Paper presented at the First International Symposium on Endangered Species Used in Traditional East
Asian Medicine: Substitutes for Tiger Bone and Musk, Hong Kong, 7-8 December 1997

Musk deer: little understood, even its scent
Michael J.B. Green' and Bijaya Kattel’

ABSTRACT

The musk deer, genus Moschus, is distributed sporadically throughout the
forested, mountainous parts of Asia, from just north of the Arctic circle south
as far as the Hindu Kusk-Himalayan region of Afghanistan, Pakistan and
India. Its taxonomy is unresolved, there being at least four and possibly as
many as six species recognised.

The animal is renowned for its musk, a secretion of the male preputial gland
which has been used in traditional medicines and in perfumery from as far
back as 3,500 BC. Today musk is among the most valuable animal products
in the world, worth up to US $ 45,000 or 3-4 times its weight in gold.

Widespread and intense illicit hunting of the musk deer to meet the
international demand for musk, combined with habitat destruction, have lead
to a drastic decline in musk deer populations. This century populations have
disappeared from former parts of their distribution and elsewhere they have
become extremely fragmented. That the musk deer has not been wiped out
from much more of its geographic distribution can be attributed, in part, to its
behaviour: it is essentially solitary and often nocturnal, extremely furtive,
and females are likely to be able to reproduce in their first year.

However, much of the musk deer's behaviour, physiology and ecology
remain poorly understood, exemplified by the difficulties experienced in
maintaining breeding populations in captivity. Ironically, perhaps least
understood is the precise role of musk in the animal's behaviour and ecology.

The conservation of the musk deer is discussed, alongside existing
constraints in promoting the sustainable production of musk. Future options
are considered.

* World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, UK

? Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The musk deer is best known for its musk, a secretion of the male preputial gland that
has been used in traditional oriental medicines and perfumes for many hundreds of
years. Such has been the commercial demand for musk, among the most valuable of
natural products in the world, that the musk deer has disappeared from many parts of
its former distribution.

Despite its renown, little is understood about this small, primitive, deer-like animal.
Its evolutionary history remains uncertain, its taxonomy is confused, and its behaviour
and ecology are only beginning to be unfathomed. The purpose of this paper is to
provide an account of what is known about the musk deer as a basis for considering
its future conservation.

2. EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY AND TAXONOMY

2.1 Evolution

The musk deer, Moschus, has often been classified as a member of the deer family or
Cervidae (e.g. Flower, 1975; Simpson, 1945). Although Moschus superficially
resembles living deer, a number of other authors have suggested that the genus should
be placed in its own family, the Moschidae (e.g. Gray, 1821; Brooke, 1878; Flerov,
1952; Groves and Grubb, 1987; Scott and Janis, 1987). The inclusion of Moschus and
similar fossil types in a separate family is based on them all retaining primitive
ruminant characteristics such as a small to medium body size, large upper canines
(tusks) in the males and the absence of antlers, horns or other cranial appendages.
Unlike the chevrotains (mouse deer) in the family Tragulidae, however, the tusks are
more specialised, the metacarpals are fused and the stomach is four-chambered (Scott
and Janis, 1987).

The relationship of the moschids to other pecorans (ruminants with four-chambered
stomachs) is less certain. Scott and Janis (1987) place the Moschidae at the base of the
superfamily Cervoidae, as the sister group to the Antilocapridae (goat antelopes) and
Cervidae (Figure 1.). However, there remains uncertainty about relating the Cervidae
more closely to the Antilocapridae than to the Moschidae, based on a number of
skeletal features. ©

Cervoids Bovoids

Tragulids Moschids_ Antilocaprids Cervids Giraffids Bovids

Figure 1 Phylogenetic relationship between living families of ruminants (after Scott

and Janis, 1987).

2.2 Taxonomy

Taxonomy of the genus Moschus is unresolved, particularly at subspecies level, but
there are now considered to be at least four and possibly as many as six species
(Groves and Grubb, 1987). For purposes of this paper, the following four species are
distinguished:

- forest musk (M. berezovskii) in China, Vietnam

e Himalayan musk deer (M. chrysogaster) in Afghanistan, China, India, Nepal,
Pakistan

e black musk deer (M. fuscus) in Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal
[Note: This is considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M.
chrysogaster.|

e Siberian or taiga musk deer (M. moschiferus) in China, Korea, Mongolia,
former USSR.

Until such time as adequate samples of specimens are examined morphologically, and
perhaps genetically, from representative parts of the musk deer’s distribution, the
taxonomy will remain uncertain (see also Gao, 1985)

3. DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS

3.1 Past and present distribution

In general, the musk deer is distributed sporadically throughout the forested,
mountainous parts of Asia, from just north of the Arctic circle south to the northern
edge of Mongolia and to Korea. Further south, but avoiding the Gobi Desert, it occurs
in China, northern Vietnam, Myanmar and the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region of
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Flerov, 1930, 1952; Dao, 1977). During the course
of this century, this distribution has become fragmented and in some parts contracted.

The forest musk deer, M. berezovskii, occurs in the following provinces of southern
China: southern Shaanxi, southern Anhui, Hunan, Hubei, Guangdong, Guangxi,
Yunnan, Guinzhou, Sichuan, southern Gansu, south-east Qinghai and southern
Ningxia. Its distribution extends into northern Myanmar and northern Vietnam. Five
subspecies are recognised by Wang er al. (1993).

The distribution of the alpine musk deer, M. chrysogaster [= sifanicus], encompasses
Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northern India, and central China (Grubb, 1982). °
What is commonly referred to as the Himalayan musk deer is considered to be a
subspecies of M. chrysogaster whose distribution extends north of the Himalayan
divide into Tibet and south-east Qinghai. The overall distribution of the Himalayan
musk deer south of the Himalayan divide has changed little during the 20th century
but widespread hunting and extensive habitat destruction has reduced the population
to isolated fragments in many regions. This population was estimated at 30,000
animals, based on the extent of suitable habitat and the impact of hunting (Green,
1986).

The black musk deer, M. fuscus, occurs in north-western Yunnan (above 3,200m),
where its distribution partly overlaps with that of M. berezovskii (Li, 1981), and the
south-eastern comer of Tibet, China (Li, 1981; Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990). It also occurs
in Myanmar and Assam, India. An undescribed subspecies is found in the Everest
region of Nepal, India (Sikkim) and Bhutan.

The Siberian musk deer, M. moschiferus, is found in the former USSR (Siberia and
Sakhalin Island), northern Mongolia, China (northern Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang
and Jilin) and Korea. It has disappeared from Sinkiang, Shanxi, Hebei and Shaanxi
(Bannikov et al., 1980; Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990).

Further details about the species' known distributions within each country are
summarised in Annex 1.

3.2 Reasons for decline

Musk deer populations have declined dramatically during this century as a direct
result of widespread illicit hunting of the animal for its musk. Given that a single
musk gland or pod, weighing on average 25g, will provide a pastoralist family with 6-
12 month's cash income (Jackson, 1979; Harris, 1991), hunting is very intense and
populations within a given valley may be wiped out within a few years. Hunting,
traditionally with snares but increasingly with guns, is largely indiscriminate of the
age and sex of animals, such that four or five musk deer may be killed for every pod-
bearing male secured (Jackson, 1979; Green, 1986).

Habitat destruction, due to increasing human and livestock populations in many
Himalayan and other mountainous regions, is also a serious threat. This applies
particularly to the shrub layer of vegetation which provides musk deer with food and
camouflage from predators, including man. Expanding pastoralism may also affect
musk deer indirectly through predation and harassment by domestic dogs, used to
protect livestock (Green, 1986; Harris, 1991).

3.3 Musk trade

- Musk is used in perfumery, both for its fixative and scent properties, and in oriental
medicines. It was used in China and India as far back as 3,500 BC, and by the 7"
Century AD it was traded with the Arabs (Genders, 1972). Relatively little is used in
perfumery nowadays, due to its increasing scarcity and high cost, and commensurate
replacement by much cheaper synthetic alternatives. Most musk is used in traditional
Chinese, Hindu (ayurvedic) and Moslem (unani) medicines for its alleged cardiac,
circulatory, respiratory and sexual stimulant properties, as well as a sedative for
nervous disorders (Pereira, 1857; Mukerji, 1953; Anon., 1979).

Musk is among the most valuable animal products in the world, worth 3-4 times its
weight in gold. In the 1970s, its international market value was up to US $ 45,000 per
kg. At that time, Japan was the largest importer of musk, accounting for some 85%
(275 kg) of the international trade (Green, 1986). In the early 1980s, total annual
-musk production in China was 2,000-2,500 kg, of which 500 kg originated from M.
berezovskii (Wang et al., 1993). In the Russian Altai, 50 kg was officially traded in
1990-91, thought to represent about 10,000-20,000 musk deer, M. moschiferus
(Prikhod'ko, 1987).

Current levels of the international trade have not been documented, but there is no
reason to expect them to have declined, given that musk deer continue to be hunted
and populations continue to decrease throughout much of their geographical
distribution.

3.4 Conservation status

International level

According to the IUCN criteria for threatened species, M. moschiferus is listed as a
vulnerable species in view of its declining populations. The other three species are
considered to be at lower risk (near threatened); in other words, they almost qualify as
vulnerable species.

Commercial trade in musk (or any other derivatives of the musk deer) is restricted
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Populations of Moschus species from. Afghanistan, Bhutan, India,
Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan are listed under Appendix I of CITES, thereby
prohibiting any import of animals or parts thereof for primarily commercial purposes.
All other populations of Moschus are listed under Appendix, which means that musk
from these populations may be traded subject to strict regulation

National level

The musk deer is severely threatened within some countries. Although it is protected
under national legislation in many range states, effective protection is minimal due to
inadequate resources, even within many of the protected areas in which the species
occur. The population is arguably best protected in Bhutan, where poachers are
deterred in the knowledge that they may legitimately be shot on sight. Details of
national legislative provisions for musk deer are summarised in Annex 2.

4. BEHAVIOUR AND ECOLOGY

4.1 Habitat preference

Musk deer inhabit montane forests and subalpine scrub throughout much of their
distribution. Dense undergrowth, typically of rhododendron, bamboo and other
shrubs, is a prerequisite, with a marked preference for steep slopes (Bannikov et al.,
1980; Green, 1987a; Kattel, 1992)

Use of habitat may vary with activity, time of day and season in response to the
availability of cover, food, shelter and other variables. In Kedarnath, N. India, musk

. deer were found tobe most active at night, feéding in more exposed habitats, such as
alpine meadows, under the cover of darkness (Green, 1985, 1987a). In Sagarmatha,
Nepal, most use of birch-rhododendron forest and dwarf rhododendron scrub is made
in winter, probably because of the greater availability of food (arboreal lichens in
particular) in these habitats during this season (Kattel, 1992).

4.2 Food requirements

Musk deer are concentrate feeders, selecting easily digestible, nutritious foods that are
high in protein and energy (sugars) and low in fibre (Green, 1987b; Kattel, 1992). In
Kedarnath, N. India, forbs and woody plants constitute the bulk of the diet in summer
and winter, respectively (Green, 1987b). During winter, when food is in short supply,
musk deer survive on poorer quality diets. Where available, musk deer may switch to
feeding largely on arboreal lichens (Usnea spp.), which are low in protein but high in
energy that is easily fermentable and readily absorbed during digestion (Kattel, 1992).
Evergreen foliage, such as Rhododendron campanulatum (Green, 1987b), and
arboreal lichens may be the only readily available food plants during winter when the
snow may be one metre deep. Musk deer are also able to jump into trees for feeding
purposes (Kattel, 1992; H. D. Xu, pers. Comm., 1997). As winter progresses and

snow becomes deeper, so foliage and arboreal lichens become accessible from
increasingly higher levels within trees and shrubs.

Feeding in winter is aided by the musk deer's adaptation to moving in snow. It's dew
claws are enlarged, helping to spread its body weight over a larger surface area,
thereby minimising sinking in soft snow and maximising its competitive advantage
over similarly sized ungulates. The ratio of body weight to hoof area is estimated to
be 83.6g km” (Kattel, 1992), which is lower than for any other ungulate. In practice,
measurements show that the maximum depth to which musk deer sink in snow is 26
cm, and on average it is only half this value (Green, 1985).

4.3 Ranging behaviour

Musk deer are essentially sedentary, with home ranges of 13-22 ha recorded for
populations in North India, Nepal and the Tibetan Plateau (Green, 1985; Kattel, 1992;
Harris and Cai, in press). Studies of these populations show no evidence of any
seasonal movement to lower altitudes with the onset of winter. As already discussed,
they are well-adapted to moving through deep, soft snow; moreover, they are well
protected from the cold by their thick coat of hairs that are crenellated and constructed
of air-filled cells to maximise insulation (Green, 1985). In some parts of Russia,
however, musk deer may migrate up to 35km in winter as a result of food supplies and
shelter becoming covered by snow (Bannikov et al., 1980).

Males tolerate females within their home ranges but not other males, from whom they
defend their territories. However, home ranges of females may overlap each other. In
Sagarmatha, Nepal, where population density is high (23 musk deer recorded within
50ha), the home range of one male overlapped with parts of the home ranges of five
females. Moreover, the home ranges of these five females partially overlapped with
those of several of the other females (Kattel, 1992). Similar patterns were evident in
Kedarnath, N. India, where the winter homes of a male and female overlapped
considerably, but those of two adjacent males did not overlap with each other (Green,
1985, 1987c). A much lower population density of 5-6 musk deer km” ? in Kedarnath,
probably reflecting reduced food availability and possibly past hunting practices, may
account for the lower incidence of overlapping home ranges.

4.4 Social behaviour

Direct and indirect observations, using radiotelemetry, indicate that musk deer are
solitary animals, spending most of their time alone. In Kedarnath, N. India, musk deer
were only once observed together during 151 observations and a total observation
period exceeding 63 hours spread over a three year study period (Green, 1985, 1987a).
In Sagarmatha, Nepal, adult females were sometimes seen with young in late summer,
and adult females and males were commonly seen together during the rut (Kattel,
1992). Such differences between these two study populations may reflect differences
in population density.

Solitary behaviour is typical of small, forest ruminants which rely chiefly on olfaction
for communication. Visual contact is impaired by the dense nature of the forest or
scrub habitat. Moreover, vocalisation, as a means of long-range communication, is
presumed to be incompatible with an anti-predator strategy that relies on remaining
inconspicuous.

Chemical signals are strongly developed in the musk deer. Droppings, urine, and in

the case of males, secretions from the musk, caudal and interdigital glands, are used as
scent-marks (Green, 1987c). Nothing is known about the interdigital gland, except
that it is found in the front feet of the male (Pocock, 1910), so it will not be
considered further here.

Droppings

Musk deer, both sexes, use latrines for purposes of defaecation. Peak use of latrines is
in December, coinciding with the estimated peak of the rut (Green, 1987c). In the
Himalaya, the rut usually coincides with the driest time of year. In order to keep their
pellets moist and smelly during the dry autumn season, musk deer often cover them
with earth, old pellets, leaf litter and any other available debris (Green, 1987c).

Latrines are distributed throughout the home range. There is circumstantial evidence.
based on measurements of pellet weights, that the extent to which latrines are shared
by individuals corresponds with the degree of overlap between animals’ ranges. Thus,
rather than serving as boundary markers, latrines are communication centres
providing information on the identification, whereabouts and perhaps even
reproductive condition of the occupant(s) of a particular range or set of overlapping
home ranges (Green, 1987c).

Urination and musk secretion

The role of musk in the life of a musk deer is far from understood. The musk gland
lies in the preputial region, opening via a duct just a few millimetres anterior to the
urethral opening. A gland measures 4-6cm long, 3.5-4.5cm wide and 4cm in depth.

There is preliminary evidence that musk is conveyed in the urine of males, based on
observations in winter of snow often being stained pink or red from the urine of
males, rather than amber as in the case of female musk deer and other ungulates. Also,
snow stained with the urine of males is usually sweetly scented (Green, 1987c). Given
the close proximity of the opening of the musk gland anterior to that of the urethra, it
is likely that either the musk is squirted into the urine stream by contraction of the
striated muscles of the musk gland, or the stream of urine is directed to pass over the
musk-coated hairs covering the aperture of the gland. Whether musk is used to scent
the body, as well as the urine, is not known. In the event of the former, urine may be
used to disperse the scent over the body.

Pasting with the caudal gland

The caudal gland of the male occurs as a thickening at the base of the short (c. 2.5cm)
tail. A viscous yellow secretion, having an offensive odour that is not at all musky,
exudes from a pore on either side of the tail (Hodgson, 1841). The tail is naked,
except for a terminal tuft, owing to the frequent act of rubbing its glandular base
against objects.

Typically, male musk deer rub the base of their tale against the stems of bushes or
dried herbs and grasses. The only detailed study of such pasting behaviour has shown
that male musk deer mark in this way throughout their home ranges, both in captivity
and in the wild. However, 70% of paste marks were concentrated in a broad peripheral
belt, inside of which were distributed most latrines (Sokolov and Prikhod’ko, 1979).
This pattern of scent marking is open to various interpretations, but clearly the use of
faeces to mark home ranges may be subject to more severe production constraints
than that of caudal gland secretions.

Functions of scent-marking

The functions of scent-marking in the musk deer remain poorly understood. Territory
marking may provide intruders with a means of identifying residents by their scent,
which is matched during agonistic encounters: with the memorized scent of marks
encountered in the immediate vicinity. Thus, scent marks enable an intruder to assess
the quality of a potential competitor, thereby avoiding an escalation in agonistic
encounters. Similar processes of recognition by scent-matching may be involved in
mate choice, enabling females to select mates that are successful in competing with
others. It follows, therefore, that a high frequency of scent-marking would be
advantageous to a male if it helped, through dominance over male intruders, to
maintain exclusive access to one or more females. The seasonal use of latrines and, in
males, the seasonal synthesis of musk in summer for use later in the year to scent the
urine may confer similar benefits. The chemical signals may be important for
determining access not only to females but also to other resources in short supply,
given that such behaviour continues beyond the rut for much of the winter (Green,
1987c).

4.5 Reproduction

Musk deer breed seasonally. The rut occurs between November and early January,
and the young are born in May-June after a gestation of 178-198 days. There appears
to be a trend of increasing length of gestation with increasing size of species: M.
berezovskii, the smallest species, has the shortest gestation; M. chrysogaster, the
largest species, has the longest; and M. moschiferus occupies an intermediate position
with respect to both its size and gestation period (Green, 1989).

Litter size varies between one and three. The incidence of twins is higher than single
births in M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus; conversely, single births are predominant
in M. chrysogaster (Green, 1989). Whether such differences are species-specific or
governed by environmental conditions is uncertain. Young grow rapidly, becoming
independent of their mothers by about six weeks. They attain most of their adult body
weight by six months and sexual maturity by 18 months of age. Females are capable
of breeding in their first year (Green, 1987a, 1989). In captivity, musk deer have been
known to live up to 20 years (Zhang, 1983).

5. MUSK PRODUCTION

Males secrete musk from an age of 12-18 months onwards. Peak production of musk,
marked by the visible swelling of the musk gland and scrotum, occurs in May-July
prior to the autumn rut. This condition lasts for several weeks during which yellow,
milky musk drains via ducts into the neck of the musk gland. Here, over a period of
30 days or more, it is mixed with slough from the inner wall of the gland and matures
into a powerfully scented, granular, red-brown substance (Campbell, 1837; Zhang et
al., 1979; Bi et al., 1980). The synthesis of musk is negligible in castrated males,
suggesting that it is regulated by androgens from the testes (Zhang ef al., 1979). Most
musk is produced from animals between three and eight years of age (Bista er al.,
1979). Males in captivity produce little musk by the age of 14 years, but the ability to
secrete the substance still persists at 20 years of age (Zhang, 1983).

Traditionally, musk deer are killed to excise the musk gland or pod as it is known in
the trade. However, musk can be extracted through the external orifice of the musk
gland without killing the animal. The Chinese, and others, have been experimenting

with breeding musk deer in captivity for the production of musk since 1958. In China
about 18g (10g dry weight) of musk is harvested annually from captive males (Anon..
1974, 1975). This is higher than the mean of 11.6g musk (N=7, range = 7-15g)
obtained from animals captured (and released) in the wild in Sagarmatha, Nepal
(Kattel, 1992). However, the available data are insufficient to predict the optimum
time of year for extraction of musk from wild animals.

5.1 Harvesting musk from captive animals

Existing information on farming musk deer is inadequate for assessing its economic
viability. Even with improvements in rearing and breeding musk deer in captivity,
there remains the problem of raising males at high densities without resorting to
practices that are counter to animal welfare. Furthermore, as musk deer are easily
stressed, extraction of musk needs to be performed under anaesthesia unless animals
are tame. In reviewing the Chinese experience , it appears that musk deer are difficult
to farm intensively and usually captive stocks have to be replenished with animals
from the wild (Green, 1989).

During initial attempts by the Chinese to build up captive stocks with musk deer from
the wild, the mortality rate was 60-70%, with many animals dying from gastroenteritis
primarily as a result of poor husbandry (Bista ef al., 1979). Newly captured fawns,
which are preferred to adults because they are easier to tame, are particularly prone to
such infection unless preventative measures are taken (Zheng, 1980). The other
commonly fatal disease, to which young are very susceptible, is pneumonia (Bista ef
A979):

The musk deer has been a relatively difficult species to breed in captivity. Of 32
recorded births in zoos worldwide between 1959 and 1980, only 17 (53%) survived
(Green, 1985). In China, survival of young has improved from 50% to over 90% at
Foziling Farm in Anhui (Anon., 1975), and at Ma Er Kang Farm in Sichuan it
averaged 74.4% (n = 336) during the period 1959-73 (Anon., 1974).

In Sichuan’s state farms, advances in domesticating and breeding musk deer were
sufficient for the capture of wild animals to be discontinued after 1965 (Bista ef al.,
1979). Such progress is not widespread in China, as most captive stocks still need to
be replenished with animals from the wild (Green and Taylor, 1986).

The musk deer’s solitary habits (Green, 1985) tend to preclude intensive husbandry.
Males are probably territorial and cannot be raised together in confined spaces without
risk of injury from fighting. The Chinese practice of isolating males in small cages is
not only considered inhumane but cannot be conducive to their productivity. Such
treatment may be responsible for the reputed inferior quality of musk from farmed
animals.

5.2 Harvesting musk from wild animals

The problems and costs of maintaining musk deer in captivity could be avoided by
harvesting musk from free-ranging animals on the basis of either capturing live
animals, then releasing them after extracting the musk (Green, 1978, 1986), or culling
them as was practised in the Soviet Union (Bannikov ef al., 1980). Rural development
schemes to harvest musk from wild or ranched animals would provide local
communities with the motivation to protect not only the musk deer but also its habitat
(Green, 1986; Green and Taylor, 1986).

A major constraint to harvesting musk from live animals in the wild is developing a
suitable method of capture. Green (1985) tried various techniques (traps and nets) but
they all proved to be unsuccessful. More recently, Kattel (1992) developed a
technique of driving previously located animals into nets (6m long and 2m high)
using a team of 10-12 persons. This proved to be very successful, with a 56% success
rate (25 captures out of 45 attempts). Once captured, animals were immobilised for
purposes of attaching radiocollars and extracting musk.

Another constraint is the widespread and centuries-old practice of adulteration (Green,
1989). Some simple method of assaying the purity of musk needs to be developed. In
Japan, the leading importer of musk measures the muscone content by gas-liquid
chromatography, but a less sophisticated technique is needed for ready application in
the field.

In view of the highly lucrative nature of the musk trade, commercial operations to
harvest musk from captive or wild animals must be accompanied by the proper
protection of the musk deer in conservation areas (Green, 1986). At present, wild
populations of musk deer are threatened by hunting. The extent to which this is
occurring under the cover of farming enterprises in China is not known, but farming
provides an infrastructure whereby musk obtained from wild ARNIS can be traded as
farmed musk with reduced risk of apprehension.

6. CONSERVATION

6.1 Threatened but not yet extinct

The musk deer is under tremendous threat from hunting and, increasingly, habitat
destruction. Given the long history of the musk trade and the very high demand for
musk, it is perhaps surprising that populations have not been extirpated from many
more parts of their distribution. This can be attributed to various aspects of the
animal’s behaviour.

The musk deer is a very elusive animal, being mostly solitary and capable of hiding in
dense scrub amidst inhospitable terrain. The high level of nocturnal feeding activity in
more exposed parts of the home range, as recorded in some populations, is likely to be
an adaptive response to hunting, and to disturbance by local people and their
livestock. All of these behavioural characteristics make hunting extremely labour
intensive, as indicated by the intensity of trapping (100-600 snares km”) in some

-remote Himalayan valleys (Green, 1978). It is largely the market price of musk and
the ready availability of musk from elsewhere which determines whether or not it is
worth hunting populations to extinction.

Another important factor which has undoubtedly contributed to the survival of the
musk deer, despite intense hunting, is its high reproductive rate (Green, 1989). Young
mature quickly and, although not yet confirmed in wild populations, they are capable
of breeding within their first year. Moreover, the incidence of twins and even triplets
is quite high in M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus. Whether or not attainment of
sexual maturity and litter size are influenced by hunting pressures remains unstudied.

Conservation measures through the establishment of protected areas are beginning to
prove effective, albeit only in a very few cases because of largely inadequate
resources to manage them effectively. A good example is Nepal’s Annapurna
Conservation Area, where wildlife populations including musk deer have recovered

10

significantly since the launch of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project in 1987 (C.
Gurung, pers comm., 1997). However, local culture and traditions have played a much
stronger role in protecting some populations of musk deer. For example, musk deer
may be strictly protected in the vicinity of certain Buddhist temples (Harris, 1991;
Kattel, 1992).

6.2 Future prospects

The musk deer is threatened throughout its distribution but, for reasons discussed in
the previous section, it is not yet seriously at risk of becoming extinct. Unlike the
tiger, therefore, which participants of the symposium consider likely to become
extinct unless strictly protected, there is still a little time in which to develop and
implement conservation strategies that include the sustainable production of musk.

While the development of synthetic substitutes for natural musk is necessary to meet
the tremendous demand for musk in perfumery and traditional medicines, it is
symptomatic of the high price and difficulty of obtaining natural musk that has
resulted from the widespread over-exploitation of the musk deer. To attempt to
completely replace natural musk with synthetics may be misguided because, arguably,
this devalues the musk deer and does not address the root of the problem - a failure by
civil societies to adopt sustainable lifestyles. Unlike tiger bone, for which many other
animal bones have proved to be effective substitutes, musk is much more extensively
used in traditional Chinese medicine, and its replacement by substitutes (synthetics) is
not generally accepted. Whereas, the continued use of natural musk in perfumery is a
luxury, particularly in the wake of the development of synthetic musks, its use in
traditional medicines can be more readily justified provided such musk production is
sustainable and humane.

Clearly, there is a challenge ahead to reverse the present over-exploitation of musk
deer and an important opportunity to establish musk deer as flagship species which,
managed sustainable for their highly valued musk, can help to ensure the protection of
fragile mountain environments and the welfare of mountain peoples.

The effective protection of musk deer within protected areas is of paramount
importance. This is unlikely to be achieved: without the participation of local
communities in management processes, particularly since government resources for
protected areas in the musk deer’s range states are usually grossly inadequate.

In order to engage the cooperation of local communities, clear social and economic
benefits must derive from maintaining protected areas. In the case of musk deer,
ecotourism offers a potential market which might help to promote the animal’s
conservation.

Outside strictly protected areas, there is the opportunity to harvest musk from wild or
possibly ranched populations. This would be particularly beneficial for local people
living at subsistence level in remote mountainous regions, where alternative sources
of livelihood are meagre (Green, 1985, 1989). While there are major technical
problems to overcome, such as efficient capture and release of free-ranging animals,
and checking the purity of musk, the major challenge will be to ensure that legitimate
harvesting of musk does not provide cover for animals to be poached from within
protected areas. However, with the full involvement of local communities in musk
harvesting enterprises and benefits accruing directly to them, their support in policing
protected areas from poachers will have been won.

1]

Thus, the biggest challenge is not so much developing substitutes for musk and
banning its trade, which ultimately may do little for protecting musk deer in the wild
and providing economic benefits to rural communities, but finding technical, social
and political solutions to sustainably harvesting musk from wild animals in areas
buffering protected areas. This symposium is timely, providing the opportunity for the
conservation and traditional Chinese medicines communities to begin working
together to conserve the musk deer and its fragile mountain environment, while
providing for the wealth and health of rural communities through the sustainable
production of musk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to Jonathan Barzdo for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.

12

REFERENCES

Anon. (1974). Feeding musk deer in captivity and collecting musk from the live animal.
Dongwuxue Zahzi, China, 1974(2), 1-14.

Anon. (1975). Preliminary experience in raising the survival rate of musk deer. Dongwuxue
Zahzi, China, 1975(1), 17-9.

Anon. (1979). Faunal pharmacopoeia of China. Tianjin Scientific and Technical Press,
Tianjin.

Bannikov, A.G., Ustinov, S. K. and Lobanov, P.N. (1980). The musk deer Moschus
moschiferus in the USSR. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Unpublished manuscript. 46 pp.

Bi, S. Z., Yan, Y. H., Qing, Z. X., Sheng, P. T., Wu, Y. M., Chen, C. F. Xu, H. J., Yang, G.
K., Yin, T. B. and Lu, Y. J. (1980). Dissection and analysis of the musk gland of
moschiferus and a preliminary investigation into its histology. The Protection and Use of
Wild Animals, China, 1, 14-19.

Bista, R. B., Shrestha, J. N. and Kattel, B. (1979). Domestication of the dwarf musk deer
(Moschus berezovskii) in China. Kathmandu: National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Office. Unpublished Report.

Brooke, V. (1878). On the classification of the Cervidae, with a synopsis of the existing
species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1878: 883-928.

Cai, G. Q. and Feng, Z. J. (1981) On the occurrence of the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus
chrysogaster) in China and an approach to the systematics of the genus Moschus. Acta
Zootaxonomica Sinica 6: 106-110.

Campbell, A. (1837). Notes taken from the post-mortem examination of a musk deer. J.
Asiat. Soc. Beng. 6: 118-120.

Dao, V.T. (1977). Sur quelques rares mammiferes au nord du Vietnam. Mitteilungen-
Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 53: 325-330.

Flerov, C.C. (1930). On the classification and geographical distribution of the genus
Moschus (Mammalia, Cervidae). Yearbook of the Zoological Museum of the USSR Academy
of Science 31: 1-20.

Flerov, C.C. (1952). Fauna of the USSR. Volume |. Mammals: musk deer and deer. USSR
Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Pp. 14-45. (Translated from Russian by Israel Program for
Scientific Translations.)

Flower, W. H. (1975). On the structure, and affinities of the musk deer (Moschus
moschiferus, Linn.). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1875: 159-190.

Gao, Y. T. (1985). Classification and distribution of the musk deer (Moschus). In:
Contemporary Mammalogy in China and Japan, ed. T. Kawamichi. Mammalogical Society
of Japan. Pp. 113-116.

Genders, R. (1972). Perfumes through the ages. G. P. Putman, New York.

Golovanov, V. (Ed.) (1985). Nature reserves of the USSR: nature reserves of the Far East.
Mysl' Publishing House, Moscow. 317 pp. (In Russian)

Gonzalez, G. (1994). Deer harvest in Sikhote-Alin, Russia. [UCN Deer Specialist Group
Newsletter 12: 5. :

Gray, J. E. (1821). On the natural arrangement of vertebrate mammals. Lond. Med. Reposit.
15: 296-310.

Green, M.J.B. (1985). Aspects of the ecology of the Himalayan musk deer. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 280 pp.

Green, M.J.B. (1986). The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer
(Moschus chrysogaster). Biological Conservation 35: 347-375.

Green, M.J.B. (1987a). Some ecological aspects of a Himalayan population of musk deer. In
The biology and management of the Cervidae, ed. C.M. Wemmer. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington DC. Pp. 307-319.

Green, M.J.B. (1987b). Diet composition and quality in Himalayan musk deer based on fecal
analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 880-892.

Green, M.J.B. (1987c). Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster).
Journal of Zoology, London (B) |: 721-737.

Green, M. J. B. (1978). Himalayan musk deer (Moschus moschiferus moschiferus). In
Threatened Deer. \UCN, Morges. Pp. 56-64.

Green, M.J.B. (1989). Musk production from musk deer. In Wildlife production systems, eds.
R. J. Hudson, K.R. Drew and L.M. Baskin. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp.
401-409.

Green, M. J. B. and Taylor, R. (1986). The musk connection. New Scientist, 110 (1514),
56-8.

Groves, C.P. and Grubb P. (1987). Relationships of living deer. In: Biology and management —
of the Cervidae, ed. C.M. Wemmer. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Pp.
21-59.

Grubb, P. (1982). The systematics of Sino-Himalayan musk deer (Moschus), with special
reference to the species described by B.H. Hodgson. Sa getierkundliche Mitteilungen 30:
127-135.

Habibi, K. (1977). The mammals of Afghanistan: their distribution and status.
UNDP/FAO/Department of Forests and Range, Kabul.

Harris, R.B. (1991). Conservation prospects for musk deer and other wildlife in southern
Qinghai, China. Mountain Research and Development 11: 353-358.

Harris, R.B. and Cai, G. (in press). Autumn range of musk deer in Baizha Forest, Tibetan
Plateau. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society.

Hodgson, B. A. (1841). On a new organ in the genus Moschus. Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal 10: 795-796.

IUCN (1993). Nature reserves of the Himalaya and the mountains of Central Asia. \UCN,
Cambridge and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 471 pp.

Jackson, R. (1979). Aboriginal hunting in West Nepal with reference to musk deer Moschus
moschiferus moschiferus and snow leopard Panthera uncia. Biological Conservation 16: 63-
72:

Kattel, B. 1992. Ecology of the Himalayan musk deer in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal.
Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 76 pp.

14

Li, Z. X. (1981). On a new species of musk deer from China. Zool. Res., Kunming, 2, 157-
161.

Mallon, D. P. (1985). The mammals of the Mongolian People's Republic. Mammal Review
15: 71-102.

Mukerji, B. (1953). Indian pharmaceutical codex. Volume |. Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, New Delhi. Pp. 149-150.

Ohtaishi, N. and Gao, Y.-t. (1990). A review of the distribution of all species of deer
(Tragulidae, Moschidae and Cervidae) in China. Mammal Review 20: 125-144.

Pereira, J. (1857). The elements of materia medica and therapeutics. Volume 2. 4th edition.
Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, London.

Pocock, R. I. (1910). On the specialised cutaneous glands of ruminants. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London 1910: 840-986.

Prikhod'ko, V.J. (1987). Breeding of musk deer (M. moschiferus L.) for the production of
musk. XVIII Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists, Jagiellonian
University, Krakow. Abstracts. Pp. 159-160.

Roberts, T. J. (1977). The mammals of Pakistan. London, Ernest Benn.

Scott, K. M. and Janis, C. M. (1987). Phylogenetic relationships of the Cervidae and the case
for a superfamily “Cervoidae”. In The biology and management of the Cervidae, ed. C.M.
Wemmer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Pp. 3-20.

Sheng, H.L. (1987). The prosperity and decline of musk deer resources, and strategies for its
recovery. Chinese Wildlife 3: 3-4. (In Chinese)

Simpson, G. G. (1945). The principles of classification and a classification of mammals.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85: 1-114.

Sokolov, V. E. and Prikhod’ko, V. I. (1979). Marking of territory by caudal gland of musk
deer (Moschus moschiferus). Proceedings of Academy of Science of the U.S.S.R. (Biological
Science) 246: 894-897.

Wang, Y., Ma, S. and Li, C. (1993). The taxonomy, distribution and status of forest musk
deer in China. In : Deer of China: biology and management, eds. N. Ohtaishi and H. I.
Sheng. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. Pp. 22-30.

Whitehead, G. K. (1994). Deer of the world. London, Constable.

Won, P.O. (1988). Rare and endangered species of mammals in South Korea. Bulletin of the
Institute of Ornithology, Kyung Hee University Il: 61-65.

Yonzon, P.B. (1992). Strategies of wildlife inventory in conserving Bhutan's biodiversity.
Volume 1. World Wildlife Fund. 70 pp.

Zhang, B. L., Dang, F. M. and Li, B. S. (1979). The farming of musk deer. Agricultural
Publishing Company, Peking. (In Chinese)

Zhang, B. (1983). Musk-deer: their capture, domestication and care according to Chinese
experience and methods. Unasylva 35: 16-24.

Zheng, S. W. (1980). The feeding and management of young wild musk deer. The Protection
and Use of Wildlife, China \: 22-3.

Zheng, S. W. and Pi, N.L. (1979). Research on the ecology of musk deer. Acta Zoologica
Sinica 25: 176-186. (In Chinese)

15

ANNEX 1

National distribution of Moschus spp. and occurrence within protected areas
(Source: I'UCN/SSC Deer Action Plan, in press)

Afghanistan: M. chrysogaster is present in a few parts of Nuristan between 1500m and 3000m where
it is considered to be rare (Habibi, 1977).

Protected areas: None

Bhutan: M. fuscus, considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M. chrysogaster, occurs
throughout much of northern Bhutan, from about 2,600m to the treeline at 4,200m (Green, 1985). It is
considered to be rare (Yonzon, 1992) but this may reflect the paucity of survey data.

Protected areas: Black Mountains National Park, Jigme Dorji National Park (IUCN, 1993)

China: The population of Moschus in China was estimated to be 600,000 (Sheng, 1987) but the basis
of this figure is unclear.

M. berezovskii is the most widely distributed and abundant species of musk deer in China. It occurs in
southern Shaanxi, southern Anhui, Jianxi, Hunan, Hubei, Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Guinzhou,
Sichuan, south-eastern Xizang, southern Gansu, south-east Qinghai and southern Ningxia provinces
(Wang et al., 1993). Five subspecies are recognised by Wang et al. (1993), of which four have
contiguous distributions. M. b. anhuiensis, previously regarded as a subspecies of M.. moschiferus
(Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990), is isolated from the other races and confined to the Dabie Mountains of
western Anhui (Wang et al., 1993).

M. chrysogaster chrysogaster is found in south-eastern Qinghai and southern Tibet. Its distribution
abuts that of M. c. sifanicus, treated as an independent species M. sifanicus by Cai and Feng (1981),
which inhabits the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau and Meridonial Mountains. In the Pingwu,
Markam, Anxian, Beichuan, Litang, Kangding and Muli counties of western Sichuan the distributions
of M. c. sifanicus and M. b. berezovskii overlap, but the former ranges above 3,000m and the latter
from 1,000m to 2,500m (Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990). Opinion is unanimous that musk deer populations in
Qinghai have declined during the past decade, including Baizha Forest, Nangqian County where
densities of 2-3 animals per sq.km were recorded by Harris (1991). According to the Qinghai
Provincial Government (1988, cited in Harris, 1991), 66,000 musk deer were illegally harvested in
1985-1986.

M. fuscus, considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M. chrysogaster, occurs in south-
eastern Xizang and northern Yunnan (Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990).

M. moschiferus moschiferus is confined to the northern parts of Heilongjiang Province and Inner
Mongolia. Its distribution is contiguous with that of M. m. parvipes which occurs in Heilongjiang and
Jilin provinces (Ohtaishi and Gao, 1990).

Protected areas: Medog, Qomolangma, Tangjiahe, Wanglang and Wolong nature reserves (IUCN,
1993). Changbal Mountain, Helan Mountain, Huaping, Jingpo Lake, Lishan Mountain, Liupen
Mountain, Mount Fanjing, Poyang Lake, Shennonglia, Wuling Mountain, Ziyunwanleng Mountain
nature reserves (WCMC records).

India: M. chrysogaster occurs in parts of Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, northern Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim
and Arunachal Pradesh. Its altitudinal range extends from about 2,400m to above the treeline, which
varies from about 3,200m in the Western Himalaya to 4,200m in the Eastern Himalaya. The species is
likely to be most numerous in the eastern Himalaya where its habitat has been least disturbed. Further
details of its status are given by Green (1985). Fewer than 1 animal per sq.km recorded in Kashmir,
and 5-6 per sq.km in Kedarnath Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh (Green, 1985, 1987).

M. fuscus, considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M. chrysogaster, occurs in Assam and
Sikkim.

Protected areas: Recorded in over 20 Himalayan national parks and sanctuaries (IUCN, 1993).

16

Korea: M. moschiferus parvipes is considered to be in danger of becoming extinct (Won, 1988). It
occurs in the wooded, mountainous parts of the Korean peninsular, but information on its present
distribution is lacking.

Protected areas: No information

Mongolia: M. moschiferus is found in the taiga of Hentei and Hovsgol, parts of Hangai and possibly in
the Han Hohii massif in the north-west. It is uncommon due to hunting for musk (Mallon, 1985).

Protected areas: Likely to occur in Khorgo Reserve (Hangai); Ar-Toul and Gorkhi-Terelj national
parks, and Bogdkhan Uul and Khan Khentii Uul reserves (Hentei); and Khovsgul Nuuer National Park
(Hovsgol).

Myanmar: M. fuscus, considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M. chrysogaster, occurs
only in Kachin State of northern Myanmar. In the hills around Putao it is generally found above
2,400m.

Protected areas: None

Nepal: M. chrysogaster is widely but discontinuously distributed throughout the Himalaya from about
3,000m to 4,400m (Green, 1985). The population is thought to be increasing within protected areas but
declining outside them. Sagarmatha National Park has an estimated 600-800 animals, with up to 45 per
sq. km. Elsewhere, there are an estimated 500 animals in Langtang National Park; 20 in Rara National

Park and >1000 in Shey-Phoksundo National Park (B. Kattel, pers. comm., 1990).

M. fuscus, considered by some authorities to be a subspecies of M. chrysogaster, occurs in the Everest
region.

Protected areas: As above. Also present in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Khaptad National Park and
Makalu-Barun National Park/Conservation Area (IUCN, 1993).

Pakistan: M. chrysogaster is widespread from 3000m to 4000m in the Northern Areas, but has
become rare in Chitra! and the Indus Kohistan, North-West Frontier Province. It has never been as
plentiful in the north-western Himalaya as further east where it inhabits lower altitudes due to the
higher rainfall (Roberts, 1977).

Protected areas: Astore, Baltistan, Kargah, Manshi, Nar/Ghoro Nallah, Satpara wildlife sanctuaries
(IUCN, 1993)

former USSR: Of the three subspecies of M. moschiferus: M. m. moschiferus is widely distributed
throughout eastern Siberia, from the Altai Mountains in the west to the Kolymskiy Mountains in the
east; M. m. parvipes occurs in the Ussurisk region of eastern Russia (Whitehead, 1994); and M. m.
sachalinensis is restricted to four populations in the southern half of Sakhalin Island (V.E.
Prisjazhnyuk, pers. comm., 1994). The species does not occur above 1,600m in the former USSR.
Bannikov et al. (1980) estimated the total population in the former USSR to be approximately 100,000,
based on a mean density of 0.6 animals per sq.km (densities rise to 20 animals per sq.km in optimal
habitats). Population is declining, following the disintegration of the former USSR, and currently
estimated to total 56,000-60,000, with 29,000-30,000 in the Altai and Sajany, 18,000-19,000 around
Lake Baikal, 5,000-6,000 in Siberia, 4,000-5,000 in the Far East and 300-350 on Sakhalin Island (V.I.
Prikhod'ko, pers. comm., 1994). In Khabarovsk Krai (Far East), there were an estimated 18,000 musk
deer in 1994 according to Khabarovsk Game Department.

Protected areas: Occurs in a total of 1 national park, 21 zapovedniks and 5 other protected areas (V_I.
Prikhod'ko, pers. comm., 1994). In Russia, present in Komsomolskiy, Sikhote-Alinskiy, Ussyriryskiy
and Zeyskiy zapovedniks (Golovanov, 1985; G. Gonzalez, 1994) and Altaiskiy, Baikal'skiy,
Barguzinskiy and Bol'shekhekhtsizskiy zapovedniks (WCMC records).

Vietnam: M. berezovskii occurs in Lang Son and Cao Bang provinces of north-eastern Vietnam. There
are an estimated 200-300 in Cao Bang Province but the population is decreasing (H.H. Dang, T. van
Dao and M.K. Hoang, pers. comm. 1990).

Protected areas: Trung Khanh Nature Reserve (H.H. Dang, T. van Dao and M.K. Hoang, pers. comm.
1990)

17

ANNEX 2

Summary of national legal provisions for musk deer
(Source: [UCN/SSC Deer Action Plan, in press)

Afghanistan: No legal protection or other conservation action.
Bhutan: Totally protected by Royal Decree.

China: Protected as a Category II key species under the federal Wildlife Protection Law, 1988.
Category II species may be taken only under permit granted by the provincial authority. Qinghai
Provincial Government has promulgated a special emergency notice, under its Wildlife Resources
Protection and Management Regulations, 1988, to draw attention to the plight of the musk deer and to
strengthen its protection. However, there is no evidence to suggest that legal protection has been
effective (Harris, 1991).

Efforts to establish an effective network of nature reserves to conserve the Giant Panda have indirectly
benefitted M. berezovskii which occurs in similar habitat.

India: Totally protected under the federal Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Korea: Protected since 1968 when it was designated as Natural Monument No. 216. A Musk Deer
Preservation Council was established in 1978 under the auspices of the Korean Wildlife Preservation
Association. No recent information.

Mongolia: Totally protected as an endangered species under new legislation introduced on 5 June
1995. ;

Myanmar: Totally protected under the Nature and Wildlife Law, 1994.
Nepal: Totally protected under the National Parks & Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973.
Pakistan: No legal protection or other conservation action at national level.

former USSR: In the Russian Federation, musk deer are hunted under licence but regulations vary
between krais. For example, in Khabarovsk Krai the legal harvest quota in 1994 was 2,000, whereas in
Krasnojarski Krai hunting has been prohibited since 1994 (G. Schiirholz, pers. comm.). In Sikhote-

. Alinskiy Zapovednik the legal annual harvest is 70 musk deer (Gonzalez, 1994). It is planned to
establish a zapovednik by 2000 for the protection of M. m. sachalinensis on Sakhalin Island (V.E.
Prisjazhnyuk, pers. comm., 1994).

Vietnam: Protected under national legislation since 1963.

18