Agnieszka Halemba Brian Donahoe

University of Leipzig Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

Leipzig, Germany Halle/Saale, Germany
halemba@uni-leipzig.de donahoe@eth.mpg.de


Research report for WWF Russia Altai-Saian Ecoregion
Local perspectives on hunting and poaching
























1
Contents



Summary.... 2
Introduction... 3
Research Process and Methodology.... 3
Research Sites... 3
Timing... 4
Research Methods.... 4
Research difficulties. 6
General information about the population of the research region 8
Who is a hunter and who is a poacher?....................................................................................................................................... 10
Tyva. 10
Altai.. 12
Reasons for hunting and morally appropriate hunting 15
Tyva.. . 16
Altai.. 16
Attitudes to animals. 19
Attitudes to nature protection areas.. 24
Altai. 24
Tyva..... 26
Recommendations 27
Co-operation with local communities in establishing information and education strategies 27
Legislative and institutional reform.. 29
Support for development of economic activities (tourism, animal husbandry, alternative economic activities) . 30
Support for monitoring of hunting activities and enforcement of regulations 32.
Further research. 32
Concluding remarks 33
Literature cited 33



2
Summary

Hunting has always played an important role in the lives of the indigenous nomadic peoples of southern Siberia. Nowadays, however, hunting has
become a target of environmentalists, especially those concerned with the protection of wildlife biodiversity. As a result, many indigenous peoples
find themselves in a situation in which their traditional hunting activities have come to be considered poaching.
One of the main assumptions behind some initiatives to reduce hunting is that people hunt out of economic need, and if they had alternative
forms of income generating activities, they would hunt less or even not at all. This research project was designed in part to test that assumption in
the southwestern section of the Altai-Saian Ecoregion. This region is notable for its flagship species (snow leopard and argali sheep). It also
includes a number of existing and proposed protected areas, and is a target area for the development of various WWF pilot projects.
The report is based on social anthropological research conducted in March and April 2008. It examines local perspectives on issues related to
legal and illegal hunting and on the effectiveness of existing mechanisms of nature protection.

Main findings
The cultural reasons for hunting far outweigh economic considerations.
While local hunters and herders are exceptionally knowledgeable about the location and migration habits of various species, their
perceptions of the relative health of the populations are easily biased toward overestimation.
The emic (i.e., as understood by the local population) definitions of poaching and proper hunting have nothing to do with legal permissions
or the lack of them. Rather, poaching and proper hunting are differentiated along the lines of the quantity and types of animals taken, hunting
methods, purpose for hunting, and whether certain customs are observed or not.
The closer people live to existing protected areas and the more actual experience they have of them, they less supportive they are.
The overwhelming majority of people agreed that tourism should be developed further, but most oppose hunting tourism (for trophy).

Recommendations

Effective community-based wildlife management requires intimate community involvement; a sense of ownership; and sensitivity to cultural
considerations. While it will be impossible to stop illegal hunting altogether, a comprehensive program incorporating the following components
could reduce hunting and instill in local residents a renewed sense of control over and responsibility for the wild animal resources in their areas:

Co-operation with local communities in establishing information and education strategies
Legislative and institutional reform
Support for development of economic activities (tourism, animal husbandry, alternative economic activities)
Support for monitoring of hunting activities and enforcement of regulations
Further research
3
Introduction

With the intention of developing a model program to reduce illegal hunting by creating new protected areas and stimulating alternative income-
generating activities, WWFs Altai-Saian Ecoregion office commissioned a study to assess local attitudes to wild animals (especially endangered
species such as snow leopard, argali sheep, and ibex), hunting, poaching, and nature protection among people living on the Russian side of the
transboundary region where the republics of Altai and Tyva share a border with Mongolia. The project was directed by Dr. Agnieszka Halemba of
the University of Leipzig, Germany, with the assistance of Dr. Brian Donahoe of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle,
Germany.

Hunting has always played an important role in the lives of the indigenous nomadic peoples of southern Siberia. Nowadays however, with
increasing populations, high-powered firearms and other more technologically advanced hunting methods, improvements in transportation bringing
supply and demand for wild animal products closer, encroachment on habitat by expanding urban areas and other forms of industrial development,
hunting is fast becoming a target of environmentalists, especially those concerned with the protection of wildlife biodiversity. As a result, many
indigenous peoples find themselves in a difficult situation in which their traditional hunting activities have come to be considered poaching, and
they are blamed for the decline in wildlife, yet they often see themselves as the ones living close to nature and in harmony with it.

One of the main assumptions behind NGO projects to reduce hunting is that people hunt out of economic need, and if they had alternative forms of
income generating activities, especially if they had regular paid work, they would hunt less or even not at all. This research project was designed in
part to test that assumption. The projects main aim has been to elucidate local attitudes towards hunting among people living in the western section
of the Altai-Saian Ecoregion. The project also focused on the local perception and effectiveness of existing mechanisms of nature protection, both
generated by the state as well as by various NGOs and international organisations active in the region. The information gathered though the
projects activities and reported here is intended to provide background information necessary for developing culturally sensitive and viable
programmes aimed at nature protection, economic development, and preservation of wild animal populations in the region. To ensure anonymity of
the respondents, no pictures of people are included in this report.

Research Process and Methodology

Research sites
The research region in general was chosen according to WWF specifications. The precise selection of villages and camps for investigation
accounted for local variations of such factors as: size of settlement; distance from main roads; variety and density of wild animal populations;
distance from existing or planned nature protection areas. The research team conducted surveys and interviews both in herders camps and in
villages of different sizes, both those located next to main roads as well as in more remote areas. The project targeted communities living in and
around existing and proposed protected areas, including the Shavlinskii zakaznik (wildlife refuge), a segment of the Sailugem range proposed for
4
inclusion in a new protected area, and a proposed transboundary migration corridor for argali sheep around the area where the borders of Mongolia,
Tyva, and Altai meet.

Halembas research focused on villages and herders camps in the Kosh Agach district of the Republic of Altai as well as in the village of Chibit in
the Ulagan district. For purposes of this project, the research area in Altai can be divided into three parts:
1. Villages (and respective camps) located next to the international road of Chuiski Trakt with relatively easy access to animal-rich territory
2. Villages (and respective camps) in the steppe or close in the surrounding mountains, located further away from animal-rich territories and/or
located close to border posts
3. Villages (and respective camps) located away from the main communication routes, with easy access to animal-rich territories.

Donahoe worked in the Mngn-Taiga District of southwestern Tyva, with a particular focus on the Mgen-Bren municipality, which shares
borders with both the Kosh-Agach district and Mongolia. While the Kargy municipality is the larger and more populated part of Mngn-Taiga
district and its main town, Mugur-Aksy, is the district capital, Donahoe focused primarily on the Mgen-Bren municipality for the following
reasons: it contains more recognized snow leopard, argali, and ibex habitat; the proposed argali migration route crosses from Mongolia into the
Mgen-Bren area; the region is more remote than Mugur-Aksy (no land-based nor cellular telephone connections); it is more economically
depressed with fewer employment opportunities, therefore would be a better place to test the assumption that people hunt out of economic need.

Below, we sometimes use Tyva and Altai while presenting differences in the results of this study. It is important however to remember that we
do so for the sake of brevity and convenience the results of this report refer only to those areas in Tyva and Altai described above.

Timing
The field activities were intended to be carried out in March 2008, simultaneously in Kosh Agach and in Mngn-Taiga. While Halemba was able
to stick to the original schedule, Donahoes phase of the research project was significantly delayed because of difficulties in obtaining the necessary
permission to travel to the border-zone region of Mngn-Taiga. He was not able to go to Mngn-Taiga until the second week of April. Actual
fieldwork was conducted 14-27 April.

Research Methods
Prior to field research, the researchers devised a detailed survey form (See Appendix), which was intended as the principal research instrument.
These were to be filled in by the researcher together with a respondent. However, soon into a research processes it became clear that the issue in
question is too sensitive to conduct research exclusively in this way, especially in the Republic of Altai (see below). Although the survey forms
were used, most of the information was gathered during structured interviews when the survey form was a staring point for a conversation. Much
information was gathered also through informal talks. As both researchers have conducted long-term fieldwork on other topics in Altai and Tyva
5
previously, there were numerous opportunities to discuss freely the subject in question with long term friends and acquaintances. In some cases in
Tyva, survey forms were given out and were self-administered, without an accompanying interview.

The survey and the interviews addressed a number of questions divided into the following subgroups:

Local understanding of nature and perspectives on human-animal relations
How is nature understood? Do people perceive themselves as an integral part of nature, or as external to and separate from nature?
How do people understand their relations with nature? It is in terms of exchange? Domination? Subordination? Responsibility? Cooperation?
Struggle? Unity?
Are there different circumstances under which those relations between people and nature change/take different forms? What are those
circumstances?
How are wild animals seen in this context? Are there different groups of animals towards which the attitudes are shaped differently? If so,
what factors influence such differences?
Which species are seen locally as endangered and/or worth protecting? How do local people assess the relative health, stability, and
sustainability of wild animal populations? Do people recognise that over-hunting is a problem?

The social, economic and cultural significance of hunting
Who hunts? What are the various social, cultural and economic positions of those who hunt?
How is the social, cultural and economic position of hunters perceived locally?
What kind of social and cultural capital, if any, one can accumulate through hunting?
What kind of social and cultural capital, if any, is required for ones hunting activities to be perceived as legitimate?
Under what circumstances, if any, would people refrain from hunting?
What kinds of animals are being hunted?
What are the attitudes towards hunting different types of animals?
For what purposes are the animals hunted (subsistence, sale, entertainment, cultural reasons, e.g. as form of male bonding or proof of
masculinity)? What parts of the given animals are mostly valued and for which reasons?

Concepts of legality and illegality in relation to hunting
What kind of hunting is locally seen as legitimate?
Which hunters are seen as legitimate? What legitimates them?
Are there animals that are perceived as legitimate to hunt, and others that are perceived as illegitimate (forbidden) to hunt?
What is locally considered illegitimate hunting (i.e., what is poaching in the eyes of locals)?
What is the relation between a local understanding of illegitimate hunting and the definition of poaching as present in the state laws?
6
Who are in local opinion real poachers, representing the greatest threat to wildlife?
How do local people respond to the idea of trophy hunting, sports hunters from outside the region, and hunting tourism?

Relations with nature protection initiatives and state organs
Do hunters have hunting cards (okhotnichii bilet)? If not, why not? Under which circumstances would hunters consider applying for a card?
Do hunters with hunting card apply for hunting licenses?
How is hunting with official licenses versus without ones perceived?
Do they feel treated fairly by state organs regulating hunting? If not, why?
What is their perception of official organisation of hunting?
What is their perception of old and new protected areas? Are protected areas seen as allies or as enemies to local people in general and to
local hunters in particular? Are protected areas considered useful in any respect?
If people accept that at least some animal species should be protected, what would be the local suggestion as to implementing protection
measures? How, in their opinion, should protected areas be organised and managed?

On the basis of responses to these questions, we present below a report on local peoples perception of hunting, their opinion on what types of
activities are most dangerous for environment and their suggestions for improving the situation. We have concentrated on understanding the point of
view of the local people, especially local hunters without any documents or permissions, their perception on who hunts and who poaches and their
opinion on possible ways of improving the existing situation. Below, we use the term hunter for anyone who hunts, regardless of whether he has a
hunting card (okhotnichii bilet), license (for hunting a particular type of animal at a given time) or permission to carry a gun. If the opinions of
different groups of hunters diverge, we make it clear in the text.

Research difficulties
Interestingly, in the two areas (Altai and Tyva) researchers met with noticeably different reactions from informants. In the Altai case, people were
very reluctant to discuss the subject of hunting, particularly of illegal hunting or poaching. Halemba feels that she could conduct interviews with
hunters without licenses only because she is well-known in the region and was introduced to many of them through close friends and acquaintances.
Even then, many interviews were conducted outside of houses, in closed cars, or in secluded places. In the Tyva case, informants seemed much
more open and willing to talk, once they were guaranteed anonymity, of course. This difference is most likely related to differing perceptions of
effectiveness of poaching prevention measures in the two areas. In Kosh Agach, this reluctance has been probably caused by the recent
intensification of official anti-poaching measures (frequent check up, increase in fines, introduction of prison terms for illegal hunting) as well as
police searches for unregistered guns. The reluctance to talk freely reflects caution that in turn can be seen as an indication that enforcement
mechanisms in Altai are proving to be effective. In Mngn-Taiga, the overwhelming sense is that the inspectors and others responsible for
monitoring hunting are ineffective and therefore do not instill much fear. There is the sense that enforcement is not done well enough (this point was
7
often made by explicit comparison to the perceived effectiveness of enforcement measures just across the border in Altai), and that in fact it would
be good if enforcement were actually stricter.

Moreover, in Altai some people have heard about the old conflict between the Hunting Department (okhotupravlenie) of the Republic of Altai and
WWF. Apparently in 2004 WWF Altai-Saian Ecoregion accused the Hunting Department of the Republic of Altai of organising illegal hunting trips
in the district of Kosh Agach. In response, the head of the Hunting Department, Viktor Kaimin wrote an open letter accusing international
organisations (including explicitly WWF) of anti-Russian activities
1
. He claimed that foreign NGOs try to hinder the creation of connection between
Russia and China, we quote to stop Russias, with her immense resources of gas and oil, access to the east, to stop the development of hydropower,
and the extraction of natural resources in the border region of the Republic of Altai this is the main aim of the Western states that sponsor
international nature protection organisations. This blocking of Russias development is, according to the author, done precisely by creating various
types of nature protection territories along Russias borders. Although the precise content of this and similar statements might be not know to local
people, quite noticeable mistrust towards international organisations could be felt in the region. Halemba has head a few times that WWF is
sponsored by CIA and that it employs American spies. This obviously does not make the research process any smoother, as, for ethical reasons, we
informed people that we were compiling this report for WWF.

The difficulties in the Mngn-Taiga district were more logistic than attitudinal. So for
example, as Donahoes fieldwork was delayed, he was in the Mngn-Taiga district at a
difficult time for two reasons: herders were in the process of moving from their winter to
their spring camps, so in several cases he came across campsites that had been evacuated
just the day before. Without accurate information as to the location of the spring camps, he
generally did not try to follow. The other seasonal problem was that river ice was melting,
making the crossing of rivers treacherous. Moreover, in several cases, he would arrive at
an aal (homestead / campsite) to find that there was no one to talk to because they were
out with the animals. In addition, there is no access to benzene in the Mgen-Bren
municipality. Donahoe had to purchase all the benzene he felt would be necessary in
Mugur-Aksy,. Because of that, return trips to aals where he was unsuccessful were not
practical.

Landscape of Mgen-Bren municipality


1
See http://www.gorno-altaisk.ru/archive/2006/27/005.htm and
http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mk.ru%2Fnumbers%2F1382%2Farticle43345.htm&text=%E2%E8%EA%F2%EE%F0%20%EA%E0%E9%EC%
E8%ED#YANDEX_0 accessed on the 4.06.2008
8
General information about the population of the research region

The Mngn-Taiga district occupies an area of 4400 km2 with population density 1,4
person/km2. It is divided into two main sumons, or municipalities, Kargy, with its
administrative center Mugur-Aksy; and Mgen-Bren, with its administrative center,
Kyzyl Khaia. Kargy is the larger municipality in terms of both area and population, with
a population of 4683, while Mgen-Bren has a population of 1404. In addition, recently
a third sumon, Toolailyg, with a population of 160, was established.
2
The population of
Mngn-Taiga district is virtually 100% ethnic Tyvan.




Mugur-Aksy

In comparison to Mngn-Taiga, Kosh Agach district (territory 19845 km2) is quite
populated and diverse. The number of inhabitants is over 17 000. Roughly half of the
population is Kazakh, the other half being Altaian-Telengit (one of the officially recognized
indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia), and there is a small number of Russians
and other nationalities.
Most of the hunters are Altaian and there is a general agreement in the district that Kazakhs
hunt less and if they do, they are usually introduced to hunting by Altaian friends. There are
two exceptions to this rule:
1. Kazakhs, as most of the population of Kosh Agach (including children and women) hunt
marmot.
2. Quite a few Kazakhs living in Dzhazator village also hunt bigger animals. They are also
involved in illegal trade of animal products.


Kosh Agach


2
These populations figures are as of January 2008, as provided by the Mngn-Taiga Office of Statistics in Mugur-Aksy.
9

One additional peculiarity has to be noticed with regard to the local Altaian population, as it is important for our recommendations.
In 2000 the Telengits were added to the official list of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation (korennye malochislennye
narody below KMN). According to informal estimates (done by researchers and by local leaders), there should be between 10,000 and 17,000
Telengits living in the Ulagan and Kosh Agach districts of the Republic of Altai. However, during the 2002 census only 2,398 people in the
Republic of Altai declared themselves as Telengit. This was due to complex political reasons, most importantly a media campaign run from the
republican center that encouraged people to declare themselves Altaian. Nevertheless, despite such a low number of Telengits registered during the
last census, the Telengit identity in the district is strong. There is a non-governmental Association of the Telengits, whose members go
sometimes to great pains to establish their legal status as members of this KMN (the procedure involves court hearings) and the official Center for
Telengit Culture sponsored by the districts administration. As in the Russian legal system it is only the small-numbered indigenous peoples that are
formally recognized and who can enjoy special rights including limited priority access to some land and natural resources, the growing Telengit-
consciousness in the region is of considerable importance for this project. At the moment there are a few obshchinas of KMN registered in the
district, and territories belonging to two communities (Kurai and Beltyr) have been declared (on the local level) Territories of Traditional Nature
Use , a unique form of protected area that only recognized KMN are entitled to establish.

The Tyvans residing in Mngn-Taiga do not have the status as indigenous small-numbered peoples. However, Mngn-Taiga (as well as Kosh
Agach) is officially recognized as a raion Krainego Severa (district of the Far North). This designation is determined on the basis of extreme
ecological and climatic conditions and difficulty of access, leading to inordinate expense in production and in providing for the basic needs of the
population. If a region has Far Northern status, all of its inhabitants are entitled to certain privileges: higher salaries in the state sector, lower
retirement age, and the so-called severnyi zavoz (northern delivery), i.e. priority delivery of fuel, coal and basic necessities.

It is important to note that in terms of religion or worldview most of the Altaian-Telegits declare themselves as following their own Altaian faith.
This faith, or rather worldview, is sometimes called Altai jang and it is based on worship of land and nature. The main non-human agent is
Altaidyng eezi. This notion, which is most often translated into Russian and English as master spirit of Altai, indicates that the Telengits consider
the nature as a living agent. Altai is alive and wild animals are considered as his property. Altai can give a person an animal if asked properly and a
person should take whatever is offered to him. Overhunting, cutting trees on mountain slopes, polluting water are treated as sin (kinchek) that can
bring punishment not only to the person involved by also to his relatives and descendants.

Still, although on the level of declarations the worship and respect for Altai is relevant (every single respondent said that nature should be protected
and respected), this does not mean that nowadays Telengits always do treat nature with respect according to standards of ecological organizations.
Still, there is a strong awareness that humans are not masters but part or even subordinates to nature. This consciousness should be strengthened
through various activities supporting Altaian culture that would bring back respect for old customs and crafts (see recommendations).

10

In Mngn-Taiga , more than half of respondents listed Buddhism as their
religious affiliation (17 of 30); five said they were atheist, while the
remainder did not respond to the question concretely. However, there is no
perceived contradiction between simultaneously holding Buddhist beliefs
(or atheistic leanings) and beliefs associated with Tyvans shamanist (or
more accurately, animist) traditions. This becomes most evident in peoples
beliefs in spirit masters of places, and the importance of respecting spirit
masters and paying homage to them when hunting. In this sense, the
worldview of many Tyvans in Mngn-Taiga is similar to Altai jang of the
Altaians.

Place of Chaga bairam ritual next to Kurkure village


Who is a hunter and who is a poacher?

Tyva
In the Mngn-Taiga sample, of 17 respondents who said that they hunt, six said they were legally registered to hunt (i.e., they have a hunting card
- okhotnichii bilet). Of them, five have permits for their guns, and only two currently have the required licenses to hunt particular species. In other
words, the majority of them are technically hunting illegally therefore they are, by law, poachers. However, the emic (i.e., as understood by the local
population) definitions of poaching and proper hunting have nothing to do with legal permissions or the lack of them. For a number of reasons
(bureaucratic hassles, expense, inconvenience), the majority of those who hunt do not have hunting cards or registered guns, yet they feel that
hunting is their birthright and that their hunting activities do not constitute poaching. Rather, poaching and proper hunting are differentiated along
the lines of the quantity and types (male or female; adult or juvenile) of animals taken, hunting methods, purpose for hunting, and whether certain
customs are observed or not. In response to survey item #40, which asked respondents to complete the sentence, A poacher is. . ., not a single
person in the Mngn-Taiga sample mentioned anything about not having the necessary permits and licenses. Typical responses were:
A poacher is not a real hunter. A real hunter will only kill one or two animals, even if he sees 10. A poacher will try to take them all.
Poachers are those who hunt to sell animal parts; those who hunt for trophy.
Poachers hunt during birthing season and shoot pregnant females.
Poachers dont take care about nature; they dont know how to protect nature.
A poacher is a greedy person, a person who still wants more even though his stomach is ready to split, who is blinded to anything except what he
wants to take for himself. (Tyvan: Chazyi khoptak, ishti charlyr chetken, karaa kozulbes kizhi dir.)
11
A poacher is a person who only thinks about his own desires and wishes, who goes out to hunt and comes back in the same day and who doesnt
think about the future or about leaving something for his children.

In response to item #42, which asked people to describe a real (Rus. nastoiashchii, Tyv. yozulug) hunter, again responses did not include mention
of licenses or permits. Rather they focused on respect for animals and for spirit masters; on having proper knowledge to be a good hunter; and on
following traditional customs. (Some of the following are composite quotes.)
A real hunter hunts to feed his family. He respects the cher eezi (spirit master of the place). He respects all animals, no matter what even wolves,
because wolves themselves are great hunters. When you talk about a wild animal, youre talking about the lands wild animals. (Tyv. Ang deer,
cherning angy.)
Real hunters know how to tell the difference between types of animals (male, female; adult, juvenile). They know tracks and know how to track
animals. They know the best seasons to hunt, and only hunt during those times.
A real hunter knows and follows the old hunting customs and traditions. He doesnt kill many animals and he isnt greedy (Tyv: khoptaktanmas).
A real hunter takes care about the old Tyvan hunting traditions. He first asks for permission to hunt from the spirit master, and he doesnt take
more than he needs.
A real hunter hunts only when his lifes needs demand it, to feed his family. He pays homage (chalbaraash) to the spirit master of the place, and
only asks the spirit master for what he needs, not more. Also, a real hunter must wipe out all wolves even if there are absolutely no more left, a
real hunter hates wolves.

Perhaps most interesting were responses to survey item #41, which asked respondents what type of hunting and hunter represented the greatest
threat to wild animal populations and to nature in general. Several respondents noted that it is precisely those who have all necessary permissions
(including inspectors, border guards, and police) who are the real poachers and pose the greatest threat to wild animals. One local hunter said that
the greatest threat comes from People who have the money to buy expensive automatic rifles, but dont know how to hunt. They drink when they go
hunting. Some local people do this, some dargalar (bosses, officials, authorities). Also, they dont distinguish between male and female, dont take
the season into account. They shoot indiscriminately. Another respondent reinforced this sentiment, noting, Now that theyve started selling these
expensive large-caliber guns with dalnomery (laser-guided distance measuring scopes), its people with licenses for these guns who are the greatest
threat. Another put it more succinctly: Big-whigs who are out for fun and sport (Tyv: Oyun-khg bodaar darga-boshkalar.)

Other respondents focused on certain ways and times of hunting as representing the greatest threat:
People who trap carelessly, without first taking the time to check out where theres likely to be large male marmots, because then their traps will
trap young ones as well. Those who hunt at night using high-powered lamps (chyrydar). People who hunt all in one day, without taking an extra day
or two just to check out where the biggest adult marmots are.
Those who overhunt, who hunt during birthing season. People should hunt only in the autumn.

12
Finally, some people mentioned that the greatest threat to the wild animal population is young people, while others mentioned carelessness with fire.
Young people are the greatest threat because they dont think before they shoot; they dont know or respect our hunting customs, said one
respondent. According to another respondent, the greatest threat comes from Those who cut trees, burn the grass. They cause fires. Also, young
people from the village.

If WWF hopes to have good cooperation and working relations with the local people, then these emic understandings of poaching, proper hunting,
and threat must be taken seriously. These responses suggest a number of possible directions for future WWF activities, including educational
activities for young people; monitoring activities to be intensified during certain seasons; changes in licensing laws and practices, particularly re-
establishing a local representative of the hunting directorate who could issue licenses and register guns locally, thereby making it easier for locals to
do so. According to locals, when the promkhoz was active, the promkhoz director used to sell licenses (mostly for marmot; other licenses were so
expensive that no one could afford them) and issue hunting cards. However, now people have to go to Kyzyl to get okhotnichii bilety, to register
guns, and to get licenses to hunt certain species. The trip from Mugur-Aksy to Kyzyl takes 8-10 hours each way and costs about 1000 rubles each
way, not including food. People then have to live in Kyzyl while permits are being processed, which can be a lengthy process, or go back home to
wait and make yet another expensive and time-consuming trip to Kyzyl to pick up their permits. Even if they were to do so, there is no guarantee
that they would be able to get the licenses they want to hunt specific species. Even residents of Kyzyl have trouble getting such licenses. In
reference to licenses to shoot maral, one Kyzyl resident said, They issue how many licenses? I dont know, but theyre all snatched up by the
dargalar (big bosses) before anyone else gets a chance. What are we supposed to do? These problems suggest that work needs to be done to revise
the permit granting procedures, establish priority hunting rights for local residents, and devolve control over the issuing of permits to the local level.

Altai
At the moment the organisation of hunting is under reform in the Republic of Altai. A few years ago, as part of centralisation policies, the control of
hunting was handed over to Barnaul (capital of Altaiskii Krai), but at the moment it is in the processes of being returned to the Republic and the
structural reform follows. In 2006 local hunters formed an association (okhotobshchestvo) - or rather re-established it, as such an organisation
existed in changing forms in the Soviet times and then up to the mid-1990s. According to its head in Kosh Agach, Nikolai Shonkhorov this
organisation has officially c. 160 members in the district and this is the number of people who can hunt legally if they get an appropriate license and
permission for guns. At the moment the association has a right to issue hunter cards (okhotnichii bilet) and they keep the catalogue of hunters. The
official state organisation responsible for hunting (okhotnadzor) is at the moment in charge of issuing hunting licenses and it also keeps an overview
of the hunting cards. The relations between okhotnadzor and okhotbshchestvo are not clear at the moment everything is being re-organised. At the
moment there is only one employee of the okhotzadzor in Kosh Agach and he seems to be mostly absent from his office. Okhotobshchestvo hopes to
regulate in future all hunting activities, including issuing licenses and selling guns and other hunting equipment, but the reform is still in process.
One can say that at the moment situation is quite unclear and local people are not well informed about the ongoing changes.

13
Roughly half of the interviews and surveys with people who hunt were conducted with hunters who have hunting cards (12 survey forms), hence
with the members of the hunting association. Out of them, 9 had permits for guns. At the time of survey none of them hold a license for a particular
animal, but the research was conducted outside of the hunting season. However, the longer conversations revealed that this division into people
with documents and people without documents seems to be of great importance neither with regard to attitudes to hunting nor with regard to
constellation of hunting groups. In Kosh Agach people usually hunt in groups of 3-4 people and those groups are mostly formed regardless of
hunting permits. Rather, people come together according to friendship or kinship lines. Most hunters holding official permits declare that they can
well understand their fellow people if they do not apply for one. This is a long bureaucratic hassle followed by a long wait for a gun, which is the
main purpose of applying for hunting card anyway. Getting a hunters card is only the first step, as the real trouble begins when people want to get a
gun. For the first 5 years a hunter should use only smoothbore gun (gladkostvolnoe oruzhe), from which one could shoot only up to 60-80 meters.
Only then a license for grooved guns (nareznoe oruzhe) can be issued. Getting any kind of gun requires undergoing medical examination, passing
relevant tests and holding a clear criminal record. It requires a trip to the capital (over 400km) or even to Barnaul (over 700km), ordering a special
metal container for guns and a yearly re-registration. None of the herders living in camps interviewed hold a hunting card as they claimed that they
do not have time and funds to undergo this procedure.

Getting license for a particular animal is seen also as a hassle. Theoretically one can get it in Kosh Agach, which obviously involves first a long trip
to the district centre. Hunters complained that the issuing office is frequently closed, but even if it is open one has to be given a relevant license, go
to the bank, queue to pay his fee, get back to the office (which is often closed by the time one is back) and get the paper. After hunting the license
has to be brought back within a few days, otherwise hunter would be fined.

Even more importantly, the very logic of license goes against Altaian traditional perception on hunting. As it was said above, wild animals are seen
as belonging to Altaidyng eezi, who could give a hunter a prey or refuse to do so. A hunter should not be choosy - he should just take whatever he is
given. A license on the other hand is given for a particular animal. Although registered hunters declared at first that they are trying to get a license,
all of them admitted that they often hunt any animal they meet regardless of the license they hold. Often a license is regarded as a kind of pass to
the forest with all relevant documents (hunting card, permission for gun, license) one can legally go to the forest or to the mountains without fear
of being caught.
This is precisely how the hunters without hunting cards see the role of all kinds of hunting documents. They claim that often the hunting groups are
constituted both from registered as well as unregistered hunters if they are spotted by rangers at least one of them have relevant papers. Moreover,
the license is filled in only if the person is seen by strangers or controlling organs killing the animal. If animal was killed without witnesses it is
taken home and the same license is used again.

Interestingly, in research area 1 some unregistered hunters reacted very negatively to the idea of legalization of hunting for all indigenous
inhabitants. Here is a quotation from an interview with a person who himself hunts without registration:
14
If you legalised hunting among local people, they would openly walk around with guns. For example, one leaves the village one is
allowed to take a gun with him. And then they would walk with this gun day and night. And now this is like this he goes hunting on
purpose and while he goes he hides his gun and tries not to be seen. He kills an animal, quickly takes it home and again he hides
himself. And if he was legalized, he would be everyday in the forest with the gun! Legalisation of local hunters is like sentencing the
animals to death.
The same person pointed out that local people usually do not have money necessary for purchase of technologically advanced guns. Therefore, even
if they wanted they could not kill many animals their guns are not good enough and the price of ammunition makes them to shoot rarely but
precisely.

However, in the research area 3 the reaction to eventual legalization of local hunting was opposite: all respondents in Kurkure agreed that hunting
rights (and gun permissions) should be given to all local people. Still as local people they mean people from Kurkure and as one of important threats
to wildlife (apart from strangers and helicopter hunts) they declared people from research area 1.

The answers to item #40 (A poacher is) do not differ significantly between registered and unregistered hunters. However, in contrast to Tyva,
there were answers that referred to legality of hunting. It can be said that especially in the research area 1 local people are well aware of the official
representation of poacher as someone who hunts without permission which implies that he is at the same time a threat to wildlife. In many cases it
was clear that people do not feel comfortable with this term in several cases Halemba was explicitly asked not to use the term poacher at all and
hence people refused to answer to 40#. Instead, they willingly answered to question 41# (who is the real threat to the animals).
The answers given to #40 could be subdivided into following groups:
a. Answers given by unregistered hunters, who simply stated:
Poacher this is me
Poacher is first of all a human being
Poacher is a human being
Poachers are just people like you and me
We are poachers
Similar answers (Poachers are first of all human beings) Halemba received also from a couple of registered hunters, who underlined that they
understand those of their fellow villagers who do not have cards but hunt.
b. Answers given by some registered hunters exclusively in area 1. Those people seem to internalize the officially promoted image of a
poacher
Poacher burns forests (lesopodzhigatel), he is a destroyer, he does not have any human thoughts, he does not think about kids.
Poachers is the one who hunts without license, without anything, he is the enemy of nature
Poacher is a thief, a killer, a destroyer of descendants
c. Answers which refer to particular behaviour and were similar to the ones given in Mngn-Taiga.
15
Poacher is the one who kills without measure
Poachers are those who hunt without measure, they kill everything they see. But we do not have such people here in Argyt
It has to be noted however, that the attitudes to labelling someone poacher cannot be fully discerned on the basis of this simple answers. For
example, people who gave answers b. made clear in other parts of the conversation that they do not think there are many poachers locally. This is
true that local people hunt without license, but they are not really threatening to the animal population.
One registered hunter, who admitted that he hunts without license answered to #40 in the following way:
Poacher is obviously a hooligan. But you have to look closely at him. I am hunting for food, for meat! And other people here as well.
They are not hooligans
Instead, the image of real poacher appeared in the answers to question 41#, where we asked about the kinds of hunting which are most dangerous
to wildlife. Here the issue of legality appeared only in one case of registered hunter, who expressed earlier his strong feelings against poachers. He
declared that the most dangerous are uninstructed people who do not respect and break the law.

Most of the respondents declared that most dangerous for wildlife are priezhie (strangers) or chinovniki (officials). In Argyt valley (Kurkure), all the
respondents stated that most dangerous for wildlife is helicopter hunting, which they claim to witness themselves.
This is the outsiders (priezhie) who bring damage, our people do not do it. They do not look carefully, just shoot everything.
Officials who shoot anything they see
Also the image of ranger appeared in the responses to this question:
The biggest damage is done by rangers.

In sum: in Altai few unregistered hunters see themselves as poachers. Those who do use this designation for themselves usually live in bigger
villages close to the main road. Still, they use it because they are aware that this designation is officially used to describe their activities. Most of the
unregistered hunters see themselves as harmless to animal population. They see their activity as moderate and harmless, they think that they do not
take more than they need, that the environment can provide and sustain, and that they do not hunt for material gain. As most dangerous for animal
population are seen strangers, people in position of power (especially in the army) as well as members of controlling organs (police, rangers, border
guards).

Reasons for hunting and morally appropriate hunting:

There is a significant difference in the attitudes to hunting between Altai and Tyva. Some of these differences may well be related to the wild game
populations in the two areas. The Kosh-Agach area is more heavily forested and recognized as having more species of game animals as well as
having higher populations of most species. Hunting has probably historically been a more important activity both culturally and economically than
in the Mngn-Taiga district of Tyva.

16
Tyva
In Tyva, illegal hunting to feed ones family is nearly universally accepted. Hunting to sell parts or for trophy is not acceptable. While ten
respondents said that they hunt because it is interesting, none mentioned the adrenaline rush, or the thrill of the hunt. One respondent noted that he
thinks hunting for the thrill of it has declined noticeably over the past years. No one discussed hunting as an important source of income, especially
not now, since theyve cracked down so hard on marmot skins and since theyve firmed up the border with Mongolia. In keeping with the general
tone of respect for official nature protection measures, the largest number of Mngn-Taiga residents noted that they think local people respect
legal hunting and not illegal hunting, and that those who hunt illegally need to hide it from others. The survey data do not give a clear picture as to
how many people in Mngn-Taiga are believed to hunt illegally. Some respondents believe that almost all adult males do, while others said very
few do. However, if we triangulate the data in question 32 with the survey sample numbers (17 hunters, only two with full permissions), and with
interview and observation data, it appears that those who suggest that a large proportion of the adult male population hunts are probably correct.

Altai
Respondents opinions on numbers of hunters and their perceptions of reason for hunting have been fairly consistent within the three research areas
in the Altai. On the basis of survey data and interviews the situation is locally perceived as follows:

Research area 1:
Kurai and Kyzyl Tash: every third-fourth man hunts at least once a year. C. 15 people hunt regularly and for 3-4 families hunting is a significant
source of income. All people interviewed declared that they hunt out of interest but also for adrenaline, for the thrill of it, and that this is just in
their blood.
Chibit: this is the hotspot of hunting. Only 10 people there are registered hunters and the same number has registered guns, but according to local
clan leaders (jaisan) the number of hunters is probably c. 100, which makes every second men in the village a hunter. Probably for 10-15 families
illegal hunting is one of the main sources of income. Most of the people declared that they hunt for adrenaline but also for meat not because of
lack of income but because they like wild game. No one declared that he personally hunts for sale, but people declared that it is the main reason for
several of their fellow villagers and that they would probably hunt less if they had other sources of income.
Research area 2: Every eight men between 15 and 55 years of age hunts. Half of them have hunting cards. Border guards posts are close to these
villages and valleys, so the illegal hunting among local people is limited.

The most often given reason for hunting was that it is in peoples blood. In case of wolf-hunters this is seen as obligation towards herders.
Research area 3: In Kurkure it can be safely assumed that almost every man between 15 and 55 years of age hunts, almost all without hunting cards.
In Dzhazator the majority of the population is Kazakhs, but most of the hunters are Altaian. There is no reliable data on this village, but it is
definitely an important trading point for hunting products.


17


Kurkure village



In Kurkure the reason for hunting given was tradition, but also hazard. In this
village Halemba managed to talk to some people who indirectly admitted that
they hunt for sale but they were also ready to give up this type of hunting if they
had other sources of income. Interestingly, some respondents admitted that they
once or twice took part as guides in legal and illegal trophy hunting trips for
strangers, including helicopter hunts. However, they also claimed that they
refused to be further involved in such activities as they do not approve on the way
the hunting is undertaken during such trips.

There is among the local hunters an image of hunting that is morally appropriate. This image should be strengthened and maybe modified but not
fought against. Of course, people admit that they sometimes break the rules themselves, but they do hold them in general as valid and could be quite
easily convinced to stick to them, if the social control is strengthened. The most important features of such hunting are as follows:
One does not hunt more than one needs for his/her own consumption. This means e.g. that out of a group of 10 mountain goats one should not
take more than 1-2 animals for a group of 3-4 hunters. Overhunting is seen as a sin (kinchek) that is transferred from a hunter to his children.
Hunting should be done not more than 3-4 times a year.
All parts of the animals should be used. Trophy hunting and leaving the meat behind is generally frowned upon.
The place should be cleaned after killing an animal. No animal leftovers are to be left at the scene.
Hunting in spring is forbidden as well as killing very young animals. Hunter should preferably kill adult males only.
It is forbidden to kill the first animal in the herd i.e. for example a leader of ibex.
If hunting with traps, they all have to be removed at the latest in March. Leaving traps behind is frowned upon. Between February (after Chaga
bairam) and June hunting should not take place.
Meat should be shared among all the hunters in equal parts regardless of who killed the animal. The youngest hunter divides the meat into as
many parts as there are hunters. Then another decides, without looking, which pile is going to which hunter.
Female hunters are very rare. They are more present in the Ulagan district.

18





Telengits emphasize that they use all parts of hunted animals as much as
possible. Here a car part usually manufactured out of plastic was carved
out of ibex horn.


Our data confirm that the cultural reasons for hunting far outweigh economic considerations, and in all research areas of the study people agreed
that hunting would continue even if they had much more money. This is consistent with other literature on the topic. For example, a study of
poaching in Tanzanias Western Serengeti determined that poaching households tend to be wealthier than non-poaching households, and that the
decision to poach may be more an issue of opportunity time rather than household wealth (Knapp 2007:195). This suggests that employment
generation schemes will be more effective way of reducing poaching than pure wealth generation mechanisms. However, alternative sources of
income could reduce the amount of hunting, especially if they are supplemented with community-based control systems (see recommendations).

The idea of hunting tourism (hunting for trophy) was rejected by almost all of the respondents in the Altai sample, but was more acceptable to the
respondents in the Tyvan sample, where half of the respondents said they could support hunting tourism if it were carefully regulated. Danil
Khertek, the village head of Kyzyl Khaia, noted that trophy hunting could cause some resentment among locals, but suggested that if we work at
explaining what we can do with the money -- build a kindergarten for our little kids, or buy computers for the school, or use the money to fix up the
old cabin at Ala-Taiga arzhaan then people will agree to it. However, Dadar-ool Shagdyrovich Irgit, inspector for Ubsunurskaia Kotlovina Nature
reserve in Mogen-Buren area, said that the wild animal populations in the area were not large enough to support hunting tourism.


19
Attitudes to animals

The table below summaries the most important information regarding the local perception of wild animals.

Argali

,
Altai
All respondents agree that they should be protected. Most of the local people claim that they do not hunt them, but they
do have an opinion on the taste of their meat - although some people like it, for most of them it is too dry. Local people
do not hunt argali for trophies even the ones who do hunt for money. Moreover (and much more important) the main
inhabitancy areas for argali are high plateaus that are located within the border area. There are border guards stationed at
several posts (zastava). In order to hunt argali one has to either pass one of those or try to go round it, risking being
caught. Local people therefore say that as a rule they do not hunt argali. In their perception the most avid argali hunters
are 1. border guards themselves 2. officials and their friends, who hunt them from helicopters, as argali graze on the high
altitude plateaus.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga , argali seems to be more of a species to hunt. The meat is considered not only delicious but medicinal
because of the izig ot (literally, hot grass) that they eat in their high, dry habitat. The population is considered rather
stable, but declining. One respondent who had participated in an official count in 2002 said there had been about 100 in
the area around Mugur-Aksy then, and estimates that there are about 80 now. Respondents said that argali generally
live in Mongolia and Altai, and only cross the border over into Tyva in November or December, stay for a month or
two, and then cross back.
Snow leopard

,
Altai
All people agree that this animal should be protected. Still, Halemba met very few people (only two, both hunting
illegally) who claimed that they would restrain from shooting snow leopard if they see it accidentally while hunting.
Most of the hunters, legal and illegal said that they could not stop themselves from shooting killing a rare animal is a
great feat for a hunter. There are however very few people who premeditatedly hunt snow leopard (two respondents
admitted it). It is usually done with traps.
Also, almost everyone agreed that snow leopard should be killed if s/he attacks the herds. It does not happen very often,
and the animals that attack herds are usually old. Most of the people say that snow leopard just takes one animal and
does not hurt other ones. Only in Kokoru (research area 2) people described a case when snow leopard attacked a herd
of horses. He killed one of them but he also hurt several others with his claws. People believe that in this way he was
preparing them to be his pray in future weakened by wounds they would have been an easy catch.
There is a mixed reaction to the snow leopard settling next to the shepherds camp. Most of the people say it is extremely
improbable as the animal prefers to stay high in the mountains. Those who admit that it can happen can be divided into
20
two groups. A minority of respondents (c. 20%) claimed that this would be a good sign for the camp and that they would
not try to kill such an animal. They have also claimed that such a snow leopard would not try to get the domestic animals
of its human neighbor. Still c. 80 % said that they would try to kill such a snow leopard as they would be afraid of his
attacks on animals. Very few people think that snow leopard could attack a man at all.
Tyva
Views in Mngn-Taiga are similar. Everyone agrees that they
need to be protected because they are universally recognized as
one of the rarest and most beautiful animals in the world. No one
said they would ever go out with the intention of hunting them,
and in fact no one in the sample said they would shoot one unless
they felt it presented a threat to their livestock. Just prior to this
research in Mngn-Taiga, one private herder suffered a massive
slaughter of 80 sheep by a snow-leopard. The snow-leopard
entered the enclosed corral from the roof and killed almost all the
sheep in the corral (see photo). While this herder was devastated
by the event, and is hoping for some form of compensation from
the government or from WWF, he still responded that snow-
leopards need to be protected. Such attacks are rare the
zapovednik inspector said that he can recall three, one in the late
1980s, one in the late 1990s, and this one. The head of administration said he only remembered two one about 10
years ago, and this one. All mentioned that snow leopards kill several yaks every year, but this is to be expected.
Musk deer


Altai
According to hunters, the population of this animal has dropped significantly in the late 1990s. They see the fault of
local people in this in the late 1990s the price for the musk gland was high and it was easy to sell. People hunt musk
deer with traps and if a female is caught they just leave the body to rot. Although hunters admitted that local people do
it, they view such practices very negatively.
The hotspot for hunting musk deer is the village of Chibit and probably a bigger settlement of Aktash located nearby.
Aktash was pointed out as the place when illegal trade in musk gland is taking place.
At the moment the population of musk deer is, in perception of local people, growing. No licenses for musk deer are
issued at the moment and people claim that illegal trade has also significantly dropped.
Tyva
According to one hunter in Mngn-Taiga , musk deer should be hunted when there is a full moon, because that is when
the musk glands are fullest. There is no substantial musk deer hunting in this region.
21
Wild boar


Altai
According to local perception, the population of this animal is growing, especially in recent 2-3 years in research area 1.
Wild boar is perceived as an aggressive animal, destroying meadows which are kept for hay-making and even killing
young elks. Some of the respondents would like to eliminate wild boar altogether.
Tyva
Mngn-Taiga : wild boar are rarely seen and are particularly difficult to hunt and kill, so few people actively hunt
them. For these reasons, they dont need special protection beyond regular hunting restrictions. Their population seems
to change from year to year, but appears overall to be stable.
Bear


,
Altai
The population of this animal is seen as stable. People hunt it for fat, gall bladder (zhelch) and skin. They are also
known to attack domestic animals and then they are hunted.
Tyva
Mngn-Taiga respondents mentioned that there are very few if any bears around.
Wolf


Altai
This animal is rarely talked about using its own name br. Instead, it is called different names, such as e.g. kush-ijit
(lit. bird-dog). People are respectful towards wolves as they do not want to draw their attention. All of the hunters agree
that the population of wolves is growing and that they are very dangerous for herds. They agree that wolves should be
hunted by specialized hunters and preferably eliminated altogether.
The only exception to this general trend of seeing wolf as an enemy that should be removed with any means was voiced
in the Kokoru village. There, a group of well-organised (and registered) wolf-hunters operates. Their said that wolves
should be hunted exactly in the way as other animals are for example, one should kill neither pregnant females nor
puppies.
The premiums for killing wolves depend on the district (between 3000 and 5000) and are seen by hunters as too low.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, virtually all people said that wolves should be actively hunted. They are perceived as pests and a
threat to livestock that needs to be eliminated. The population is perceived as growing. People feel they should shoot
wolves on sight, with no consideration for season. The meat and skins are not of much value, but the government pays a
premium of 4000 rubles for each wolf killed, creating an economic incentive for hunting them.
Mountain goat - ibex

Teke, j;
,

Altai
This animal is seen as not endangered. Apart from Kurai village (where many people prefer hunting elk and do not go
higher into the mountains where teke usually resides), this is the most popular animal for what people consider proper
hunting (see above).

22
The local hunter who killed this ibex does not have a hunting
license, and his gun is not legally registered. Such hunting is
illegal, but locals feel that they should have priority hunting
rights and greater control over wildlife resources. (Mngn-
Taiga District, Republic of Tyva, 2008. Photo: B. Donahoe)


Tyva
Likewise in Mngn-Taiga, the population of this animal is
seen as stable or growing. People feel there are plenty of
them, and several people said they saw no reason for special
measures to protect them, beyond the standard hunting
restrictions of season, etc. The meat is considered to have
medicinal properties because of the izig ot (literally, hot
grass) that they eat in their high, dry, rocky habitat.




Sable

K,
Altai
They are hunted with traps in research areas 1 and 3. There are no concerns with regard to decline of population.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, people said that there are no sable to speak of.
Roe deer


Altai
They are rarely hunted on purpose, i.e. a hunter rarely sets off with an aim to get a roe deer. Rather, they are just killed
when they are seen on the way.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, one hunter said that there used to be a lot of deer, but the population seems to have plummeted in
recent years. He suggests that they may have outmigrated en masse for some unknown reason. They should be
protected. Best to hunt in May because the hair in their ears is long and they cant hear.
Red Deer

,
Altai
Hunted in autumn (for meat) and in May (for panty). In Chibit people prepare salt traps for them (salantsy). The most
hunted animal in research area 1.
Tyva
As most of Mngn-Taiga is not forested, there are very few red deer. Hunters value them and will shoot them if they
come across them, but they generally do not go out looking for them, as they are so rare.


23
Marmot


Altai
Those animals have been very widespread in the steppes until the mid-1990s. People claim that they were overhunted in
the late 1990. At the moment people notice that the population of marmot I going down. Moreover, c. 5 years ago, when
the price for marmot fur was high, they were poisoned in order to get large number of fur fast. Altaians claim that this
was done almost exclusively by Kazakhs Altaians like the meat too much to spoil it in this way. Presently, the price for
marmot fur felt down and they are hunted exclusively for meat which is believed to have medicinal properties. Hunting
marmot is not seen as proper hunting. There are people (also women and children) who hunt marmot but they do not
consider themselves hunters. This is very much widespread attitude in research area 2.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, marmot is the most important species to hunt for cultural as well as for economic reasons. The meat
and fat are considered medicinal, and the oil that can be obtained by hanging the fat and letting it drip is both valuable
and important. It can fetch 1000 rubles/liter (25 euro) locally, and as much as 3000 rubles/liter in Kyzyl. The skins used
to also be valuable, but since marmots have been placed in the Red Book and hunting is prohibited and somewhat strictly
enforced, and the border between Mongolia and Tyva has become stricter, the market for marmot skins has dried up.
People hunt them with traps, or simply drive a bit off road and wait for them to come out of their burrows and shoot
them. The population declined precipitously in the 1990s (the time of
crisis), as people hunted them indiscriminately out of need for meat and
money.
Hunting seems to have declined somewhat from that peak period, but still
most respondents said the population is low and needs special protection.
Just outside the village of Mugur-Aksy in Mngn-Taiga, a large statue
depicting two marmots has been erected (see photo), and locally they have
declared a groundhog day, both activities designed to engender pride in
the marmots and an awareness of their situation.

Fish


Altai
Fishing is generally seen as a leisure activity. There is no difference between attitude towards protected and other
kinds of fish.
Tyva
The main fish in the area is grayling (Rus. kharius, Tyv. kadyrgy). People fish for them in lakes under the ice with nets
in late winter, as well as in warmer weather. One person mentioned that the quota of grayling in Khindiktig Khol
(Mngn-Taiga) is never reached, therefore there is the danger of overpopulation in that lake. Some fishermen from
Mngn-Taiga cross over into the Altai Zapovednik to fish in lakes there.
24
Birds


Altai
No significant hunting, apart from ducks. Still, people would shoot ular if they see it. There was a peak of hunting
falcon for sale in the 1990s, but apparently there are no buyers anymore. According to respondents Kazakh people
were also involved in catching and trading falcon. The population of birds is considered healthy.
Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, the falcon population seems to be healthy. People here
dont hunt them generally (although some said there might be a few
younger men in Mgen-Bren who hunt them). One hunter showed
Donahoe a rather elaborate snare used for catching falcons (see photo). It
is small frame made of string and flexible wire, with several small snares
and a long dangling string with a large, 4-sided hook attached. The snare
is hidden under the wings of a live pigeon. A rock is also tied to the
dangling string to prevent the pigeon from flying high. Then the pigeon is
released. The hawk catches the pigeon in flight, and in its efforts to claw
through the feathers to get to meat, its claw gets caught in one of the
snares built into the trap (there are several). As it cant lift the pigeon-
with-rock very high, the string with the large hook drags along the ground
until it catches onto some grass or a bush. Then the hawk can be reeled in
by the string. One respondent said that they can get 30,000 rubles for one.
Also in Mngn-Taiga some people hunt ular. The perception is that the
population is healthy, and that their meat has medicinal qualities.



Attitudes to nature protection areas

Altai
Someone wants to buy this territory and make a nature reserve. They will push us out of here and they will hunt here, the animals will be gone.

This quotation from an interview with a herder in Argut valley (Altai) can be considered representative of the attitude towards nature protection
territories in research area 3 in Altai. The general tendency is that the further away from an existing or planned protected areas people live, the more
acceptance or even support they have for its existence. Especially in the villages next to the main road there are quite a few people who agree that
strict control is the only way to reconcile the urge among the local people to hunt and the need to protect the animals. However, even they are afraid
25
that actually the most dangerous hunters are the officials and guards who have access to animals anyway: whether they live on the protected
territory or not.

In the areas close to existing or planned nature protected territories, especially nature reserves (clusters of the planned Sailukemski zapovednik),
people are generally against the introduction of protected areas. Obviously they are scared of being removed from their land (i.e., that herders
camps will be relocated and they will be prevented from using those areas as pasturage). Still, this is not the only problem they see. Especially in the
places close to existing protected areas such as Ukok or Shavlinski zakaznik, the term nature reserve (zapovednik) is often interpreted and
understood by local people as a hunting ground (okhotougodie) reserved only for officials or even private owners. The situation is especially dire in
the Argut valley, in the village of Kurkure and surrounding herders camps, where the equation nature reserve = private hunting ground seems
to be firmly established among local people. It must be said however, that, given the fact that some of them have experienced and seen the outcomes
of helicopter hunts organized in Shavlinski zakaznik, their interpretation of the situation cannot be seen as groundless or dismissed as a
misunderstanding. For example, Halemba saw personally addressed letters that inhabitants of Kurkure received from an entrepreneur from Ust
Koksa district, in the wake of elections for the head of the Kosh Agach district
3
that took place on the 3
rd
March 2008. In his letter he asked people
to give their support to Auelkhan Dzhatkambaev (who was the head of the region at that time). In exchange he promised to open a company Arkyt
on this territory and promised people investments in the region. Fortunately, inhabitants of Argut knew that he is an owner of tourist enterprise
organizing commercial hunting some of the local people were on his hunting trips as guides before (including helicopters hunts). They
disapproved of this and were afraid that the territory would turn into a ground for commercial hunting if this entrepreneur opens his company. Argut
inhabitants voted overwhelmingly for Dzhatkambaevs opponent, Leonid Efimov, who has won the election. Interestingly though, people think that
now, although the entrepreneur cannot open his company in Argut any more, he is nevertheless behind the creation of the planned nature reserve on
the same territory. It is believed that he has made a deal with some people in power in Novosibirsk, who decided to create a nature reserve in
order to organise hunting trips to Argut. For the people of Kurkure private company and nature reserve are understood as equivalents they see
both of them as limiting the local peoples access to the land, as being run by outsiders and as means of disempowering local population.

If the nature reserve or any kind of nature protection territory is to be established there in future, there is a definite need for explaining the situation
to the local people. At the moment they are not going to believe that any nature protection initiative would benefit either the population of wild
animals or their interests. They can recount numerous stories about officials and hunting tourists coming to Shavlinski zakaznik to hunt (both with or
without permissions) using helicopters, high-quality weapons and hunting everything that moves. If any herders camps are to be removed because
of the establishment of a new nature protection territory, this would definitely estrange local people, which should definitely be avoided. Moreover,
we suggest that it has to be very carefully considered who is to work in the reserve itself. Ideally, the protection of the territory should be given to
people from Kurkure and the headquarters of the nature protection territory should be located in this village. Still, the agreements and negotiations
concerning the mode and extent of nature protection should be conducted not with individual inhabitants but with an association of local people
which hopefully will be soon established (see recommendations).

3
Shavlinski zakaznik is situated mostly on the territory of the district of Kosh Agach but is also easily accessible from districts of Ulagan, Ongudai and Ust Koksa.
26

In the areas further away from protected territories the attitude towards nature protection is more positive. The most important concern the
respondents voice is the question of rangers they should be chosen from locally respected people. Some older respondents referred to the Soviet
practice of neshtatnye egera (non-salaried rangers). These were local herders, who had control rights on the territory in the vicinity of their camps.
Those who remember this system claim that it was very effective.

Tyva
In Mngn-Taiga, the acceptance of OOPTs is higher than in the Altai. 25 of 27 respondents agreed that the creation of OOPTs is the best way to
protect the animals and 20 respondents strongly agreed that more OOPTs should be created in the future (item #48). There are at least two factors
that help explain this: 1) the fact that there are fewer OOPTs in Mngn-Taiga than in Kosh-Agach (in fact, there is only the Mngn-Taiga
segment of the Ubsurnurskaia Kotlovina Nature Reserve); and 2) the fact that in Tyva generally there is still more respect for, faith in, and reliance
upon governmental agencies to deal with most problems. Residents of Altai have actively tried to take matters into their own hands by establishing
their own locally managed parks and protected areas, while residents of Mngn-Taiga see such activities as the exclusive domain of the state.
Nevertheless, as in the Altai case, those Mngn-Taiga residents living closer to the core zone of the nature reserve (i.e., those living in Kargy
sumon) were more likely to be critical of the nature reserve than those living in Mogen-Buren. In a meeting between district administration, nature
reserve officials, and the WWF representative, Aian Adai-oolovna Salchak, deputy head of district administration for economic affairs, noted that
the existence of the nature reserve restricts opportunities for economic development, notably animal husbandry (by making important pasture areas
off limits), tourism, and mining possibilities. This is resented by some locals and has caused conflicts between local residents and the nature reserve.
As one interviewee put it, We live there, we use that territory and we use the natural riches there, to pasture our animals. People also hunt there.
But if they turn it all into a zapovednik, we'll lose those opportunities, and we won't be able to live, because our lives depend on being able to use
that land. In this kozhuun (district), there's nothing else you can do but herd animals and hunt and fish. Other interviewees in Mugur-Aksy also
mentioned this, and said they resent the nature reserve, and would not welcome the development of more. However, there is a lack of understanding
of the different types of protected areas, and most people think that protected area = zapovednik (strictly protected nature reserve). In Mogen-Buren,
respondents generally said that the existence of the nature reserve doesnt interfere with their herding activities.
The attitude towards rangers / inspectors is ambivalent and diverse. Many respondents accused rangers of being poachers themselves. Others praised
their work, although they are perceived as in need of support for example they need better equipment and horses. In general people in Mngn-
Taiga are not negatively predisposed toward the officials involved in nature protection. Many have respect for the idea of inspectors in the abstract,
and most appear willing to respect the actual individuals if they earn the respect.

WWF itself is not well known in the region, either in Tyva or in Altai. Many respondents pointed out that they know the WWF sign from television
and that it seems to them that WWF works well in other parts of the world, but they are not visible in the Altai-Saian Ecoregion.

27
Recommendations

Limiting levels of hunting in the research area requires a complex strategy that can be divided into following components:
Co-operation with local communities in establishing information and education strategies
Legislative and institutional reform
Support for development of economic activities (tourism, animal husbandry, alternative economic activities)
Support for monitoring of hunting activities and enforcement of regulations
Further research

Co-operation with local communities in establishing information and education strategies

Despite the fact that Altaian and Tyvan worldviews are based on the cult of nature and that hunting should be done under strict restrictions, it cannot
be assumed that local people are natural environmentalists whose attitudes correspond one-to-one to the goals of environmental movements and
organizations. Likewise, while we recognize that local hunters and herders are exceptionally knowledgeable about the location and migration habits
of various species, their perceptions of the relative health of the populations are easily biased toward overestimation. Hence, there is a need for
dialog and for mutual information, so common goals and strategies can be formulated.

Local people declare that in general they do not take too much from natural resources. Rather, they are involved in a social relationship of
exchange with the environment. Exchange, however, should not be confused with harmonious and benevolent gift giving. Rather, the natural
environment is seen as a partner with whom negotiations, bargains and deals have to be made. Local people see hunting 2-4 times a year for
purposes of consumption and recreation as the appropriate way of involvement with environment and not as a threat to the natural balance. None of
the people interviewed agreed that they would stop hunting altogether under any conditions. Even if busy with work and quite well-off, they see
hunting as being in their blood and inherited from the ancestors. On the other hand, the discourse of environmental NGOs is based mainly on
the idea of protection: humans have responsibility for nature and should protect it, save it for future generations and for the humanity at large. These
are obviously very different attitudes, although both positions can be seen as grounded in respect for nature.

While it is necessary for successful co-operation that NGOs come to a closer and deeper understanding of local attitudes towards nature and of local
peoples emic definitions of poaching and proper hunting, it is also possible and desirable to negotiate the position of local people. The human
partner in the human-nature relationships rapidly becomes the stronger one, hence the protection approach should be supported. In order to discuss
this possible shift of attitude with the local people there is a need for carefully crafted information and education campaigns.

A great deal of research has shown that direct experience of and interaction with flagship species is the best way to alter behaviors and influence
conservation intentions (see, inter alia, Bogner 1998; Fazio & Zanna 1978; Finger 1994; Kals, Schumacher, & Montada 1999; Smith & Sutton
28
2008; Vaske & Kobrin 2001). This part of the Altai-Saian Ecoregion is particularly fortunate to have several flagship species to work with: in
addition to the snow leopard and argali sheep, there are ibex and, given the cultural and economic importance of marmots, they can also be seen as a
flagship species in the area. WWF could support structured conservation-related activities in which local people, especially young men, go out and
interact with flagship species in a non-hunting context. For example, they should be asked to monitor the animal populations in their region with
help of video cameras, or be involved in monitoring the movements of radio-collared animals. Competitions for the best video and/or photographs
of flagship species between 2-3 teams of young men could be arranged (of course, it would have to be made very clear that if any member of a team
were to hunt during their video expeditions, the entire team would be excluded from the competition). This could be a very powerful way to alter
behavior patterns and instill conservation intentions.

However, as Smith and Sutton note, flagship exposure alone is not enough to influence either a broader concern for the species habitat or
conservation behaviors. Rather, effecting behavior change may require education that instills an understanding of the interconnectedness
of the species, its habitat, and human well-being (2008:128). Such education could begin with sending WWF materials to local schools and
libraries, as well as to local NGOs and associations. Good examples of clear, accessible, well-founded scientific information on the populations of
wild animals are WWF-Mongolias Wildlife Bulletin 1: Argali and Wildlife Bulletin 2: Snow Leopard. Such materials should be prepared for Altai
and Tyva with the involvement of local community members. The above suggestion of having locals monitor animal populations could provide some
data for such materials and give local community members a sense of ownership of the information.

Another possibility for direct experience of nature with an explicitly educational component that WWF could support is the idea of eko-tropas
(environmental hiking routes) for students to facilitate hands-on ecological education of the younger generations. Mugur-Aksy resident Komaadyr
lchei, a former teacher and experienced hiker / mountaineer who has led numerous such trips, is interested in developing such an activity and
would be a good person to contact. The eko-tropa would be like a summer camp, but would move every day or every other day. Students would
observe the habits of plants and animals and the timing of various processes. They would maintain a chronology and keep journals. These would be
cumulative so that one years observations could inform the next years, and they could be added to year after year. The idea is to give students a
basic foundation in ecology, engender an appreciation for the natural world; help them understand and appreciate their natural surroundings. Such
activities provide ideal opportunities to educate people in broader issues of wildlife ecology, population dynamics, and the global significance of
biodiversity.

Both of the above suggestions for direct experience of nature would have the added benefit of generating material that will allow locals themselves
to create some of the educational materials for the entire community. Additionally, educational materials should include data on animals that used to
inhabit the region but have become extinct, so people will realize that from one point of view local hunters can be seen as predators. The current
situation could be compared to other places where flagship species have become extinct: If we keep hunting snow leopard, it will share the fate of
the tiger. Films about animals in other parts of the world should also be shown people will watch them with great interest, which could have a
positive influence on their attitudes to animals.
29

WWF should consider establishing a close, formal working relationship with at least one person in each community perhaps a teacher in the local
school to take on the responsibility of organizing the showing of such films and other informational activities. This would incur minimal expense,
and would bring the great advantage of having a more-or-less constant WWF presence in the villages. There are plenty of people who have
expressed interest in being involved in such activities.

In the Kosh Agach region such activities could be coordinated by Aleksei Shonkhorov (contact: shalex81@bk.ru) and obshchinas of small-
numbered indigenous people (KMN). Aleksei Shonkhorov is a young inhabitant of Kosh Agach who has recently graduated from a law school. He
has been instrumental in developing the obshchina movement in the district; he helped the researcher with conducting the survey and agrees with
WWF goals. At the same time he has a good access to local hunters and is ready to help the WWF cause.

The other aspect of the educational campaign should be more informative and should refer to kinds and purposes of the different forms of OOPTs
and the restrictions and opportunities they offer. Survey and interview results in both Kosh-Agach and Mngn-Taiga demonstrate that there is very
little awareness among the general population of the different types of OOPT, their functions, restrictions, and opportunities. Likewise, perople
generally do not distinguish among the different nature protection authorities (nature reserve inspectors, forest service, state hunting inspectorate,
etc.). Especially in the research area 3 in Altai such clarification work is absolutely necessary before new OOPT are established, so people become
convinced that there is a substantial difference between privately owned land and OOPT. This could be achieved only if local people are directly
involved in the design, implementation, and operation of new OOPTs. The fact that the closer people live to existing OOPTs the more likely they
are to be sceptical of official nature protection measures indicates a serious public relations problem that needs to be addressed.

Legislative and institutional reform
The long-term preservation of endangered species cannot be achieved through force and external control. Control over wildlife resources should
devolve down to the local level through the development of community-based wildlife management institutions. Issuing of hunting permits and gun
registrations should occur locally, and mechanisms should be established that guarantee that the revenues generated by issuing licenses, gun
registrations, and fines for illegal hunting remain within the local community. In Altai, this process is already under way with the re-establishment
of an association of hunters (okhotobshchestvo) with approximately 160 members. This process should be monitored (who is included in/excluded
from this organisation) and supported.

Local hunters should have the first option on hunting licenses within their own territories. There is a need for work with republic- and federal-level
legislators to establish priority rights to wildlife for local residents of these areas, as already exist in law for recognized members of KMN.
However, the research in Altai shows that local people themselves recognized potential dangers related to granting indiscriminate hunting rights to
KMN. Hence, instead of supporting granting hunting rights to individual members of KMN, this issue should be managed by local communities of
KMN. Such communities should receive help in organizing community-based control systems.
30

De-centralisation of control policies for hunting is a deeply political issue in the Russian Federation, which in general seems to follow centralization
path. Still, WWF should and could lobby for such a transfer of control rights. This is especially important in the settlements around Shavlinski
zakaznik, which is rich in animals, including snow leopard. The territory of Shavlinski zakaznik is surrounded by a number of villages, situated next
to main routes leading into the protected territory. We suggest that those villages (Kurkure, Kurai, Chibit, Inegen, Tiungur) should become focus
points for developing locally-managed systems of control. In some of those villages there already exists associations of KMN and they should be
involved in the control process. In the villages where no associations have been formed so far, such associations should be established. In this
process an institution of jaisanat can be of considerable help. Jaisan is a name for a clan leader. This social institution was abandoned during the
Soviet times, in the 1990s however, on the wave of co-called national cultural revival, all villages in the district of Kosh Agach elected clan
leaders. Most often those are locally respected middle-aged men. We suggest that they can be instrumental in organizing successful control system,
which would monitor both the behaviour of local population as well of the outsiders. The problem with jaisanat at the moment is that officially they
do not have any rights and they feel powerless when facing state employees, even those who themselves break the law. Taking into account the
respect people in the Russian Federation seem to have for official documents and papers, we suggest that it would be important to develop a system
of issuing representatives of local communities with some kind of documents which would give them self-confidence in following their activities.
Halemba recommends contacting Viktor Kachkinov, the head jaisan of Chibit (viktor-kachkinov@yandex.ru).

It would be worthwhile to consider the possibility of reinstituting the Soviet practice of neshtatnye egera (non-salaried rangers). Local herders
could be trained as rangers and given udostoverenie (an official document granting them authority to write up protocols against people they catch
hunting illegally).

Importantly, fees for licenses and fines collected by inspectors should be partly directed towards matching community needs, such as support for
local schools, road improvement, investments in local small business.

Support for development of tourism and other economic activities
Although there is no straightforward correlation between income and hunting, the communities of local people should be provided with the
resources and training necessary to develop alternative income-generating activities, with a focus on tourism-related activities, small business
development, and animal husbandry. This would convince them that nature protection initiatives are not conducted by outsiders who just want to
limit local peoples access to natural resources; rather, they will see that nature protection is beneficial for all interested parties.
Tourism
o Work with NGOs, obshchinas, and clan leaders (jaisanat), and with local administrations, GUP and MUP officials, and local schools
(in Tyva) to clean up and improve specific sites of interest to tourists (e.g., the Ala-Taiga mineral springs in Mngn-Taiga);
o Develop some tour routes. One possible route could include an overnight hike up Little Mngn-Taiga (near Kyzyl Khaia village),
then travel north along the Mogen-Buren river through Aldyy-Iimaaty and st Iimaaty, spending a night or two at a herding camp.
31
From there to the Ala-Taiga arzhaan (sacred mineral spring) where tourists could spend some time. Within walking distance of Ala-
Taiga there is the nearby foundation of an old Buddhist temple that was destroyed in Soviet time. From Ala-Taiga a tour could cross
over into Altai, or continue north to Khindiktig Khl. Dadar-ool Irgit, one of the nature reserve inspectors living in Kyzyl Khaia, is
particularly interested in developing the mineral springs. Komaadyr lchei, mentioned above, would also be a good person to help
develop tourist routes.
o Support some superficial research on some of the cultural sites in the area. In both regions there are countless burial mounds, stellae,
and petroglyphs, but not all of them are well-known. We are not suggesting WWF fund in-depth scientific research, but rather
support some local people (perhaps as school projects) to find out what they can through already published sources and / or
interviews with experts and with elders. It should not be too difficult to create a map locating some of the larger and / or more
accessible of these, find out a bit of information, and put up information signboards with brief descriptions in Russian,
Altaian/Tyvan, and English.
o Provide training in organizing and promoting hiking routes, visits to herding camps, horse-riding tours, mountain climbing, etc.
o Establish a list of homes (both in the villages and in herding camps) willing to take in tourists for traditional home-stays, and
develop and manage an equitable rotation system. Such services should be paid for either directly to the households, or into a fund
managed by the communities.
o The idea of trophy hunting is not popular in these areas and should probably be avoided, especially in Altai. If developed at all, it
should be done with great caution, in close cooperation with local communities, and on a small scale only. However, if a market
could be found for sport hunting for wolves, that could prove to be very popular with locals and a potential income generator.
Provide support for small business development (cafes; small workshops supporting traditional crafts and leather and wool products;
processing and packaging of medicinal plants). This area is famous for its wealth of medicinal plants. Several informants mentioned that
tourists come specifically to gather medicinal plants (for which they are supposed to have permission). This could be developed both as a
local cottage industry and as a tourist draw, of course with all the necessary restrictions to make sure that no plants are overharvested.
As animal husbandry is still the most viable economic activity and herders tend to have a more highly developed sense of stewardship,
WWF should work with local organizations and institutions to improve conditions for herding and make herding more attractive to younger
people. Close cooperation, mutual respect, and good working relations will be in the interests of herders, nature conservation professionals,
and the local economies. Such measures could include:
o Improved corrals with chain-link fencing on top to prevent snow leopards from entering. This has proved highly effective against
snow leopard predation in the Himalayas (see, for example, Jackson and Wangchuk 2004). In 2007, through a UNDP-GEF financed
project, 20 corrals in the Toolailyg sumon of Mngn-Taiga were reinforced. Locals testify that these have been effective, and
support the idea of enclosing more corrals with chain-link fencing. While initially such a project should concentrate on winter and
spring corrals (as such massive killings seem limited to late winter and early spring), summer corrals could also be reinforced. The
walls of summer corrals made of slender tree trunks with open spaces between could be wrapped with chain-link fencing all around,
32
secured along the bottom, and a roof of chain-link fencing could be supported by a few internal poles. The chain-link fencing
would allow air to circulate and keep the corrals cool and well-ventilated.
o Compensation schemes to reimburse herders who incur massive losses of livestock to snow leopards (and can document it). It is well
known that such schemes are fraught with problems if permanently instituted, then they represent a constant financial burden; if
offered for a limited time only, then they create an expectation that will not be met in the future (as is the case in the ASE, where
such a program existed for a short time). Such a scheme proved ineffective in the Himalayas because, as noted by Jackson and
Wangchuk, Livestock owners must travel up to four days to report their losses, so on-site verification is rarely possible. Payment is
35% (or less) of market value and takes up to two years because of budgetary constraints. Not surprisingly, relations between
villagers and park authorities have suffered, increasing the likelihood of retributive killing of snow leopards (Jackson and
Wangchuk 2004:309). However, a stronger and more permanent local presence to verify such losses, and better communications
technologies between herding camps and villages, could help make compensation programs more effective. Perhaps a scheme to
compensate livestock with livestock would work better. WWF could make an initial investment to start a herd of livestock. In the
Mngn-Taiga Disctict, for example, these animals could be a) all kept in a single WWF herd, maintained by a local herding family;
b) a single herd could be maintained in each of the three sumons (Mgen-Bren, Kargy, Toolailyg); or c) the animals WWF
purchases initially could be divided up among several different herding camps to be maintained along with the other animals the
camp already herds (private and / or GUP herds). These animals could then be used to compensate for animals killed by snow
leopards. The participating herders would be paid for maintaining the herd by being allowed to keep a certain number of the
offspring of the WWF herd as their own private animals. The difficulty with this scheme would be in keeping track of which animals
are part of the WWF herd, and which are not.
o Improved communication links between herding camps and villages (two-way radios or satellite telephones);
o Solar collectors and accumulators for each herding household.

Further research
As the time for the present research was limited, we suggest that additional research should be conducted in the following villages and surrounding
herders camps in Altai: Aktash, Inegen, Jodro, Tiungur. In order to reduce costs for travel of foreign researches into Altai this research could be
conducted by a young Altaian anthropologist Erkin Enchinov (Envhinov_e@mail.ru). He is about to defend his PhD on Altaian customary law in
Moscow, but he is already back in Gorno-Altaiask.

There is also need to establish and support an ongoing and cumulative schedule of biological and social research activities, particularly better
monitoring of the wild animal populations and their migrations.

Concluding remarks
33
The above activities should be done only in consultation and collaboration with local people, and perhaps most importantly, even at their initiative.
WWF could establish a small-grants fund, provide some training in project development, and solicit project proposals, with the guarantee that the
grants will go to locally generated projects. This would provide the incentive for local communities to develop projects and apply for support for
organising activities that could help at reducing hunting among local people and strengthen their feeling of responsibility for their land. Projects
submitted by community-level associations should have preference over individual (private) projects. It is important to know what place (in terms of
prestige, trustworthiness, respect) the applying organisation and/or and individual have locally. There are strong kin and political ties in the region
(especially in the Altai) and it is important to ensure that various groups of people have equal opportunities and that control is not taken over by a
few individuals and used to their advantage.

Projects from the Kurkure (also known as Arkyt or Argut), as a village located directly on the border of Shavlinskii zakaznik and on the animal-rich
territory, should be given special attention and supported. However, projects from all villages of the region should be considered. We would be
happy to provide further assistance in evaluating such projects.

While it will be impossible to stop illegal hunting altogether, a comprehensive program that incorporates the above recommendations could go a
long way toward reducing hunting and instilling in local residents a renewed sense of control over and responsibility for the wild animal resources
in their areas.

Literature cited:

Bogner, F. X. 1998. The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of
Environmental Education 29(4):1729.

Dietz, J. M., Dietz, L. A., & Nagagata, E. Y. 1994. The effective use of flagship species for conservation of biodiversity: The example of lion
tamarins in Brazil. In P. J. S. Olney, G. M. Mace, & A. T. C. Feistner (eds.), Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive
animals (pp. 3249). London: Chapman & Hall.

Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. 1978. On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal of Personality
46(2):228243.

Finger, M. 1994. From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning and behavior. Journal of
Social Issues 50(3):144160.

34
Jackson, Rodney and Rinchen Wangchuk. 2004. A Community-Based Approach to Mitigating Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 9:307-315.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and
Behavior 31(2):178202.

Knapp, Eli J. 2007. Who Poaches? Household Economies of Illegal Hunters in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
12:195-196.

Smith, Amy M. and Stephen G. Sutton. 2008. The Role of a Flagship Species in the Formation of Conservation Intentions.Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 13:127140