1898) already consideredmarkhor in the Pir Panjal in imminent danger of extermination due toexcessive hunting. The shooting ethics were crude, which practicallyamounted to "shoot what you can, where you can and how you can". Themarkhor suffered severely and were reduced to near extermination. Burrard(1925) reported that permits for shooting in Kaj-i-nag and Shamshabari werein demand as they used to provide magnificent heads. Most of these areaswere remote and were cut off during winter due to heavy snowfall. The localsused to ambush markhor in the snow and catch them and then kill for meat.Markhor meat is locally regarded as the tastiest wild meat.

Markhor was killed and its meat sold in the local markets till recently. Thegujjars and bakerwals in Hirpura have been killing markhor and selling inthe market till the area was handed over to Wildlife Department (Ahmad &local wildlife guard pers. com.). Markhor in Kaj-i-nag was also facing the sameproblem before it was brought under the PA network (Rath pers. com.).

The excessive poaching of markhor in Jammu and Kashmir came down inareas that were brought under the PA network during the late eighties.However, it continued in the non-protected areas like Poonch, Gulmarg-Bonyar and Shamshabari till the early nineties. In the early years of militancy(1990-92), modern arms were easily available and there was not much armymovement or any effective law enforcement and this took heavy toll on thewildlife at most places. The situation did seem to change with greater controlover the areas. However, poaching continued in pockets. In Lachipora,notified in 1987, but not handed over to the wildlife department, poachingseems to be occurring. Poaching is also reported from Poonch. The locals aremostly herders who with their livestock go to the sub-alpine and alpinepastures and get involved in poaching. These herders and the bakerwalspossess guns to protect themselves and their livestock from the wild animals.But they reportedly misuse their guns for poaching.

Apart from thefact thataccess for thewildlifedepartmentstaff isrestricted inmany areasdue to securityreasons, thelong-notifiedLachipora WLShas not yetbeen handedover to WildlifeDepartmentand is stillunder thecontrol ofForestDepartment.

Major threats to Markhor inJammu & Kashmir

18

3.2 Grazing

The gujjars and bakerwals possess a large number oflivestock, which is their main source of livelihood. Totake advantage of seasonal variations in forageavailability across the Pir Panjal range, theytraditionally migrate to alpine and sub- alpine pasturesduring summer from the month of June to September.The gujjars with their livestock migrate mostly locallybut bakerwals of Poonch and Rajouri migrate withtheir livestock to Kashmir. The gujjars, bakerwals andlocal shepherds at many places establish their summergrazing camps in the existing PAs or have their routethrough the PAs. The Hirpura WLS is dottedthroughout with permanent bakerwal huts which areused during summers. This sanctuary is also one of themain routes to Kashmir for the migratory bakerwals ofPoonch and Rajouri. The sanctuary and most of thearea appeared to be overgrazed. The Limber,Lachipora, Naganari and Gulmarg-Boniyar primarilycater to local grazers. There are few reports ofbakerwals visiting the upper parts of the Limber WLS.The level of grazing in these areas appears to be highlyrestricted due to changing lifestyles and also restrictedaccess to some pastures due to security reasons.

3.3 Deforestation, fuel wood extraction andcollection of non-timber forest produce

Deforestation: The demand for timber in Kashmir isvery high as it is heavily used in construction.Deforestation occurs mainly in areas that are not underthe control of wildlife department, though in the PAsthe herders may be responsible for some deforestationfor construction and fuel. The team observed treefelling inside the Lachipora WLS, which has not been

handed over to the Wildlife Department by the ForestDepartment.

Fuel wood extraction: Local people, migratory herdersas well as the defense forces mainly do this to cook andto keep warm in winters. In some areas, this seemed tobe unregulated.

Non-timber forest produce collection: The local peopleat some places go inside the PAs to collect the highlyvalued mushroom (gucchi) and medicinal plants. Whilethis is unregulated at all places, the team could not getany idea of the extent to which this is taking place.This, however, has a potential to be a major threat tothe general biodiversity of the region.

3.4 Turmoil

Nilkant-Poonch, Gulmarg-Bonyar, Lachipora WLS,Shamshabari are all adjacent to the LoC and haveexperienced shelling for many years. Thus, animalsclose to the LoC would always be prone to being killedor injured in the shelling and cross-firing. The fencing

WTI

Alpine pastures where the gujjars and bakerwals migrate with their livestock

19

The Hirpura WLS is dottedthroughout with permanentbakerwal huts which are usedduring summers. Thissanctuary is also one of themain routes to Kashmir for themigratory bakerwals of Poonchand Rajouri. The sanctuary andmost of the area appeared tobe overgrazed.

on border to control the infiltration of militants hascreated permanent barriers for the wild animals also.Markhor populations seem to have been dividedpermanently by the fencing.

To combat the cross border shelling and control theinfiltration, security forces have been deployed on theIndo-Pak border. Their presence in the area, especiallywhen their supplies come in may be potential sourcesof disturbance. However, army presence can also haveits advantages because being remote, very often armypatrols can be meaningfully used to monitor areas withMarkhor.

3.5 Lack of infrastructure

There is a general lack of field staff throughout theMarkhor range and those who are there, are ill-equipped, largely untrained and lack basicinfrastructure for patrolling the area.

3.6 Lack of control over some areas by the WildlifeDepartment

Apart from the fact that access for the wildlifedepartment staff is restricted in many areas due tosecurity reasons, the long-notified Lachipora WLS hasnot yet been handed over to Wildlife Department andis still under the control of Forest Department. Thoughthere are potential sites, no PA exists in Poonch, whichhad a game reserve even in the Maharaja's time duringthe 1940s.

3.7 Lack of awarenessThere are numerous stakeholders in the region, suchas the local villagers, migratory herders from outside,the defense forces and staff of the other Governmentdepartments. The team found that there wasconsiderable ignorance about wildlife in general andmarkhor in particular and its precarious status amongthem. Some Army officers, for example, were verysurprised to learn that there were probably only 300 to400 markhor in India. Some informed sources felt thatwhile the hangul (Cervus elaphus hanglu) hasattracted considerable heritage value in the state, thesame is not true for the equally deserving markhor.They felt that this was also probably due to ignoranceabout this species at the policy level.

3.8 Disease transmissionThere is every possibility of disease spreading from thelivestock to markhor. Diseases like foot and mouth arereportedly common in livestock and can pass tomarkhor. In Kaigah, a part of PoK, not far from theLoC, Nawaz (2002) reported an outbreak ofenterotoxaemia in domestic goats that could spread tothe markhor too.

20

There is a general lack of fieldstaff throughout the Markhorrange and those who arethere, are ill-equipped, largelyuntrained and lack basicinfrastructure for patrolling thearea.

CHAPTER 4

The rapid survey gave insights about markhor occurrence and threats,hitherto unknown. Based on these, some preliminary, but pertinentrecommendations are presented here that will enhance conservation of

the species in Jammu & Kashmir. The recommendations based on the surveyare:

1. Hirpura and Kaj-i-nag are priority sites for Markhor conservation.At present, the two sites of Hirpura WLS and Kaj-i-nag range have the bestpossibility of population recovery and are being potential 'sourcepopulations' for conservation and restocking of the markhor in the rest ofits range. Any conservation program should concentrate on these areas ona priority.

2. Lachipora WLS, Limber WLS and Naganari CA should be amalgamatedinto Kaj-i-nag NP and WLS.The Kaj-i-nag range consists of three contiguous PAs–Lacchipora WLS (c.114 km2), Limber WLS (c. 44 km2) and the Naganari Conservation Area (c.20 km2), which have markhor at present. The Lacchipora WLS is stillcontrolled by the Forest Department, and the Wildlife department does nothave any say in the management of this area. It is important that thenotified PA is handed over to the Wildlife Department for management.Further, there is an urgent and important need of merging the three PAsinto one unit and zoning the area to incorporate inviolate core zones withinthese. The boundaries of the three combined PAs need to be extended andredefined to cover the summer and winter habitats of markhor and othercritically endangered species like the western tragopan. The core inviolatearea should become a National Park and could be designated as the Kaj-i-nag National Park. The other contiguous areas, which have resident humanpopulation or usage, could be designated, as a wildlife sanctuary and act asa buffer to the National Park. An attempt should be made to define thelimits of both the proposed National Park and the adjacent Sanctuary andrecord it on the map as accurately as possible.

There are other markhor sites with potential of inclusion under the PAnetwork in the state, which can be designated after further surveys. Onesuch area identified during the survey is in the Poonch district (includingthe Tattakutti, Kalamund and Neelkunth areas). These areas also should besurveyed for markhor and other wildlife and recommended for inclusionwithin an appropriate PA.

3. Collaborative management of Markhor areas with the Indian Armyshould be worked out.The army provided invaluable support during these surveys, and can playan extremely important role in working jointly with the WildlifeDepartment and other interested agencies in conserving this species.

There is anurgent andimportant needof merging thethree PAs intoone unit, theKaj-i-nagNational Parkand zoning thearea toincorporateinviolate corezones withinthese.

Recommendations

21

Although a joint comprehensive conservationprogram needs to be developed, support is neededprimarily in curbing poaching. A more tricky issue isthat of the LoC fencing that has fragmented themeager markhor habitat. A solution to this issueseems difficult, but is possible in places if thefencing is moved up further towards the ridge andcloser to the actual LoC to add the critical habitatsto the area under army control. Some such sites canbe suggested based on the present survey as well asany further survey for this specific issue.

4. Conservation education and awareness must becarried out. All stakeholders including local villagers, gujjars,bakerwals, Forest Department personnel, otherGovernment staff, and the Armed Forces must beeducated about conservation issues in general andmarkhor in particular. Well-directed programmestargeting these groups with emphasis on markhor asa unique part of local heritage can help in changingattitudes. Locals, especially hunters need to bemotivated to conserve markhor and other wildlife.

5. Capacity building of the local wildlife departmentin terms of manpower, resources and training toconserve the markhor needs to be carried out.The Wildlife Department in general, especially inmarkhor areas has very few equipped and trainedstaff. Capacity building is needed in enforcement,wildlife law, wildlife monitoring and managementplanning. There is an urgent need for high- altitudeclothing and camping gear for the staff. Patrollinghuts inside the wildlife sanctuaries, at least inLimber and Hirpura, should be provided toencourage regular patrolling of the area.

6. Rescue and rehabilitation of markhor needs to bemanaged.A rescue and rehabilitation center could beestablished for the animals rescued from illegalcaptivity or in an injured condition. Since most ofthe distribution of the Pir Panjal markhor is alongthe border, there are chances of injuries due toshelling. Moreover, the habitat is very rugged andin winter landslides can also hurt the markhor. Itwas recorded that a markhor got trapped in LoCfencing and died whereas a brown bear had anarrow escape. A Markhor was also reported killeddue to landslides. Such injured animals can berescued and rehabilitated considering itsendangered status. A good scientifically managedfacility where such a population is carefully builtup, through rescued animals is needed. This facilitycan be established in the Kaj-i-nag area and not inany town. This matter needs specialized input andshould be based on a long term conservation planfor the species.

7. Livestock grazing should be controlled in HirpuraWLS.In the Hirpura WLS there seems to be heavysummer grazing by the migrant gujjars andbakerwals in markhor areas that has pushedmarkhor to sub-optimal regions of the PA. Thisneeds to be urgently controlled so that markhorpopulations can recover in the region. To begin with,a good inventory of herders, their livestock holding,areas used and duration of stay is needed from theseareas.

8. A more detailed understanding of the ecology ofthe species is needed.This step will greatly help in understanding thepopulation dynamics, specific habitat requirements,food habits and also in mapping other potentialareas of markhor in Jammu and Kashmir, whereanimals can be re-introduced (after negating thethreats that caused its extinction).

9. Wildlife tourism needs to be developed to provideviewing of markhor and other wildlife. There needs to be a special eco-tourism plan evolvedfor Limber WLS and Hirpura WLS. This has to keepthe conservation interests of the habitat and wildlifespecies, especially endangered species such as themarkhor. This recommendation might help the needto conserve wildlife, especially endangered onessuch as the western tragopan, brown bear, muskdeer, etc. using markhor as a flagship species as wasdone in the case of the Tiger.

10. Non wildlife agencies should be empowered underthe Wildlife Protection Act.There is a need to empower field commanders of thearmy in these areas with legal powers as provided tothe Chief Wildlife Warden. By virtue of their taskand deployment, once conferred with legal powers,these field commanders will be able to assist theconcerned authorities in ensuring protection ofwildlife. Details of this arrangement have to beworked out in consultation with concernedagencies.

11. An intelligence network needs to be formed.Illegal trade in animal products and timber is highlylucrative wherein the efforts to curb them have notbeen successful due to lack of a effective andcomprehensive intelligence mechanism. There is aneed to create a functional intelligence network tofacilitate enforcement. Ex-servicemen, old poachersand knowledgeable locals could be co-opted in suchan intelligence network. Since the army is operatingalong the borders, legal powers if given to the localarmy field commanders in these remote areas with asound intelligence network will enable the fieldcommanders to contribute to the protection ofwildlife.

22

Kashmir markhor in its habitat WTI The horn of a markhor, showing a distinct spiral twist WTI

A view of Lachipora Wildlife Sanctuary Vivek Menon

From left to right: Sunil Subba Kyarong of WTI, Dr Yash Veer Bhatnagar of NCF and Riyaz Ahmad of WTI WTI

he surveys for the markhor represented a critical part of the conservationstory of the species. Soon after the surveys finished and the resultantreport “Goats on the border, Ist Ed.” was written in 2005, an important area

for the Pirpanjal markhor, as identified through this report was threatened bypressures of development. The conservation utility of the survey and the reportcan be judged by how frequently the report was used by the government andhow the recommendations made therein became important to the survival of thespecies in India.

The immediate test was the construction of a highway that would connect theKashmir valley with the rest of the state, a project that had successive chiefministers of the state and a prime minister of India declaring that this would bea priority for development. This highway, connecting the town of Rajouri in theJammu Province with Srinagar in the Kashmir valley ran across the Pir Panjalrange and had been planned in the late 1980’s. The road was called the ‘MughalRoad’and was aligned as a widened version of the bridle path used by Mughalkings to visit the valley from the plains of India, five hundred years ago. A section(about 22 km) of the proposed highway passes through Hirapora WildlifeSanctuary, an important refuge for the Pirpanjal markhor and already referred toin this report (see Page 14).

This road construction project was revived in the year 2005 and work began inthe year 2006, seemingly with out any Environmental Impact Assessmentshaving been carried out.This is a pre-requisite for development projects underboth the Wildlife Protection Act (as it passes through a sanctuary) and theEnvironment Protection Act (check with Ritwick) A concerned NGO, BiodiversityConservation Trust filed a Public Interest litigation in the Central EmpoweredCommittee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the construction of theroad on the plea that its construction would endanger the already smallpopulation of Markhor within the Hirapora Wildlife Sanctuary. The appellantused this report (Goats on the Border) to quote the importance of the area andsought a stoppage on the construction activities. The government assured thecourt that they would, temporarily, stop work on the road and would get allnecessary clearances before resumption.

Subsequently, the matter of diverting the 66.81 hectare of the Hirapora WildlifeSanctuary for the construction of the road was put before the National Board forWildlife (NBWL) by the government of Jammu and Kashmir. This was necessaryif the construction of the road was to begin. The state justified the importance ofthe road by the following arguments:• that the road would allow people to travel between Poonch/Rajouri and

Srinagar by having to travel relatively shorter distances (200-250 km) insteadof the existing 500 km.

CHAPTER-5

Theconservationutility of thesurvey and thereport can bejudged by howfrequently thereport wasused by thegovernmentand how therecommend-ations madethereinbecameimportant tothe survival ofthe species inIndia.

The Markhor as the Flagship forConservation Action in the Pir Panjal

31

32

• that it would serve as an alternate highway connecting Jammu with Srinagar.

• that the present alignment was the best available, causing the least ecological damage

• that the road would allow Poonch and Rajouri areas to develop by improved road access.

• that it would help to improve the security of the area.

A team deputed by the NBWL made a site inspection ofthe areas in question. Their report referred to ‘Goats onthe border’ frequently, also agreeing with therecommendation provided therein. The report of theNBWL felt that the road construction would threaten themarkhor in Hirapora but provided a list ofrecommendations and ruled that if fulfilled in toto, wouldcompensate for the ill effects caused by the road. Theserecommendations were:

i) The project authorities should seriously considerproviding a well-compacted metalled surface to the partof the road passing through the sanctuary rather than amacadam one, as it would involve much lesserenvironmental pollution and will also ensure thatvehicular speed through the park is curtailed.

ii) The possible disturbances due to presence of labourcamps during the construction works will need to becurbed. The project authorities will need to place thecamps as close to the periphery of the sanctuary aspossible. The camps must be overseen by the wildlife staffand no labourers or any other construction staff shouldbe allowed to keep any weapons. It will also be necessaryto post a forest guard at the camp site to controlpoaching. The project authorities will also ensure that allfuel for cooking and heating used by the labourers will bebrought from outside and no local forest-based biomasswill be used.

iii) The state Govt. has to ensure that the road is keptopen only during the summer and is closed to trafficduring the winter when the markhor, musk deer andother animals migrate to the lower areas across the road.

iv) It is also recommended to set up a series of check-posts all along the road which are manned round the yearwhether the road is open to traffic or otherwise (exceptwhen weather conditions do not allow).

Meanwhile, an EIA was conducted on the project by theCentre of Research for Development, University ofKashmir. Though this EIA was perfunctory, especiallywith regard to large terrestrial fauna and flora, it didoutline certain possible impacts. These were:

i) The project would affect the immediate environmentinside as well as outside the sanctuary due toconstruction activities such as cutting, leveling, filling andclearing, which in turn would likely affect the intactnessof the ecosystems and the associated biodiversity all alongthe landscape.

ii) The road construction activity in itself would result incutting of may trees which in turn would have a cascadingeffect on the associated biota. Besides traffic on the roadmay cause death of may animals that utilize verge habitatsor try to cross the road.

iii) Although the area from Hirpora to Pir Ki Gali hasbeen notified as a wildlife sanctuary in 1987, thelandscape throughout the alpine area of the sanctuary asalso on the other side of the Pirpanjal pass is alreadyheavily grazed and dotted with permanent grazier hutswithout any proper regulatory mechanism in place. Theforest area of the sanctuary is also already under greatanthropogenic pressure because of felling of trees.Explicitly, this situation has resulted into a plethora ofecological problems. Shaving of the ground herbaceouscover has led to low moisture retaining capacity of soil,which cascades into the increased run off and theresultant loss of fertile top soil.

iv) Though the Mughal Road track has been used bylocals since historical times, but the proper roadconstruction would see manifold increase in movement ofvehicles and human beings which could translate intospread of alien invasive species, in hitherto pristinehabitats and ecosystems.

v) The use of Mughal Route Track by the Gujjars andBakerwals for moving their sheep and cattle from Rajouriand Poonch to Kashmir and back at regular intervals anduse of the track by the nomads throughout the periodfrom March-November as well as use of the sanctuary areafor grazing purposes has already affected the wildlife,including markhor population in the area. Fragmentationof the Hirpora Sanctuary may further aggravate thesituation.

vi) The presence of motor vehicles may introduce thepotential for contamination of the soil, air and wateradjacent to the road and in the case of surface water wellbeyond the immediate surroundings. Chroniccontamination may become a problem for animal speciesespecially those at the top of the food chain, because ofbio-accumulation of pollutants.

vii) The noise created by blasting during the constructionperiod and later on due to the movement of the heavy

The road construction activityin itself would result in cuttingof may trees which in turnwould have a cascading effecton the associated biota.Besides traffic on the road may cause death of mayanimals that utilize vergehabitats or try to cross theroad.

33

vehicles in the area may also affect the behaviors of thewildlife in the area.

They came out with an Environmental Management Plan(EMP) and suggested certain corrective measures. Onemajor recommendation of this plan was the addition of149 km2 area to the existing Hirpora Wildlife Sanctuaryas a compensatory measure for loss of habitat due toacquisition of road for construction. The EMP strategiessuggested were:

i) At present the sanctuary is spread over an area of196.5 km2 between Hirpora and the Pir Ki Gali. Anadditional area of 149 km2 located on the eastern side ofthe sanctuary which is presently under the possession ofthe Pir Panjal Forest Division is recommended to beincluded in the Sanctuary. This area has the same landcover/land use pattern as the present sanctuary and itsinclusion in the sanctuary will help ameliorating thenegative impacts of the proposed road on the wildlifepopulations of the area.

ii) The road from Ali Abad to Pir Ki Gali needs to beconstructed in such a manner that several sizeablestretches are left without black topping so that thenatural conditions of ground are retained for uninhabitedmovement of the wild animals across the road alignment.

iii) The bridges on the Rambiara Nalla and Zaznaar Nalla,especially the latter needs to be provided with covers onboth sides so hat the wild animal do not get disturbedwhile moving around in the vicinity of the bridges.

iv) Although the creation of the Hirapora Sanctuay hasbeen notified nearly two decades ago, nothing seems tohave been done on the ground in this connection and atthe moment there is hardly any difference between thenotified sanctuary area and other forest areas in theregion. It is therefore recommended that the sanctuary befenced in the areas which are in the neighbourhood of thehuman settlements.

v) The grazing by domestic cattle within the sanctuaryarea which is very prevalent at the moment needs to becompletely banned.

vi) Sufficient watch and ward staff be provided for theproper management of the wildlife sanctuary.

vii) At the moment there are no infrastructural facilitiesavailable to the wildlife Department within the protectedarea. Therefore proper infrastructural facilities need to bedeveloped within the sanctuary so that the watch andward staff of the department of wildlife protection is ableto perform its duties in a better, coordinated and efficientmanner.

viii) Night time movement of the vehicular traffic insidethe sanctuary area must be banned. This will help reduce

the possibility of mortality of the wild anima due tovehicular accidents.

ix) There should be no unauthorized vehicular stoppagewithin the sanctuary area.

x) The passage through the sanctuary must be regulatedby having check posts with appropriate watch and wardstaff at both the entry points into the sanctuary.

The government of Jammu and Kashmir submitted anaffidavit in the CEC promising to fulfil all the conditionsset by the NBWL and the recommendation made in theEnvironmental Management Plan proposed by CORD.These included the amalgamation of the Lachipora WLS,Limber WLS and Nagnari Conservation Area into a singleunit and upgradation of the same to the status of aNational Park – Kazinag National Park.

In the year 2006, a team of the CEC made a siteinspection and on the basis of their visit, submitted theirreport to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Theiropinions tallied with those of the NBWL report and setcertain pre-conditions required to be fulfilled before thecommencement of work on the road:

i) There should be complete ban on the movementthrough the sanctuaries and the conservation areas bythe graziers and their livestock. An alternativecorridor/road and grazing areas outside and away fromthe sanctuary areas should be earmarked to enable thenomads to move and graze their livestock.

ii) The sanctuary/conservation areas which are in theneighbourhood areas of human settlement should befenced to prevent poaching and other illegal activities.

iii) The areas of the three continuous PAs namelyLachipora Wildlife Sanctuary, Limbar Wildlife Sanctuaryand the Nagnari Conservation Areas all falling in the Kaj-i-Nag range should be amalgamated and its core areashould be upgraded as a National Park. The othercontiguous area which has human population, should beretained/notified as wildlife sanctuary. The managementof the entire area should be transferred from the ForestDepartment to the Wildlife protection Department.

iv) An additional are of 149km2, located on the easternside of the sanctuary, which is presently under thepossession of Pir Panjal Forest Division, should beincluded in the Hirpora Wildlife Sanctuary therebyincreasing its area from the existing 195.5 km2 to about344.5 km2.

v) Requisite environment clearance for the project willbe obtained as per the prevalent rules/guidelines.

vi) Five percent of the project cost will be deposited inthe Compensatory Afforestation Fund by the user agencyfor undertaking conservation and protection work in theSanctuary.

34

vii) A Monitoring committee will be set up under theChairmanship of the Chief Secretary with the PCCF andthe Chief Wildlife Warden as members. The committeeshall be responsible for the strict compliance of thestipulated conditions and ensuring that no work on theproject commences without first complying with the pre-conditions.

Other conditionsi) The Species Recovery Programme for Markhorsprepared by the Department of Wildlife Preservation, J&Kwill be implemented in toto.

ii) All other conditions on which the project has beencleared by the Standing Committee of the NBWL will bestrictly complied with.

iii) All other mitigative measures recorded in theEnvironment Management Plan will be implemented.

On the basis of this report and other documents, theHon’ble Supreme Court passed the order, recommendinggrant of permission to construct the Mughal Road withthe following conditions:a) Complete ban on the movement through thesanctuaries and conservation areas by graziers and theirlivestock.

b) Sanctuary/conservation areas which are in theneighbourhood areas of human settlement should befenced to prevent poaching and other illegal activities.

c) The areas of the three continous P.A.s (LachiporaWLS, Limber WLS and Nagnari Conservation Area)falling in the Kaj-i-nag Range should be upgraded as aNational Park. The management of the entire area shouldbe transferred from the Forest Department to the WildlifeProtection Department.

d) An additional area of 149 km2 located on the easternside of the sanctuary and under the possession of the PirPanjal forest Division should be included in the HiraporaWildife Sanctuary.

e) Requisite Environment clearance for the project willbe obtained as per the prevalent rules/guidelines.

f) 5% of the project cost to be deposited in CAMPA.

g) Monitoring committee to be set up (under) the

chairmanship of the Chief Secretary with PCCF and ChiefWildlife Warden as members. Committee shall beresponsible for strict compliance of the stipulatedconditions.

Conservation Action carried out to date:

1. Expansion of the Hirpora WLSAs a direct result of the first edition of this report, the Jand K Wildlife Protection Department has proposed toadd an area of 149 km2 south of the sanctuary to coverthe upper catchments of the Rupri and Harseni Nar riverswhich contain the alpine meadows to which the markhormigrate in summer. It is critical that this be implementedimmediately. This will bring the total area of thesanctuary to 344.5 km2 and hence provide a more viableprotected habitat for the markhor and other wildlife. Ifthis step is taken along with a complete elimination of thegraziers from the sanctuary and an effective control onpoaching, the animals will no longer need to confinethemselves to the two pockets -mentioned above.

2. Transfer of the Lachipora WLS to the wildlifedepartmentIt is heartening to note that Lachipora wildlife sanctuaryhas been transferred to the wildlife protection departmentand that it will receive a higher degree of protection andmanagement inputs. The Report: Goats on the Border IstEd observes that the extent of poaching has come undercontrol after some of the PAs were handed to over theWLPD and it is hoped that this will happen withLachipora as well.

3. Creation of the Kaj-i-Nag NP and WLS.Probably the most important conservation action that hasresulted due to the report, the court case and the positivesteps taken by the J and K government is the creation ofthe Kaj-i-nag NP and WLS. This protected areas are acombination of the Lachipora WLS, Limber WLS andNaganari Conservation Area and the amalgamation hadbeen outlined in the first edition of this report. Thedeclaration of this PA (expected soon) would be only thesecond national park created in India since 2004 and willbe a great boost in the protection of this unique montaneecosystem.

Conservation Action that need to be implementedin the next phase of the project:

1. To control grazing from within the sanctuaryThe Report: Goats on the Border, Ist Ed has stated thatheavy summer grazing all over the sanctuary had reducedthe effective habitat of the markhor, and that some of thenomadic pastoral communities, i.e. the Gujjar andBakarwals are also known to engage in poaching. It isimportant to reiterate that no effective control ofpoaching and other disturbances to the markhor is

As a direct result of the firstedition of this report, the J andK Wildlife ProtectionDepartment has proposed toadd an area of 149 km2 south ofthe sanctuary to cover theupper catchments of the Rupriand Harseni Nar rivers whichcontain the alpine meadows towhich the markhor migrate insummer. It is critical that thisbe implemented immediately.

35

PR

OP

OS

ED

KA

J-i

-NA

G N

AT

ION

AL

PA

RK

36

HIR

AP

UR

A

WIL

DL

IFE

SA

NC

TU

AR

Y

37

possible unless the presence of the graziers is eliminatedfrom the sanctuary and they are not allowed to put uphutments and other structures like the “dho’ within thesanctuary.

It will also be necessary to provide an alternative routeand grazing areas for the graziers to carry out theirseasonal migration outside the sanctuary limits, includingthe proposed extension area of 149 km2.

2. Survey of other potential markhor areasA detailed survey for the markhor (as well as otherendangered species) should be taken up in the following

areas where the WLPD/WTI Survey team found directand indirect evidence of its presence:i) Sallar area, including the Gulmarg, WLS of Boniyar-

Gulmargii) The Shamshabari area north of Kaj-i-nag.iii) Area of Poonch on the southern slopes of Pir PanjalAfter survey an action plan will need to be prepared bythe WLPD for conservation of the markhor and the StateGovt. will need to implement it in right earnest.

3. Capacity Building of the wildlife Department toenable it to protect and conserve markhori) To begin with, the existing staff engaged in protectionworks should be reviewed and immediate steps should betaken to screen them and retain only physically fitpersons and those with the right mental aptitude for thischallenging and arduous job. This should be done for thestaff being taken on deputation, from other departmentslike social forestry, as currently this seems to be the onlymeans and source of filling up of vacancies in the WLPD.

ii) To enable the protection staff to spend long periodswithin the PAs, anti-poaching huts along the lines ofthose in Himachal Pradesh should be established with all-night camping facilities like fuel, wireless, solar light,ration and cooking facilities. These camps should be setup in areas where the graziers have been setting up theirtraditional dhoks.iii) The protection staff should be provided with clothingand equipment to work in high altitudes and should bespecially trained in prevention and detection of poaching.

4. Setting up of an intelligence networkNo effective anti-poaching work is possible unless asystem to monitor the poachers and their abettors is inposition. The wildlilfe department will need to set up anintelligence network by involving ex-servicemen, old

poachers and knowledgeable locals and a secret fund fordiscretionary use by the department to main the networkwill need to be provided to the Chief Wildlife Warden. Forthis purpose, amendments to the State’s financial rulesshould be made if necessary.

5. Collaboration with the ArmyThe army can play an extremely important role in workingjointly with the wildlife Protection department inconservation of the markhor and helping in curbing itspoaching. To ensure that a joint strategy is formulatedand implemented on ground with active collaboration ofofficials at all levels, ‘Markhor cells’ on the lines of TigerCells in Maharashta and MP will need to be set up.

6. Eco-development of villages in and around HirporaWLSNo action plan for conserving the markhor is possibleunless the active participation of the local communities isensured. It is therefore very important that a package ofeco-development of the villages within and aroundHirpora WLS is prepared based on micro-plans for eachvillage and is implemented with full funding support.

7.Conservation and education awareness campaignA well-designed educational programme for creatingawareness and sensitivity for conservation not only of themarkhor but also other endangered wildlife like the muskdeer and the western tragopan as unique heritage of thearea should be developed involving all the stake holderslike the local villagers, gujjars, army personnel, staff ofthe forest and other department as well as ex-poachersand implemented.

8. A five year action plan to conserve and protect themarkhorThe Wildlife Department should prepare a comprehensivefive year action plan for the conservation and protectionof the markhor in Kazinag, Hirpora and potentialmarkhor area that will take into account all the aboverecommendations. The action plan must get approved bythe state cabinet and the state govt. must confirm its fullcommitment to implement and finance this programe. Tobegin with, 5% of the estimated cost of Rs 225 crores forthe road project should be made available, asconservation financing, for this purpose.

9.Exchange of gene pools among isolated populationsAs mentioned in the report: Goats on the Border,1st Ed,the markhor population in J&K can be roughly dividedinto two largely distinct populations, the ‘north ofJhelum’ consisting of almost contiguous Shamsbari- Kaj-i-nag populations and ‘south of Jhelum’ consisting of theBoniyar-Poonch-Hirpora populations. While these twopopulation may have limited exchanges withinthemselves, the report states that it is clear thatpossibilities to do so are closed due to habitatfragmentation and also on account of the fencing alongthe LoC.

anti-poaching huts along thelines of those in HimachalPradesh should be establishedwith all-night camping facilitieslike fuel, wireless, solar light,ration and cooking facilities.

38

To avoid such genetic isolation of the Hirpora and Kaj-i-nag markhor populations, we recommend that the WLPDshould develop a pilot research programme to assess thegenetic variability of the isolated populations and thendraw up a programme for exchange of populationsamong these areas. Technical guidelines for this purposemay be sought from WII, Dehra Dun and CCMB,Hyderabad.

10. Inclusion of the recommendations of the impactassessment study

It has been learnt that the Jammu & Kashmir governmenthas awarded a contract for carrying out a rapid impactassessment study of the road from Shopian to Bafliaz, i.ethe portion passing through the Hirpora WLS to MSRites Ltd. Gurgaon vide its order dated the 5th August 05.During our field visit it was learnt that the consultants areyet to begin the study. It is recommended that anyconservation recommendation that may emanate fromthis report that will add value to the existingrecommendations should be implemented.

In conclusionIn conclusion, while the impact of the road on the wildlifeof Hirapora, especially on the small and isolatedpopulation of the highly endangered markhor may bequite serious, these will be more than offset if the aboverecommendations to conserve and protect the markhor,are put in place by the state govt. in right earnest.

This case, amply demonstrates how the Schallerconservation survey on the markhor, conducted by WTIin collaboration with the NCS and the Jammu andKashmir Wildlife Department and its report: Goats on theBorder, Ist Ed. served the purpose of orienting andinfluencing the policy makers on issues pertaining to thelong-term survival of markhor in the wild in J&K. It alsogoes to show how scientifically conducted studies and theinformation produced as a result can be used forconservation action if appropriate action oriented projectsare taken up and conservation agencies work hand-in-hand with concerned government agencies to make ithappen. The story of markhor conservation and theconservation of its habitat in Pir Panjal represent such aconservation success pilot story.

39

APPENDIX I DISTRIBUTION, STATUS, MORPHOLOGY ANDBIOLOGY OF THE MARKHOR

Systematic position

Markhor (Capra falconeri) belongs to the Family Bovidae, Subfamily:Caprinae, Tribe: Caprini, Genus: Capra and Species: falconeri.

Simpson (1945, in Schaller, 1977) divided the subfamily Caprinae into 4tribes and 14 genera.

Status: Markhor is endangered (EN - C2A) in the IUCN Red List (2000). InIndia markhor is included in the Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife ProtectionAct (1972) and also the J&K Wildlife Protection Act (1978). It is includedunder the Appendix I of the CITES (2000). Markhor occur in three WildlifeSanctuaries and one Conservation Reserve, in all covering an area of251.7sq.km in J&K.

Schaller (1977) estimated that the total population of markhor to be 250-300in Jammu and Kashmir. Roberts (1997) reported that markhor in Pirpanjalhave been practically exterminated by troops stationed in the border region.However Suhail and Baba (2002) confirmed markhor in Limber WildlifeSanctuary of Kaj-i-nag range.

There may be only c. 2,000 Kashmir markhor in the entire range, while theAstor markhor may number close to 4,000. The Sulaiman and Kabul markhormay also number close to 2,000. Hess (1993) estimated the population of theFlare-horned markhors in Pakistan to be less than 2,500 whilst the straighthorned total population was estimated to be around 2,000 (Schaller 1977).Poaching has been identified as the major cause for the decline of markhorpopulations range-wide (Stockley, 1936; Schaller 1977, Roberts, 1997).

Distribution: Markhor have limited geographical distribution in the moistto semi-arid mountain tracts of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Russia (theCommonwealth of Independent States - CIS) (Schaller, 1977, Shackleton1997).

According to Schaller (1977), the Kashmir type markhor extends fromLaghman Province and the Bashgul River area of Afghanistan into Pakistan.The flare horned markhor further extends into the CIS as the Tadjik markhor(C. f. heptneri) and is reported from Tadjikistan (Dastidjum district),Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In India, markhor is practically confined tothe extreme eastern limit of its range and occurs only in the Pir Panjal rangein J&K where they still survive in a few small populations in the Shamshabari,Kajinag and Pir Panjal ranges (Schaller 1977). Burrard (1925) had reported

The Kashmir Markhor (Capra falconeri falconeri Wagner 1839)

Markhor isendangered (EN - C2A) in theIUCN Red List(2000). In Indiamarkhor isincluded in theSchedule 1 of theIndian WildlifeProtection Act(1972) and alsothe J&K WildlifeProtection Act(1978). It isincluded underthe Appendix I ofthe CITES (2000).Markhor occur inthree WildlifeSanctuaries andone ConservationReserve, in allcovering an areaof 251.7sq.km inJ&K.

that the Kaj-i-nag and Shamshabari mountains are thebest places for Pir Panjal markhor and are found evenin some of the nallas which run down into the lowerpart of the Kishengunga valley on the left bank of theriver. According to Stockley (1936), after passing onevalley of the mountain west of Banihal pass, beginsdistribution of markhor and continues north and westmany hundreds of miles. The same type persists to thenorth in Kaj-i-nag but has been almost exterminated bylocal poachers in Shamshabari range north of Kaj-i-nag. Suhail and Baba (2002) reported a minimum of138 markhor in Limber WLS in the Kaj-i-nagmountains based on their survey repeated over twodays.

In Pakistan markhor occur in many valleys borderingthe Kunar River in the Chitral district, from Shogore toAranduon the west bank and to Drosh on the eastbank, penetrating up the Mastuj River, a tributary ofthe Kunar, as far as the village of Barenis. In DirDistrict the markhor occurs along the upper PanjkoreRiver, and in Swat district on the cliffs east of Mankial(Burrard, 1925, Schaller, 1977). The mainconcentration of this subspecies is in Chitral Gol

sanctuary and near the Nanga Parvat (Schaller 1977,Hess 1993, Roberts 1997). The markhor, in many othertributaries such as the Neelum valley close to theceasefire line, have been exterminated in recent years(Khan 1972, in Roberts 1997).

The Astor markhor: The valley of Astor River is itsstronghold, but is also found farther north in Baltistan,as well as in two or three valleys to the south of Astor,all of which join the Indus (Burrard 1925, Stockley1936). It also occurs in almost all the other nallasrunning into the Indus from Rondu in Baltistan downto Chilas but in lesser numbers (Burrard 1925).However Stockley (1936) reported that the left bankmarkhor populations from Rondu to Bulachi have beenalmost cleared out by poachers but may still be foundin Mushkin, Mayadas and Domel. The real strongholdof Astor markhor is considered to be the slopes of theNanga Parbat massif (Burrard 1925, Roberts 1997).

Astor markhor has colonized northern Pakistan bypenetrating up the Indus and its tributaries amongthem the Astor, Gilgit and Hunza rivers. The animalsinhabit both banks of the Indus from Jalkot upstreamto about the village of Tungas near Skardu. Gakuchnow represents the limit of their distribution along theGilgit River, Chalt along the Hunza River, and theParashing valley along the Astor River (Schaller 1977).The markhor population in Chilas district is nowprecariously small (Roberts 1997).

Straight-horned markhor have a highly discontinuousdistribution. This is partly due the erratic location ofcliffs and isolated massifs and partly to indiscriminate

Yash

Vee

r Bha

tnag

ar

Kashmir markhor in its habitat

40

Astor markhor has colonizednorthern Pakistan bypenetrating up the Indus andits tributaries among them theAstor, Gilgit and Hunza rivers.The animals inhabit both banksof the Indus from Jalkotupstream to about the villageof Tungas near Skardu.

hunting which has brought the subspecies to the vergeof extinction. The Kabul markhor once ranged in awesterly arc from the Indus into Afghanistan to thevicinity of Kabul and southward mainly in Pakistan asfar as the Gumul River, which was generally consideredits southern boundary (Burrard 1925). Five smallpopulations persist in Afghanistan, mainly in the KohiSafi area northeast of Kabul. Scattered herds are alsofound along the Pakistan border in vicinity of theKhyber pass and the northern flanks of the Safed Kohand near Pezu. The Surghar population as well asthose in the lower mountain ranges in the North WestFrontier Province have been exterminated. It wasbelieved to be extinct in the Shaikh Badin hills but aherd of about twenty was reliably reported in this rangesouth of Banu in 1973 by Schaller (1977).

The Sulaiman makhor is more widespread but alsoseverely restricted in numbers. It occurs in scatteredisolated populations on all the major mountain rangesimmediately to the north and east of Quetta i.e.,Murdar, Takatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat and Phil Gharh(Schallar, 1977; Roberts, 1997). The greatestconcentration of this subspecies is in the Toba Kakarrange north of Hindu bagh and on the borders withAfghanistan, including the Tor Ghar Hills west of FortZhob. Nasser Tareen (in Roberts 1997) states that byencouraging the local tribes to protect wildlife andcreate a sanctuary in the Torghar Range, the Sulaimanmarkhor population there has now reached about 400using the Takht-e-Sulaiman and on the cliffs north andsouth of that peak.

Morphology

In appearance markhor are sturdy animals with strong,relatively short thick legs and broad hooves. Bothsexes are a reddish-grey colour with more yellowishbuff tones in summer coat and more grey in the wintercoat. The tail, which is naked in its ventral surface, isshort and sparsely covered with longer black hair.Adult bucks develop much white and grey in theirpelage in winter coat and they also have a veryextensive black beard followed by a shaggy mane oflong hair extending down the chest and from the frontpart of neck.

There is considerable variation in size between thenorthern Himalayan population and those inhabitingthe hotter drier mountain ranges to the south. Thusthe northern races stand 99-101.5cm (39 - 40 inches) at

the shoulders with an adult male from Astor being186cm (73.5 inches) in head and body length (Ward1924, in Roberts 1997). Weights have been variouslyestimated as varying from 100 to 109 kg for an adultmale from Astor (Roberts 1997). Schaller (1980) givesthe average weight of females from the similar smallerRussian population as 36.5 kg, and for males from thesame population, as 83 kg.

The horns in the nominate subspecies are very massivein good specimens with a basal girth of 28 cm (11inches) and a length measured along one keel, of up to114.35 cm (45 inches) (Stockley 1936). Specimens ofthe subspecies Kashmir (Pir Panjal) markhor havemassive horns with an even greater horn length, 165cm (65 inches) measured along the curve (Prater 1965,Roberts 1997). Horns of the Sulaiman markhor aresmaller and rarely grow longer than 91.4 cm (36inches) measured straight (Roberts 1997).

Biology

Markhor is gregarious and the females with theiryoung and sub adult males regularly associate in smallherds averaging eight to nine; however, sometimes theherd size may be larger (Schaller 1977, Roberts 1997).They are diurnal animals with greatest activity in earlymorning and late evening but in mid winter they havebeen observed in Chitral feeding intermittently duringthe day (Schaller 1997). Markhor migrate to loweraltitudes during peak-winter (Burrard 1925, Stockley1936). The rut starts in late October in the southernpart of their range and lasts about a month. In thenorthern or the Himalayan tracts the rut starts in earlyDecember and is generally over by the end of thatmonth (Schaller 1977, Roberts 1997). Gestation lasts135-170 days and young are born in May-June.

41

Markhor is gregarious and the females with their youngand sub adult males regularlyassociate in small herdsaveraging eight to nine;however, sometimes the herd size may be larger(Schaller 1977, Roberts 1997).They are diurnal animals withgreatest activity in earlymorning and late evening

A FACT SHEET ON THE KASHMIR MARKHORREPRODUCED FROM BHATNAGAR, Y.V. (2001)

FLARE HORNED OR KASHMIR MARKHORCapra falconeri falconeri, Wagner 1839 Vernacular Names: markhor (Punjab and Kashmir),raphoche (male) rawache (female) - Baltistan

Taxonomy Family: BovidaeSub family: CaprinaeTribe: Caprini

Conservation StatusIUCN: EndangeredCAMP: CriticalWPA: Schedule ICITES: Appendix IUS ESA: Endangered

Distribution & Habitat: Sparsely woodedmountainous regions in the western Himalayan PirPanjal range at an elevation of 600-3,600 m. In India,they occur only in a few pockets of the Jammu &Kashmir along the Pir Panjal range from PoonchDistrict, to the Kajinag range. Bulk of the distributionis however in the Trans-Himalayan areas, now in thePoK. Other subspecies of markhor occur in the Salt,Safed Koh, Hindu Kush and Kirthar ranges inPakistan, in eastern Afghanistan and southernTajikistan.

Description : The grizzled light brown to black coat issmooth and short in summer, growing longer andthicker in winter. Males have long hair on the chin,throat, chest, and shanks, while females have smallerfringes. The lower legs have a black and white pattern.Males have loosely curled, corkscrew-like horns,starting close together at the head, but spreadingtowards the tips. In males, they can grow up to 160cm, and up to 25 cm in females. Female horns are alsoslightly twisted. A dark lateral stripe is present inmales and is usually fainter in females.

Behaviour: Occurs in low to mid elevation, open andslightly wooded arid tracts in the Trans-Himalaya andparts of the Greater Himalaya. May migrate up to4,000m in summer, but essentially remain in areaswhere rugged valleys and mountains are available atmid-elevations. Distinctly avoid areas with high snowcover. Lack underwool and thus avoid excessively coldareas. The markhor's alarm call resembles the nasal"a" not very different from the common domestic goat.The primary natural predators are leopard, Tibetanwolf, snow leopard, and lynx. Markhor, a wild goatspecies, are efficient negotiators of steep cliffs and use

this to escape predators The markhor is mainly activein the early morning and late afternoon. Anintermediate forager, it consumes primarily grassesand forbs during spring and summer months, while inthe winter it turns primarily to browse fornourishment. Markhor often stand on their hind legsin order to reach high vegetation; they are known to

climb the gnarled trees for foraging. During the rut,males fight for breeding rights. These competitionsinvolve lunging and locking the horns, followed by thecombatants twisting and pushing in an attempt tomake the other lose his balance. Females and younglive in herds of around 8-9 animals; adult males areoften solitary.

SizeBody Length: 132-186cm Shoulder Height: 102cm (65 -115cm)Weight: 104 kg; Male 100-110kg ; Female 32-50kgHorn length: Male: 143cm, Female 25-30cm

Reproduction & Life Cycle

Gestation Period: 135-170 days. Rutting: Mid-Dec to early Jan (varies betweenyears and regions)Young per Birth: 1 or 2, rarely 3. Weaning: At 5-6 months Sexual Maturity: At 1.5-2.5 years, although malesdo not reach their full potential before age 5-7Life span: 12-13 years. Males rarely survivebeyond their 7-8th year

C.E.E.

42

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF MARKHOR DISTRIBUTION,LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE AND THREATS.

Hirpura Rupri

Yanga nar

Begampathri

Zaznar

Pirpanjal

nallah

Hathi pahad

Hustvunz

Bela

Ganjteli

Kamal kot

Matha tekka

Sokhsarai

Sarthan

Razdan

Sotsal pathri

Dunari

Jabud

Lacut sathran

Bod sathran

Teli

Rata teli

Lalgulam

Aliabad sarai

Moderate

High

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)

(+)

(+)*

(+)*

(+)

(+)

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Moderate pine & fir.

Moderately rugged

Open pine. Moderately

rugged

Mixed moderate pine & fir.

Moderately rugged


Moderately rugged


Moderately rugged


Moderately rugged

Open pine with moderate

cover, moderate

ruggedness


cover, moderate

ruggedness

Mix moderate pine & fir.

Moderately rugged

Open scrub dominated by

juniper. highly rugged


rosa, moderately rugged


juniper. Moderately rugged



open scrub dominated by



juniper. High ruggedness


juniper. Highly rugged

Open pine with low cover

rocky, high ruggedness

Open meadow

Survey Block Valleys Areas surveyed Broad habitat Disturbance Markhor Primary threats

classification level presence/

absence

43

Gulmarg-

Bonyar

Shamshabari

Limber

Botapathri

Hapat khai N

Kunni rawal

Patni

Karen

Methwani

Butapathri

Noabaln

Sallar

Noori

Kandi

Jabdi

Gagger hill

Chotali

Somali

Pathra

Richhini nar

Gagadori

Dibri

Lakha

Karen

Hoobal

Kalamund

Pahal pathri

Rambra

Safed fresh

Dadda

Kalan wali

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

?

?

(+)

(+)

?

_

_

_

_

_

?

?

(+)

(+)

_

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Grazing,

occasional

poaching

Poaching

Poaching

Poaching

Poaching

Shelling,

poaching

Poaching, grazing

Occasional

poaching and fuel

wood collection

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Moderate pine with

moderate ruggedness

Open scrub

Mixed moderate pine,

moderately rugged


moderately rugged


moderately rugged


moderately rugged


moderately rugged

Mixed moderate

pine,moderately rugged

Mix moderate

pine,moderately rugged

Mixed pine and deodar,

moderately rugged


highly rugged


highly rugged and rocky

Moderate pine with

moderate ruggedness

Moderate pine with

moderate ruggedness

Pine, moderately rugged


cover, moderate

ruggedness


cover, moderate

ruggedness


cover

Grassland surrounded by

pine with low ruggedness

Pine and spruce with

moderate cover,low

ruggedness

Open pine and spruce with

moderate cover, moderate

ruggedness

Chestnut



absence

44

Lachipora

Gammalitter

Gujjar nallah

Malangan

Kotherpal

Kandi nallah

Chemb

Shetlu

Methwani bahak

Geer pajja

Wanten

Lacut kothnal

Bod kothnal

Bapal

Hokhyan

Seme ken

Paiyan bahak

Jhalmari bahak

Dinga pajja

Dadda

Eidanard

Trinardi

Bun bahak

Noozidar

Gulki

Pir ki jagga

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

(+)*

(+)*

(+)

(+)*

(+)

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)*

(+)

(+)*

(+)*

_

(+)

(+)

(+)*

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)*

(+)*

(+)

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Occasional

poaching, grazing

and fuel wood coll.

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching, grazing

and deforestation

Poaching

Poaching

Poaching


moderate cover,low

ruggedness



ruggedness


cover, low ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness


cover, moderate

ruggedness

Open pine withmoderate

cover, moderate

ruggedness


moderate cover.high

ruggedness


moderate cover, high

ruggedness

0pen surrounded by birch,

low ruggedness



ruggedness


moderat cover, moderate

ruggedness

Open pine with low cover,

low ruggedness

Open pine with low cover,

low ruggedness

Mixed pine and spruce with


ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness

Open scrub, moderate

ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness



absence

45

Naganari

Poonch

Ghoretal

Tragen

Kafar mohri

Jabi nali

Londmari

Manidub

Gabewar

Poonch,

Loren,

Adigam,Sawji

an,Surankot,

Chandimud

Anadeb

S.P nallah

Kotharan

Shiddi

Dadda

Tragen

Kafar mohri

Jabi nali

Lundmari

Hapat pal

Haid pal

Khara gali

Dorian

Sarian-nadian

Godenuk

Baila

Paja

Kiren

Sampa wala pud

Pattan kor

Gazan wali

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Moderate

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

(+)*

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

_

(+)*

_

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

Poaching

Poaching

Shelling, poaching,

Shelling, poaching,

Shelling, poaching,

Poaching, grazing,

fuel wood

collection

Poaching, grazing,

fuel wood

collection

Poaching, grazing,

fuel wood

collection

Poaching, grazing,

fuel wood

collection

Poaching, grazing,

fuel wood

collection

Poaching,

disturbance through

collection of NTFP.

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing,

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing



ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness



ruggedness

Deodar moderate cover,

high ruggedness

Deodar moderate cover, low

ruggedness


cover, moderate

ruggedness

Pine with moderate cover,

high ruggedness


cover, low ruggedness

Open rocky with juniper

shrub thinly interspersed

with conifer

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed



absence

Secondary data collected in Poonch and Bhaderwah-Kishtwar

46

Bhaderwah

Kishtwar-

Padder

Bhaderwah

Padder

Chabba katha

Kadu

Jemia

Jaboli

Jemia

Nilkant

Tatta kuti

Anderwala

Kalamund

Hill kaka

Poshana

Chatta pani

Chote wali

O.C. doke

Khun wali

Baglain

Goda bun

Basti

Halian

Shashu

Sheriki

Sartangal

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

_

_

_

_

_

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

poaching,grazing

poaching,grazing

poaching,grazing

Poaching, grazing

Poaching, grazing

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed



absence

(+)*: indicates markhor presence confirmed by the direct or indirect evidences during this survey

(+): indicates markhor presence confirmed by Shikaris, herders or the wildlife staff

_: indicates the absence of markhor

* : indicates markhor presence, but not confirmed

47

REFERENCES

Anon (2002) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amendedupto 2003). Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi, NatrajPublishers, Dehra Dun.

Anon (2002a) Wildlife (Protection) Act of Jammu andKashmir (as amended to 2002). Department of WildlifeProtection. J&K Government, Srinagar.

Anon (2003) District Census Report. Department ofStatistics, J&K Government

Bhatnagar, Y. V. (2001) Species of the Trans-Himalaya andother Arid Tracts. In. Bhatnagar, Y.V. and Sathyakumar,S. (Eds.) ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas.Vol. 1 No. 1, 99-105

Burrard, G. (1925) Big Game Hunting in the Himalayasand Tibet. London: H.Jenkis.

Champion, H., and Seth, S. (1968) Forest Types of India.Dehra Dun: Forest Research Institute.

Hess, R. (1993) Wildlife in northern Pakistan. Extinctionor recovery? In: N.J.R.Allan (ed.) Himalayan crucible:North Pakistan in Transition. St. Martins Press.

Islam, M.Z and Rehmani, A.R. (2004) Important BirdAreas in India: Priority sites conservation. BombayNatural History Society and BirdLife International (UK).Mumbai.

Lydekker, R. (1898) Wild Oxen, Sheep and Goats of AllLands. London. Rowland Ward.

Menon, V. (2003) A Field Guide to Indian Mammals.Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.

Mishra, C. (1997) Livestock depredation by largecarnivores in the Indian Trans-Himalaya: Conflictperceptions and conservation prospects. Env. Cons. 24(4): 338-343.

Mishra, C.; Prins, H.H.T and Van Wieren, S.E. (2001).

Overstocking in the Trans-Himalayan rangelands of India.Env. Cons. 28: 279-283.

Nawaz, R. (2002) Kaigah markhor survey report. WWF-Pakistan.

Prater, H. (1965) The Book of Indian Mammals. Bombay:Bombay Natural History Society.

Ranjitsinh, M. K. (1981) Himalayan fauna. In. Lall, J.S.(Ed.) The Himalaya: Aspects of Change. Oxford UniversityPress, New Delhi. pp. 64-76.

Roberts, T. (1997) The Mammals of Pakistan. Karachi:Oxford University Press.

Rodgers, W. A. (1991) Techniques for Wildlife Census inIndia: A Field Manual. Wildlife Institute of India, DehraDun.

Rodgers, W. A. and Panwar, H. S. (1988) Planning aProtected Area Network in India. Vol.1. Wildlife Instituteof India, Dehra Dun.

Schaller, G. (1977) Mountain monarchs. Wild Sheep andGoats of the Himalaya. Chicago: University of Chicagopress.

Schaller, G. B. and Khan. S. A. (1975) Distribution andstatus of markhor (Capra falconeri). Biol. Conserv.7:185-198

Shackleton, D. M. (1997) Wild sheep and goats and theirrelatives. Status survey and conservation action plan forCaprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Stockley, C. (1936) Stalking in the Himalayas andNorthern India. London: Herbert Jenkins.

Suhail, I. and Baba, M. (2002) A report on annual animalcensus. Department of Wildlife Protection, Govt. ofJammu and Kashmir.

48

49

WTI PUBLICATIONS

A. OCCASIONAL REPORTS

Tribal Territories: Impact assessment around the Jarawa tribal reserve, middle and south Andaman Islands

Jumbo Express:A scientific approach to understanding and mitigating elephant mortality due to train accidents in Rajaji NationalPark.

Elephant in Exile:A rapid assessment of the human-elephant conflict in Chhattisgarh

Against the Current: Otters in the river Cauvery, Karnataka

Silent Stranglers:Eradication of mimosa in Kaziranga National Park, Assam

Living at the Edge:Rapid survey for the endangered Ladakh urial (Ovis vignei vignei) in Leh district of Ladakh Trans-Himalaya

Search for Spectacle:A conservation survey of the Phayre’s leaf monkey (Tranchypithecus phayrei) in Assam and Mizoram

Awaiting Arribadda:Protection of Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) and their nesting habitats at Rushikuliya rookery, Orissa

Living with Giants:Understanding human-elephant conflict in Maharashtra and adjoining areas

Crane Capital:Conservation strategy for Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) habitat in Etawah and Mainpuri Districts, Uttar Pradesh

Carnivore Conflict:Support provided to leopards involved in conflict related cases in Maharashtra

India at the International Whaling commission:A policy document on India’s involvement in the IWC 1981-2003

Sighting Storks:Status and distribution of Greater adjutant storks (Leptoptilos dubius) in the Ganga and Kosi river floodplains nearBhagalpur, Bihar

Bait and Watch:Popularization of alternatives to dolphin oil among fishermen for the conservation of the Ganges river dolphin(Plantanista gangetica) in Bihar

Captive Concerns:Health and management of captive elephants in Jaipur

Fair Concern:Health and management of captive elephants in Sonpur

Ganesha to Bin Laden:Human-elephant conflict in Sonitpur district of Assam

50

B. CONSERVATION ACTION REPORTS

Beyond the Ban:A census of Shahtoosh workers in Jammu & Kashmir

Biodiversity, Livelihoods and the Law:The case of the ‘Jogi Nath’ snake charmers of India

The Ground Beneath the Waves:Post-tsunami impact assessment of wildlife and their habitats in India

C. CONSERVATION REFERENCE SERIES

Wildlife Law:A ready reckoner - A guide to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

Back to the Wild:Studies in wildlife rehabilitation

Right of Passage:Elephant corridors of India

Commentaries on Wildlife Law:Cases, statutes & notifications

Poisons and the Pachyderm:Responding to poisoning in Asian elephants – A field guide

D. OTHERS

Tiger Bridge:Nine days on a bend of the Nauranala, by Barbara Curtis Horton

Emergency Relief Network Digest 2005 – 2006

CONSERVATION ACTION SERIES 20050803

GOATS ON THE BORDER

A Rapid Assessment of the Pir Panjal Markhor in Jammu andKashmir: Distribution, Status and Threats



CONSERVATION ACTION SERIES

The elusive and endangered Pir Panjal markhor inhabits an area

exposed to conflicts, disputes, shelling and casualties. Between 280 and

330 markhor were estimated in an area covering three wildlife

sanctuaries and one conservation reserve during a rapid survey carried

out in hostile terrain over two and a half months. This first ever survey

of the markhor conducted in collaboration with the J&K Wildlife

Department and the Nature Conservation Foundation with support from

the Environment and Ecology Cell of the Indian Army also marks the

launch of the Schaller Conservation Surveys by the

Wildlife Trust of India.

the elusive and endangered pir panjal markhor inhabits an ......m.k.ranjitsinh conceptualized the...

Documents