WILD CATTLE, BISON AND BUFFALOES

THEIR STATUS AND POTENTIAL VALUE

by Jane Thornback

The IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

{am UN
AT

———

WWE UNEP IUCN

A contribution to the Global Environment Monitorina Svstem

The IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre is the division of IUCN that provides a
data service to IUCN and to the conservation and development community. It is
building an integrated and cross-referenced data-base on species of conservation
concern and on ecosystems (principally protected areas so far). The CMC can
produce a wide variety of specialist outputs and analyses from the data base, as
well as major publications such the Red Data Books and Protected Areas
Directories. The Conservation Monitoring Centre is based at Cambridge and Kew
in the United Kingdom. It is supported by World Wildlife Fund and by UNEP, is a
contribution to the UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) and
provides services to CITES and UNESCO.

The Conservation Monitoring Centre The Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road, The Herbarium,

CAMBRIDGE CB3 ODL, Royal Botanic Gardens,

Great Britain. Kew, RICHMOND,

Surrey TW9 3AE, Great Britain.

(directorate, animals and wildlife trade) (plants and protected areas)

©lnaternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

CONTENTS

LIST OF WILD BOVINAE

RED DATA BOOK CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
RESOLUTION 15/10 GENETIC RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION

DATA SHEET SUMMARIES

WORLD DISTRIBUTION OF BOVINES
excluding the African Buffalo

SPECIES DATA SHEETS -- KOUPREY
GAUR
BANTENG
YAK
WILD WATER BUFFALO
TAMARAW
ANOAS
EUROPEAN BISON
NORTH AMERICAN BISON
AFRICAN BUFFALO

INVENTORY REPORT FORM

THE IUCN/SSC WILD CATTLE SPECIALIST
GROUP MEMBERSHIP LIST

RED DATA BOOK CATEGORIES
EXTINCT (Ex).

Species not definitely located in the wild during the past 50 years (criterion as
used by CITES).

ENDANGERED (E).

Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors
continue operating.

Included are taxa whose numbers have been reduced to a critical level or whose
habitats have been so drastically reduced that they are deemed to be in
immediate danger of extinction. Also included are taxa that are possibly already
extinct but have definitely been seen in the wild in the past 50 years.

VULNERABLE (V).

Taxa believed likely to move into the 'Endangered' category in the near future if
the causal factors continue operating.

Included are taxa of which most or all the populations are decreasing because of
over-exploitation, extensive destruction of habitat or other environmental
disturbance; taxa with populations that have been seriously depleted and whose
ultimate security has not yet been assured; and taxa with populations that are still
abundant but are under threat from severe adverse factors throughout their range.

RARE (R).

Taxa with small world populations that are not at present 'Endangered' or
"Vulnerable', but are at risk.

These taxa are usually localised within restricted geographical areas or habitats
or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range.

INDETERMINATE (I).

Taxa known to be ‘Endangered’, 'Vulnerable' or 'Rare' but where there is not
enough information to say which of the three categories is appropriate.

OUT OF DANGER (0).

Taxa formerly included in one of the above categories, but which are now
considered relatively secure because effective conservation measures have been
taken or the previous threat to their survival has been removed.

INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN (kK).

Taxa that are suspected but not definitely known to belong to any of the above
categories, because of lack of information.

N.B. In practice, 'Endangered' and ‘Vulnerable’ categories may _ include,
temporarily, taxa whose populations are beginning to recover as a result of
remedial action, but whose recovery is insufficient to justify their transfer to
another category.

KOUPREY

GAUR

BANTENG

WILD YAK

WILD WATER BUFFALO

TAMARAW
MOUNTAIN ANOA

LOWLAND ANOA

EUROPEAN BISON

AMERICAN BISON

AFRICAN BUFFALO

THE WILD BOVINAE

Bos sauveli

bos gaurus
Bos javanicus
Bos grunniens

Bubalus bubalis

Bubalus mindorensis

Bubalus quarlesi

Bubalus depressicornis

Bison bonasus

Bison bison

Syncerus caffer

WORLD STATUS

Endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable

Endangered

Endangered
Endangered
Insufficiently Known

Insufficiently Known

Out of Danger

Not threatened

Not threatened

Resolution 15/10. IUCN General Assembly,
Christchurch, New Zealand,
11-23 October 1981

15/10. GENETIC RESOURCES

RECOGNIZING that genetic material forms part of the natural heritage of
mankind and should therefore remain available to all nations;

AWARE that the conservation of genetic material is essential for the
maintenance and development of animal and plant resources for a large number of
present and future beneficial uses;

CONSIDERING that States have a duty of stewardship towards the conservation
of genetic resources;

FURTHER CONSIDERING that States using these resources should contribute to
their conservation;

RECALLING Recommendations No. 39 of the 1972 United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment and the work of FAO, UNEP and Unesco/MAB for the
conservation and utilization of genetic resources;

The General Assembly of IUCN, at its 15th session in Christchurch, New Zealand,
11-23 October 1981:

RECOMMENDS that all countries maintain maximum genetic diversity by means
of both in situ and ex situ conservation measures;

FURTHER RECOMMENDS that national inventories be made of genetic resources
whether under public or private control, in gene banks, in protected areas and in
traditional cultivation, and that all such resources should in principle be available
to potential users, provided that such usage does not permanently impair or
destroy genetic resources;

CALLS UPON States using the genetic resources of another country to contribute
to their inventory and conservation; and

INSTRUCTS the IUCN Secretariat to undertake an analysis of the technical, legal,
and economic and financial matters relating to the conservation, accessibility and
use of these resources with a view to providing the basis for an international
arrangement and for rules to implement it.

INTRODUCTION

The preservation of genetic diversity is
both a matter of insurance and investment
- necessary to sustain and improve
agricultural, forestry and fisheries
production, to keep open future options,
as a buffer against harmfui environmental
change, and as the raw material for much
scientific and industrial innovation

- and a matter of moral principle.

World Conservation Strategy, 1980

Although the problem of the disappearance of potentially valuable, but currently
unfashionable, breeds of domestic livestock has been topical for some time and the issue
of rare breeds is increasingly being addressed by national and international organizations,
less widely considered is the plight of the wild relatives of domestic stock. However in
1980 a joint FAO/UNEP meeting on Animal Genetic Resources held in Rome ‘urged all
governments to give full consideration to ways and means of conserving viable populations
of wild animal species, including avian, which are the ancestors or close relatives of
domestic species, and recommended that FAO and UNEP expand their programmes in
support of the establishment and improved management of national parks and reserves'.
The list which followed included more than 35 species of extant wild animals and birds
which are the wild relatives of domestic species. Examples from those included are the
camel, the wild horse, the wild ass, the elephant, the vicuna, plus the various species of
wild cattle and wild buffaloes. That so many wild relatives of domestic stock still survive
tends to be little-known.

The botanical community has long recognized the importance of the preservation and
utilization of wild plant genetic resources, but the conservation of wild animal genetic
resources lags far behind. For plants there exist such bodies as the International Board
for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
to coordinate collection of wild specimens and to undertake the subsequent research
which has led to improvements in, for instance, crop yields and disease and pest
resistance. However, for animals no such organizations exist and as yet there have been
very few examples of the use of wild relatives to improve modern domestic stock. Indeed
the potential value of such wild genetic resources is only just beginning to be appreciated.

A group of animals whose value in this context must be explored are the wild Bovinae -
the wild cattle, bison and buffaloes - since many of them are the ancestors or the close
relatives of domestic livestock. In addition, other members of the group offer the
possibility for future domestication, whilst others the possibility for direct utilization by
cropping schemes. The aim of this report is to heighten awareness of the potential value
of the wild Bovinae, of the perilous status of many of them, and thus of the need for
urgent conservation action.

More than one species of wild bovine has been domesticated, and the wild relatives of
some of these still exist. The common domestic cattle of Europe, Bos taurus, and the
humped cattle or Zebu of Africa and Asia, Bos indicus, are all descended from a single
wild species, Bos’ primigenius, the Wild Ox or Aurochs which became extinct in the early
1600s. However, in Asia wild forms of domestic bovines do still survive: the Wild Water
Buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, is the wild relative of the 130 million domestic Water Buffalo
which are the principal draught animals for much of South-east Asian agriculture; the
Wild Yak, Bos grunniens, has at least 10 million domestic relatives which are used as pack
animals, for human transport and for meat and milk in the highlands of Central Asia; and

the Banteng, Bos javanicus, is the wild form of the domestic Bali cattle whose population
numbers at least 1.5 million and constitutes 20% of Indonesia's domestic cattle
population. Another Asian bovine, the Gaur, is probably the progenitor of the Mithan, a
ceremonial ox of the hill tribes of Assam, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Burma. Breeding of the
domesticate with the wild animal is encouraged whenever possible in the traditional belief
that a better quality animal results. Hybridization between a wild species (or its domestic
counterpart) and a different species further increases the potential value of the
utilization of the wild genetic diversity. For example the domestic Banteng (Bali cattle)
is crossbred with the Zebu (Bos indicus) to produce the Madura, a breed native to the
island of the same name. The breed reportedly exhibits a better growth rate than the
pure Banteng, performs better under extremes of heat and poor nutrition, and has superior
meat and hides. Similarly, domestic Yaks are interbred with Zebu to produce the dzo, an
animal which has a greater milk yield and is preferred for ploughing; and the Mithan is
crossed with the Siri cow (Bos taurus) from India to produce a prized milk animal and a
superior draught animal. ‘Thus wild bovine species are potentially highly important
sources of genetic material for their domestic counterparts and should be included in any
genetic resources programmes involving the conservation of domestic rare breeds. All too
often the wild relatives issue is unknown to the livestock fraternity and not addressed by
the conservation community, and it deserves high priority action from both.

The four other species of wild bovine which occur in Asia - the Kouprey, the two Anoas,
and the Tamaraw - are thought never to have been domesticated (though this is
questionable for the Kouprey). These species may possess characteristics, such as disease
resistance which would be desirable in domestic stock; for instance the Kouprey is
believed to be resistant to rinderpest, the killer disease of domestic cattle. Furthermore
these species may be possible candidates for domestication; the meat of both Anoas and
the Tamaraw is highly regarded by local peoples.

A bovine that can reasonably be described as undergoing domestication at the present
time is the North American Bison, Bison bison. From near extinction at the turn of the
century it now numbers over 100,000 animals, at least 60,000 of which occur on private
land for commercial production of meat and hides. Although the initial costs for Buffalo
ranching are higher than for cattle, the returns are higher; meat prices for both in the
U.S.A. are comparable but additional revenue can be earned from Buffalo by the sale of
heads, hides, wool, hair, skulls and horns. Buffalo meat is low in fat and high in protein
which makes it particularly acceptable to dieters and natural food advocates. Buffalo
have the advantage of being productive under range conditions that are not optimal for
cattle; they adapt well to climate extremes, need little care, and have few calving
problems. Hybridisation experments with Bos taurus to produce the Beefalo or Cattalo
have not as yet been very successful, the hybrids being apparently less productive than
their pure parents. National Buffalo Associations exist in both the U.S.A. and Canada to
promote and coordinate the industry. The European Bison, Bison bonasus, remains an
animal of semi-captive conditions and as yet has not been exploited; the potential exists
for it to become a commercial animal like its North American counterpart.

The African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, provides a different example of exploitation: wild
herds are being exploited directly through cropping schemes for meat and hides. In
Mozambique, for example, over 13,000 Buffalo were cropped in the Zambezi Valley Delta
between 1976 and 1982, providing cheap meat for local people as well as employment.
Buffalo numbers have remained the same as cropping has been sustainable, and it is
reported that local people now consider wildlife to be as important as domestic cattle. A
scheme in Zimbabwe is attempting to train the species to the yoke.

Unfortunately six of the eleven extant species of wild Bovinae are threatened: four are
considered 'Endangered' (the Kouprey, Wild Yak, Wild Water Buffalo, and Tamaraw); two
are 'Vulnerable' (the Gaur and Banteng); two are 'Insufficiently Known' (the Anoas); two
are 'Out of Danger' (the American and European Bison); and one, the African Buffalo, is
‘Not Threatened'. Thus all four of the existing Asian bovines that are the wild relatives

of domestic stock are threatened, the Wild Yak and the Wild Water Buffalo being greatly
so. Principal threat is loss of habitat to an ever-expanding human population, though
over-exploitation and contact with domestic livestock are also severe problems. Indeed
for the Wild Water Buffalo genetic swamping is the greatest threat. Trade either in live
animals or parts and derivatives is not a problem.

What can be done? There are two basic ways of conserving the genetic diversity exhibited
by the wild bovines:

1) 'In situ' conservation, in which the stock is preserved by protecting the ecosystem in
which it occurs naturally, by the establishment and maintenance of national parks and
reserves.

2) ‘fx situ' conservation,
a) Of the whole animal: by the maintenance of captive populations in zoos (although
this is undoubtedly expensive and could lead to problems of inbreeding).
b) Of part of the animal: by modern techniques enabling the storage of embryos and
sperm.

Ideally all three measures should be taken, however in practise this ray not be possible.

All Bovinae, except the Kouprey and Wild Yak, occur in at least one national park or
reserve, some such as the Gaur occur in many. Others although occurring in protected
areas are not protected by them, for example, the Wild Water Buffalo is suffering genetic
swamping from domestic Buffalo which roam freely in the various parks and reserves in
which it is supposedly safe. Thus there is a need for management of protected areas with
reference to preserving the genetic diversity of species within them. Such a requirement
is implicit in the 'biosphere reserves' concept coordinated by UNESCO (the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Biosphere reserves should
supposedly be a network of areas which conserve representative and unique examples of
the biological diversity of the Earth. The idea of conserving the genetic variation within
the species fits easily within such a concept.

Tnere remains the question of how to make animals available for utilization in genetic
resources programmes. In practice it is likely that captive herds will provide the animals,
these being supplemented from time to time with wild specimens. All Bovinae, except the
Kouprey, the Wild Water Buffalo and the Wild Yak have captive populations; clearly since
all three have great potential value as wild genetic resources this situation needs
amending. Within zoos there is also the need to be more aware of the importance of
maintaining the genetic variation of the captive stock. This will only come about witn
increased genetical monitoring of captive populations and sophisticated breeding
programmes. The livestock industry already has great expertise in this area and a pooling
of skills would be highly beneficial.

Similarly the livestock industry could advise on the modern techniques of embryo storage
and transfer, and sperm storage and insemination. These methods have already been
employed for one bovine species: in 1980 the New York Zoological Society successfully
bred a Gaur calf from an embryo transfer between a Gaur and a Holstein cow. Clearly
the potential for increasing the captive stock of the species is now greatly enhanced.

In summary, the preservation and utilization of the genetic resources of the Wild Bovinae
require the joint endeavours of both the conservation Community and the livestock
industry; the conservation community by heightening awareness of their potential and by
focussing on in situ conservation, whilst the livestock industry can provide expertise in
storage and utilization of these genetic resources. In view of the importance of this group
of animals they merit high priority consideration in the determination of conservation
actions.

Acknowledgements

Thanks must be extended to Mohd. Khan b. Momin Khan, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Wild
Cattle Specialist Group who so speedily provided access to the Group's files; and to Brian
Groombridge, Richard Luxmoore, Jo Taylor, Lissie Wright and Suzanne Vernon of the
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre for their suggestions and assistance.

DATA SHEET SUMMARIES

Bos sauveli KOUPREY

Distribution centre is Democratic Kampuchea but range overlaps into southern
Laos, eastern Thailand and probably western Vietnam. Not known to western
science until 1937; estimates of total number have never exceeded 1000 animals.
Prior to the Indochinese war of the 1970s the Kouprey was considered highly
endangered and it was feared hostilities might have exterminated it. However a
possible sighting occurred in July 1982 in eastern Thailand near the Kampuchean
border, and subsequent investigations, whilst not definitely confirming the
sighting, do strongly suggest that Kouprey inhabit the area. Investigations in
1974/75/76 also received reliable reports of sightings in southern Laos, northern
Kampuchea and the Dongrak Mountain range in eastern Thailand. The IUCN/SSC
Wild Cattle Specialist Group has made recommendations for the conservation of
the Kouprey; these generally encourage that a capture programme for a breeding
stock be continued. It has been suggested that Kouprey may have been
domesticated during the Khmer culture, 400-800 years ago, and that perhaps
domestic Kouprey can still be found in Indochina today. The species is believed to
be resistant to rinderpest, the killer disease of domestic cattle and its
conservation could therefore be of tremendous importance for genetically
improving domestic breeds.

Bos gaurus GAUR

Ranges eastwards from India to southern China and south to peninsular Malaysia.
Certainly numbers in the thousands but has undoubtedly declined because of
extensive habitat loss, indiscriminate hunting, and diseases caught from domestic
stock. Now survives only in isolated and fragmented populations. Occurs in many
protected areas. The Gaur is believed to be the wild progenitor of the domestic
Mithan, a ceremonial ox of the hill tribes of Assam, Bhutan, Bangladesh and
Burma. The Mithan interbreeds freely not only with Gaur, but also with Banteng,
Yak, and cattle of both the taurus and zebu types. The cross between a Mithan
and a Siri cow from India produces a prized milk cow and a male that is a
powerful draught animal. Conservation of the Gaur could thus be of value to
cattle husbandry in the tropics.

Bos javanicus BANTENG

A South-east Asian bovine. Certainly numbers in the thousands but believed to be
decreasing. Warfare and insurgency must have seriously affected its status; also
threatened by habitat loss, increased hunting pressure from increasing human
populations, disease, and hybridization with domestic cattle. Protected by law in
much of its range but enforceinent is difficult. Occurs in many national! parks and
reserves. Banteng are the wild relatives of the domestic Bali cattle and
crossbreed with zebus to produce the 'Madura' breed; they thus constitute a
valuable source of genetic material for the livestock industry.

Bos grunniens WILD YAK

Inhabits remote areas of the Tibetan plateau and adjacent highlands. Numbers are
greatly reduced primarily due to uncontrolled hunting. Necessary conservation
measures include surveys to locate viable populations, legal protection and the
establishment of reserves. The Yak has been domesticated and used as pack
animal, for human transport, and for meat and milk in Central Asia as far back as
there is any knowledge of people in this area. Since Wild Yak are the wild
relatives of the domestic Yak they constitute a potentially valuable source of
genetic material for the improvement of the domestic stock.

Bubalus bubalis WILD ASIATIC BUFFALO or
WILD WATER BUFFALO

This species is highly endangered in the wild and will become extinct unless
drastic, rapid action is taken. Herds traditionally considered to be the 'true' Wild
Water Buffalo occur only in Nepal and India. However it now seems likely that
these animals interbreed extensively with free-roaming domestic Water Buffalo,
thus they can no longer be regarded as solely of wild stock. Those in the rest of
South-east Asia are considered feral. The species has suffered a dramatic decline
in distribution and numbers, and probably fewer than 2000 animals now survive.
Populations in peninsular India appear doomed by hydroelectric schemes and those
in Assam by diseases such as rinderpest transmitted by domestic stock. All
populations are suffering genetic swamping by interbreeding with domestic
Buffalo. The decline of the animal was however due to over-exploitation and to
habitat loss - its riverine habitat being much favoured for cultivation. Protected
by law and occurs in a number of reserves, however, habitat protection is not
enough. Protection from the adverse effects of domestic Buffalo and stock, needs
to be enforced if this animal is to have any future. As a genetic resource for the
domestic Buffalo population this species demands some priority in conservation
choices.

Bubalus mindorensis TAMARAW

A small buffalo endemic to the Island of Mindoro in the Philippines. Seriously
depleted by hunting and habitat loss the species is now thought to be increasing in
numbers due to an effective conservation programme launched at the end of the
1970s. Three reserves have been set aside for its protection, and hunting has been
virtually eliminated. A 1983 official estimate was 250 animals; unofficial
estimates place the figure at 300-400. Conservation of the species is coordinated
by the 'Presidential Committee for the Conservation of the Tamaraw' (PCCT)
created in 1979 by President Marcos. The species has not been domesticated but
is perhaps a possible candidate; its meat is highly regarded by local people.

Bubalus quarlesi ANOAS
Bubalus depressicornis

Anoas are buffaloes endemic to the Indonesian island of Sulawesi (formerly
Celebes). Numbers are unknown but they are believed possibly to be declining
because of hunting and loss of forest habitat. Two species are usually described,
the Mountain Anoa, B. quarlesi, and the Lowland Anoa, B. depressicornis; however

in the field it has been difficult to distinguisn between them and much of the
literature refers simply to Anoa without specifying the species. The validity of
distinguishing two separate species is also increasingly questioned. Anoas are
protected by law and occur in many of the large reserves established in recent
years; adequate protection of these reserves should be sufficient to ensure their
survival. Anoas have never been domesticated but their potential for
domestication should be explored; on Sulawesi they are prized for their hide, horns
and meat.

Bison bonasus EUROPEAN BISON or WISENT

Survives only in captive and semi-wild herds, the latter in parts of its original
range in Poland and the U.S.S.R. Largest herd is in the Bialowieza Forest which
straddles the border between the two countries; in 1980 Bison in the Forest
numbered 411 animals. By the beginning of the 20th century the species still
survived in the wild but only in the Bialowieza Forest (B. b. bonasus) and in the
Caucasus (3B. b. caucasicus). The last Bison in Bialowieza was poached in early
spring 1919 and the last in the Caucasus died in 1927. The only surviving animals
were those in zoological gardens and those belonging to private owners.
Furthermore, only one animal, a bull, of the B. b. caucasicus subspecies had
survived in captivity; it died in 1925. This bull did sire calves from B. b. bonasus
cows, and most of the existing herds are in fact bonasus/caucasicus hybrids. By
the 1980s, as a result of successful breeding programmes the species numbered
over 2000 animals, and 24 herds had been re-established in the wild. Continued
protection and breeding programmes are essential for the survival of the species;
additional reintroductions to suitable habitat would always be valuable.

Bison bison NORTH AMERICAN BISON

The 'Buffalo' of the Great Plains of North America numbered in the tens of
millions when the Europeans arrived in the continent but by the 1890s had been
reduced to only a few hundred. A century later their numbers have increased to
about 100,000. Two subspecies are usually recognised: the Plains Bison, B. b.
bison, and the Wood Bison, B. b. athabascae. The latter numbers only about 900
animals, principally in two herds, and is of conservation concern; it is however the
subject of a detailed conservation programme and its survival is probably assured.
Some free-roaming Plains Bison herds occur in refuges but the majority exist on
private land for commercial production of meat and hides. In the U.S.A. there
exists the National Buffalo Association, and in Canada the Canadian Buffalo
Association, to promote and propagate the species.

Syncerus Caffer AFRICAN BUFFALO

Inhabits an extensive range in Africa south of 15°N, occupying a great variety of
habitats providing food and water are available and human densities are low.
Undoubtedly numbers in the millions and although in some areas, such as parts of
South Africa and West Africa, its range is becoming fragmented, it cannot be
considered a threatened species. Wild Buffalo are being exploited in various
countries in cropping schemes for meat and hides, and in Zimbabwe there is an
experiment attempting to train Buffalo to the yoke.

sueuun, 38 *JOqT] J ceISAeTeEW JeTNsuTUad 2 “ISAaMPING P *d}9 eistun]
‘dk3q ‘ersadyy ‘exuey 1g ‘sown ‘sautddiqiug ‘{Izeag ‘PIs °A°S JO S81 UT INDDO JeJaz JO payeoojsueal D *yeqes q cuejUeWTTEY ‘eAeL ‘Teg e

x "waSes"N
x puejog
x “wes"n

x epeues

x (o10putw) seurddrytyd

xg Teunig

px px ex PISOUOPU]

yx 3x eUTUD

x x x WPULSTA

- x x x soe]
x Xx x eoyonduey

ax qx eIsheyew

x x x pueyreul

x x euing

ix x ueynug

2x x jedan

2x x x Xa PIpu

snseuoq uosIq - stsuajoputw = tsafaenb stujooissaidap = stjeqnq)=s suaruuni3 = Tjaanes.~= snane3 —s snoTueael
uosTg © uOsTg snfeqng = snyeqng snjeqng — snyeqng sog sog sog sog

LAE

OyeFING UPOTAJY OY} BUTIPNTOXY SOUTAOG JO UOTINGTIISTG P[IOM

KOUPREY ENDANGERED
Bos sauveli (Urbain, 1937)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY Distribution centre is Democratic Kampuchea but range overlaps into
southern Laos, eastern Thailand and probably western Vietnam. Not known to
western science until 1937; estimates of total number have never exceeded 1000
animals. Prior to the Indochinese war of the 1970s the Kouprey was considered
highly endangered and it was feared hostilities might have exterminated it.
However a possible sighting occurred in July 1982 in eastern Thailand near the
Kampuchean border, and subsequent investigations, whilst not definitely
confirming the sighting, do strongly suggest that Kouprey inhabit the area.
Investigations in 1974/75/76 also received reliable reports of sightings in southern
Laos, northern Kampuchea and the Dongrak Mountain range in eastern Thailand.
The IUCN/SSC Wild Cattle Specialist Group has made recommendations for the
conservation of the Kouprey; these generally encourage that a capture programme
for a breeding stock be continued. It has been suggested that Kouprey may have
been domesticated during the Khmer culture, 400-800 years ago, and that perhaps
domestic Kouprey can still be found in Indochina today. The species is believed to
be resistant to rinderpest, the killer disease of domestic cattle and its
conservation could therefore be of tremendous importance for genetically
improving domestic breeds.

DISTRIBUTION Northern and eastern Democratic Kampuchea, southern Laos,
eastern Thailand and western Vietnam.

Although there were fears that the Kouprey might have been exterminated during
the Indochinese war of the 1970s, a small herd was sighted on July 23 1982 in
eastern Thailand in the Province of Sisaket on the border with Kampuchea
(13,14,15), although definite confirmation is lacking. A further sighting on July 30
was reported by local inhabitants. A 1980 report also suggested that a few
survived in Vietnam in the Truong Son Mountains of Thua Thien Province in the
central part of the country (16) (although a 1971/72 visit found that the
Vietnamese scientists were not familiar with the species (18)). In 1983 Sayer
visited Laos and noted that several members of the Forest Department believed
that the species still occurred in the Attopeu/Champassak area; however records
are based on hearsay and usually refer only to sightings or tracks, it is possible
therefore that identity is confused with other wild cattle species (25).
Investigations in 1974/75/76 received what were considered reliable reports from
hunters of the Kouprey's continued existence in southern Laos, northern
Kampuchea, and in the Dongrak Mountain Range in Sisaket Province, eastern
Thailand (3,6,7,8,10).

In 1969, prior to the war, the Kouprey was known to occur in three areas in
Kampuchea: the Koulen-Promtep Reserve in the north, the Lomphat Reserve and
the Phnom Prich Reserve (9). Sauvel who studied the animal in 1949 knew of only
two areas about 250 km apart in Kampuchea where Kouprey had been seen (11).
Fraisse in 1955 noted the existence of the species between Kontoum and Ben Mei
Thuot in Vietnam (4).

POPULATION Numbers unknown but almost certain to be extremely low. The
most recent sightings were in July 1982. Prior to hostilities the Kouprey was
considered highly endangered; its status must have deteriorated further as its
main areas of occurrence have been within a war zone occupied by well-armed

factions and civil disturbance continues.

Kampuchea No recent information. The 1970 estimate was of only 30-70 (6); in
1957 the estimate was 500 (12). Harvey Neese investigating the status of the
species in 1974 on behalf of the New York Zoological Society was told by local
hunters in southern Laos that Kouprey still survived in Kampuchea, with the area
south and west of Kompong Sra Lau (just north of the Laotian border) having the
greatest number (7,8). Pfeffer (1974) received reports of Kouprey in the
Chep-Melouprey area (10).

Laos 1983 reports suggest the species may still survive in Laos (25). Neese during
his 1974 investigations received hunters' reports that Kouprey were still extant. in
southern Laos although extremely rare; a hunter reported shooting one at a
mineral lick in June 1974 and another hunter reported seeing a herd comprised of
one bull, ten cows, and several calves during the same month but at a different
salt lick (7,8). Pfeffer (1974) also received reliable reports from the Champassak
region on the border with Kampuchea (10).

Thailand Sporadic sightings occur, none of which have been definitely confirmed
although experts are of the opinion that tracks found are indeed those of
Kouprey. The most recent sighting was on 23 July 1982 of a small herd of one
bull, two cows and two calves (13,14,15,21), another possible sighting on July 30
was of two males and three females (21). In 1975 a herd of about 20 were
reported to have been sighted by a hunter, again in eastern Thailand. Two
follow-up expeditions by FAO in April and August 1976 failed to sight any but
received numerous reports from hunters which seemed to confirm that Kouprey
had been present the previous year. However the second expedition found that
subsequently a timber road had been constructed in the area causing many
disruptive changes due to the uncontrolled influx of lumbermen, settlers, hunters
and collectors of forest produce (3). The previous sighting was in 1949 (5). In the
early part of the century Kouprey were said to be numerous north of the Dongrak
range (6).

Vietnam Information received by Arthur and Carol Westing during an August 1980
trip to Vietnam suggested a possibility of about ten animals remaining in Thua
Tnien Province (16).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Low rolling hills covered py open plains interspersed
with dense deciduous forest, open forest and monsoon forest, preferably in areas
where the soil is sandy and salt licks are plentiful. Although Kouprey generally
graze in the open areas, the forest patches are essential to their existence, giving
them shelter from the hot sun, refuge from predators, and food when tne
grasslands are dry. Kouprey have been found in herds of twenty or more with a
mixed composition often including several adult males. The herds were usually
led by an old female and frequently split or coalesced into larger or smaller
groups. Mating is reported to occur in April with the young born in December and
January, the season when fires set by man burn off the old dry grass and the
tender new shoots appear. Wharton has shown that Kouprey habitat is to a great
extent dependent on the slash-and-burn agriculture which has been practiced in
South-east Asia for thousands of years (6,12). Longevity of Kouprey is unknown.

THREATS TO SURVIVAL A naturally low reproductive rate, uncontrolled hunting
(the species is a prime target for meat-hungry people, and a demand exists for its
beautifully shaped horns), and the succession of wars within its range have been
tne main causes of decline. Early in 1970, the three Kampuchean Kouprey
reserves were overrun by military forces and it is considered unlikely that any
Kouprey remained in either Lomphat or Phnom-Prich, although a few might
remain in Koulen-Promtep. The war did at least put a stop to motorized poaching
by government officials (2,9,10,11).

Trade There is no international or national trade in the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES Until individuals of this species are actually
located no conservation measures can be enacted. However it is suggested that
investigations be carried out to locate Kouprey populations and if possible of
capturing animals for a breeding programme. Also the feasibility of establishing a
protected area should be explored although at present local conditions do not
favour such an action.

Following the July 1982 possible sighting a rescue team comprised of Dr Boonsong
Lekagul and personnel from the Thai Wildlife and Conservation Division
attempted to capture the animals alive. However the team was working in
remote and dangerous country and after a guide was injured by a land-mine the
rescue bid was abandoned; no Kouprey were sighted (13,15,21). A second capture
was planned for September 1982 by the Wildlife Division, however again no
Kouprey were sighted during the 10 days of field work although fresh tracks were
found in at least three different locations close to the Kampuchean border (21).

Learning from the experience of the two capture attempts, the SSC Wild Cattle
Specialist Group at a tmeeting in Kuala Lumpar in October 1983 made various
recommendations which are to be forwarded to the Wildlife Section of the Royal
Forestry Department of Thailand for its consideration and action. In general
these recommendations encourage that the capture programme for a breeding
stock of Kouprey be continued with the involvement of the best available
expertise in order to ensure its success (20,21,22). WWF/IUCN Project 509 holds
funds earmarked for immediate release should any action become necessary.

Kampuchea Prior to the war Kouprey were legally protected and three reserves
had been established for their protection: the Koulen-Promtep Reserve, the
Lomphat Reserve and the Phnom-Prich Reserve (9); the present situation in the
country is unknown.

Laos No data located.

Thailand The species is classified as a 'Thai Reserved Wild Animal', it is
therefore forbidden to hunt, capture, export or keep it in captivity except under
very special exemption (6,23). The 1976 FAO Kouprey expedition to Thailand
strongly recommended that the Dongrak Mountain Range in Thailand should be
made a national reserve to protect not only Kouprey but other wildlife, and also
to preserve the area as an important watershed area. However it will also be
necessary to secure the protection of adjoining game lands in Kampuchea (3). At
present (1983), two wildlife sanctuaries; Yot Dom and Khao Phanom Dong Rak,
exist near the border with Kampuchea (23).

Vietnam In 1980 reported to be strictly protected by law although this was
unenforced (16).

The Kouprey is listed (as Novibos (=Bos) sauveli)on Appendix | of the 1973
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
trade in it or its products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying
nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned.

CAPTIVE BREEDING There are none in captivity.

DOMESTICATION Although it is generally believed that the Kouprey has not
been domesticated it may in fact have been so temporarily during the Khmer
culture, 400-800 years ago (12,24). Furthermore Vietmeyer reports that both
Vietnam and Laos have cattle breeds that resemble Kouprey, and a Kouprey bull
reported to be a domestic animal of the Stieng tribe was exhibited in the Paris

menagerie in the mid-nineteenth century. Vietineyer even speculates that it is
possible that there are domestic Kouprey in parts of Indochina today (24). Tne
species is apparently believed to be resistant to rinderpest, a killer disease of
domestic cattle; effective conservation of the species could thus perhaps
contribute significantly to the genetic upgrading of domestic cattle (24). There
have been suggestions that the Kouprey is one of the ancestors of tne hurnmped
zebu cattle; this however requires investigation.

REMARKS For description of animal see (1,6,7). The Kouprey was one of the
most recent large mammals to becorne known to western science. The generic
name Novibos is sometimes used instead of Bos (1,12).

REFERENCES

1. Coolidge, H.J. (1940). The Indo-Chinese Forest Ox or Kouprey. Mem. Mus.
Comp. Zool. Harvard 54: 421-431.

2. Coolidge, H.J. (1970). In litt.

3. Enderlein, P. (1976). Report from the second expedition to the Dongrak
Mountain range in eastern Thailand in search for Kouprey (Bos sauveli). FAO
Regional Office for Asia and the Far East. Bangkok.

4, Fraisse, J. (1955). Coups de feu dans la jungle. Chasses Indochinoises. La
Toison d'Or, Paris.

5. Lekagul, Boonsong. (1952). On the trail of the Kouprey or Indo-Chinese
Forest Ox (Bibos sauveli). J. Bombay Natural History Society 50(3): 623-628.

6. Lekagul, Boonsong and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand.
Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, Thailand.

7. Neese, H.C. (1976). The Kouprey (Bos sauveli). Report on survey in southern
Laos. Unpd. Report.

8. Neese, H.C. (1976). Kouprey clues and Rhino news. Wildlife 18(9): 40.

9. Pfeffer, P. and Kim-San, O. (1967). Le Kouprey, Bos (Bibos) sauveli Urbain,
1937; discussion systématique et statut actuel. Hypothese sur l'origine du
Zebu (Bos indicus). Mammalia 31(4): 521-536.

10. Pfeffer, P. (1974). In litt.

ll. Sauvel, V. (1949). Distribution géographique du Kou-Prey (Bibos sauveli
Urb.) Mammalia 13(4): 144-148.

12. Wharton, C.H. (1957). An ecological study of the Kouprey (Novibos sauveli).
Ins. Sci. and Technology, Manila 5: 1-107.

13. Jackman, B. (1982). Alive! The Ox from the past. Sunday Times 22 August.
Pp. 35.

14. WWE (1982). World's oldest wild cattle sighted in Southeast Asia. World
Wildlife Fund News 19: 8.

15. WWE (1982). World's oldest wild cattle believed rediscovered in Southeast
Asia, landmines hamper search. World Wildlife Fund News Release 12/82.
Gland, Switzerland.

16. Westing, A.H. and Westing, C.E. (1980). Endangered species of Viet Nam.
Unpd. Report.

17. Sitwell, N. (1970). Is this the rarest animal in the world? Animals 13(7):
306-307.

18. Bassus, W. (1973). Wild, Jagd und Naturschutz in der Demokratischen
Republik Vietnam. Arch. Naturschutz u. Landschaftsforsch 13(3): 257-267.

19. Mohd. Khan Momin Khan and Zulkifli, Z. (1982). SSC Wild Cattle group
species report. Mimeo.

20. Parkinson, A. (1982). WWF/IUCN 3106 - Thailand, Kouprey capture.
Assistance Report. Mimeo.

21. Parkinson, D.A. (1982). On the trail of the Kouprey. WWF Monthly Report
December 1982. WWF, Switzerland.

22. SSC Wild Cattle Specialist Group Report (1982). Draft recommendations for
the conservation of the Kouprey in Thailand. Mimeo.

23. Phairot Suvanakor, Director, Wildlife Conservation Division (1983).

Kouprey. IUCN/SSC Wild Cattle Species Information Sheet.

24. Vietmeyer, N. (1983). Little-known Asian aniinals with a sromising econoinic
future. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

25. Sayer, J.A. (1983). Notes on the status and distribution of the larger
mammals of Laos. In press.

ee
} ey aa

et

Hes a oe (os 7
Ls a pia? A HN ee

ae Si ea” he
7 rn ree rr, ear v7. ore a
pos ra ak Phi Bee
an iw y-¥ ee a eee 5 patel
M oa! ee) A ecke' ed : ae | an) a) Ay bt x
Mae te "4 ‘ Sh ato Seeiy oth Uae ¥ Rrra ee a eri:
aver aA RR a

os Uh , { . er he a + vat i g te
Fr uy - , <4 *; an i wd . ‘ oe stor. a

; WEN» ty, Bes ere — =e

GAUR VULNERABLE

Bos gaurus (H. Smith, 1827)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY Ranges eastwards from India to southern China and south to
peninsular Malaysia. Certainly numbers in the thousands but has undoubtedly
declined because of extensive habitat loss, indiscriminate hunting, and diseases
caught from domestic stock. Now survives only in isolated and fragmented
populations. Occurs in many protected areas. Gaur are believed to be the wild
progenitor of the domestic Mithan, a ceremonial ox of the hill tribes of Assam,
Bhutan, Bangladesh and Burma. The Mithan interbreeds freely not only with Gaur,
but also with Banteng, Yak, and cattle of both the taurus and zebu types. The
cross between a Mithan and a Siri cow from India produces a prized milk cow and
a male that is a powerful draught animal. Conservation of the Gaur could thus be
of value to cattle husbandry in the tropics.

DISTRIBUTION India through Nepal and Bhutan to Burma, Thailand, Laos,
Kampuchea, Vietnam and southern China (southern Yunnan), and south to the
Malaysian peninsular (1,5,8,9,l1). Throughout its range the Gaur has become
restricted to remote and isolated forest regions. Three intergrading subspecies
are usually recognized: B. g. gaurus from India and Nepal; B. g. readii from
Burma, Thailand, Laos, Kampuchea, Vietnam and southern China; and the
Seladang, B. g. hubbacki, from Thailand south of the Isthmus of Kra, and the
Malaysian peninsular (1,3,5,9,11,19). The species is reported to have occurred in Sri
Lanka, but to have become extinct there about 300 years ago (2).

India Its range encompasses three widely separated geographical areas that
correspond to the major mountain systems: the Western Ghats, the central Indian
highlands, and the foothills of the Himalayas, including the hills south of the
Brahmaputra River. Within each of these major areas there are typically several
more or less isolated populations (7,17). Schaller (1967) and Krishnan (1972) give
detailed descriptions of distribution (7,17).

Nepal Found in the terai (32).
Bhutan Little data located; known to occur in Manas (40).

Burma In 1983 reported to be widespread throughout the forested hill system;
Surviving in the hills of Tenasserim, south, west, and central Burma, but absent
from the central dry zone and the densely settled valleys of the major rivers,
coastal plains and islands. Limit of range to the north is unknown (34,48).

Thailand Once found throughout the country but by 1977 was reported ‘least
uncommon! in Khao Yai National Park, the remote forested regions of the
Tenasserim, and the forests of the south (9).

Laos Sayer who visited the country in 1983 received reports that it occurred in
forested areas throughout the country (51).

Kampuchea No data located.

Vietnam A 1973 paper mentions that Gaur occur inainly south of Tanh Hoa in the
Provinces of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Quang Binh (41).

China Confined to the extreme south of Yunnan, itself the most southerly of the

Chinese provinces (42,43,45,46,49).

Malaysia Once found throughout the country, now occurs only in isolated
populations principally in the States of Pahang, Johore, Trengganu, Kelantan and
Perak (24)

POPULATION Certainly numbers in the thousands; believed to be declining.

India Total numbers unknown although probably several thousands. David in 1982
reported that after declines, many populations appeared to be increasing.

Nepal No recent data on numbers or trend.

Bnutan No information on numbers or trend. However the Gaur in Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary in India (estimated in 1982 to number 1000) move into Bhutan during the
summer and rnonsoon (40).

Burma At a guess Slater (1983) estimated the total population at about 5000
animals (48). Although surveys at the beginning of the 1980s indicated that Gaur
were 'reasonably common in some areas' they were believed to be declining in
number because of widespread hunting (48). The slopes of the western Arakan
Yoma were reported to be an important stronghold (48).

Thailand In 1977 the total was estimated at less than 500 and continuing to
decrease (9). The area of most abundance is Khao Yai National Park and the
contiguous Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuaries (36).

Laos Sayer (1983) noted that the species was 'very well known! to local people in
all areas he visited and that horns were seen in many towns and villages (51),
possibly indicating that it was still fairly abundant.

Kampuchea No data located.
Vietnam A 1973 estimate was of '220-250, not more' (41).
China Survives in 'small populations' in various protected areas (49).

Malaysia In 1981 the total was estimated at about 470 (35); the species occurring
in appreciable numbers only in localized areas in the west (25,35). The largest
herds are in the Taman Negara National Park, in the State of Perak, and in the
Lepar River Valley in Pahang (24,25,35). Estimates since the late 1930s have all
been in the mid-hundreds (3,5,6,11,21).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Evergreen, deciduous and semi-deciduous forests
interspersed with clearings -- either natural or man-made (often abandoned
cultivation sites) where grazing is available (3,6,7,11,16,18,36,48). Gregarious,
associating in herds of two to twenty or more; lone bulls are not unusual
(3,6,7,9,11,16,17,19,48). A grazer and browser, feeding on a variety of grasses,
herbs, shrubs, and the foliage of some trees and climbers (3,7,9,11,16,17). In
Malaysia, has been known to actively seek such cultivated crops as rice, banana,
pineapple, tapioca and rubber leaves (19). When not disturbed by man is largely
diurnal; when subject to disturbance becomes mainly nocturnal (3,7,9,11,13). There
is no evidence of seasonal breeding; one young is born after a gestation period of
about nine months (3,7,11,17,19). Longevity is thought to be at least 30 years (7).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL There are three main causes of decline and threat:
habitat destruction (6,7,9,16,17,43), indiscriminate hunting (6,7,8,9,16,17,48), and

diseases such as rinderpest, foot and mouth, and anthrax transmitted by domestic

stock (3,7,9,16,17,48). Gaur are extremely sensitive to disturbance and will not
survive in country continually invaded by man (3). In India rinderpest seriously
affected herds in the Mudumalai and Bandipur Sanctuaries in August 1968 and
from 300 to 500 animals of all ages are thought to have died (7). In Thailand,
during the Second World War, Gaur were also greatly affected by disease, usually
carried by domestic animals such as Water Buffalo which grazed in the forests.
Shortly after the war, hunting became a rnajor factor in their continued decline,
and poaching of Gaur continues in all forests where they still exist, even in Khao
Yai National Park (8,9). In Burma anthrax was a major cause of their
disappearance from many areas in the north and centre, and surveys in the early
1980s found poaching and agricultural encroachment to be widespread and
detrimental to the species (48).

Trade There is virtually no international or national trade in Gaur.

CONSERVATION MEASURES Adequate protection in parks, reserves and forest
areas is necessary wherever the Gaur still persists.

India Listed in Schedule 2 of the Wild life (Protection) Act 1972; cannot be hunted
except under license and in accordance with conditions specified. Occurs in many
national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and reserved forests (26); the national parks
being Kaziranga, Bandipur, Bandhavgarh, Panch, Tadoba, Bannarghatta,
Eravikulam Rajmallay, and Kanha (26,27). In 1982 WWE (India) initiated a project
to study the social behaviour of the species in southern India (35).

Nepal Not known whether protected by law. Occurs in the Royal Chitwan
National Park (31,32).

Bhutan Not known whether protected by law. Occurs in the Goley Game
Reserve, the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (29,30), the Mochu Reserved Forest, the
Pochu Reserved Forest, and the Khaling Reserved Forest (29).

Burma Gaur are 'protected game' under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1936 (48) and
may not be killed without a game license; cows and immature bulls are completely
protected (18). In 1983 the species was reported to occur in many areas which had
been surveyed as potential parks and reserves (34,48). Occurs in the Shwesettaw
Wildlife Sanctuary, and possibly in the Pidaung, Shwe-U-Daung, Kahilu, Mulayit
and Tamanthi Wildlife Sanctuaries although it is not known whether these
populations are still viable (48).

Thailand Listed on Schedule 2 protected species, hunting only being allowed under
license (no licenses have been issued in recent years (9)). Significant populations
occur in the following protected areas: Khao Yai N.P. (altnough a 1982 report
mentions only a few having been seen there in recent years (35)), Nam Nao N.P.,
Khao Chamao-Khao Wong N.P., Khao Kitchakut N.P. and the contiguous Khao Soi
Dao W.S., Erawan N.P., Huai Kha Khaeng W.S., Thung Yai W.S., Phu Luang W.S.,
Phu Khieo W.S., Kaeng Krachan N.P., Om Koi and Mae Tuen W.S. (36). Small
populations exist in other protected areas such as Tham Than Lot N.P. and Salak
Phra W.S. but have declined greatly since the beginning of the 1970s (36).

Laos and Kampuchea No data located.

Vietnam Protected from hunting since 1963 (41).

China Listed in the first category of the protected wildlife list (49). Occurs in
the Mengluen Nature Reserve, the Mengyang N.R. and the Mengla N.R. (44).
Effective protection of its habitat is the most important conservation measure
(49).

Malaysia Protected by law (35). Occurs in Taman Negara National Park, Krau
Game Reserve, Sunggai Dusun Game Reserve and others (35). Has been the
subject of studies (24) and within the Department of Wildlife and National Parks
there is a Seladang Unit which carries out regular monitoring of populations (35).
Two young Seladang were captured in 1982 with the aim of establishing a breeding
stock in captivity (35).

The Gaur is listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore
being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily
commercial purposes is banned.

CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1981 there were 41 males and 42 females (most captive
bred) held in 17 zoological collections. In 1980 the New York Zoological Society
successfully pred a Gaur calf from an embryo transfer experiment whereby a Gaur
embryo was implanted in a Holstein cow (33). Such a technique will greatly
increase the potential of breeding the species in captivity. The studbook keeper is
Prof. Dr. H.-G. Kls, Director, Zoologischer Garten Berlin, 1000 Berlin 30,
Hardenbergplatz 8, West Germany.

DOMESTICATION The Gaur is not a domestic animal, but a domesticated form,
the Mithan, Bos frontalis, is thought probably to have been derived from it
(39,47). Simoons and Simoons (1968) have published a 323 page monograph
describing the Mithan in nature, culture and history (47). The name 'Gayal' is
occasionally used as a synonym of Mithan (47). Although the Mithan is a domestic
animal it has a curious role among the hill peoples; according to the Simoons;
"it is a free-ranging animal, used for sacrifice on festive occasions,
intimately involved in ritual and religious belief and in the prestige structure;
figuring in the exchange system and used in payment of political, legal, and
social obligations - yet having a minimal role in the realms of traction and
dairying, for which common cattle are so valued among Hindu Indians. It is
true that domestic animals much alike in form and temperament often play
widely divergent roles among the world's peoples. Nevertheless, that a
bovine animal should be kept for purposes so distinctive and under a system
of husbandry so different from its relatives in nearby areas makes it seein
worthwhile to reexamine the widely held view that bovines were
domesticated for their flesh, their milk, and for traction, and that in the
earliest days of domestication they were confined and herded" (47).

The Mithan has a two-pronged distribution in the hill country of Burma,
Bangladesh, north-east India and Bhutan. One prong extends from the Arakan
Hills and Chin Hills of Burma north through the Chittagong Hill tracts of
Bangladesh, the Lushai (Mizoram) Hills, Manipur, the Naga Hills of India and
possibly into the Patkoi range. The other prong extends from the northern hills of
Burma through Arunachal Pradesh westward to Bhutan (47). For maps see
(39,47). The animal may also occur in northern Yunnan in the Gungshan Drung-Nu
Autonomous Country where it is called the Drung (Dulong) Ox (50). In appearance
the Mithan is smaller than the Gaur; coloration of both is similar although horn
shape differs strikingly (47).

In India, according to Vietmeyer (1983) there are some 50,000 head of Mithan in
the jungles of Arunachal Pradesh and in Bhutan there are some 60,000 head of
Mithan-cattle hybrids (39). Mithan are fully fertile amongst themselves but will
interbreed freely not only with Gaur, but also with Banteng (Bos javanicus), Yak
(Bos grunniens) and cattle of both the taurus and zebu types. The Naga hill tribes
encourage interbreeding with Gaur, regarding it as an improvement of the breed
(39). Crosses between Mithan and Zebu are also encouraged in certain districts
(39). For example, in Bhutan, Mithan bulls have been mated with siri cows (Bos

taurus) froin India. This cross produces an animal with a high milk production; the

milk is rich in total solids and produces exceptional yields of cheese and butter.
In addition to the female being a prized milk cow, the male is a powerful draft
animal (3).

In Bhutan the government has established two Mithan herds by purchasing aniinals
from Arunachal Pradesh and is breeding them on government farms and
distributing males to private breeders (39).

REMARKS For description of animal see (2,3,6,7,8,9,10,l1,14515517518,19,37)-
REFERENCES

1. Ellerrnan, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. (1951). Checklist of Palaearctic

and Indian mammals °758 to °946. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Gee, E.P. (1964). The wildlife of India. Collins, London.

Hubback, T.R. (1937). The Malayan Gaur or Seladang. J. Mammalogy 18 (3):

267-279.

4. Hussain, M.K. (1969). The southern Asiatic Gaur or Indian Bison (Bos gaurus
gaurus (H. Smith)). Cheetal 12 (1): 29-47. wai

5. Anon. (1979). Animal geography of China. Science Press, Peking.

6. Kitchener, H.J. (1961). A bleak prospect for the Seladang or Malayan Gaur.

Malayan Nature Journal Special Issue: 197-201.
7. Krishnan, M. (1972). The Gaur. Bos gaurus (Smith). J. Bombay Natural

History Society 69: 322-349.
8. Lekagul, Boonsong. (1965). Gaur. Conservation News S.E. Asia 5: 7-10.

9. Lekagul, Boonsong and McNeely, J. (1977). Mammals of Thailand.
Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, Thailand.

10. Lydekker, R. (1907). The game animals of India, Burma, Malaya and Tibet.
rowland Ward Ltd., London.

Il, Medway, Lord (1978). The wild mammals of Malaya and Singapore. 2nd
edition. Oxford University Press.

12. Nowak, R.M. (1976). Wildlife of Indochina: Tragedy or opportunity. National
Parks and Conservation Magazine 50 (6): 13-18.

13. Ogilvie, C.S. (1954). The behaviour of Seladang (Bivos gaurus). The Malaysian
Nature Journal 9(1): 1-10.

14. Pizey, R.M. (1940). On the distinction between Indian and Malayan Gaur. J.
Bombay Natural History Society 41(3): 657-659.

15. Prater, S.H. (1971). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History
Society.

16. Sahai, R.C. (1972). Distribution, composition and herd size of Gaur (Bos
gaurus) in Palamau, Bihar. Cheetal 15: 60-66.

17. Schaller, G.B. (1967). Tne deer _and the tiger. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.

18. U Tun Yin. (1967). Wild animals of Burina. Rangoon Gazette Ltd., Rangoon.

19. Weigum, L. (1971). The last refuge. Malay Nature Journal 24: 132-137.

20. Williamson, G. and Payne, W.J.A. (1978). An introduction to animal husbandry
in the tropics. 3rd edition. Longman, London and New York.

21. Wycherley, P.R. (1969). Conservation in Malaysia. IUCN Publications New

Series Supplementary Paper No.22: 146.

22. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society
of London.

23. U Tun Yin (1977). In litt.

24. Conry, P.J. (1981). Habitat selection and use, moveinents and home range of
Malayan Gaur (Bos gaurus hubbacki) in central Pahang, Malaysia. MS Thesis,
University of Montana.

25. Khan, M. (1977). The future of the Seladang. Nature Malaysia 2(1): 22-27.

26. David, J.E. (1982). Inventory Report Form - Gaur. Data Centre for Natural
Resources, World Wildlife Fund - India.

27. Anon. (1982). United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas.

wn
oe

28.
29.
30.
31.

32.
B37
34,
35.

36.
37.

38.
39.

40.
4.

42.
43.
44.
45.

46.
47.

48,
49.

50.
D1.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Bain, J.k. and Humphrey, S.R. (1982). A profile of the endangered species of
Thailand. Report No. 4. Office of Ecological Services, Florida State Museum.
Dorji, C. (1977). Wildlife preservation in the Kingdom of ishutan. Tigerpaper
4(3): 30.

Jackson, P. (1982). Bhutan. World Wildlife Yearbook °982 : 335-339.

Bolton, M. (1977). New parks and reserves in Nepal. Oryx 13(5): 473-479.
Upreti, B.N. (1979). Conservation of wildlife resources in Nepal. National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office, Nepal.

Doherty, J.G. (1981). Superovulation and cross-species eimbryo transfer from
wild to domestic cattle. Unpd. Report.

Sayer, J. (1983). In litt. Nature Conservation and National Parks Project,
Burma.

Mohd. Khan Morin Khan and Zulkifli Zainal (1982). SSC Wild Cattle Group
Species Report. Unpd. Report.

Lekagul, Boonsong (1983). In litt.

Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's mammals of the world. 4th
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated animals from earl times.
Heinemann, British Museum (Natural History).
Vietmeyer, N.D. (1983). Little-known Asian animals with a_ promising

economic future. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

S. Deb Roy (1982). In litt. to Mr. Futehally.

Bassus, W. (1973). Wild, Jagd und Naturschutz in der Demokratischen
Republik Vietnam. Arch Naturschutz u. Landschaftsforsch 13(3): 257-267.
Anon. (1979). The natural geography of China: Animal geography. Science
Press, Peking.

Yang Lan (1977). The Gaur, wild ox of Yunnan. China Reconstructs June.
Orr, I. (1983). In litt.

Shou Zhenhuang and Cha Xitao (1958). Discovery of a wild ox in Xishuang
Banna, Yunnan. Kexue Tang Bao (Scientia) 1958 No. 4: 112-113.

Shou Zhenhuang et al. (1962). Data from lain Orr.

Simoons, F.J. and Simoons, E.S. (1968). A ceremonial ox of India. The Mithan
in nature, culture and history. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Salter, R.E. (1983). Summary of currently available information on
internationally threatened wildlife species in Burma. FAO Nature

Conservation and National Parks Project Burma.

Wang, Sung (1984). In litt.

Tan, Bangjie (1983). Tne Dulong Ox - Gayal. Nature (China) Il: 43.

Sayer, J.A. (1983). Notes on the status and distribution of the larger
mainmals of Laos. In press.

BANTENG VULNERABLE
Bos Javanicus (d'Alton, 1832)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY A South-east Asian bovine. Certainly numbers in the thousands but
believed to be decreasing. Warfare and insurgency must have seriously affected
its status; also threatened by habitat loss, increased hunting pressure from
increasing human populations, disease, and hybridization with domestic cattle.
Protected by law in much of its range but enforcement is difficult. Occurs in
many national parks and reserves. Banteng are the wild relatives of the domestic
Bali cattle and crossbreed with zebus to produce the 'Madura' breed; they thus
constitute a valuable source of genetic material for the livestock industry.

DISTRIBUTION Formerly ranged from Manipur in India through Burma and
Thailand to central southern Indochina and south to northern peninsular Malaysia
(Perlis, Kedah and Perak); also on the islands of Borneo, Java and Bali. Three
subspecies are usually recognised: the mainland B. j. birmanicus; B. j. lowi on
Borneo; and B. j. javanicus on Java and Bali.

India Occurred in Manipur and possibly eastward of Chittagong at the turn of the
century, and was still seen in Manipur in the late 1930s (21,22), however recent
texts do not mention Banteng as occurring in India (23).

Burma Questionnaire surveys by the Forest Department during 1960-61 and
1980-81, plus field surveys in 1982/83 indicated that the species was widespread,
tending to occur in the more sparsely inhabited dry zone and to be absent from
the areas of higher rainfall in the west (25,35). Its range is reported to be
increasingly fragmented (35).

Thailand In 1983 the most important sites were reported to be the contiguous
Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuaries (in Kanchanaburi and Uthai
Tnani Provinces) and probably the contiguous Om Koi and Mae Tuen Wildlife
Sanctuaries in the north-west. Geng Krachan was also perhaps an important area
for Banteng. The only area in the Petchabun mountain range thought to still
harbour significant numbers was Nam Nao National Park (7).

Indochina Recent distribution is unknown; in the mnid-1970s Banteng were thought
to survive in some areas of former concentration such as the Luang Prabang range
(Laos); the Khammouane plateau and south of Samneua (Laos); along the
Laos/Kampuchea border; on the Kampuchean side of the Dongrak range (on the
Thai Dorder); in the rolling country south of Lomphat (eastern Kampuchea); in
Angkor Wat National Park (Kampuchea); and possibly elsewhere (6,7). In Vietnam

they reportedly still occurred south of Thanh Hoa at the beginning of the 1970s
(41).

Malaysia On the Peninsular B. j. birmanicus is believed extinct, although may
possibly still occur in Sungei Muda (Kedah), possibly extending to parts of
Kelantan (8). The Bornean B. }. lowi is considered extinct in Sarawak though still
survives in Sabah where a 1979-81 faunal survey found it to occur mainly in parts
of the eastern lowlands, although small numbers were scattered throughout the
more hilly central areas. In the western hill ranges evidence of their presence
was located in only one area (15).

Brunei Extinct.

Indonesia On Borneo B. j. lowi occurs in parts of Kalimantan (27,30). On Java the
nominate B. j. Javanicus is still present in several localities, the largest Known
population being in the Ujung Kulon National Park (1,30), smaller populations also
occur in the west in Cikainurang, Cimapag, Cikepun, Leuweung Sancang,
Cibanteng, Bojong Larang, Jayanti and Tegalwaru Reserves (13,31). Some of
tnese herds are introduced, e.g. those at Cikepuh (31). Banteng also occur at the
eastern end of Java in the Baluran National Park and the Banyuwangi Selatan (or
Blambangan-Purwo) Game Reserve and elsewhere (13,31). Distribution on the
island was formerly much greater (22). On Bali small numbers occur in the Bali
Barat Reserve (13,18).

POPULATION Total is certainly in the thousands. B. j. birmmanicus: the mainland
race numbers in the thousands. b. j. lowi: numbers of the Bornean race are
thought to be considerably less than that of the mainland race; several thousand
are believed perhaps to occur in Kalimantan (30); in Sabah a 1981 estimate was of
300-550 (15); the subspecies is extinct in Sarawak and Brunei. B. j. javanicus:
almost 2000 occur on Java, and about 30-40 on Bali (30,31).

India (Manipur) Believed extinct.

Burina Guess-estimates at the beginning of the 1980s put the total at 'a few
thousand' (35). Data gathered during 1982/83 FAO surveys suggested that
populations had greatly decreased over all but the most inaccessible parts of the
range (35). The species was considered common in Burma in the 1930s but even
then was disappearing from the more accessible and settled areas (35).

Thailand No recent information. In 1977 considered to number less than 500 (5);
in 1983 it was thought probable that only 200 or less remained along the Burmese
border and at Huai Kha Khaeng (24).

Vietnam A 1980 report mentioned that the species had continued to decline in
recent years, however the source of the data was not mentioned (16).

Kampuchea and Laos Status unknown.

Malaysia On the Peninsular B. j. pirmanicus is thought possibly to be extinct. The
Bornean B. j. lowi is considered extinct in Sarawak but in Sabah a faunal survey of
the country from 1979 to 1981 estimated a total of 300-550 (15); herds of at least
30-40 were seen at Kretam, Bukit Kumbaun, and between the Paitan and Sugut
Rivers (15), equally large concentrations were thought probably to occur in the
Labian and Kinabatangan lowlands and between the middle reaches of the
Tingkayo and Kalumpang Rivers (15).

Brunei Extinct.

Indonesia On Borneo numbers and trend of 3. j. lowi in Kalimantan are unknown,
though in 1982 MacKinnon thought it might number several thousand (30).
Reportedly abundant in the Kutai Reserve (27). On Java B. j. jJavanicus numbers
almost 2000 (30,31). In 1977 the estimated total was of about 500 ‘pure!
specimens (U. Halder 1977, In litt.). MacKinnon (1982) noted. that the population
in Ujung Kulon had risen in recent years to about 1000 (in 1976 it was about 200
(30)) possibly as a result of the loss of tiger from the reserve (30). Nurnbers in the
Baluran Reserve have however dwindled as water sources have dried up due to loss
of forest; the 1977 estimate was of 150 or more (14). In 1977 40 or more occurred
in the Leuweung Sancang Reserve (13), and estimates (1981 and 1974) for
Banyuwangi Selatan Reserve were of 25-30 (4). Bali: A 1982 report indicated that
30-40 wild Banteng occurred in the Bali Barat National Park (18).

Indonesia Protected by law (30,31). The conservation of the Banteng in Indonesia
has greatly benefitted (and will continue to do so) from the establishment of an
extensive system of reserves. Management of these areas for the maintenance of
some open grazing areas will pe advantageous to the species (30,31). In
Kalimantan it is Known to occur in a number of protected areas, including the S.
Kayan - S. Mentarang Nature Reserve in the east (20), and the Kutal Reserve
(2,27,30) which is said to have a good population of Banteng (27). On Java it
occurs in the Ujung Kulon National Park where the recent increase of Banteng has
resulted in a few groups beginning to disturb ladang or village ricefields around
the Gunung Honje boundary and planned buffer zone (26); management practises in
the park have been maintaining grazing areas especially for Banteng (24). Also
occurs in the Baluran National Park (19), the Meru Betiri Game Reserve, the
Malaeng Reserve (30), the Cikepuh Game Reserve, and the Leuweung Sancang
National Reserve (13,31). Now believed virtually extinct in the
Pananjung-Pangandaran Reserve (30), where they were introduced (31). Other
reserves which harbour the species are listed in the DISTRIBUTION section.
Banteng on Java have been the subject of studies by U. Halder (3), E. Sumardja
(11) and others (26). On Bali it occurs in the Bali Barat National Park (13,18).

CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1981, 76 males and 106 females were held in 30
zoological collections, most captive bred (9).

DOMESTICATION Domestic Banteng known as Bali cattle are found in parts of
South-east Asia, principally Indonesia. They are particularly important on the
islands of Bali, Kalimantan, Lombok, Sulawesi, Sumbawa and Timor (33). There is
no historical or archaeological evidence to indicate the date at which wild
Banteng were first tamed (29) but on Bali and Sumbawa, where they are virtually
‘uncontaminated' by crossbreeding with other cattle, they are thought to have
been domesticated many, many centuries ago (33). Small numbers of domestic
Banteng have also been introduced to Sumatra, Malaysia, and northern Australia,
and there are experimental herds in Texas, U.S.A., and New South Wales,
Australia (33). Domesticated Banteng are reported to account for about 20 per
cent of Indonesia's total population of 'cattle'. The Banteng population increased
from 1.1 million in 1967 to 1.4 million in 1975, and by the 1980s was estimated to
be more than 1.5 million (33).

The domestic Banteng differs little from the wild Banteng although it is smaller in
size (1,33). They are apparently docile, if reared, as in Indonesia, with frequent
human contact but cannot be handled as roughly as other domestic cattle (33).
They are excellent draft animals and are widely used for this purpose (1,32). They
also have a reputation as a superior beef animal in South-east Asia and are
exported to Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan for the gourmet market
(1,32,33).

Banteng will also crossbreed with domestic cattle. A particularly successful cross
is that between a Banteng and a Zebu to produce the Madura (1,32,33). This
breed, native to the island of Madura probably came into being some 1500 years
ago, when Indian invaders brought zebus of the Sinhala (or Ceylonese) type to
Madura and crossbred them with Banteng (33). Virtually all of the 575,000 cattle
on this island are Maduras (33). The breed is smaller in stature and has smaller
horns than the domestic Banteng, but is similar in most other characteristics (1).
It reportedly shows a better growth rate than the pure Banteng; is thrifty, hardy,
and able to perform well under extremes of heat and poor nutrition (33). Both its
meat and hide are said to be of superior quality (33). Though a hybrid in origin,
both sexes are fully fertile (33). On Madura at the end of the rice harvest there is
an age-old festival which centres around a bull race (1,33). The racing bulls are
bred from selected Madura stock and are specially fed and trained (1); they are
supposedly the fastest-running bovines (33).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forested areas with glades and clearings for grazing
(2,3,5,30,31,35). Mineral licks are also important (15,35), and where unavailable
Banteng will occasionally drink seawater (5,15,30). Often found in hill country up
to 2000m, since lusher valley bottoms are usually occupied by human settleinent
(2,31). In high rainfall areas such as the Annamite Mtns of Indochina, Banteng
may be wholly dependent on fallow areas of slash-and-burn cultivation (2).
Similarly in Sabah it is said that Banteng benefitted from shifting cultivation
whicn increased food supply (15). In northern Kampuchea they also utilize
savannas; in eastern Java natural or more permanent grasslands (2); and in
Thailand and Burra they are primarily associated with deciduous dry dipterocarp
forests and mixed deciduous forests (7,35). Banteng seem to depend more on
grazing and less on browsing than the closely related Gaur (Bos gaurus) and where
both occur Banteng tend to occupy more open and often drier habitats (2,3,5,11).
Furthermore they appear to live in larger groups, and to be more mobile than
Gaur (25). Herds vary in size from 2 to 25 or more with usually only one adult
male per herd (5,15). Diurnal except when subject to hunting pressure, in response
to which they become nocturnal and retreat into dense forest (3,5). One or two
calves are born after a gestation period of 9.5 to 10 months (3,5). Longevity is
20-25 years (5).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL Loss of habitat to an ever increasing human population;
greater hunting pressure for meat and trophies; military operations in much of its
range; hybridization with domestic cattle, which may have affected the genetic
purity of some stocks, and mortality from diseases such as rinderpest caught from
domestic cattle (3,5,8,15,35). Also if Banteng are forced to rely too heavily ona
small area of pasture, casualties often result from an overload of parasites
combined with malnutrition (10). In Sabah, reasons for decline are reported to be
the widespread use of guns, particularly during and after World War 2, probably
coupled with a decrease in the practise of shifting cultivation (15).

Trade: There is no international or national trade in Banteng.

CONSERVATION MEASURES Basic needs are protection of suitable areas of
habitat and complete protection of Banteng populations within these.

Burma Listed as a protected species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1936.
Occurs in the Shwesettaw and Kyatthin Wildlife Sanctuaries and the proposed
Alaungdaw Kathapa National Park; may still occur in Pidaung and Shwe-U-Daung
Wildlife Sanctuaries, but there is no recent confirmation (35).

Thailand Protected by the Wild Animals Preservation and Protection Act of B.E.
2503 (1961) as amended by Announcement of the Revolutionary Party No. 228,
B.E. 2515 (1972). Occurs in the Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Wildlife
Sanctuaries, the Nam Nao National Park, the Om Koi and Mae Tuen Wildlife
Sanctuaries (7) as well as in several other protected areas.

Indochina Conservation measures are largely unknown. For Vietnam the Westings
(1980) mention that a national park has been proposed on the plateau of the
central highlands between Ban Me Thuot and Kontum and that it contains Banteng
(16).

Malaysia Totally protected by the Fauna Conservation Ordinance (1963) and
amendments (15). Does not as yet occur in any protected area. The 1979-81
faunal survey of Sabah study proposed various new conservation areas, of which
the following harboured Banteng; Kumambu, Silabukan, Tanjung Linsang and
Danum Valley (15). The Banteng is being considered for domestication in Sabah
(15).

Crossbreeds between Banteng and European cattle have only been attempted in
sinall prograinmes in the U.S.A. and Australia (33). For example, researchers in
Texas are producing a cross that is one-eighth Banteng and seven-eigiths
Charolais. Tney believe it will result in a beef animal able to grow well in warm,
humid conditions (33). In Australia, Banteng bulls have been mated to
Brahman-Shorthorn cows. Calves that are one-fourth Banteng three-fourths
Brahman Shorthorn have since been produced (33).

REMARKS For description of animal see (3,5,8,12). Tne name Bos sondaicus has
been used in the past. Thy

REFERENCES

1. Rouse, J.E. (1970). World Cattle. Vol. Il. University of Oklahoma Press.
- Grimwood, I.R. (1977). In litt.

3. Halder, U. (1976). Okologie und verhalten des Banteng (Bos javanicus) in
Java: Eine feldstudie. Mammalia Deptica. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg and
Berlin. 124 pp.

4. Hoogerwerf, A. (1974). Report on a visit to wildlife reserves in East Java.
Mededelingen No. 21, Nederlandsche Commissie voor International
Natuurbescherming.

5. Lekagul, Boonsong and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand.
Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok. si(i(‘; OC*~™”

6. McNeely, J.A. (1975). Wildlife and national parks in tne Lower Mekon Basin.

Unpd. report to the Committee for the Co-ordination of Investigations of the

Lower Mekon Basin, ECAFE.

Lekagul, Boonsong (1983). In iitt.

Medway, Lord (1978). The wild mammals of Malaya and Singapore. 2nd

edition. Oxford University Press, London.

9. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society
of London.

19. Schenkel R. (1972). Project 719/720 - Protection and tnanagement of the
Udjung Kulon Sanctuary for the Javan Rhinoceros and other species. World
Wildlife Yearbook 1971-72. Morges, Switzerland. Pp. 122-124.

11. Sumardja, E.A. (1976). The relationships between Banteng Bos javanicus
(d'Alton) and vegetation at the Pananjung-Pangandaran Nature Reserve.
Prelim. Stud. Intern. Rep. Biotrop. Bogor, Indonesia. Res. Gr. No.
1237/TF/VI/74.

12. Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's rnammals of the world. 4th
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

13. Wind, J. and Amir, H. (1977). Distribution of Banteng (Bos javanicus) in Java
and Bali, Indonesia. Unpd Report.

14. Wind, J. and Amir, H. (1977). Management plan, Baluran Reserve. Nature
Conservation and Wildlife Management Project. FAO INS/73/013.

15. Davies, G. and Payne, J. (1982). A faunal survey of Sabah. Prepared by
World Wildlife Fund Malaysia for Game Branch, Forest Dept., Sabah.
IUCN/WWF Project No. 1692.

16. Westing, A.H. and Westing, C.E. (1980). Endangered species of Viet Nam.
Unpd. Report.

17. Medway, Lord (1977). Mammals of Borneo. Monographs of the Malaysian
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. No. 7.

18. Robinson, A.H. and Rustandi, Y. (1982). Bali Barat National Park. Parks
7(2): 13-14.

19. Surmardja, E.A. (1981). First five national parks in Indonesia. Parks 6(2): 1-4.

20. Blower, J.H., Wirawan, N. and Watling, R. (1981). Preliminary survey of S.
Kayan - S. Mentarang Nature Reserve in East Kalimantan. A World Wildlife
Fund Report for the Directorate of Nature Conservation, Indonesia.

21. Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Old World.

American Committee for International Wild Life Protection Special

22.

23.

24,

25.
26.
27.
28.
22s
30.
31.
32.
33.
34,

3D)

Publication No. 12. New York Zoological, New York.
Lydekker, R. (1898). On the geographical races of the Banteng. Proceedings

Zoological Society of London :276-278.

Anon. (1981). Wildlife in India. Dept. of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

Mohd. Khan Momin Khan and Zainal, Z. (1982). SSC Wild Cattle Group
Species Report. Mimeo.

Sayer, J.A. (1983). In litt. Nature Conservation and National Parks Project,
Burma,

Sajudin, H.R. (1983). IUCN/WWF Project 1960 - Indonesia, Ujung Kulon.
Javan Rhinoceros. Report for World Wildlife Yearbook 1983, Gland,
Switzerland.

Anon. (1979). More support for Kutai. Conservation Indonesia 3(1): 3.
MacKinnon, J. (1983). In litt.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated animals from early times.
Heinemann, British Museum (Natural History).

MacKinnon, J. (1982). Banteng. IUCN/SSC Wild Cattle Group Species
Information Sheet.
Sumardja, E.A. (1983). Banteng. IUCN/SSC Wild Cattle Group Species
Information Sheet.

Williamson, G. and Payne, W.J.A. (1978). An introduction to animal
husbandry in the tropics. 3rd edition. Longman, London and New York.
Anon. (1983). Little-known Asian animals with a promising economic future.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Bassus, W. (1973). Wild, Jagd und Naturschutz in der Deimokratischen
Republik Vietnam. Arch Naturschutz u. Landschaftsforsch 13(3): 257-267.
Salter, R.E. (1983). Summary of currently available information on
internationally threatened wildlife species in Burma. FAO Nature

Conservation and National Parks Project Burma.

WILD YAK ENDANGERED
Bos grunniens Linnaeus,!766

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY Inhabits remote areas of the Tibetan plateau and adjacent highlands.
Numoers are greatly reduced primarily due to uncontrolled hunting. Necessary
conservation measures include surveys to locate viable populations, legal
protection and the establishment of reserves. Tne Yak has been doinesticated and
used as pack animal, for human transport, and for meat and milk in Central Asia
as far back as there is any knowledge of people in this area. Since Wild Yak are
the wild relatives of the domestic Yak they constitute a potentially valuable
source of genetic material for the improvement of the domestic stock.

DISTRIBUTION China (1,2,3,19), India (7,8), and possibly Bhutan (12).

Cnina: A 1984 report notes that the species is confined chiefly to the
Qinghai-Xizang (Chinhai-Tibetan) Plateau: in the plateau steppe area at the head
of the Yarlung-Zangbo-Jiang River and north-western Xizang (Tibet); in the
Kunlun-Shan Mountains and the Aljin-Shan Mountains on the extreme southern
border of Xinjiang (Sinkiang); and in the Qilian-Shan Mountain range at the
juncture of Qinghai and Gansu Provinces (26).

India: There is some debate whether the species still persists. It definitely
occurred there in the 1970s (in the Changchenmo Valley in the Ladakh region of
Kashmir, occasionally straying as far as the head of the Sutlej Valley and near the
Milan and Lipule Passes in east Kumaun (7,12)). Some reports note that it has not
been seen there for a number of years and that none were seen in 1983 (8),
however a paper given at the centenary seminar of the Bombay Natural History
Society in 1933 by Brig. Moti Dar reported that herds did indeed still survive in
the more remote areas of Kashmir (27).

Bhutan No information located.

The Yak supposedly occurs wild in Nepal though is rarely seen; it is thought to
have been introduced from Tibet centuries ago (4). Historically its range
extended from the Karakorums in north-east Ladakh, along the Kunlun Mountains
in China to the Nan Shan range of extreme western China (Gansu Province) (1,3);
and according to Sayer also probably in the Pamirs of Afghanistan (11).

POPULATION No population estimates exist but the species perhaps numbers
only in the low hundreds.

China Sightings made during surveys by Academia Sinica in 1973-76 totalled
approximately 800 animals in north-western Xizang (26). Recent reports from
travellers in Tibet suggest that wildlife in the country has drastically declined and
that the Wild Yak has been 'decimated' (15).

India Although believed extinct, evidence in 1983 suggested tnat it still survived
and in some numbers (27).

Bhutan No information located.

The 1934-36 Dolan expedition to China remarked that the range of the Wild Yak
seemed to have steadily shrunk during the recent preceding years, that skulls and

bones littered the steppes of the Upper Yellow River, and that as far as could be
deterinined the Yak had been uncoinmon there for a decade or so. Yak were
sighted only 3-4 times in the course of six weeks! travel on the steppes of the
Upper Yellow River and the Yangtse (2). Lydekker (1898) reported Yak to be
comparatively few in Ladakh (India) but to exist in China in great nurnbers (3).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The Tibetan plateau of alpine tundra and ice desert
between 14,000-17,000ft (4270-5185im) or higher (2,5). During the 1973-76 surveys
Yaks were usually seen in sinall groups of 3-5, the occasional lone bull being seen
in suminer; larger herds sometimes numbering more than 200 individuals were also
encountered (26). Similarly the Dolan expedition reported cows and calves
together in herds during the summer; mature and older bulls perhaps occurring in
sinall pands or alone (2). Lydekker reported herds numbering from ten to a
hundred head or more, the old bulls being for the most part solitary or occurring
in sinall pands of 3-4. Feeding occurred chiefly in the early mornings and
evenings (3). Gestation period is about 8-9 months (5).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL This century, Yak populations have suffered a marked
reduction as a result of uncontrolled hunting. The remaining herds have become
scattered and isolated in the inost remote areas of their for:ner range (Z,13,15,26,
E. Schafer 1963, Pers. comm.).

Trade There is no international or national trade in Wild Yak.

CONSERVATION MEASURES Information is needed on the whereabouts of viable
populations before effective conservation measures can be suggested. However
effective protection from hunting is a necessary measure, as is the establishment
of adequately protected areas (10).

China Tne species nas been protected in China since 1962 (9,26), though this is
difficult to enforce in remote mountainous areas (26). Feng Zuo-jian recommends
that reserves be established in north-western Xizang and otner appropriate areas
to conserve the Wild Yak and other alpine wildlife. He also suggests the need for
a conservation education programme (26).

India Partially protected by law under the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972,
although may be hunted on licence at the discretion of the Chief Wildlife Warden.

Bhutan Unknown.

os mutus (including the synonyim Bos grunniens) is listed in Appendix | of the
1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora, trade in it or its products between ratifying nations is therefore subject to
strict regulation and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned.

CAPTIVE BREEDING There are no Wild Yaks in captivity.

DOMESTICATION It is not known when Yak were first domesticated but it is
considered likely that there has been a close interaction between inan and Yak
ever since the first human immigrations into the high mountains of Asia (17).
Certainly the Yak was known by repute to the classical Greeks who called it
‘poiphagos', the eater of grass (17). Tne domesticated Yak differs little in
appearance from the wild animal except that it is smaller, has shorter and thinner
horns, and may be variable in colour (17). It is found in the mountains and
plateaus of Tibet and western China (Quinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, Xinjiang and
Yunnan) (20), and in northern Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan,
Mongolia and the Soviet Union (16,18,24). Vietineyer suggests that there are inore
than one million doinestic Yaks in the world (16) although he does not cite the

source. A 1982 article about Yaks in 'China Pictorial' mentions however that 'ten
million Yaks' live in the far western provinces of China (20), and a 1979 Chinese
Press Release mentions 12.3 million Yaks in China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau (22).

Domestic Yaks are reputedly docile and easily managed. They are excellent pack
and riding animals and can carry loads of up to 150 kg (17,18,24). At high
altitudes (up to 6000m) an animal can carry a pack, or a man, at a steady pace for
days at a time and still remain in good condition (17,24). In some regions the Yak
is tne only pack animal available whilst in others it is used as coinmon cattle are,
being milked and occasionally slaughtered for meat. The milk has a very high fat
content and in some areas Yak butter is used in great quantities both as a staple
food and as a lighting fuel (17,21,23,24). The Yaks long, thick, silky hair is used
for textiles (20,24).

In all the lower regions where Yak are found they are interbred with cormmon
cattle, either the humpless cattle of Tibet and Mongolia or the Zebu. The sires
are usually cattle and the dams Yaks; the hybrid is coimmonly known as a dzo.
Like the mule, the hybrid offspring of cattle and Yak surpass their parents in
strength and vigour; the fernales are fertile but the males are sterile. Hybrids are
intermediate in appearance between the parents, having a shorter coat with much
less downy undercoat than the pure Yak whilst the females yield larger quantities
of milk than the Yak cow. The hybrids are preferred for ploughing in Tibet
because the Yak is said to be too stubborn (17,24).

In India the government is establishing national research centres to investigate
rare, economically important species, including the domestic Yak (14); such
research should include an examination of the beneficial role of the Wild Yak in
future Yak husbandry. In China a Yak Research Group was established in 1979 in
Xining, capital of Ginghai Province (21,22).

REMARKS For description of animal see (1,2,4,6,13,16).
REFERENCES

1. Allen, G.M. (1940). The mammals of China and Mongolia. American Museum
of Natural History, New York.

2. Allen, G.M. (1938). Zoological results of the second Dolan expedition to
Western China and Eastern Tibet, 1934-1936. Part II] - mammals. Proc.
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 90: 261-294.

3. Lydekker, R. (1898). Wild oxen, sheep and goats of all lands living and
extinct. Rowland Ward, London.

4. Rouse, J.£. (1970). World cattle. Vol. II. University of Oklahoma Press.

5. Shou Chen-Huang (General Editor) (1962). Economic mammals of China.
Science Publishing House, Peking. (In Chinese).

6. Schafer, E. (1937). Der Wilde Yak (Bos (Poéphagus) grunniens mutus Prez.).
Der Zoologische Garten 9 (1/2): 26-34.

7. Ranjitsingh, M. (1971). A survey of the wild life of Ladakh (Kashmir), India in
April 1970. Mimeo.

8. David, J.E. (1983). In litt. Data Centre for Natural Resources. World
Wildlife Fund-India.

- Anon. (1962). List of animal species protected in China. Mimeo.

10. Huen-pu, W. (1980). Nature conservation in China: The present situation.
Parks 5(1):1-10.

lil. FAO. (1981). National parks and wildlife management: Afghanistan. A

contribution to a conservation strategy. Vol.ll: Appendices. Based on the
work by J.A.Sayer and A.P.M. van der Zon. FO:DP/AFG/78/007 Technical

Report, Vol.ll. UNDP/FAO, Rome.
12. Mohd. Khan Momin Khan and Zainal, Z. (1982). SSC Wild Cattle Group

LBs

16.

20.
Alo

26.

Lilie

Species Report. Mimeo.

Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and vanishing mainimals of the Old World. Special
Publication No.12.. American Committee for International Wild Life
Protection, New York Zoological Park, New York.

Bhat, P.N. (1981). Conservation of animal genetic resources in India. In
Animal genetic resources: Conservation and manageinent. FAO Animal
Production and Health Paper 24, Rome, Italy.

Rowell, G. (1983). China's wildlife lament. International Wildlife 13(6): 4-11.
Vietmeyer, N.D. (1983). Little-known Asian animals with a promising

economic future. National Academy Press, Washington, 1).C.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated animals from earl times.
Heinemann and British Museum (Natural History).

Epstein, H. (1979). Domestic animals of China. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureaux, U.K.

Anon. (1979). Tne natural geography of China: Animal geography. Science
Press, Peking.

Anon. (1982). Yaks. China Pictorial 9: 42-45.

Chunsheng, W. (1981). The useful Yak. China Reconstructs November :6.
Anon. (1979). China Yak research group set up. Chinese Press Release.
Palmieri, R.P. (1980). Field investigations of Yak in the Nepal Himalaya.

National Geographic Society 12: 528.

Epstein, H. (1977). Domestic animals of Nepal. Holmes and Meier
Publishers, New York.

Upreti, B.N. (1979). Conservation of wildlife resources in Nepal. National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office, Nepal.

Feng Zuo-jian (1984). Sorne additional inforrnation on Bos grunniens in
China. In litt. to IUCN Red Data Book via Dr. Wang Sung.

Groombridge, B. (1984). Pers. comm.

WILD ASIATIC BUFFALO ENDANGERED
or WILD WATER BUFFALO

Bubalus bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY This species is highly endangered in the wild and will becoine extinct
unless drastic, rapid action is taken. Herds traditionally considered to be the
‘true’ Wild Water Buffalo occur only in Nepal and India. However it now seeins
likely that these animals interbreed extensively with free-roaining domestic
Water Buffalo, thus they can no longer be regarded as solely of wild stock. Those
in tne rest of South-east Asia are considered feral. Tne species nas suffered a
dramatic decline in distribution and numbers, and probably fewer than 2000
animals now survive. Populations in peninsular India appear doomed by
hydroelectric schemes and those in Assam by diseases such as _ rinderpest
transmitted by domestic stock. All populations are suffering genetic swamping by
interbreeding with domestic Buffalo. The decline of the animal was nowever due
to over-exploitation and to habitat loss - its riverine habitat being much favoured
for cultivation. Protected by law and occurs in a number of reserves, however,
habitat protection is not enough. Protection from the adverse effects of domestic
Buffalo and stock, needs to be enforced if this animal is to have any future. Asa
genetic resource for the domestic Buffalo population this species demands some
priority in conservation choices.

DISTRIBUTION India (mainly Assam and Madhya Pradesh) and south-eastern
Nepal are the only countries where Buffalo traditionally believed be of truly wild
stock occur. Throughout the rest of southern Asia the Wild Buffalo are considered
feral. In addition, translocated or feral animals occur in Australia, Brazil, the
Philippines, Timor and Sri Lanka. The domestic form is found throughout the Old
World (7).

India Wild Water Buffalo were once widely distributed over the grass jungles and
riverine forests of north-east India from the Gangetic and Brahmaputra plains in
Assam, west to Uttar Pradesh, and southwards through eastern peninsular India to
the Godavari River (1,16). Throughout most of this range they have now been
exterininated and by the 1980s were confined chiefly to Assam (where populations
are now believed to be much interbred with domestic Buffalo) and Madhya
Pradesh.

In Assarn they occur only in sanctuaries, the two largest concentrations being in
the Kaziranga National Park and the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. Elsewhere in
Assain small herds also still survive - in the Sankosh valley just west of Manas, in
the Sonairupa, Orang and Laokhowa (Lakhawa) Wildlife Sanctuaries in central
Assam, and in the Pabha (or Milroy Buffalo Reserve), and Lakhimpur in eastern
Assain (1,16). Reports by Forest Officers in 1983 also mentioned herds in
Meghalaya - in the Rewak Reserve Forest on the border with Bangladesh and in
June and July also in the Songsak Reserve Forest on the northern slope of the
Garo Hills (24). Ranjitsinh (1982) mentioned that a few stragglers remained in
adjacent Arunachal Pradesh (19).

In peninsular India the Buffalo has almost vanished, only a tew populations remain,
principally in the region north of the Godavari River (1). The imain stronghold is
in the State of Madhya Pradesh where by the 1980s only four viable populations
survived (38): three in Bastar District on the left bank of the Indravati River - in
the Indravati National Park, the Bhairamgarh Forest Range, and two herds in the

Pamed Forest Range (both forests have been declared sanctuaries) (24,26,38). The

tourth population occurs in Deobagh Tahsil in Raipur District (10,19,38). In Orissa
oy 1983 the species was all but extinct; its last place of occurrence, in the
Balimela and Kondakammberu area of Malakanagiri sub-division of Koraput District
had been opened up by 'reclarnations' and the buffaloes had reportely moved to
the Chitrakunda dain area towards Kondakamberu (24,27). The species has
vanished from Maharashtra State (15,24,25) where it occurred in the mid-1970s in
the Chandrapur District an area adjoining Bastar (15). There are also reports that
sinall groups of Wild Buffalo have been sighted along the border of Andhra
Pradesh with Madhya Pradesh and Orissa (19,24) but confirmation is needed (24).

Nepal By the 1970s Wild Buffalo could be found only in the Koshi Tappu Wildlife
Reserve on the floodplain of the Sapta-Koshi River in south-eastern Nepal (5).
Prior to 1950 the species range was mucn greater. After this time malaria
eradication programmes followed by settlement and cultivation of the terai, plus
an uncontrolled influx of settlers resulted in a drastic contraction of the species
range (5).

POPULATION By the 1980s the total population was probably only 1000-1500 and
probably very few of these could be considered of 'pure' wild stock. In the 1960s
tne estimate was about 2000 (18).

India By the 1980s tne total nurnder was probably not inuch greater than 1000
animals, the vast majority occurring in Assam where genetic swamping by
domestic buffalo was greatest. Assam: At the beginning of the 1980s tne number
was probably 800 to 1000 Wild Buffalo. According to Divekar a census by the
Forest Department in 1978 estimated 660 Buffalo in Kaziranga (14); a 1981
publication on 'Wildlife in India' puolisned by the Ministry of Agriculture inentions
about 500 in Kaziranga and 300 to 400 in Manas (9). However populations in botin
these ares are now well interbred with domestic Buffalo. Madhya Pradesh:
Numbers in Indravati National Park in 1983/4 were about 190 (38); a June 1982
census gave a total of 167 (24,26) compared to 163 in 1981, 147 in 1980 and 123 in
1979 (10). Divekar surveyed the region from 18th March to 26th March 1975 and
estimated that 'probably not more than 50 occurred including those in the
adjoining Chandrapur district of Maharashtra! (13); Daniel and Grubh had
estimated 200 to 250 ten years earlier (1). 1983/84 estimates for Bhairamgarh
were 20, for Parned about 43, and for Deobagh Tahsil approximately 35 (38).
Surveys by Divekar and others in Maharashtra at various times in 1978 and 1979
concluded that the species had disappeared (15). No information has been located
on numbers in the Balimela area of Orissa. Whether the species still occurs in
Andhra Pradesh needs confirmation.

In the 1800s in India the species was abundant and reportedly seen in hundreds
along the great rivers of the east (1). In peninsular India they were equally
abundant (1).

Nepal The number in Koshi Tappu in 1980 was reported to be about 60 aniinals,
indicating a staple trend over the previous few years - in July 1976 the population
was estimated to have been at least 65 individuals (5).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The inarshes, grass jungles and reed brakes in the
vicinity of rivers and lakes provide the ideal habitat, offering both food and
shelter, pools of water to lie in, and inud wallows to roll in (22). Such areas of
ample water and grass are capable of supporting quite dense populations and
buffalo herds have been known to number many individuals (21). Such habitat
occurs in the riverine flats of Assam and Nepal. Further south however the
species lives in a drier habitat scattered with trees. Buffalo feed chiefly on grass,
grazing in the mornings and evenings, and sometimes at night, lying up by day in
high grass or dense patches of cover, or submerged in a marsh or pool (22). In
recent times they have taken to crop raiding (5,21,22). They usually associate in

small herds which may combine to form large assemblages (22). In Nepal, Dahmer
(1978) who studied the species noted three distinct social groupings - mixed herds,
bachelor herds, and lone bulls; the mixed herds had one adult bull which
accompanied the herd during all seasons (5).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal reason for the dramatic reduction in the
range and numbers of the Wild Asiatic Buffalo has been the loss of its riverine
habitat to human settlement and cultivation (1,10,16,18). The species has also
been subject to increasing competition for forage from domestic stock, to
interbreeding with domestic buffalo, and is vulnerable to disease transmitted by
domestic cattle and buffaloes (1,10,16,18). In Kaziranga National Park, where
large herds of semi-wild domestic buffalo, called Kachhar, graze in the sanctuary,
mating of wild bulls with domestic cows is common (10,16) and this is becoming a
major threat to the genetic integrity of the Wild Buffalo in the park (10,16).
(Whether the interbreeding occurs the other way round which would in fact be
more detrimental to the wild stock is not mentioned). Also in Kaziranga, in the
first part of 1981 112 Wild Buffaloes were reported to have died of rinderpest (10).

In peninsular India the surviving Buffalo are threatened mainly by irrigation
projects such as the Balimela Dam in Orissa which has all but inundated the last
remaining habitat of the species in the state (16). Similarly the Bhopalpatnam
Irrigation Project and the Bodhghat Hydro-electric Project, both on the Indravati
River in West Bastar will adversely affect the species habitat (10). The Hydel
Project in Deobhog Tahsil in Raipur District (10) threatened the Udyanti herd but
according to Ranjitsinh (1984) is now no longer a threat (38).

Trade The U.S.A. report to CITES for 1979 recorded the import into the United
States from Nepal of '20 carvings' of Bubalus bubalis, whether these were from
domestic or wild Water Buffalo was not stated (39).

CONSERVATION MEASURES The Wild Water Buffalo is highly endangered and
will become extinct unless concerted efforts are made to conserve the last viable
populations. Such measures principally involve the protection of their habitat,
and segregation from domestic Buffalo which transmit diseases, and which by
interbreeding swamp the genetic purity of the wild stock. As yet the various
protected areas have not provided the necessary protection.

India Listed in Schedule | of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; any form of
hunting is totally prohibited (10). Additionally protected by law in Madhya
Pradesh (17). Occurs in the following protected areas: in Assam in the Kaziranga
National Park, and the Wildlife Sanctuaries of Manas (390 sq. km), Sonairupa (175
sq. km), Orang (73 sq. km), Laokhowa (Lakhawa) (70 sq. km), and in Pabha or
Milroy Buffalo Reserve (491 sq. km); and in Madhya Pradesh in the Indravati
National Park (1258 sq. km) which incorporates the Kutru Wild Buffalo Sanctuary,
and which is to become a 'Project Tiger Reserve’ (24).

Nepal Included on the list of fully protected animals (11), and occurs in the Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve (65 sq. km) established on 19 July 1976 (5,8). A
reintroduction into Chitwan National Park was planned with animals from Koshi
Tappu but was indefinitely postponed because of fiscal considerations (5). Such a
translocation is recommended as a necessary conservation measure in case of a
disaster in the Koshi Tappu Reserve. Thomas Dahmer studied this animal in the
reserve from May 1975 through July 1976 (5).

CAPTIVE BREEDING There are no Wild Water Buffalo in captivity.

DOMESTICATION The domestic Water Buffalo numbers at least 130 million,
one-ninth the number of cattle in the world (7). Two general types are recognised

- the Swamp Buffalo and the River Buffalo (7). Swamp Buffalo are found in the
eastern half of Asia from the Philippines west to India. They wallow in any water
or mud puddle they can find or make. Primarily exploited as a work animal they
are also used for meat but almost never for milk production (7). River Buffalo
occur in the western half of Asia, from India to Egypt and Europe. They prefer to
wallow in clean water. They are the dairy type of Water Buffalo producing much
more milk than Swamp Buffalo. In India they make up only 35 per cent of the
milk animals but produce almost 70 per cent of the milk. Buffalo butterfat is the
major source of cooking oil in some Asian countries, including India and Pakistan

(7).

Parts of Asia and even Europe have depended on Water Buffaloes for centuries.
They are represented on seals struck 5000 years ago in the Indus Valley,
suggesting they had already been domesticated in India and Pakistan (7). They
were in use in China 4000 years ago but seemingly were unknown to the ancient
Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. It was not until about 600 A.D. that Arabs
brought the animal from Mesopotamia to the Middle East. Water Buffaloes were
later introduced to Europe by pilgrims and crusaders returning from the Middle
East in the Middle Ages. Buffaloes became established in Italy, Hungary,
Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and Bulgaria and have remained there ever
since (7). Egypt began to use them in the Middle Ages and the species has since
become the most important domestic animal in the country (7).

Other areas of the world have begun to use Water Buffalo only in recent times.
For instance Brazil first imported a small number of animals at the beginning of
the 20th century; they now total about 400,000 head and Buffalo meat and milk
are sold widely in Amazonian towns and villages. Other countries now utilizing
Water Buffalo include Trinidad, Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Costa
Rica, Panama, Papua New Guinea and Australia (7). Buffalo meat has a
reputation of being tough, however it is lean and tender when the animals are
-raised primarily for meat production; taste-wise it compares favourably with
beef. The milk is rich, having a higher content of both butterfat and nonfat solids
than cow's milk. In Europe, Buffalo milk is used to make the sought-after
Mozzarella cheese. As a work animal the Buffalo is the principal powerhouse for
Asian agriculture. It is adaptable, versatile, widely used to plough, level land,
plant crops, puddle rice fields, cultivate field crops, pump water, haul carts, sleds,
and shallow-draft boats, carry people, thresh grain, press sugar cane, haul logs as
well as countless other tasks. For millions of peasants in the Far East, Middle
East, and Near East it is the only method of farming food crops. Even in areas
where the tractor has replaced the Water Buffalo the animal is now making a
comeback as fuel becomes scarce and expensive (7). Furthermore the Buffalo
offers free fertilizer:

There is increasingly more interest in the vast potential offered by the Water
Buffalo especially since the promises offered by mechanization to many of the
peoples of developing countries appears increasingly to be unattainable. Not only
has the increase in the cost of fuel been a factor but frequently the infrastructure
to maintain machinery is not available. Furthermore tractors usually require at
least four hectares for economical operation, which precludes their use on most
peasant farms (7). It is to be hoped that governments and international aid
agencies will foster research on the domestic Water Buffalo. The importance of
conserving the wild genetic stock gains importance and must deserve some
priority in conservation decisions. Recently (1981) a highly useful book on the
species was produced: 'The Water Buffalo: New prospects for an underutilized
animal! (7). Some additional useful references are listed
(23,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37).

REMARKS For description of animal see (1,22).

REFERENCES

1.

2.

25.

Daniel, J.C. and Grubh, B.R. (1966). The Indian Wild Buffalo, Bubalus bubalis

(Linn.) in peninsular India: A preliminary survey. J. Bombay Natural History
Society 63 (1): 32-53.

Lydekker, R. (1926). The game animals of India, Burma, Malaya and Tibet.
Rowland Ward, London.

Mania, L.C.M. (1970). The present position of the Wild Water Buffalo in
Asia. Loris 12 (2): 86-88.

Lekagul, Boonsong and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand.
Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, Thailand.

Dahmer, T.D. (1978). Status and ecology of the Wild Asian Buffalo (Bubalus
bubalis L.) in Nepal. M.S. Thesis, ie of Montana, U.S.A.

Spillet, J.J. (1966). The Kaziranga Wild Life Sanctuary, Assam. J. Bornbay

Natural History Society 63: 494-528.

Anon. (1981). The Water Buffalo: New prospects for an underutilized animal.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Upreti, B.N. (1980). Conservation of wildlife resources in Nepal. National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office, Nepal.

Anon. (1980). Wildlife in India. Dept. of Agriculture and Cooperation.
Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

David, J.E. (1982). Inventory Report Form - Bubalus bubalis. Data Centre
for Natural Resources, World Wildlife Fund - India.

Gupta, R.B. and Mishra, H.R. (1972). The Asiatic Wild Buffalo of Koshi
Tappu: An interim report. HMG Press Kathmandu, Nepal.

Scott, R.W. (1969). Notes on the inter-breeding between domestic and wild
Buffalo in upper Assam. J. Bombay Natural History Society 66(1): 159-166.
Divekar, H.K. (1977). A re-survey of the status of Wild Buffaloes in West
Bastar, Madhya Pradesh. J. Bombay Natural History Society 73(2): 382-385.
Divekar, H.K., Mohapatra, K.K. and Shekar, P.B. (1975). Some observations
on Wild Buffalo, Bubalus bubalis Linn., in Kaziranga National Park, Assam. J.
Bombay Natural History Society 79: 188-190.

Divekar, H.K., Grubh, R. and Shekar, P.B. (1979). Status and ecology of Wild
Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis Linn.) in Chandrapur District of Maharashtra. Ms.
Seshadri, B. (1969). The twilight of India's wild life. John Baker Publishers,
London.

Mohd. Khan Momin Khan and Zainal, Z. (1982). SSC Wild Cattle Group
Species Report. Mimeo.

Seshadri, B. (1976). The Indian Wild Buffalo - A sanctuary south of the
Indravati River. Ms.

Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1982). Wild Buffalo. SSC Wild Cattle Group Species
Information Sheet.

Krishnan, M. (1972). An ecological survey of the larger mammals of
peninsular India. J. Bombay Natural History Society 69 (1): 26-54, (2):
297-351, (3): 469-501.

Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Old World. Special
Publication No. 12. American Committee for International Wildlife
Protection, New York Zoological Park, New York.

Prater, S.H. (1965). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History
Society.

Epstein, H. (1977). Domestic animals of Nepal. Holmes and Meier
Publishers, New York.

David, J.£. (1983). In litt. Data Centre for Natural Resources. World
Wildlife Fund-India.

Daniel, J.C. (1983). In litt.

Dongaonkar, K.N. (1983). In litt. to Mr J.E. David. See Ref. 24.

Saroj Raj Choudhury (1982). In litt. to Mr J.E. David. See Ref. 24.

28.

29.

30.

BING

32.

33.

34,

35.

34,

37.

38.
39.

Cockrill, W.R. (Ed.) (1974). The husbandry and health of tne doinestic

buffalo. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Cockrill, W.R. (1977). The Water Buffalo: domestic animal of the future.
Bovine Practitioner 12: 92-98.

Cockrill, W.R. (1980). The ascendant Water Buffalo - key domestic animal.
World Animal Review 33: 2-13.

Mahadevan, P. (1978). Water Buffalo research - possible future trends.
World Animal Review 25: 2-7.

Oloufa, M.M. (1979). Buffaloes as producers of meat and milk. Egyptian J.
of Animal Production 19: 1-10.

Madamba, J.C. and Eusebio, A.N. (1979). Developments in the strengthening
of Buffalo research in Asia. Buffalo Bulletin 2(3): 7-16.

Fahimuddin, M. (1975). Dornestic Water Buffalo. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co., New Delhi, India.

de Guzman, M.R., Jr. (1979). An overview of recent developments in Buffalo
research and management in Asia. Extension Bulletin No. 124. Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center, Taipei, Taiwan.

Anon. (1975). The Asiatic Water Buffalo. Proceedings of an International
Symposium neld at Khan Kaen, Thailand, March 31 - April 6, 1975. Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center, Taipei, Taiwan.

Cockrill, W.R. (Ed.). Tne Water Buffalo. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.

Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1984). In litt.

Gertler, P.E. (1982). Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Annual Report for 1979. Wildlife Permit

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

FAMARAW ENDANGERED
Bupdalus mindorensis (Heude, 1888)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY A small buffalo endemic to the Island of Mindoro in the Philippines.
Seriously depleted by hunting and habitat loss the species is now thought to be
increasing in numbers due to an effective conservation programme launched at
the end of the 1970s. Three reserves have been set aside for its protection, and
hunting has been virtually eliminated. A 1983 official estimate was 250 animals;
unofficial estimates place the figure at 300-400. Conservation of the species is
coordinated by the 'Presidential Committee for the Conservation of the Tamaraw'
(PCCT) created in 1979 by President Marcos. The species has not been
domesticated but is perhaps a possible candidate; its meat is highly regarded by
local people.

DISTRIBUTION The Philippines. Endemic to the Island of Mindoro where by 1983
it occurred only in isolated pockets throughout the island (19). Principal
stronghold is the Mt Iglit/Baco National Park (19); the species also occurs in the
Mt Mitchell- F.B. Harrisson area, and on Mt Calavite. At the turn of the century
Tamaraw were found throughout Mindoro (1,2,4,6,9,10,11,12,15), and during the
Pleistocene also occurred on nearby Luzon Island (3).

POPULATION The 1983 official count was of 250 Tamaraw (19,20), of which
about 135 occurred in the Mt Iglit/Baco National Park (19); the unofficial
estimate was of 300-400 (20). Owing to effective conservation measures numbers
have been increasing (20). The majority of animals occur in protected areas
altnough sinall groups can still be found outside the parks (20).

It has been estimated that 10,000 Tamaraw occurred on Mindoro in 1900 (7); by
1949 numbers had dwindled to about 1000 and by 1953 to fewer than 250 (12). In
1969 a field survey could only locate three small populations totalling about 100
animals (6,7). Tne 1973-74 estimate was of 150-200 (2,4) of which 70-80 or more
occurred in the Mt Iglit area (8,9,10).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Preferred habitat is reported to be a mosaic of thick
forest (for cover) and open grazing areas (1,10,12). A study on Mt Iglit found that
Tamaraw cows usually occurred in the interspersion of forest, talahib (Saccharum
spontaneum) grassland, and cogon (Imperata clylindrica) grassland, but because
mature bulls were intolerant of other bulls, many adults and most juvenile bulls
were forced to utilize ranges without forest cover (8,10). Adult Tamaraw are
largely solitary although groups of juveniles may persist for a year or more (9).
The breeding season is in the early part of the six month dry season, so cows bear
their single calves in the rainy season when the forage is lush and the weather
cool (9). Once reputediy placid and diurnal, persecution has caused Tamaraw to
becorne largely nocturnal and elusive. However since the virtual elimination of
hunting, Tamaraw have once again been seen grazing openly during the day
(1,14,15).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting has been the main cause of decline, for
trophies and for its meat which is said to be delicious. Since the early 1900s the
increase in hurnan numbers, timber operations, farming, cattle ranching,
availability of firearms and hunting combined with lack of effective enforcement
of hunting laws nas greatly restricted the species' nabitat and very greatly
reduced its numbers. Farmers have eradicated it from the fertile lowlands, and

ranchers want every spot of suitable land in the foothills for domestic cattle. The

latter is perhaps the greatest future threat to the Tamaraw's recovery
(1,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,15).

Trade There is no national or international trade involving Tamaraw.

CONSERVATION MEASURES The Commonwealth Act No.73 of 1936 (amended
by the Republic Act 1086) penalizes the killing, hunting, wounding or taking away
of Tamaraw. The species occurs in the 77,445 ha Mt Iglit/Baco National Park
(established 1961) which is excellently protected (19), the 15,000 ha Mt Calavite
Game Reserve (established 1920), and the 44,500 ha Mt Mitchell - F.B. Harrisson
Game Refuge (2,4,10,12,15). In 1969, as a result of a field survey by Torn
Harrisson, efforts by Charles Lindbergh, Sixto Roxas, Manuel Elizalde, Sr., Manuel
Elizalde, Jr., Jesus Alvarez, Luis Yulo, and others, plus support by President
Marcos, a Tamaraw Conservation Proggamme was launched by the President (2,20)
(for full details see Alvarez 1973) (2). Although the programme resulted in the
protection of a small herd of about 100 Tamaraw on Mt Iglit, the status of the
species remained precarious. A survey in 1978 by Ian C. Player and David A.
Parkinson recommended that a more intensive conservation effort was required.
In response President Marcos created the ‘Presidential Committee for the
Conservation of the Tamaraw' (PCCT) under Executive Order No. 544 (20). All
conservation action has subsequently been coordinated by the Committee (which
includes Minister Manuel Elizalde, Jr., Assemblyman Luis Yulo and Jesus Alvarez,
Assistant Director of the Bureau of Forest Development) (20).

Since the PCCT took over responsibility of conserving the Tamaraw, numbers
have increased (20). The Committee has four main activities: |) A 400 ha
enclosure (called the 'gene pool') has been fenced within the lower elevations of
the Mt Iglit/Baco National Park (13,18,19,20). By Septernber 1983 it held 5 tnale
and one female Tamaraw (20); capture of more animals is ongoing outside reserves
in areas where the species is threatened and where there is no hope of protection
(19,20). 2) Enforcement of protection of the Tamaraw has been increased, and in
1982 a case was brought against poachers (20). Also 'minority tribes' have been
enlisted into the overall programme (20). 3) Scientific studies have been initiated
both in Mt Iglit/Baco National Park and in the 'gene pool' and there are plans to
undertake radio telemetry work (20). 4) A national education campaign is ongoing
involving press, radio and television (1,2,4,8,10,13,18,20).

The Tamaraw is listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International
Trade in Endangéred Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products is
therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily
commercial purposes is banned.

CAPTIVE BREEDING Aside from the captive nerd of six Tamaraw (5 males, one
female) in the PCCT 'gene pool', there is only one other Tamaraw known to be in
Captivity: a female at the Manila Zoo (20).

DOMESTICATION The Tamaraw has never been domesticated. Vietmeyer
believes that the species has potential for domestication. Its meat and hide are
apparently highly regarded by local peoples, cattlemen, and visiting hunters.
Furthermore because of its close relationship to the Water Buffalo, Bubalus
bubalis, it may have genetic material relevant to an improvement of this
important domestic bovine (17).

REMARKS For description of animal see (1,11,12,16). The species is frequently
considered to be closely related to the Anoas of Sulawesi (Celebes), all three
often being placed in the genus Bubalus subgenus Anoa. Groves however, in a
1969 study of the systematics of this trio concluded that the Tamaraw is more
closely related to the Asiatic Buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, and that it should be

named Bubalus mindorensis in the subgenus Bubalus (5).

REFERENCES

l.

Be

17.
13.

19.
20.

Alvarez, J.B. Jr. (1970). Philippines Tamaraw, here to stay. IUCN
Publications New Series 18: 46-51.

Alvarez, J.B. Jr. (1973). Projects 396/503. Tamaraw conservation
programme. World Wildlife Yearbook 1972-73: 139-144. WWF, Switzerland.
Beyer, H.O. (1956). New finds of fossil mammals from the Pleistocene strata

of the Philippines. National Research Council of the Philippines Bulletin
No.41.

Grimwood, I.R. (1975). National parks and wildlife conservation in the
Philippines. UNDP/FAO. FO: PHI/72/006. Rome.

Groves, C.P. (1969). Systematics of the Anoa (Mammalia, Bovidae).
Beaufortia 17(223): 1-12.

Harrisson, T. (1969). The Tamaraw and Philippine conservation. Biological
Conservation 1(4): 317-8.

Harrisson, T. (1969). The Tamaraw and its survival. [UCN Bulletin 2(11):
35-86.

Kuehn, D. (1975). Tamaraw at Mt Iglit Game Refuge, Philippines. Tiger
Paper 2(3): 26.

Kuehn, D.W. (1976). Tamarao: Endangered Buffalo of the Philippines.

National Parks and Conservation Magazine 50(3): 18-20.
Kuehn, D.W. (1977). Increase in the Tamaraw. Oryx 13(5): 453.

Lydekker, R. (1898). Wild oxen, sheep and goats of all lands, living and
extinct. Rowland Ward, London.

Manuel, C.G. (1957). Status of Tamaraw, Anoa mindorensis (Heude). Proc.
8th Pacific Sci. Congr. (Manila 1953). 3A: 1463-1673.

Mohd. Khan Momin Khan and Zainal, Z. (1982). SSC Wild Cattle Group
Species Report. Mimeo.

Sitwell, N. (1975). On the track of the Tarnaraw. Wildlife 17: 428-430.
Talbot, L.M. and Talbot, M.H. (1966). The Tamarau, Bubalus mindorensis
(Heude). Observations and recommendations. Mammalia 30 (1): 1-12.

Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's mammals of the world. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Vietmeyer, N.D. (1983). Little-known Asian animals with a_ promising
economic future. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott, R.F. (1981). Trip report, Philippines, 27-31 October, 1981. IUCN
internal report.

Parkinson, DA. (1983). In litt.

Trinidad, O.V. (1983). In litt. Executive Director of the Presential
Committee for the Conservation of the Tamaraw.

Hi peed ff PTGS AH ta ee ts AA ein i

d “ea .
ASE cae te i)

tle ed ™ ma

w ' ce keene

fu
i~@ Mere 1) oboe biz 2 wlsiee poe ‘eRba wi Be ry ite
a’ we 4 ” Amine: ' va Fi fae fF F.9 YAY af én i
om ~~ wij a" aT ay > a led

» Tal

2 ‘ ph ipee

oae 2

° ’ vr ‘el Si
7 a aoe se ae Ii Aa a Te

; mee Sirgech

eat By ce ae ,

a Fe is
~. Ny it aide ate ale aie Hay Tha eH

es et Me OT tes Visa ce a ye! fap

0 ie cate, Yee

ANOAS INSUFFICIENTLY
KNOWN

Bubalus quarlesi (Ouwens, 1910) Mountain Anoa
Bubalus depressicornis (H. Smith, 1827) Lowland Anoa

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY Anoas are buffaloes endemic to the Indonesian island of Sulawesi
(formerly Celebes). Numbers are unknown but they are believed possibly to be
declining because of hunting and loss of forest habitat. Two species are usually
described, the Mountain Anoa, B. quarlesi, and the Lowland Anoa, B.
depressicornis; however in the field it has been difficult to distinguish between
them and much of the literature refers simply to Anoa without specifying the
species. The validity of distinguishing two separate species is also increasingly
questioned. Anoas are protected by law and occur in many of the large reserves
established in recent years. Adequate protection of these reserves should be
sufficient to ensure their survival. Anoas have never been domesticated but their
potential for domestication should be explored.

DISTRIBUTION The Indonesian island of Sulawesi (formerly Celebes). Although
traditionally Anoas have been divided into 'Lowland' (depressicornis) and
‘Highland' (quarlesi) species, the validity of this distinction is increasingly being
questioned (12,13). MacKinnon who has done fieldwork on Sulawesi reports that
within any region there tends to be only one type of Anoa and although it is
generally true that in the most imountainous regions this tends to be quarlesi,
within a quarlesi region this highland form will range right down to sea level (as in
the Dumoga valley). Conversely in depressicornis areas, depressicornis will range
right up to the highest peaks in mossy, montane forest, as for example, in Gn
Tangkoko and Gn Ambang (1500 m) (12). Similarly Watling who has also worked on
Sulawesi also questions the validity of the accepted distinctions and remarks that
whether there is merely a cline, and whether distinction is altitudinal or
geographical, is unknown (13).

The more traditional view is best summarized by Groves. He reports the Lowland
Anoa, B. depressicornis, to have historically ranged throughout Sulawesi but to be
restricted to the lowlands (3). He summarized the locality records as: a) Northern
peninsula: Minahassa, Menado, Bambulan, Gorontalo Likupang, Lempias, coast
near Limbe, forest between Langowan and Pangku, Paybi, Tolitoli; b) Central
Sulawesi; Donggala; c) South-eastern peninsula: north slope of Boro Boro
Mountains, Kampung Mowita, Malili, Kolaka (3). The Mountain Anoa, B. quarlesi,
was thought (naturally enough) to inhabit the mountainous regions. Groves cites
the following historical locality records: a) Northern peninsula: Besoa, Menado; ))
Central Sulawesi: Lake Lindu, Tuwulu; c) South-western peninsula: Latimodjong,
Watampone, Madjene, mountains inland from Macassar at 2000 m, Toradja, Upper
Binuwang, Palopa, Mandar Mtns, Bola Batu, Tjani (3). Van Bemmel reporting in
1963 said 'so far as is known the Anoa still survives on the Peak of Bonthian (near
the tip of the south-western peninsula), the Toradja Highlands and the central

mountains of Celebes' (7).

At the turn of the century the Anoa was described as 'retreating before advancing
culture more and more into the interior of the land, abandoning coastal areas
where it was previously common! (5). In 1936 Anoa species (unspecified) were still
abundant on islands south of Sulawesi (5).

POPULATION No censuses have been carried out and nurnbers are unknown. At a
guess MacKinnon in 1982 thought it probable that each species numbered a few

thousand (1). Both Watling and MacKinnon reported Anoas to be widespread
though thinly distributed and in undisturbed areas of favourable habitat still to be
locally common, occurring in all remaining forest blocks that had been surveyed
(12,13). Trend is believed to be downward because of hunting and habitat loss;
however this remains only an impression (9). In 1979 MacKinnon reported the
Lowland Anoa to have disappeared or reached low numbers in many places
particularly near towns and villages where it was heavily hunted and snared, but
that healthy populations still occurred in large forest blocks (9). The Mountain
Anoa he reported to be very rare (9).

Robin Hanbury-Tenison who visited Sulawesi in 1974, reported that Anoas were
‘quite numerous' in the eastern peninsula between Luwuk and Poso (4). In the past
the species has been described as verging on extinction (2,11) but there appears to
be little data available. Harper (1945) quotes a letter from F. N. Chasen in 1937
in which the latter describes the Anoa as 'less numerous than formerly' and
‘certainly worth a place in your list' (of extinct and vanishing mammals). Most of
the other sources quoted by Harper (pre-1940) describe the Anoa as locally
numerous though decreasing (5). .

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY All forest types from sea-level to the moss forests in
the highlands (12). Usually solitary or in pairs (12,13), occasionally in small
parties but never in large herds (12). Feeds in natural clearings on wild ginger,
ferns, grass, shrubs and various fruits especially Ficus variegatus (12).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL Anoas are heavily hunted and snared (9,12,13) and will
soon leave an area if disturbed (13). Their forest habitat is also disappearing due
to human influx and increased logging for export (9,12). Watling reports that
though they are disturbed by logging Anoas probably benefit from the
regeneration of vegetation; they are certainly known to use selectively logged
forest (13).

Trade: There is virtually no national or international trade in Anoas, although in
1976 an animal trader in South-east Asia was offering one pair of Lowland Anoa
for US $3000 each (15).

CONSERVATION MEASURES Fully protected by law in Indonesia and included in
a number of large reserves (1,12): Dumoga-Bone National Park (mostly Mountain
Anoa) (12), Lore Lindu National Park (Mountain Anoa) (8,12) where in 1981 it was
stated to be 'cédmmon' (8), Morowali National Park (12), Tangkoko Batuangus
Reserve (Lowland Anoa) (12), Gn Ambang Reserve (12), Panua Reserve (1), Gn
Manembo-nembo (1). No specfic conservation project has been carried out on the
species but its conservation has greatly benefitted from the establishment in
recent years of an extensive system of large reserves (1,12). MacKinnon suggests
that because of this no specific conservation project is required for Anoas (1),
however, scientific studies to investigate the distribution of the two Anoa types
and to more fully understand their degree of distinctiveness would be interesting.

Both Lowland and Mountain Anoa are listed in Appendix I of the 1973 Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in
them or their products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying
nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned.

CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1981, the International Zoo Yearbook recorded that of
the Lowland form there were 13 males and 13 females (18 captive bred) held in
eight zoological collections, and of the Mountain form 7 males and 5 females (7
Captive bred) held in 5 collections (7).

DOMESTICATION Anoas have never been domesticated. Vietmeyer notes that on
Sulawesi they are prized for their hide, horns and meat. The flesh, especially that

of the calves, is apparently tender and well flavoured (16).

REMARKS For description of animal see (3). The two supposedly distinct types
of Anoa are a large form, the Lowland Anoa, with white legs, long tail and rugged
horns, and a small type, the Mountain Anoa, with legs mainly the same colour as
the body, a short tail and conical horns. Some authors have regarded both types
as subspecies of B. depressicornis (7) but according to Groves there is no evidence
of intergradation and they should be classed as two distinct species (3).

REFERENCES

1.

2.

MacKinnon, J. (1982). Mountain Anoa and Lowland Anoa. IUCN/SSC Wild
Cattle Group Species Information Sheet.

Dolan, J.M. (1965). Breeding of the Lowland Anoa, Bubalus (Anoa) d.
depressicornis (H. Smith, 1827) in the San Diego Zoological Garden. Z.
Sdugetierkunde 30: 241-248.

Groves, C.P. (1969). Systematics of the Anoa (Mammalia, Bovidae).
Beaufortia 17: 1-12.

Hanbury-Tenison, R. (1974). In litt.

Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Old World. Special
Publication American Committee for International Wildlife Protection 12.
Hooijer, D.A. (1950). Man and other mammals from Toalian sites in
south-western Celebes. Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. Afd. Nat. (2 sectie)
46(2): 1-164.

Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society
of London.

WWF. (1981). Lore Lindu National Park. Management Plan 1981-1986. A
World Wildlife Fund Report for the Directorate of Nature Conservation,
Bogor. Based on the work of Dick Watling and Yaya Mulyana.

MacKinnon, J. (1979). A glimmer of hope for Sulawesi. Oryx 15(1): 55-59.
Groves, C.P. (1976). The origin of the mammalian fauna of Sulawesi
(Celebes). Z. Sdugetierkunde 4]: 201-216.

Frddicn, H. (1973). Einige Bemerkungen tiber den Anoa. Zeitschrift des
K6lner Zoo 16(3): 101-105.

MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. (1979-83). In litt.

Watling, D. (1983). In litt.

FAO (1982). National conservation plan for Indonesia. Vol. VI Sulawesi. Field
Report of UNDP/FAO National Parks Development Project INS/78/061.
Based on the work of John MacKinnon and Mulia Budi Artha.

Anon. (1976). What is going on? Oryx 13(3): 252.

Vietmeyer, N.D. (1983). Little-known Asian animals with a_ promising

economic future. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

a ney” ix ‘amt

Peli,
4

ele yj dig kak,
it Ty £y, Pg f) 7
: res aM ee Wahrue og) ty
7 : er thea 6 maar te et
ty
yet v

Pianin se 6 PP he yt a

tna pein pontee

. li : _
¢ boAR Fe “ne s ayia ne ie
q

gd : ot eit af soa

*
ne ae

EUROPEAN BISON or WISENT OUT OF DANGER
Bison bonasus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE
—— a I a i at Sr Re Bre Bias

SUMMARY Survives only in captive and semi-wild herds, the latter in parts of its
original range in Poland and the U.S.S.R. Largest herd is in the Bialowieza Forest
which straddles the border between the two countries; in 1980 Bison in the Forest
numbered 411 animals. By the beginning of the 20th century the species still
survived in the wild but only in the Bialowieza Forest (B. b. bonasus) and in the
Caucasus (B. b. caucasicus). The last Bison in Bialowieza was poached in early
spring 1919 and the last in the Caucasus died in 1927. The only surviving animals
were those in zoological gardens and those belonging to private owners.
Furthermore, only one animal, a bull, of the B. b. caucasicus subspecies had
survived in captivity; it died in 1925. This bull did sire calves from B. b. bonasus
cows, and most of the existing herds are in fact bonasus/caucasicus hybrids. By
the 1980s, as a result ot successful breeding prograrmnmes the species numbered
over 2000 animals, and 24 herds had been re-established in the wild. Continued
protection and breeding programmes are essential for the survival of the species;
additional reintroductions to suitable habitat would always be valuable.

DISTRIBUTION U.S.S.R. and Poland. Extinct in the truly wild state although
semi-wild herds have been re-established. Largest herd occurs in the Bialowieza
Forest which straddles the border between Poland and the U.S.S.R. In the
U.S.S.R. (as of 1978) there were also 18 other semi-wild herds: in the Carpathians,
in Polyesye, on the Volyno-Podolsky Heights, in the Caucasus, and in Tyan-Shan
(1). In Poland there were four additional semi-wild herds, besides that in the
Bialowieza Forest (19).

Formerly the Bison ranged throughout western and southern Europe as far east as
the Caucasus, and northward as far as the Lena River in Siberia (10). However by
the beginning of the 20th century the only surviving wild herds were in the
Bialowieza Forest (B. b. bonasus) and in the Caucasus Mountains (B. b.
caucasicus). The Bialowieza herd had been maintained for the personal use of
Polish Kings and later the Russian Imperial Family (11,13) and had been protected
since 1532 (18). According to the 1914 census, the number of animals was 727
(19). However World War I was disastrous for the species and by 1919 not a single
specimen survived in the Bialowieza Forest, and by 1927 all in the Caucasus had
been killed (the Caucasian race thus becoming extinct) (19). The only remaining
animals were the 54 specimens which had been distributed among various
zoological gardens of Europe, and a small herd in the Pszczyna Forest Reserve on
the Duke of Hochberg's estate in south-western Upper Silesia. (Furthermore the
only surviving representative of B. b. caucasicus was a bull (named Kaukasus)
which belonged to a Hamburg animal dealer. The bull sired a number of calves
but all were from B. b. bonasus fernales. The bull died in 1925. Most herds in
both the U.S.S.R. and Poland thus in fact contain genes of both subspecies). The
Pszczyna Forest Reserve had been established as a breeding centre in 1865 witha
bull and three cows from Bialowieza presented by Tsar Alexander II (13). By 1918
the Pszczyna herd numbered more than 74, but by December 1922 only three
animals, a cow and two bulls, survived (4,13,19); numbers subsequently increased
(11). Animals from Pszczyna plus some from various zoological gardens were
collected together in Poland to form a breeding nucleus (4); they were kept under
semi-captive conditions in a special fenced enclosure of 507 acres in part of the
Bialowieza Forest, of which 74 acres were cleared and sown to pasture grasses.
By the end of 1939 there were 16 Bison in the Reserve: | bull and 6 cows of the
bonasus line and 3 bulls and 6 cows of the bonasus/caucasicus line. By 1950
however all hybrids had been removed from the Polish section of the reserve and a

few years later also froin the Russian section (19). In 1952 animals froin this
enclosure were released to live in a serni-wild state in the Bialowieza Forest
(4,11,12,13,14,18). Subsequently other free-ranging herds have been established
and by the end of 1980 numbered more than 24 (18).

There is a herd in the Caucasus National Park which contains an admixture of
American Bison (Bison bison) genes (4,12,13,14).

POPULATION In 1978 the number of European Bison exceeded 2000 (3,5,18), of
these about 800-900 existed in semi-free herds, the rest in captivity (3). About
800 occurred in the U.S.S.R, almost 600 in Poland, and the rest in zoological
gardens around the world (18). By the end of 1980 the number of semi-free herds
was 24: 5 in Poland and 19 in the U.S.S.R., these contained more than 40% of the
total number of animals. 17 herds were comprised of 10 or more animals, and the
largest semi-free herd in the Bialowieza totalled 411: 242 in the Polish section
and 169 in the Russian (18).

U.S.S.R_ Total at the beginning of the 1980s was about 800. Almost all these
animals are the offspring of 8 females (5 of bonasus type, and 3 of
bonasus/caucasicus type) which were introduced into the U.S.S.R from Poland
between 1946-1951 (16). 19 semi-free herds existed: 3 herds are of pure bonasus
type, and 16 of bonasus/caucasicus (18). The number in the Russian section of the
Bialowieza Forest was 169 at the end of 1980 (18). The Russian Red Data Book
reports that pure European Bison (as opposed to hybrids with American Bison) are
reared in two nurseries: the Prioksko-Terrasny Nat. Prot. Reserve (established
1948), and the Okski Reserve (established 1959). In 1973 there were 100 Bison in
the nurseries (1,15).

Poland At the end of 1980 the total population numbered 561 animals. Semi-free
herds of pure bonasus were located in four areas - Walcz Forest, Borki Forest,
Knyszyn Forest and Bialowieza Forest (18). The number free-living in Bialowieza
was 242 (19); another 26 were held in enclosures (19). There is also a
bonasus/caucasicus herd living semi-wild in the Carpathian mountains (18).

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forests and woodlands (14) where it feeds on grasses,
ferns, leaves and the bark of certain broad-leaved trees; in the autumn it subsists
almost entirely on acorns. Both sexes reach sexual maturity at about two years of
age (1), females produce one young usually every 2 or 3 years (16).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL The depletion and, eventually the almost total
eradication of the forests of Europe was the main cause of the near demise of the
Bison; hunting and wars took their toll of the remainder (4,11,12,13,14). The
extinction of the Bison in the Caucasus was also accelerated by an outbreak of
epizootic foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax caught from domestic livestock in
the mountains (1).

CONSERVATION MEASURES The species has recovered because of the
effectiveness of a conservation programme begun in the 1920s. Continued
protection of herds is needed and reintroductions should be ventured wherever
Suitable areas are available within its historic range.

U.S.S.R.: Protected by law since 1923, and in 1924 was declared a ‘nature
monument! (16). In 1968 a special Commission for European Bison Protection was
attached to the esearch-Technical Council of the Main Board of Nature
Conservation, Natural Reserves and Game Management of the U.S.S.R Ministry of
Agriculture (15,16). Occurs in the Bialowieza Forest Reserve adjoining the Polish
Reserve of the same name. Prior to its demise the Caucasian subspecies occurred
in the Caucasus Reserve established in 1924 to protect it (1). The bonasus blood

lines and the bonasus/caucasicus bloodlines are bred separately, the former for

restocking the lowlands, and the latter for restocking the southern, mountainous
regions (Carpathians, Kodry, Crimea and Caucasus). In the Caucasus appropriate
measures have had to be taken to prevent the mixing of the bonasus/caucasicus
Bison in the Teberdinsky Reserve, the Assinsky Reserve and the Tseisky State
Hunting Reserve with the herds of American-European Bison hybrids in the
Caucasus and the Nalchik forest and hunting reserves (1). The Russian Red Data
Book reports that it would be valuable to extend the Arkhyzsky part of the
Teberdinsky Reserve (1).

Poland: Protected by law. Occurs in the Bialowieza Forest Reserve, as well as
three other reserves (6). There is an ongoing conservation programme for the
species.

After the demise of the Bialowieza herd during World War I a uniting force to
effect the survival of the European Bison was the proposal by the Polish zoologist
Jan Sztolcman in 1923 that led to the founding of the International Society for the
Protection of the European Bison. The Society, with headquarters in Frankfurt,
made a significant contribution to the rehabilitation of the species (4,14). Arnong
other matters, it was responsible for compiling a studbook - the result of work by
Dr Erna Mohr, Dr Jan Zabinski and others - containing particulars of all living
pure-bred specimens. The studbook still continues.

CAPTIVE BREEDING All 2000+ animals are essentially captive bred. The
"European Bison Pedigree Book' is maintained at the National Council for Nature
Protection, ul Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland (8).

DOMESTICATION The European Bison has never been domesticated, however
there is perhaps potential for commercial production for meat and hides as is
carried out with the congeneric American Bison.

REMARKS For description of animal see (10,17). The European Bison will
interbreed freely with the American Bison and produce fertile offspring. It is
therefore becoming generally accepted to treat the two forims as conspecific
under the name Bison bison (7,9).

REFERENCES

1. USSR Red Data Book. (1978). Lesnaya Promyshlennost Publishers, Moscow.
2. Slatis, H.M. (1960). An analysis of inbreeding in the European Bison. Ms.
3. Anon. (1983). European Bison Pedigree Book 1977-1978. State Publishing for

Agriculture and Forestry, Warsaw..

4. Zabinski, J. (1960). The European Bison (Bison bonasus_L.) in Poland.

Ministry of Forestry and Woodworking Industries, Nature Conservation Board,

Poland.
5. Filipowicz, R. (1980). In litt. to the Director General of IUCN.

6. Anon. (1981). Bison, wolves and seals in Poland. Oryx 16(2): 138.

7. Corbet, G.B. (1978). Tne inammals of the Palaearctic region. A taxonomic
review. British museum (Natural History) and Cornell University Press,
London and Ithaca.

8. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society
of London.

9. Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Doinesticated animals from _ early times.
Heinemann and British Museum (Natural History).

10. Lydekker, R. (1913). Cat. Ung. Mamm. Brit. Mus. Vol. |. British Museum,

London.

ll. Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and vanishing marmmals of the Old World. Special

Publication No.12. American Committee for International Wild Life
Protection, New York Zoological Park, New York.
12. Simon, N. (1966). IUCN Red Data Book Volurne | - Mammalia. IUCN,

Switzerland.

Fisher, J., Simon, N., Vincent, J. (1969). The Red Book. Wildlife in danger.
Collins, London.

Zabinski, J. (1957-58). The progress of the European Bison. Oryx 4: 184-188.
Zablotsky, M.A. and Krinitsky, V.V. (1972). Bisons in the USSR. In

Conservation of Nature in the Soviet Union. Some problems and solutions.
. Zablotsky, M.A. (1972). Protection of European Bison (Bison bonasus L.) as an

illustration of measures to protect rare animal species. Unpd. Report.

Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's mammals of the world. 4th
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Pucek, Z. (1983). The European Bison: current state and problems of
Management. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Biosphere
Reserves, September, 1983. In print.

Pucek, Z. (1983). In litt.

NORTH AMERICAN BISON NOT THREATENED
Bison bison (Linnaeus, 1758)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY The 'Buffalo' of the Great Plains of North America numbered in the
tens of millions when the Europeans arrived in the continent but by the 1890s had
been reduced to only a few hundred. A century later their numbers have
increased to about 100,000. Two subspecies are usually recognised: the Plains
Bison, B. b. bison, and the Wood Bison, B. b. athabascae. The latter numbers only
about 900 animals, principally in two herds, and is of conservation concern; it is
however the subject of a detailed conservation programme and its survival is
probably assured. Some free-roaming Plains Bison herds occur in refuges but the
majority exist on private land for commercial production of meat and hides. In
the U.S.A. there exists the National Buffalo Association, and in Canada the
Canadian Buffalo Association, to promote and propagate the species.

DISTRIBUTION U.S.A. and north-west Canada; extinct in Mexico. Two
subspecies are usually recognised: the Wood Bison, B. b. athabascae, now
restricted to Canada, and the Plains Bison, B. b. bison, from the U.S.A. and
Canada.

B. b. athabascae: Confined to Canada. By the 1980s only two herds of Wood
Bison survived: one wild in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary located along the
north-west shore of Great Slave Lake, North West Territories (sometimes called
the Fort Providence herd), and the other in semi-captivity in the Isolation Area of
Elk Island National Park east of Edmonton, Alberta. No other herds of ‘pure’
Wood Bison exist in such numbers, although sinall numbers have been distributed
to various zoological parks (8). The small herd in Wood Buffalo National Park is
now considered interodred with Plains Bison.

During the great demise of the Plains Bison in North America from 1840 through
the turn of the century, the Wood Bison also declined in numbers (3,4). By the
1920s most (if not all) of the surviving Wood Bison occurred in Wood Buffalo
National Park, established in 1922 for their protection; Bison in the park then
numbered about 1500-2000 (3,5). However in 1925 another major impediment to
the survival of the subspecies occurred when the Federal Government decided to
introduce excess Plains Bison from Wainwright Park, Alberta, into Wood Buffalo
Park. Between 1925-1928, 6673 Plains Bison were released into range occupied by
Wood Bison. Immediate herd mixing occurred resulting in hybrid crosses as Wood
Bison were greatly outnumbered by the introduced Plains Bison. Tuberculosis and
brucellosis were also unfortunately introduced with the Plains Bison. Bison
numbers increased to an estimated 12,000 by 1934 (3,6) and it was generally
believed that by 1940 pure Wood Bison had become extinct (3). However during an
aerial survey in 1957, Dr. N.S. Novakowski of the Canadian Wildlife Service
discovered an isolated herd of Bison in the north-west corner of Wood Buffalo
National Park. Subsequent investigations including the collection of five
specimens indicated that these were pure Wood Bison (3,7). In August 1963
eighteen animals were taken from the rediscovered herd and transferred to an
area north-east of Fort Providence in the North West Territories, now known as
the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary. In 1965, another group of 23 animals were moved
to an enclosed area in Elk Island National Park near Edmonton, Alberta, and it
was hoped to establish this as a source breeding herd for future transplants; since
1971 this herd has been classified as disease-free (3).

Historically, the Wood Bison's range included most of the boreal regions of British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, North West Territories, and Yukon Territory

and along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains to Colorado in the United
States (9).

B. b. bison: Occurs in the U.S.A. and Canada. The north-eastern boundary for the
historic range of Plains Bison is roughly outlined by a line extending from north
central Saskatchewan in a southeastward direction to the southern shore of the
Great Lakes. The northern boundary in central Canada is also approximated by
this line. The eastern boundary was that of the Allegheny Mountains in the U.S.A.
extending south through the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and
South Carolina. In the south the range extended from Alabama across southern
Mississippi and Louisiana westward along the south-eastern coast of Texas and
into Mexico. The western boundary generally extended northward from
north-central Mexico and merged with the historic range for Wood Bison along the
eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains. In Alberta, Canada, the western and
northern boundaries of the Plains Bison range approximated the boundary of the
ecotone between grassland and forest habitat. To the north of this interface lies
boreal forest and the historic range of Wood Bison (9).

POPULATION By the 1980s the number of Bison in North America was probably
in the region of 100,000, i.e. about 75,000 in the U.S.A. and 25,000 in Canada
(13). Numbers in both countries are increasing and the species is considered not
threatened. The Wood Bison, B. b. athabascae, is however of conservation
concern and by the 1980s numbered only about 900 animals; this however is a
great increase since the 1940s when this subspecies was considered extinct
(3,4,9). Of the 900, about 750 were in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary and about
120 in the Elk Island herd (9).

When Europeans first arrived in North America Bison certainly numbered in the
tens of millions (estimates vary between 30 million and 75 million (9)) however by
the 1890s they had been reduced to a few hundred. Since that time they have
steadily increased in number and range though few herds are free-roaming.

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Historically the species occupied widely varying
habitats throughout its immense range which varied climatically from tropical and
semi-desert conditions to sub-arctic. Although the species is traditionally
associated with the prairies, it also occurred extensively in mountainous areas,
open forests, and semi-desert areas (9). Primarily a grazer, with grasses and
sedges being of most importance, it will also browse (9). Bison are gregarious;
three basic groups exist: matriarchal groups of adult females and their young up
to three years of age; bull groups or solitary bulls; and breeding groups. Mating
occurs from July to September (9,14); gestation averages 285 days and one calf is
the norm (14). Both sexes seem to reach maturity at between 2 and 4 years of
age. Wild individuals are known to have lived about 20 years and maximum
potential longevity may be as much as 40 years (14).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL The decline of the great Bison herds began almost as
soon as European explorers arrived in North America. The Bison were hunted
commercially and for subsistence both for their meat and skins. They were also
shot to protect agricultural interests and to help subdue the Indians of the Great
Plains. From many millions they were reduced to probably fewer than 1000
individuals in the entire continent by the 1890s (14). The final collapse of the
Wood Bison population in the 1920/30s was caused by hybridization with the Plains
Bison introduced to their only remaining sanctuaries (9,19,20). Today there are no
great threats to the survival of the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES The species has recovered as a consequence of
private and governmental conservation efforts and provided these continue,
especially in respect to the Wood Bison, the species will continue to thrive. Today

Bison management practices vary considerably depending on the objectives of the

individuals and agencies controlling the animals. Bison have been managed in
order to preserve the species and subspecies, for commercial meat and hide
production, as a game species, as tourist attractions, and for their historical
significance (9).

B. b. athabascae is protected by law in Canada and is listed as an 'Endangered
Species' by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) - a federal/provincial group (8). This subspecies is also listed in
Appendix I of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to
strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes
being banned.

It occurs in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary where it was introduced in 1963, and
in Elk Island National Park where it was introduced in 1965. After the
'rediscovery' in 1957 a 'Wood Bison Rehabilitation Program' was begun in 1959
when plans were forrnulated to trap, test for disease, and transplant a herd out of
the only known site in Wood Buffalo National Park, to prevent them from
hybridizing with the introduced Plains Bison in the south part of the park, and to
isolate them from an anthrax outbreak in the Bison along the Slave River(9).
Trapping began in 1963 and 18 animals were transferred to the area now known as
the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary. Continuing concern regarding anthrax led to a
second transfer in 1965 of 23 animals to an isolation area in Elk Island National
Park, to save the subspecies from extinction and to establish a source breeding
herd for future transplants (9). During the first few years at Elk Island, disease
was a problern. Since 1971, however, this population has been classified as disease
free (9).

Since 1973, representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada, and
territorial and provincial wildlife agencies from western Canada have met
annually to develop criteria for management of Wood Bison. It is in this context
that the present Wood Bison project commenced in 1975 (3,9). The primary
objective is the establishrnent of three geographically isolated and
self-perpetuating herds within the historic range (3), the second is to protect and
preserve the Wood Bison gene pool by dispersing small breeding herds to
zoological parks and gardens. Successful and unsuccessful attempts to reestablish
Wood Bison have resulted from current programme activities. The first transfer,
during summer of 1978 from the source herd at Elk Island National Park to the
wilds of Jasper National Park was unsuccessful because the Bison left the Park
(3,9). Another transfer to the wild took place in June 1980 when 28 animals were
released near Nahanni Butte, N.W.T. - their progress is being monitored (9).
Successful transfers have now been made to more than seven institutions (3,9).

As of 1980 priorities for the programme were to continue with transplants to the
wild and to captivity with emphasis on the establishment of two more
free-roaming populations as soon as feasible. Negotiations were also underway
for a second transfer to the North West Territories and for potential transfers to
the Yukon and Alberta (3). A proposal recommending that a perrnanent herd of
Wood Bison (200-250) be maintained at Elk Island National Park has also been
approved (9) as has a suggestion that Plains Bison in display herds held in Banff,
Waterton Lakes, Prince Albert and Riding Mountain National Parks be exchanged

for Wood Bison (3).

B. b. bison: About 15,000 Bison occur on public and private refuges. In the U.S.A.
a National Buffalo Association exists to promote the Buffalo Industry (P.O. Box
706, Custer, South Dakota 57730, U.S.A.), similarly there exists the Canadian
Buffalo Association (Box 10, Beaubier, Saskatchewan, SOC OHO, Canada). As
long as ranching the species remains a commercial enterprise no conservation

measures are necessary:

REFERENCES

NG

Yo

Reynolds, H.W. (1979). The Wood Bison rehabilitation program. Paper
presented at the Bison Management Workshop, Salina, Kansas. April 10-12,
1979. Canadian Wildlife Service.

Novakowski, N.S. and Stevens, W.E. (1965). Survival of the Wood Bison Bison
bison athabascae Rhoads in Canada. Paper presented to the 45th meeting of
the American Society of Mammalogists, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Reynolds, H.W. (1980). Wood Bison - past, present and future. Ms.

Raup, H.M. (1933). Range conditions in the Wood Buffalo Park of western
Canada with notes on the history of the Wood Bison. Spec. Publ. Am. Comm.
Int. Wildl. Prot. 1, No.2.

Seibert, F.V. (1925). Some notes on Canada's so-called Wood Buffalo.
Canadian Field Naturalist 39: 204-206.

Soper, J.D. (1941). History, range and home life of the northern Bison.
Ecological Monograph 11: 349-412.

Banfield, A.W.F. and Novakowski, N.S. (1960). The survival of the Wood
Bison (Bison bison athabascae Rhoads) in the Northwest Territories. Natl.
Mus. Can. Nat. Hist. Pap. No. 8. 6 pp.

Novakowski, N.S. (1978). Status report on Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae
in Canada 1978. Report of the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. ©

Reynolds, H.W., Glaholt, R.D. and Hawley, A.W.L. (1982). Bison. In
Chapman, J.A. and Feldhamer, G.A. (Eds), Wild mammals of North America.
Biology, management _and economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore and London.

Jennings, D.C. (1978). Buffalo history and husbandry. Pine Hill Press,

Freeman, N.D.

Roe, F.G. (1970). The North Arnerican Buffalo. A critical study of the
species in its wild state. David and Charles, Newton Abbot.

Olney, P.J.S. (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society of
London.

Hebbring, J. (1983). In litt. Executive Director, The National Buffalo
Association, Custer, South Dakota, U.S.A.

Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The mammals of North America. Ronald
Press Company, New York.

Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's mammals of the World. 4th
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Hebbring, J. (1982). Buffalo (Bison) profiled. Ms.

Anon. (no date). So you want to raise Buffalo? Brochure of the National
Buffalo Association, Custer, South Dakota, U.S.A.

Anon. (no date). Buffalo. America's oldest inhabitant. Brochure of the
National Buffalo Association, Custer, South Dakota, U.S.A.

Cahalane, V.H. (1944). Restoration of Wild Bison. Transactions of the Ninth
North American Wildlife Conference.

Meagher, M.M. (1978). Bison. In Schmidt, J.L. and Gilbert, D.L. (Eds), Big
game of North America. Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books,

Harrisburg. Pa.

AFRICAN BUFFALO NOT THREATENED
Syncerus caffer (Sparrman, 1779)

Order ARTIODACTYLA Family BOVIDAE

SUMMARY Inhabits an extensive range in Africa south of 15°N, occupying a
great variety of habitats providing food and water are available and human
densities are low. Undoubtedly numbers in the millions and although in some
areas, such as parts of South Africa and West Africa, its range is becoming
fragmented, it cannot be considered a threatened species. Wild Buffalo are being
exploited in various countries in cropping schemes for meat and hides, and in
Zimbabwe there is an experiment attempting to train Buffalo to the yoke.

DISTRIBUTION One of the most widely distributed ungulates in Africa south of
the Sahara, it occurs south of latitude 15°N (2). The species varies considerably in
appearance over its wide range and this has given rise to a plethora of specific
and subspecific names (see Ansell, 1971 for a comprehensive survey (1)). At
present it is fashionable to describe two main types: the large black Buffalo
(caffer) from southern Africa to Ethiopia and Somalia, and the small red type
(manus) which occurs in the west of the range south through Gabon and Congo,
probably to northern Angola (1).

The species can be found in the following countries: eastern Gambia where
vagrants occasionally still occur (2); Senegal (12); eastern Guinea-Bissau; Sierra
Leone (2); sparsely in Liberia (29); Ivory Coast (11); Upper Volta (2,10); Mali (13);
Niger (14); Ghana (18); Togo (2); Benin (2,6); Nigeria; Cameroun; south-western
and north-eastern Central African Republic; southern and eastern parts of Sudan;
Ethiopia; Kenya excluding parts of the central and north-east; south-western
Somalia; Uganda; Rwanda (17); Burundi (15); Zaire (19); Congo (Brazzaville) (16);
Tanzania from sea-level to over 4000 m on Kilimanjaro; Angola except the
south-west; Zambia excluding the extreme west; Malawi; Mozambique; Zimbabwe
though absent from the central plateau; Nambia from the extreme north-east
along the eastern border south to about 20°S; Botswana in the north, the Okavango
delta, and the north-east south to near Lake Ngami and the Makgadikgadi Pan (2);
South Africa, in the eastern Transvaal south to Swaziland; and in Natal in large
populations in the Hluhluwe and Umfolozi Game Reserves and their immediate
vicinity. A relict population survives in the Addo National Park in Cape Province,
representing the last remnants of what was once a much wider distribution. From
this population, which has grown in numbers with protection, they have been
reintroduced to other parts of the Province (2).

POPULATION Almost certainly numbers in the millions and is not threatened as
a species. Has declined in parts of its range, e.g. large areas of South Africa and
parts of West Africa, and in other areas numbers fluctuate depending on such
factors as hunting pressure, rinderpest outbreaks etc.

HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The species can be found in a great variety of habitats
ranging from rainforest and swamp, woodland and bush, to open savannah (5). It is
mainly a grazer, but occasionally browses on leaves (7). Sinclair (1977) nas
reported population densities of about 3 to 18 individuals per sq. km. and herd
ranges of about 10 to 300 sq. km. Generally, density is greatest, and range
smallest, in areas with the highest rainfall. Mean herd size varies - it is only
about 20 individuals, probably all closely related, in the forests of Zaire but on the
Serengeti Plains herd size was observed to range from about 50 to 1500 and
averaged 350. These herds appeared to be fairly stable each occupying a largely
separate range. Herds were permanently composed of units consisting of a female

and her young of the previous two birth seasons. There seemed to be no overall

social hierarchy. Most mature males lived with the herds for the rainy half of the
year, but split off during the dry season, then forining bachelor groups of usually 3
or 4 animals. Some males, especially very old ones, lived permanently apart from
the herds. Male groups had a dominance hierarchy established by agonistic
displays and fighting, and individuals competed for oestrous females.
Reproduction occurs throughout the year in some areas, but there are seasonal
peaks associated with rainfall. Gestation is 340 days (7). Sexual maturity is
reached between 3.5 to 5 years of age. Wild individuals up to 18 years old have
been found in the Serengeti. A captive specimen was known to have lived 29
years 6 months (7).

THREATS TO SURVIVAL Buffalo are particularly susceptible to rinderpest,
which has affected numbers in various parts of Africa (1,22). In urban and
agricultural areas the species has vanished (1).

CONSERVATION MEASURES Syncerus caffer is listed in Class B of the African
Convention (1969), i.e., it may be hunted or collected only under special
authorization granted by the competent authority. It is protected in many
countries as a game animal and occurs in numerous national parks and game
reserves. It has also been the subject of studies; Sinclair (1977) has produced a
monograph on the species.

CAPTIVE BREEDING Nurnerous in zoos and breeds well (20).

DOMESTICATION The species has not been domesticated although there is
currently a scheme in Zimbabwe attempting to train Buffalo to the yoke (21).

Wild Buffalo are being exploited in various Countries in cropping schemes for meat
and hides. For example, in Mozambique the south bank of the Zambezi River
delta has been proclaimed a ‘Wildlife Utilization Area' and permanent staff have
been based there. Between 1976 and 1982 over 13,000 Buffalo were cropped and
all products sold. Buffalo numbers have not declined. The scheme (which includes
the cropping of other ungulates) has been considered successful; the econornic
value of wildlife as a meat producer is believed proven; and apparently the
government as well as a large percentage of the people now consider wildlife to
be as important as domestic cattle (23).

REMARKS For description of animal see (1,2,3,4,5,7,8).
REFERENCES

1. Ansell, W.F.H. (1971). Part 15. Order Artiodactyla. In Meester, J. and
Setzer, H.W. (Eds). The mammals of Africa. An identification manual.
Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington.

2. Smithers, R.H.N. (1983). The mammals of the southern African subregion.

University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

3. Haltenorth, T. and Diller, H. (1980). A field guide to the mammals of Africa
including Madagascar. Collins, London.

4. Sinclair, A.R.E. (1977). The African Buffalo. University of Chicago Press.

5. Sidney, J. (1965). The past and present distribution of some African
ungulates. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London.

6. Sayer, J.A. and Green, A.A. (1984). The distribution and status of large
mammals in Benin. Mammal Review 14(1). In press.

7. Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's mammals of the world. 4th
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

8. Grubb, P. (1977). Variation and incipient speciation in the African Buffalo.
Z. Saugetierxunde 37: 121-144.

9. Robinson, P.T. and Peal, A. (1981). Lioderia's wildlife - the time for decision.
Zoo Nooz LIV (10): 7-20.

Directorate of National Parks and Reserves (1983). WWF equipment helps
guard P6 National Park. WWF Monthly Report Noveinber 1983: 663.

Monfort, A. and Monfort, N. (1973). Quelques observations sur les grands
mammiferes du parc national de Tai (Cote d'Ivoire). La Terre et la Vie 27(4):
499-506.

Verschuren, J.C. (1982). Recherches scientifiques dans les parcs nationaux du

Sénégal. XIX. Notes de bio-écologie des grands mammiféres du parc
national du Niokolo-Koba. Examen comparé avec le Zaire et l'Afrique de

l'est. Mémoires de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire. No. 92.
. Sayer, J.A. (1977). Conservation of large mammals in the Republic of Mali.

Biological Conservation 12: 245-263.

Koster, S. (1980). An ecological reconnaissance of Park W, Niger. News
Bulletin of the International Wildlife Ecologists of Michigan State University
7: 60.

Verschuren, J. (1978). Burundi and wildlife: Problerns of an overcrowded
country. Oryx 14(3): 237-240.

Spinage, C.A. (1980). Parks and reserves in Congo Brazzaville. Oryx 15(3):
292-295.

Fitter, R. and Fitter, M. (1974). Ceylon and Rwanda. Oryx 12(4): 475-478.

. Jeffrey, S.M. (1975). Ghana's New Forest National Park. Oryx 13(1): 34-36.

Verschuren, J. (1975). Wildlife in Zaire. Oryx 13(2): 149-163.

. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1982). International Zoo Yearbook 22. Zoological Society

of London.

Condy, J.B. Buffalo trained to the Yoke - an answer to the fuel and food
crisis. (Details of full reference not known).

Woodford, M.H. (1983). Rinderpest and wildlife in Africa. FAO African
Forestry Commission Working Party on Wildlife Management and National
Parks Seventh Session. Arusha, Tanzania, 19-21 September 1983.

Tello, J.L. (1983). Mozambique's cropping scheme in the Zambezi Delta
Area. Report to the 59th SSC Meeting, Harare, Zimbabwe, 16 April 1983.
Mloszewski, M.J. (1983). The behaviour and ecology of the African Buffalo.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 256 pp.

de! Maphee a gill Se EMER COND COR pRB) Lyre Mise Hint et Hedemiatey SOME “|
Me at, Bee oe lee ek, eearit ita ‘ ees: {i hae sie: Er Mevteug 4 PA
°° plrraayt phy ate Pree Marsstetd, ea? Cne)-5 wang ht ae A odahe «AP
1 Apes a Lh ot Ba “Aged et 4 Nod oie bay i narod Rea STA, eS
7 R ” mY ’ past ag Rta iW : Gj
eet tt yas iii taacehewiy lt ve drmins , PC lier aren: ah i
a whe, Ls IDG, ‘ete iin Ve Ay Up > ne ai sie fase om - “eee we

7“ die at hl + co tomy au witek. anh + ise Bist We :

* Geues >: 4 re wi fie se hae eae! ‘i AS ii? by
x “abhi rome Higa dt aes ie iA, oe ie Oe eae pone
ee Se
a
ein te

ae y% Pla all re Bis he aves ey

ec a Fp. ee ae “tpg ‘ = h
uy ego say Lees mR dd

INVENTORY REPORT FORM

Report to be mailed to Jane Thornback, SCMU, 219(c) Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge,
CB3 ODL, U.K.

1.

10.

11.

Country Ds Date
Reporter
Name: Address:
Taxon
Scientific Name: Common Name:
Distribution
Present: Former:

If possible, please include a map. Is present range preferred or enforced
habitat?

Population

Estimated numbers in the wild. Indicate date of estimate and describe
inethod of estimation. Are numbers increasing, decreasing or stable?

Habitat and Ecology

Biome type. Elevation range. Brief notes about social structure, feeding
habits and diet, reproduction (gestation, breeding season, number of
young, age of sexual maturation), longevity etc.

Threats to Survival

Eg. habitat destruction, over-exploitation, hybridization, natural
disasters, competition for food.

Conservation Measures Taken
Legal measures (international conventions, national laws); is law
enforced? Protected areas - does it occur in national parks, reserves

etc.? If so, please list. Management programmes or _ research
programmes in progress.

Conservation Measures Proposed

Same as for 9, but measures that are needed for the conservation of the
taxon.

Captive Breeding

Numbers in captivity. Does it breed readily in captivity?
Where and when?

12. Remarks

Reference citations for description of animal. Comments about related
taxa. If the above information concerns a_ subspecies then brief
information should be given about the distribution and status of the
species as a whole. Special acknowledgements etc.

13. References

Can be published papers, unpublished manuscripts, or references to
correspondence (cited as In litt.).

Wild Cattle Specialist Group

The Species Survival Commission (SSC), established in 1949, is one of six commissions
of IUCN. It is concerned primarily with action to prevent the extinction of species,
and to preserve viable wild populations in their native habitats. To aid it in its tasks it
has over the years amassed a global network of wildlife experts who voluntarily assist
in providing information on the status of species and in suggesting and vetting relevant
projects. These experts are mainly organized into Specialist Groups which focus on
one or more species groupings. The following are members of the Wild Cattle
Specialist Group:

Chairman:

Mr Mohd Khan b. Momin Khan
Director-General

Wildlife and National Parks

W. Malaysia

Komplek Pejabat-Pejabat Kerajaan
Block K-20, Jalan Duta

Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA

Members:

Patrick M. Andau

Assistant Chief Garne Warden
Jabatan Kehutanan (Jabatan Hutan)
P.O. Box 311

Sandakan

Sapah, MALAYSIA

Mr John Blower
c/o UNDP

P.O. Box 650
Rangoon, BURMA

Mr H.K. Divekar
B/22, Balsunder Scty
M.G. Road, Naupada
Thane-400 602
(Maharashtra), INDIA

Mr Zafar Futehally

Data Centre for Natural Resources
WWE India

18, Spencer Road

Fraser Town

Bangalore-560 005, INDIA

Major I.R. Grimwood
P.O. Box 45079
Nairobi, KENYA

Mr P. Lahan

Deputy Conservator of Forests
P.O. Gossaigaon

Boalpara

Assam 783 360, INDIA

Dr Boonsong Lekagul

Secretary General

Association for the Conservation of Wildlife
4 Old Custom House Lane

Bangkok 5, THAILAND

Dr John Mackinnon

c/o Directorate of Nature Conservation (PPA)
Jalan Ir. H. Juanda

P.O. Box 133

Bogor, INDONESIA

Mr David Nagar
Padappai
Via Madras 601 301, INDIA

Mr D.A. Parkinson

Wnite House

San Roque |

San Jose

Occidental Mindoro, PHILIPPINES

Dr M.K. Ranjitsinh
Secretary, Forest

Vallabh Bhavan Secretariat
Bhopal

Madhya Pradesh, INDIA

Mr Etfendy A. Sumardja

Directorate of Nature Conservation & Wildlife Management
P.O. Box 133

Bogor, INDONESIA

Mr Phairot Suvanakorn
Director

Wildlife Conservation Division
Royal Forest Dept.
Paholyothin Road, Bangkhen
Bangkok 10900, THAILAND

Mr Mir Inayat Ullah

Director

Game Preservation and Wildlife
Wardan, Jammu & Kashmir
Tourists Reception Centre
Srinagar, Kashmir, INDIA

6 December |983
1981/1984 Triennium

Shue

ri iy Be Cet
Hist ae ne a

fyi ae NY
up i

ny vie HW! a, 7

A a Wn Brn a

bee

Lee

ae
ie A é

va }
[ hy
i a tl ‘ay
hie yh igh ny I
i inn y4
om

anh

alli ‘i
\

Mi