Dvid BLANK, LI Yoming,b,c,

a Research Center for Ecology and Environment of Central Asia, Bishkek, 720040, Kyrgyzstan

b State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, 830011, China

c University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

Keywords:

Hunting

Poaching

Sustainable use

Ungulates

Wildlife resources

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

ABSTRACT

Initially, hunting was the primary means for getting food for the survival of ancient people. As time passed, people started to breed livestock and develop agriculture, gradually reducing their reliance on unpredictability of hunting.People, however, continued to hunt and, even though their survival did not depend on hunting. During the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(USSR) period, attitudes toward the use of natural resources fluctuated significantly, and after the establishment of new reserves for wildlife protection, the government soon weakened protections it had introduced. In the current, the organizations in dependent countries of the USSR that are chartered to protect areas with wildlife diversity are very weak and have no sufficient material resources to provide any real control of poaching,especially when hunting weapons and ammunition are easily available.Trophy hunting companies exploit wildlife resources but do not make protecting wildlife from poaching as a priority in their work; they just use whatever resources are available as if they are unlimited. To help solve this problem, we suggest to organize the local people to join the wildlife protection societies and give them official rights to benefit from the development of hunting tourism in the future. There are numerous examples of successful and very profitable hunting businesses in different countries in the world. In Central Asia, all the prerequisites exist for organizing highly effective trophy hunting tourism, maintaining the richness of biodiversity, and at the same time providing a sustainable and significant income for local communities as the country as a whole. The sustainable use of wildlife resources is a very tangible challenge in the countries of Central Asia, and the most important consideration is to establish and enforce hunting laws equally, irrespective of a person’s social status or financial assets, otherwise no laws will work.

1. Introduction

Wild animals are a great resource for any country; the Central Asian countries have an abundant and diverse animal world, occurring in various geographical zones: forests, steppes, semi-deserts, deserts, and mountains.Throughout human history, wildlife has been especially important in the social development and human survival;and even now, wild animals are hunted for meat, furs, and skins. Kazakhstan, one of the five Central Asian countries, for example, is considered first in its stocks of wild ungulates per unit area (Smirnov, 1965). During the 1960s, harvesting meat from Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) for human consumption reached 2.0×103–3.0×103t per year. Many other ungulate species are also hunted for their meat in Central Asia. Hunting wildlife for meat,together with taking a great number of skins for tanning, fur for clothing, and antlers for pharmaceuticals, makes it quite clear that hunting is still a significant activity to people in the region and a major contributor to the economic development of modern Central Asia (Smirnov, 1965). Again, with Kazakhstan as an example, the yearly benefit to local people engaged in fur trading reached 3.49×104USD (1.00 USD=77.35 Russian Ruble) in the 1960s. To clearly understand the current status of wildlife in Central Asia, it is necessary to study the history of hunting during the region’s previous eras to figure out how and to what degree hunting influenced the survival of fauna,and which species were most sensitive to hunting during these time periods. It is also necessary to discover the causes of population fluctuations of native species and to identify the best approaches to deal with the impacts of hunting on wildlife management and conservation. The knowledge will allow for effective and sustainable support of traditional hunting practices in Central Asia. Therefore, in this paper, we will consider the historical development of hunting in this region and identify current organizations with authority for wildlife hunting along with their positive and negative impacts. Based on this information, we will present recommendations on the sustainable use of wildlife resources in the Central Asian region.

There are discrepancies in understanding which countries and areas make up the region of Central Asia, but all researchers identify Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mongolia, and the northwestern part of China as part of Central Asia. The first five countries listed (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) are part of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and are called Middle Asia. However, this name is unfamiliar for most readers, so we shall therefore define this region by the universally accepted name of Central Asia; in terms of hunting, we are just using the Central Asiatic republics of the former USSR. Most social processes, including the forming of a new management system for the hunting industry and wildlife conservation, occurred in these Central Asian republics and the country of Russia in similar ways. Upon independence, Asiatic countries followed the Russian approach for solving their problems and, in turn, had similar disadvantages in the sustainable use of wildlife resources, threatening the region’s preservation of biodiversity (Braden, 2015). In this paper, we consider the development of hunting in Kazakhstan(mainly history) and Kyrgyzstan (mainly current status) as examples of similar processes in all Central Asian countries. From a historical point of view, however, the dividing of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan is relatively unnecessary, since these two countries only emerged in 1936 and still have much in common. Before 1936,Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were both part of different khanates, which were annexed to the Russian Empire as two states of the USSR; only in the early 1990s, they did become independent republics. Even after their independence, however, the approaches to the organization of wildlife hunting in these republics remained the same as in the Russian Federation, so when talking about Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, we are referring to the general processes throughout Central Asia, both in historical and modern aspects.

Since consumption of wildlife resources has changed significantly with the development of human societies and the enhancement of hunting tools, the development of hunting can be divided into six time periods: Prehistoric Age(300,000–2000 BC), Golden Horde (13th–14thcenturies), intensive economic development (17th–19thcenturies),early Soviet period (1917–1940), late Soviet period (1945–1990), and the current status of the independent countries. Therefore, we consider these six periods and their impact on wildlife resources in this study.

2. Hunting history in Central Asia

2.1. Hunting history during the Prehistoric Age (300,000–2000 BC)

In Central Asia, the last Ice Age ended during the Pleistocene with massive mountain glaciers melting to form vast marine areas. Over time these marine areas began to decline, increasing the creation of drylands (Ageeva,1957), with the remaining abundance of moisture promoting the development of rich vegetation and huge herds of wild animals grazing on the vast expanses of the steppes. Mammoths (Elephassp.), broad-brow moose (Alces latifrons), red deer (Cervus elaphus), horses (Eosus stenonis), saiga antelopes (Saiga tatarica), and steppe bisons(Bison priscus) inhabited the northern and central parts of Kazakhstan (Alpysbaev, 1979); fossil remains confirmed the dwelling of many other animals in Central Asia, such as primitive aurochs (Bos primigenius), giant deer (Megalocerosgiganteus ruffi), woolly rhinoceros (Rhinoceros antiguitatis), and cave bears (Ursus spelacus)(Kozhamkulova and Kostenko, 1984), while ibexes (Capra sibirica) and argali (Ovis ammon) adapted to grazing on mountain slopes. Over time, some of these animals became extinct or their population numbers decreased considerably (Smirnov, 1965), which is further discussed in this paper. Human beings lived in Central Asia at least 300,000 years ago and hunting was their main source of survival. During many thousands of years, people concentrated all their energies into hunting animals for food and clothing, as well as to protect themselves from predator attacks (Ageeva, 1957). During the Paleolithic Age (the Old Stone Age), especially the second half,collective hunting for large mammals was the main occupation of ancient people.

Between 150,000 and 40,000 years ago, the Mousterian culture was widely distributed throughout the territory of Central Asia (Chernikov, 1956; Ageeva, 1957). Remains of a Mousterian settlement were found in a grotto in the spurs of the Hissar Mountain Range (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), where many hunting tools were identified.According to the numerous bone fragments of wild animals, these Neanderthal people hunted mainly mountain ibexes, and infrequently wild horses, marals (Cervus elaphus), bears (Ursus arctos), leopards (Panthera pardus),and birds (Okladnikov, 1949; Derevianko, 2011). Initially, the most common hunting method was to use a team of hunters who drop large rocks on animals in areas where they would be most vulnerable, such as along narrow rocky trails (August and Burian, 1963). This method is thought to have been used in hunting ibexes, along with ambushing or forcing animals into deep snow. As hunting tools improved, hunters used better spears, darts with stone or bone tips, batons, slings, and daggers made of animal bones. In addition, ancient hunters excavated and covered deep traps or drove animals into marshes, swamps, or dead-end canyons, where they could kill large numbers of animals at once. Camouflage was also used to hide a hunter under an animal skin so that the hunter could closely approach and spear the prey (Derevianko, 2011).

The Neolithic period replaced the Paleolithic and the climate became milder. The area of distribution of mammoths and woolly rhinoceros moved to the north following retreating glaciers, and cave bears and hyenas disappeared during this period. But hunting continued as the main human occupation and the Neolithic people were still predominantly hunter-gathers. The Neolithic hunters are known to use fire, smoke, or shouting to frighten animals, such as deer and wild horses, driving them down steep cliffs, where maimed individuals became easy prey. Fishing also became a source of food during this time. The Neolithic period also brought the invention of bows and arrows which made hunting easier and significantly more deadly, even for very fast and cautious animals such as saiga antelope and goitered gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa) (Semenov and Korobkova, 1983).Using dogs for hunting was another major event in the history of hunting and primitive cultures at this time, as dogs became great helpers by tracking and detaining animals and finding wounded prey (Gorodtsov, 1940;Galibert et al., 2011).

Improvement of hunting tools during the early Neolithic period, especially the bows and arrows, radically changed wildlife hunting in Central Asia. The importance of large ungulate species as prey decreased, while hunting opportunities for mid-sized ungulates increased, such as saiga antelopes, goitered gazelles, roe deer(Capreolus pegargus), and wild boars (Sus scrofa), as well as waterfowl and fish (Smirnov, 1965). By this time,mammoths and rhinoceros had become extinct, while reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) had migrated to the north or climbed into the Altay Mountains. There was a decrease in hunting large ungulates, such as aurochs (Bos primigenius), wisent (Bison bonasus), and camels (Camelus bactrianus), which could have been caused by a general decrease in their numbers due to environmental changes (climate and vegetation); it is speculated that intensive hunting by well-equipped hunters from the end Paleolithic period to the early Neolithic period also contributed to the loss of large mammals (Smirnov, 1965).

Evidence of hunting success of ancient people is the fact that human beings have survived until now. Group hunting with coordinated actions and improved tools, methods, and skills contributed to this success along with the study of wild animal behaviors (Hudson et al., 1989). As a result, these early hunters were successful not only in hunting large animals, but also in hunting mid-sized animals and birds. This in turn likely decreased the number of prey species around their large camps, inducing ancient people to move regularly from one site to another in search of more numerous prey. In spite of their general hunting success, the low numbers of ancient people indicated that they probably did not have a significant impact on overall wildlife populations or the extinction of species (Hudson et al., 1989). Environmental changes most likely had a greater effect. Agriculture and animal husbandry also began to develop rapidly in the Neolithic period. Anthropology discoveries from this time (3000–2000 BC) (Formozov, 1950; Grebenukov, 2008) indicated that almost 80% of bone fragments found in human settlements belonged to domesticated animals. Agriculture development was the main reason for the increase in the human population, though people continued hunting. Their impact on wildlife did not diminish, but continued to increase, especially after the development of copper and bronze tools and the domestication of animals, such as horses, dogs, and tamed cheetahs in some areas (1000 BC) (Smirnov, 1965).

2.2. Hunting history during the Golden Horde (13th–14th centuries)

During the 6th–12thcenturies, human population grew rapidly in the Syr-Darya, Talas, and Ili river basins because of intensive economic development. Trade routes passed through towns with great markets (Ageeva and Patsevich, 1958; Baipakov et al., 2005) and irrigation agriculture was introduced to southern Kazakhstan; wildlife hunting increased to provide furs for the trade. During the 9th–10thcenturies, the Kimak people, who were basically cattlemen that lived near the Irtysh River in northern Kazakhstan, hunted mainly sables (Martes zibellina), stoats (Mustela erminea), and common foxes (Vulpes vulpes) (Kimball, 1994). Besides taking furs for their own use, the Kimak people also used them in trading for salts (Smirnov, 1965).

The Mongol invasions to Central Asia was very damaging to the culture and economics of the local people,especially the south-eastern Kazakhstan and towns along the Syr-Darya River. Many economically prosperous areas of Central Asia were devastated, and agricultural development was ruined (Shakhmatov, 1957; Kradin,2001). The destruction has led to the absence of people and settlements in vast areas of Central Asia and had a negative impact on the development in this region for several centuries. This very-low human population density combined with the recovering of environmental areas of the steppes, forests, rivers, and lakes, and the drastic reduction in hunting led to a rapid increase in the number of wild animals all over the region (Smirnov, 1965).

During the Golden Horde, roundup hunting was the most popular and widely used approach for hunting:horsemen surrounded a large area over a month or more, then they began to gradually tighten the perimeter,driving the ungulates into a small ring, where it was possible to kill animals in large numbers using bows and arrows (Smirnov, 1965). Roundup hunting was used to supply meat and skill training for the army. In addition to ungulates, people hunted large carnivores, such as tigers (Panthera tigris) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) to promote the courage of hunters (Kirikov, 1959).

2.3. Hunting history during the period of intensive economic development (17th–19th centuries)

After the collapse of the Golden Horde, Central Asia experienced a period of economic development through the feudal state system in the 15th–16thcenturies. The main occupation of the Kazakh and Kyrgyz people was the breeding of nomadic livestock, while some agriculture developed slowly, mostly in southern regions along the river valleys. People, however, were busy in hunting and the wide distribution of home crafts became especially popular: skins for clothes and footwear and containers for keeping and transporting dairy products. In the steppes and deserts, people hunted corsac foxes (Vulpes corsac), common foxes, goitered gazelles, saiga antelopes, hares(Lepus tolai), and kulans (Equus hemionus), and the meat of which was believed to prolong youth and was very popular among Kazakhs. Ancient hunting techniques, such as the long horse chases (gazelles, antelopes, and kulans) in company with dogs or the capture of prey with the help of game birds (golden eagle—Aquila chrysaetus, falcons—Falcospp., and hawks—Accipiterspp.) were widespread in Central Asia. In addition to dogs, Kazakhs tamed cheetahs and used them to hunt goitered gazelles and saiga antelopes. Hunters also used nets, traps, and other tools for hunting; firearms were used rarely and only by the rich. In addition to the individual pursuit of ungulates, hunters used mass killing methods for kulans, such as setting traps with sharpened reeds in long, deep ditches. The remains of such a ditch still exist, stretching from the Tarbagatai Mountains to the Ili River (Smirnov, 1965). For a long time scale, sables, stoats, wolves, common foxes, and corsac foxes were the main fur-bearing animals in Kazakhstan. Skins of these animals were used as gifts and various tributes, fulfilling different kinds of requisitions. The skins of these animals were used to measure value (e.g., money); for example,a fox skin was equal to a sheep or 0.01 USD of silver (Smirnov, 1965). During the 1740s, hunting of common foxes and corsac foxes was of great importance in the economic development of Kazakh societies. In the Orenburg Guberniya (mid to late 18thcentury), Kazakh people traded 4.0×104–5.0×104corsac fox skins, 1.5×104–2.0×104wolf skins (Canis lupus), and 3.0×104–4.0×104common fox skins per year (Smirnov, 1965).

Intensive trade among Russia, China, and Central Asian countries began in the 17th–18thcenturies and large-scale hunting started again with trade in many fur-bearing animals, including wolves, common foxes, corsac foxes, and sables; ungulates were also hunted for meat, red deer for antlers, and saiga antelope for horns. In the mid-18thcentury, several tens of thousands of skins of wolves, foxes, corsac foxes, and other animals were exported from Central Asian countries to Russia and China. In western Kazakhstan, Ural Cossacks hunted many wild boars (Sus scrofa) and saiga antelopes, resulting in intensive hunting that drastically decreased the number of ungulates. The natural ranges of many ungulates, such as the tarpan wild horse (Equus gmelini), Przewalki’s horse(Equus przewalskii), roe deer, and moose (Alces alces), also decreased significantly in western Kazakhstan; while in northern Kazakhstan, populations of wolves and foxes have been almost completely wiped out (Smirnov, 1965;Sludskiy, 1969). With the development of the economy and the expansion of hunting range, new species were involved in the fur trade, including ground squirrels (Spermophilussp.), marmots (Marmotasp.), steppe polecats(Mustelaeversmanii), stoat-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), and others. The number of many fur-bearing animals dropped sharply, including sables, stone martens (Martes foina), otters (Lutra lutra), snow leopards(Uncia uncia), and tigers (Panthera tigris); in some areas they were exterminated completely: tigers in the south and beavers (Castor fiber) in the north (Smirnov, 1965).

During the 19thcentury, markets were opened to exchange hunting products in a number of cities (Orenburg,Troitsk, Uralsk, and Semipalatinsk). Since these markets increased the demand for furs, local people hunted even more fur animals (common foxes, corsac foxes, and hares). For example, the Kazakh people sold 1.0×104saiga skins and 1.0×104hares in 1828 (Shakhamatov, 1957). In the study of Smirnov (1965), a variety of wild animal species, including bears, lynxes, wolverines (Gulo gulo), wild cats (Felis libica), stone martens (Martes foina),sables, black squirrels, Siberian chipmunks (Tamias sibiricus), otters, and beavers were distributed in forests along the Kurchum River in 1840–1841; these animals were common along the Tobol, Ishim, and Irtysh rivers(Sludskiy, 1977). With increasing fur prices, severe exploitation of fauna began. For example, in the 1880s, in the Akmolinsk Oblast alone, the number of hares killed each year range from 0.5×104to 5.0×104, with as many as 20.0×104hares and 350.0×104corsac foxes in 1894, and as many as 570.0×104wolves and 270.0×104common foxes in 1893. In the Semerichensk Oblast, hunters killed 1100 stone martens in 1868, 142 snow leopards(Panthera uncia) in 1881, 210 bears, 226 lynxes, and 2501 argali and roe deer in 1884, and 16 tigers, 255 martens,3347 wolves, and 2402 badgers in 1887 (Sludskiy, 1969). Overhunting of wildlife has led to a significant decline in the number of species, even to the complete extinction of the most valuable fur-bearing animals. In the Kalbinskiy Altai, the sable population became extinct by the end of the 19thcentury, and beavers were hunted to extinction in the Black Irtysh River Basin and northern Kazakhstan.

In the 19thcentury, hunting of saiga antelope, kulans (Equus hemionus), and marals was greatly intensified and the populations of these animals were destroyed completely in some areas. Marals, for example, were common ungulates in the Dzungar Alatau and Zaiiliskiy Alatau mountain ranges (Tianshan Mountains); however, during the period 1880s–1890s, hunters killed 300–3200 marals every year. In the early 20thcentury, marals and saiga antelope suffered unprecedented hunting for their antlers and horns, which were exported. As a result, the number of marals decreased significantly, and in some areas of Kirgizskiy and Talasskiy mountain ranges, populations of marals disappeared completely. During this same period, around 20 species of large animals were endangered. It seems that the first attempt to introduce hunting legislation did nothing to change this devastating situation,because the laws did not consider the time required for wild animals to reproduce in order to maintain their populations (Sludskiy, 1969). This situation continued until World War I (July 1914), when the hunting and agricultural industries collapsed because of the large number of men entering the war. During this time, a general mobilization began among the local people (40.0×104) and Russian people from settlements of the Ural,Semirechie, and many other oblasts, where many hunters lived. Large requisitions of livestock (200.0×104sheep,7.0×104horses, and 1.3×104camels) and forage were also taken from these regions (Jakunin, 1959). After the start of the revolution in 1917, most agricultural lands were left fallow, livestock numbers were greatly reduced, many settlements disappeared, and human population was greatly decreased. Trade in wildlife meat and skins was almost completely eliminated, leading to a great reduction in hunting. All these changes created conditions that were beneficial for the wildlife in Central Asia, and a new stage in wildlife recovery began, with many animals regaining their population numbers and natural habitats (Smirnov, 1965).

In summary, the impact of people on the wildlife trade increased rapidly as economies developed in Central Asia in the 17th–19thcenturies. As a result of the intensive trade in animal products, more and more people were involved in hunting the various wild species, from large mammals to small fur-bearing animals. Hunters used archaic and intensive methods that could and did destroy entire populations of some species, such as the Kazakhstan subspecies of kulan (Equus hemionus finschii). With the development of firearms, the situation became dramatically worse with a rapid decrease in the number of many animal species. At the same time, the development of agriculture and domestic livestock had an indirect impact on wildlife by displacing wild ungulates from the best pastures. Local societies did not constrain their hunting, killing as many animals as possible without any limitations, regulations, or concern for sustainability. As a result, many populations of wild animal species were greatly reduced and some large mammal species vanished completely.

2.4. Hunting history during the early Soviet period (1917–1940)

During World War I, many horses were confiscated and large qualities of firearms and ammunition were requisitioned, leading to a sharp reduction in wildlife hunting. As a result, most wild animals and birds and their natural habitats started to recover (Smirnov, 1965). For example, corsac foxes were hunted to near extinction before but gradually recovered to their maximum population in 1921 due to an abundance of food (numerous rodents), a decrease in agricultural activity, and a loss of competition with livestock because of harsh winters and starvation (Sludskiy, 1969). A similar increase in population number was observed in other species as well: bears,snow leopards, roe deer, marals, and tolai hares (Smirnov, 1965; Sludskiy, 1969).

Starting in 1921, the Soviet authorities began to build new legislation for regulating the hunting business, with the Soviet government of the Turkestan Republic creating the law “Roles and Times of Hunting”. This established the Forest Department as a unit of the Agriculture Commissariat that managed and regulated the entire hunting industry of Soviet Russia and then the USSR (in 1922). The first hunting law defined all the rights, duties, and limitations of hunting and prohibited the killing of female and young animals. Mass killings and use of poisons were also forbidden. However, stray dogs and cats, as well as “harmful” animals, such as tigers, snow leopards,bears, wolves, and other carnivores could be killed without limitations in numbers or season. Birds of prey (eagles and hawks) and corvids were also subject to unlimited killing. Wolves were considered the most “harmful” for livestock and wild ungulates, so bonuses were set for wolf pelts. In addition, government hunting agencies recorded game taken by hunters, organized killing squads to control “harmful” species, arranged for conferences,established museums of natural history, and published materials (Sludskiy, 1969).

As the Soviet authorities began to manage the hunting business as a separate branch of the national economy,animal species that previously had been mercilessly exterminated were protected, the hunting seasons were shortened, and the program for animal hunting was introduced; all of which stimulated the recovery of hunting species. However, a new economic policy that needed huge amounts funds was also established to recover economic development throughout the entire USSR; therefore, a government monopoly law was introduced for selling furs, which were the main goods in demand in the international markets. Organized collection points,government prices, and hunting areas, times, and quotas were established, with all laws under mandatory compliance to try to maintain a sustainable hunting business. In practice, though, these rules were frequently violated or completely ignored, leading to unprecedented hunting during the 1920s, which resulted in again a dramatic decrease in the population of many animal species (sables, otters, martens, corsac foxes, marmots,ground squirrels, saiga antelopes, and kulans) (Smirnov, 1965).

In 1921, the government banned the killing of foxes, polecats, eagles, kites, buzzards, and falcons under penalty of monetary fines or even prison terms, because these animals provided pest control in helping to protect harvests from “harmful” rodents, such as ground squirrels, jerboas, mice, voles, and many others. However, in spite of any potential punishment, hunting of martens, polecats, squirrels, corsac foxes, and other fur-bearing animals continued. On 24 August 1922, the Soviet government signed a national hunting law, banning the hunting of a number of species, including saiga antelopes, marals, kulans, females and young of argali, goitered gazelles, roe deer, Russian desmans (Desmana moschata), houbara bastards (Chlamydotis undulata), and great egrets (Ardea alba). In addition, the resolution of 3 January 1928 banned the hunting of sables, martens, minks (Mustela lutreola), and corsac foxes. Steppe polecats (Mustela eversmanni) and yellow ground squirrels (Spermophilus fulvus) were also considered for a hunting ban for over 3 years. These prohibitions, however, were not implemented, and again, many hunters continued to kill protected animals at will. Local governments also established hunting preserves to protect wildlife, but these measures have not been successful, since hunting reserves were not clearly demarcated or protected (Sludskiy, 1969).

Poaching was the main cause for the decreasing in wildlife populations. The entire control of hunting was under the direction of the Forest Department of Agriculture Commissariat and protections occurred primarily only within forestry districts, which were very limited; in Kazakhstan, for example, this area covered only 3.3% of the entire territory, so rangers caught very few poachers (i.e., 142 in 1925–1926 and 91 in 1926–1927). Moreover, no poachers were subjected to punishment by the judicial authorities, even if they killed protected wild species with prohibited methods: burning trees to catch martens in the forests or collecting a great number of waterfowl eggs throughout all areas of Central Asia. The Hunters’ Union Bureau was established in 1929 to control the hunting business, but it did not improve the management or regulations of hunting. The number of wild animals was also overestimated as most people were sure that the number of fur was always guaranteed, which gave hunters freedom to kill as many animals and birds as they wanted. This resulted in hunters to kill animals faster than their ability to reproduce. As Smirnov (1965) indicated, without any actual measures for protecting wildlife,populations of hunting species dropped dramatically.

From 1929 to 1931, a new stage of hunting business began. This stage was related to social problems in the USSR. During the process of collectivization, thousands of new collective farms appeared, which created a conflict between the nomadic lifeway and settlement lifeway (Abisheva, 1959). In addition, 3.5×104people emigrated with their livestock out of Kazakhstan. As a result, vast areas of land dried up and farmers disappeared in many areas of deserts and semi-deserts in Central Asia, significantly reducing the number of hunters. Also, in 1930, the Soviet government strengthened prohibitions on hunting most ungulate species (kulans, red deer, roe deer, saiga antelopes, goitered gazelles, markhors (Capra falconeri), fur-bearing animals, and rare species, as well as illegal hunting methods (self-firing rifles, crossbows, fire, poisons, and hunting nets and pits); hunting seasons were also limited to only autumn and winter. Poachers and rule violators were given prison sentences of up to six months or a penalty of 3.89 USD; as an incentive, rangers could get up to 50% of the penalty for catching poachers. Moreover, several nature reserves and breeding centres were established for some wild species, such as marals, saiga antelopes, sika deer (Cervus nippon), ground squirrels, hares, racoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), and nutrias (Myocastor coypus) in Central Asia. Hunting inspections were also initiated, which managed and controlled the implementation of all national hunting laws. As a result of all these actions and measures, the number of many wild species (saiga antelopes, goitered gazelles, roe deer, Siberian ibexes, marals,wild boars, snow leopards, bears, foxes, stoats, and wolves) started to grow again (Smirnov, 1965).

However, these actions and measures could not stop intensive hunting during the periods of great economic demand. At the same time, governmental control organizations pursued inconsistent policies, by declaring various laws for limiting hunting while simultaneously harvesting furs with no limitations through private cooperatives.There was one main goal, i.e., collecting as many furs as possible irrespective of sustainability or export value.Similarly, the Soviet government restricted hunting of many ungulates, but later allowed hunting goitered gazelles with cars. The lives of many wildlife species were wasted as a consequence of confused policies, limited controls,slow development of national hunting organizations, weak supervisory authority, absence of professional game biologists, and the lack of nature reserves and hunting preserves.

2.5. Hunting history during the late Soviet period (1945–1990)

During World War II, the hunting economy was in poor condition. Only a few hunters could hunt limited numbers of animals. As a result, hunting for fur and meat decreased drastically and the number of many species increased significantly. In some areas, however, the local governments gave permissions for hunting ungulates. In the Sugatinskaya Valley (Ili Hollow, south-eastern Kazakhstan), hunting of 7.0×103goitered gazelles was permitted, but in fact, 11.0×103gazelles were killed; border military units were allowed to hunt Siberian ibexes,red deer, and argali for meat. But in general, hunting was observed only in limited cases during the war and immediately after the war, which allowed wildlife species to increase their populations. However, the situation suddenly changed, after former soldiers demobilized from the front, bringing great numbers of foreign weapons.At the same time, the Soviet defence industry switched from producing purely military weapons to sport and hunting firearms, which were sold without limitations. Concurrently, protection of wildlife was extremely low due to a reduction in rangers to support hunting laws, and a great number of cars were sold for private use (1948). All these events allowed poachers to penetrate previously unavailable areas for hunting. Poaching was widely spread and common everywhere, large quantities of game meat was sold freely in markets, and meat from goitered gazelle, roe deer, and ibexes was delivered to eateries and restaurants (Sludskiy, 1969).

In 1952, the Kazakh government adopted a resolution “On Measures for Protection of the State Hunting Fund”and implemented a number of practical measures to improve the protection of wild animals. Hunting inspections were reinstated and a network was created of up to 2000 voluntary community inspectors; three large state hunting preserves were opened and the Game Management and Nature Reserves Authority was formed. In 1953, the manuals for “Rules and Hunting Time” and “Hunter’s Memo” were published with information on hunting rules,processing of skins, rifle targeting, use of buckshot and bullets, and other useful advice for hunters (Smirnov,1965). These measures have reduced poaching, but not stopped it. Therefore, the state hunting inspections were restructured as a competent authority for the hunting economy and nature reserves, and its functions were significantly expanded. However, industry development, reclamation of wasteland and fallow lands, the open sale of weapons, and the use of cars for hunting increased the number of hunters; at the same time, the quality of wildlife habitats constantly declined. As a result, the local governments introduced new restrictions on hunting species and time, and increased a network of ranger posts (up to 100 in Kazakhstan); individual hunting was also reorganized as a unit of hunting societies (Smirnov, 1965).

Commercial fur organizations were reformed several times but gradually disappeared, and the number of professional hunters decreased continuously (from 21.2×104in 1929 to 0.5×104in the 1960s) (Sludskiy, 1969). More and more former hunters started to work in agriculture and industry with higher pay and more comfortable working conditions, leaving harvesting organizations unable to find hunters for seasonal work because young people did not want to be hunters. At the same time, demand for furs decreased considerably. The number of muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), for instance, which is the main species of fur trade in Kazakhstan, has decreased drastically; it then completely disappeared as a consequence of disease and loss of suitable habitat due to over-regulation of rivers and streams for irrigation. Professional hunters, however, continued to hunt saiga antelopes; over a decadal period (1955–1964), up to 0.2×106antelopes were killed for meat each year (the total number of saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan at that time was 0.9×106–1.3×106). In 1953, the voluntary amateur societies of hunters and fishermen were established(about 3000 primary organizations and 311 hunting ranges in Kazakhstan during the 1960s). The purpose of this society was to protect hunting species, but in reality, it did not provide additional feeding for animals in the cold seasons or keep a count of animals (living and killed) in their ranges. Therefore, these amateur ranges could only be called hunting preserves under certain conditions (Smirnov, 1965; Sludskiy, 1969).

In Kazakhstan, the Game Management and Nature Reserves Authority was the leading organization for control and management of the hunting business during the 1960s. This authority included national hunting inspectors,who were part of local provincial governments. It had 3 nature reserves (1.8×105hm2), 6 hunting wildlife refuges which worked as hunting species preserves with the main task of breeding and not exploiting wildlife (4.2×105hm2), 4 hunting economy areas (326.0×105hm2), 35 nature sanctuaries (8.0×105hm2), 311 amateur hunting areas(126.0×105hm2), and 2 ranger areas (15.0×105hm2). Most of the hunting grounds were not assigned to hunters,which led to a lack of personal responsibility and contributed to mass poaching and severe hardships for wildlife,especially near settlements (Smirnov, 1965). Thus, control and management of the hunting business was very weak, creation of nature reserves and preserves was very limited, and many large carnivores (bears, lynxes, and wolverines) were ranked as very harmful to the hunting business and therefore were exterminated by all available means, including shooting, snaring, and poisoning (strychnine). As more than a third of the human population did not eat meat from domestic animals, many wild animals were killed mercilessly for their meat. The professional hunting economy gradually disappeared and hunting vanished as a main profession, but then amateur hunting grew rapidly and numerous amateur hunting societies were formed all over Central Asia. These societies,however, did not protect the wildlife in their areas and could not work as a real hunting business.

3. Current hunting economy in the Central Asian countries (post-Soviet period)

3.1. General trend in hunting game amounts in post-Soviet countries

With the collapse of the USSR, the economic situation in the former Soviet Asiatic republics deteriorated sharply, especially in rural areas. The main motivation for poaching was low income levels in rural communities and unemployment in most regions of the former USSR (Braden, 2015). In fact, Makarova (2014) found a higher number of poaching cases in areas with more poverty. In addition, a dramatic increase in poaching occurred during the 1990s as poachers started to capture wildlife on an industrial scale: hundreds and thousands of wild animals were poached every year for their meat, and saiga horns and deer antlers, as well as falcons and eagles were exported. The most illustrative example was a decrease in the number of saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan,which was almost 1.0×106individuals during the 1970s but declined by 98% during a period of 20 years to just a few thousand individuals by 2003 (Mirkhashimov, 2005; Grachev et al., 2009). The main causes of this decline were opening borders and uncontrolled exporting of saiga horns (Milner-Gulland et al., 2001). During 1995–2004,67 t of saiga parts and derivatives (mainly horns) from around 28.0×104saiga antelopes were legally traded; in addition, an unknown number of horns were traded illegally: almost 5 t of horns were confiscated from around 1.5×104male saiga antelopes (Li et al., 2007). With the collapse of the USSR, numerous foreign hunters from rich countries invaded the former republics and used the services of local private companies for trophy hunting big game, such as argali, Siberian ibex, and Asiatic mouflon (Braden, 2015).

3.2. Current state of the hunting economy in Central Asia, with Kyrgyzstan as an example

During the independence of Kyrgyzstan (from 1990 to the present), commercial trophy hunting by foreigners became the main part of the hunting economy, with argali and Siberian ibex being the most species in demand.There are three argali subspecies in Kyrgyzstan. Specifically, the Tianshan argali (Ovis ammon karelini) is spread almost all over the Tianshan Mountains (northern ranges up to the Naryn River and Sarydzhaz Plateau); the Marco-Polo sheep (O. a. polii) is found to the south from the Naryn River and Alai Mountains (southern and eastern Tianshan Mountains); and the Severtzov’s sheep (O. a. severtzovi) is found in the Turkestan Range. There are two subspecies of Siberian ibex in Kyrgyzstan:Capra sibirica alaiana, which is living in the central and internal Tianshan Mountains; andC. s. formosovi, which is found in the Kyrgyzskiy and Talasskiy ranges(Davletbakov and Musaev, 2012).

Argali and Siberian ibexes are spread widely throughout the Tianshan Mountains, but during the Soviet period,wild ungulate numbers were constrained by poaching and displaced by livestock (Andreenkov, 1983; Vyrypaev,1983). Though poaching was not entirely an exceptional phenomenon during that period (Fedosenko and Zhiriakov, 1987), rifled weapons were forbidden for most people. Life was also much harder for ordinary poachers, and hunting was less productive than for poachers during the current time, because rifled weapons and ammunition were easily available to all hunters. In view of the stricter control of hunting weapons and more actions to limit poaching, illegal hunts were relatively less frequent during the Soviet period, while breeding and increasing livestock herds were the most important tasks in the USSR. As a result, the negative effects of livestock displacing wild ungulates were comparable to poaching (Andreenkov, 1983; Vyrypaev, 1983). In Kyrgyzstan, the Alai and Aksai valleys and the Sarydzhaz riverhead are the most used as livestock pastures, where the number of argalis is minimal and in some places there are no wild sheep at all. This phenomenon can be explained by livestock occupying the argali’ pastures and numerous herding dogs harassing and hunting wild animals for food(since they are often not fed). Herdsmen are also the poachers, and they also support outside hunters, as well.Consequently, the population density of argali is significantly lower in areas with more herders (Vyrypaev, 1983).As a result of the constant decrease of the population, the argali was listed in the Red Data Book of USSR(Zhirnov et al., 1978) and Red Data Book of Kirgiz SSR (Shukurov, 1985), which prohibit any hunting or catching of these animals through legislation. However, the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN) only defines the argali as “near threatened” (NT).

Since the beginning of independence, the Kyrgyzstan government has allocated all the pastures and livestock herds to the people. However, the economic crisis and unemployment in the republic forced people to either sell the animals they got or use them for meat. As a result, in the early 1990s, the general number of domestic animals decreased drastically, making many pastures available to wild ungulates (Fedosenko, 2000). This in turn significantly weakened one of the two limiting factors for the survival of this species and resulted in a significant increase in the number of argali all over their natural habitat from Pamir to Altay Mountains (Fedosenko, 2000).

The second limiting factor for ungulates is poaching. The Kyrgyzstan government and parliament have unexpectedly supported poaching, permitting the free sale of weapons and ammunition and allowing each poacher to buy rifled weapons without any licensing or permissions. Up to 70% of the deaths of argali have been reported to be related to poaching and, as a consequence, the populations of argali and other large ungulates began to decrease in 1995 (Fedosenko and Blank, 2001, 2005). In Kyrgyzstan, the numbers and ranges of argali and Siberian ibexes decreased almost to the point of extinction in the southern and western parts of the country(Davletbakov and Musaev, 2012). In addition, instead of a total prohibition on argali hunting, the Kyrgyzstan government delisted the Marco-Polo sheep (Ovis ammon polii) from the Red Data Book of Kyrgyz Republic(Shukurov, 2006) and gave licenses to foreigners for trophy hunting of this argali subspecies in assigned hunting areas of private organizations. The expectation of these private organizations was that they would protect the hunting resources from poachers. In fact, most of the best hunting areas with a high potential of trophy hunting for argali and ibexes are privatized. These private organizations, however, take very limited responsibility for their hunting areas, and many organizations often use these areas just for trophy hunting during the hunting season,without providing any protection for poachers. Many hunting preserves are located around the nature reserves,allowing the private hunting organizations to simply rely on the protection efforts of the nature reserves. For example, there are about 16 hunting areas located around the Sarychat-Ertash Nature Reserve and the protected area of the Kumtor Gold Company in Kyrgyzstan (Issyk-Kul Oblast) (Michel and Bosman, 2015). Similar loosening of protections by the Russian government occurred through attempts for delisting the Altay argali (Ovis ammon ammon) from the Russia Red Data Book for commercial trophy hunting, although this action was unsuccessful because of energetic protests from the Russian media and local Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) (Braden, 2015). Unfortunately, this kind of support did not occur in the Central Asian countries, where argali animals continue to be targets for commercial trophy hunting.

As a result of poor management, argali disappeared from the low elevations and easily accessible mountains in the western areas of Kyrgyzstan (Fergana Range in the Tianshan Mountains). In the early 1990s, argali inhabited in the Fergana Range in an area of 10.0×104hm2with a total population number of 1800 individuals (Fedosenko,2000). According to a survey conducted in 2010–2011, a total of 1.63×104argali and 1.78×104ibexes were found in Kyrgyzstan, but the vast majority of argali (1.63×104or 99.6%) and ibexes (1.62×104or 91.0%) were found in high altitude mountains (3000–4000 m a.s.l.) in the Issyk-Kul and Naryn oblasts, mainly in border areas with restricted traffic (Davletbakov and Musaev, 2012). During a survey in the Naryn and Issyk-Kul oblasts, 0.35×104argali animals were counted and the total number was estimated at 2.50×104(Davletbakov and Musaev, 2012). It is possible that this was an overestimation, but the population density of argali was apparently higher during the early 2000s than during the later survey in 2010–2011, with numbers of argali and ibex decreasing significantly over the 10-year period. This decline has two main reasons: widespread poaching and the displacement of wild ungulates by livestock, the numbers of which started to increase during the early 2000s (Fedosenko and Blank, 2005).

The most negative factor for wildlife in Kyrgyzstan is that anyone with widespread poaching weapons can hunt and kill wildlife without restrictions. In January 2008, for example, a poacher captured 43 argali animals near the natural boundary of Pikertyk (Davletbakov and Ostatsenko, 2007); in 2016, a hunter killed 54 Siberian ibexes (oral report by rangers). Governmental organizations for wildlife protection are still very weak to control and protect the entire area. An observation from Africa verified that trophy hunting has a negative impact on animal populations and that ecotourism is preferable for wildlife conservation (Hariohay et al., 2018). However, other researches(Baker, 1997; Lindsey et al., 2007) are convinced that ecotourism can also cause damage to the wildness of nature to the extent as sport hunting, because ecotourism demands much more construction of roads and other facilities and more cars and fuels. Trophy hunting, which accounts for only 2%–5% of male wildlife populations, cannot damage the population as a whole, but it can supply substantial income for those in need (ranging from 0.5×106to 100.0×106USD per year for different countries), as well as provide funds that can be used for conservation efforts(Lindsey et al., 2007). Trophy hunting was banned in Kenya and Tanzania for several years, but each of the bans led to an accelerated loss of wildlife because of a loss of incentives for conservation (Baker, 1997; Minin et al., 2016).As a result, hunting prey can be sustainable only if it is properly managed, and the risk to wild populations is low(Bond et al., 2004). It was found that selective hunting of long-horn ibex males can lead to shortened male horns in some populations (Carvalho et al., 2020), although this does not always the case. If populations are large enough and the proportion of offtake rates are low, trophy hunting does not change the genetic expression of phenotypes(Heffelfinger, 2018). Currently, this problem does not exist in Kyrgyzstan, where unselective poaching occurs many times more often than legal selective trophy hunting.

During 2017–2018, wildlife protection NGOs and public activists launched a social movement for a temporary stop to hunting large ungulates in Kyrgyzstan for a period of 10–15 years. They were successful and the country’s parliament adopted the law to stop hunting in all regions, except the Issyk-Kul and Naryn oblasts. In other words,they prohibited hunting in areas where populations of argali and ibexes were almost extinct, while allowed hunting to continue in regions where these ungulates still existed.

At the present time, the main direction of hunting reforms in Kyrgyzstan is limited to the government leaving its direct participation in the hunting industry and only functioning in a management capacity, including regulation and control. The Department of Natural Resources (Agency for the Environment Protection of Kyrgyzstan) is responsible for these functions. Another element in the reform of hunting management is the territorial principle when each territory is assigned to a juridical person for use as a hunting area. This person then has the rights and responsibilities for the management of the hunting business in the hunting area. According to the hunting law “On Hunting and Game Management” in Kyrgyzstan (issued in March 2014), no one else can hunt in areas assigned to a juridical person. These prohibitions were created due to the continuous decline in wildlife populations and the shrinkage in distribution of hunted animals. The main reasons for the decline in wildlife population are related mostly to widespread poaching, violating hunting time restrictions, and the absence of restrictions on the killing of animals by local hunters. A disregard for the hunting resources by local people and a lack of financial resources in governmental control organizations for animal protection lead to a continuous degradation process in wild animal populations. In some assigned hunting areas of private organizations, the situation is no better than that in public areas: year-round no protections were carried out by outsiders, as well as by workers of the hunting areas, and even sometimes by government hunting inspectors and staff members assigned to uphold the laws. The main users of hunting areas are private organizations, but the situation has not improved, but has gotten worse. In the Alai Mountains (Chong-Alai District, Osh Oblast), for instance, a trophy hunting trip was organized for foreign tourists in the 1980s. During that period, the Altynmazar Valley was the best place for hunting argali, because the number of argali population was the largest in Kyrgyzstan; but as of now, argali can be found very rarely there.

3.3. Historic changes to socio-legal status of wildlife in Central Asia

Generally speaking, there are two options in the ownership of hunting game: one that belongs to everyone, and one that belongs to nobody (Putman, 2011). In the Central Asian countries, game ownership is basically the same(wildlife belongs to everyone), but management of the hunting economy is carried out by the governmental organizations under a licensing system. Under this system, each hunter or private hunting organization buys a license for a limited quota of certain game animals and the license is valid within a specific hunting season for a certain hunting area. In general, the state maintains “ownership” of the game at the national level and delegates the rights for hunting to hunters’ associations or private hunting clubs or companies, though the land is actually owned by the local governmental organizations at the regional level. Thus, hunting organizations must be consulted and be in partnership in management between the state and land owners (Putman, 2011). At the present time, game ownership belongs to hunting associations or private hunting companies granted by the national government (at least in Kyrgyzstan). In addition, hunters need to receive a license to determine the species number they can kill based on age and sex, and hunting can only be done during the hunting season (Putman, 2011).

In Central Asia, ancient people had a kin-related ownership of hunting grounds, and hunted animals that belonged to every member of the kin group, whereas the outside hunters could not hunt on another family’s hunting group. Later, the local aristocracy (i.e., emirs, khans, and Bai) owned the main pastures (the most important property for pastoral tribes) and hunting grounds. During the Soviet period, the government assigned wildlife ownership to itself, employing hunters as freelance workers, who needed to hand over the skins and wild meat at the state collection points for firmly established low state prices. Thus, the government got the most income from the hunting economy in that period.

With the collapse of the USSR, the governments of independent countries adopted the practices of the Soviet period and declared that everything, including wildlife and hunting grounds, belonged to the people (all citizens)of a country; since the governments represented all the people and managed these lands on their behalf, the governments assigned the ownership of wildlife and hunting grounds to themselves. Local hunters were forced out of this system. Seeing many hunters hunting wildlife without permission, local hunters who could not hunt legally participated in poaching when and where they had the opportunity. As a result, hunters from all walks of life began to hunt without observing any laws or restrictions. Consequently, large ungulates and carnivores in Kyrgyzstan disappeared from most areas of their previous natural habitats. Wild boars, roar deer, and Siberian ibexes, which were quite common in many mountain areas during the Soviet period (Smirnov, 1965), were rarely observed or even vanished completely in large areas. Argali animals were left only in very remote and hard-to-reach areas that were shared by numerous private trophy companies. Unfortunately, under these conditions, it is impossible to talk about the sustainable use of hunting resources.

3.4. Possible solution to the current problems of the hunting economy in Central Asia

Many current problems of sustainable use of hunting resources can be solved by establishing local hunting societies that would hunt in assigned areas located not too far from their settlements. These local hunting societies would contribute to the economic approach of local hunters to wildlife populations. Local hunters have a greater chance of detecting poachers and protecting their own territory. Expected benefits from wildlife recovery will be the use of these animals for their own hunting purposes, as well as the benefits of ecotourism and even trophy from organized hunting for foreigners. These benefits would discourage their own poaching and provide the impetus to protect their areas from other poachers and maintain a sustainable hunting business. This approach is used in various countries, including Namibia, Pakistan, and Tajikistan, with some adaptations to specific local conditions. The established local societies would be more preferable for the sustainable use of hunting resources compared with private trophy companies, but also would be supported the principle “freedom with responsibility”that may provide a greater advantage to wildlife protection from poaching compared to detailed regulations from top-down conservation directives (von Essen et al., 2017).

In Kyrgyzstan, two hunter societies were established in Chui and Issyk-Kul oblasts, respectively, and three societies were set up in the Alai Valley in Osh Oblast (Arshad, 2002; Michel and Bosman, 2015). As a result of this pilot project, the first protection action was carried out in the Chon-Kemin Valley (Chui Oblast of Kyrgyzstan); in December 2013, 15 red deer (marals) animals that had disappeared many years ago because of heavy poaching were observed. Because of the minimal protections from the local society, the red deer migrated from an adjacent territory in Kazakhstan to stay within this valley. These red deer animals were observed in 2019 as well. A similar situation occurred in the Aksuu Valley (Issyk-Kul Oblast), where the local society began to protect this region, and red deer reappeared in this area after being completely extinct; although the local people estimated that there are at least 11 red deer, and 3 red deer were observed in December 2013.

This program of establishing local hunting societies was started in 2011 in northern Kyrgyzstan and in 2014 in the southern part of the country, but these hunting areas still do not have official juridical status. Although these local societies have started to protect wildlife, these areas may be submitted to competition and transferred to other owners. Unfortunately, this approach by governmental organizations will lead to lowering or eliminating the motivation of local societies to protect wildlife, resulting in a resurgence of poaching. Therefore, the government organizations need to change their policies to give local people the advantage of assignment and ownership of hunting areas over all other applicants. Local societies have provided protection efforts over several years and have obtained significant positive results (Michel and Bosman, 2015).

4. Recommendations for improvement of the hunting economy and wildlife conservation

Wildlife is a very important renewable resource if managed properly. To develop amateur hunting, including trophy hunting tourism, it is first necessary to organize an effective structure of conservation organizations to protect all animals to maintain large enough populations. Only sustainable consumption of these resources can protect wild animals from being completely extinct. Unfortunately, until now, people prefer to hunt wild species without limits or accountability, rather than spend resources on protecting animals and their habitats. Therefore,conservation of wildlife and wild habitats needs to be part of education programs for current and future generations, because it could take years for the protection of the environment to become ingrained in human attitudes and behaviours. At present, it is necessary to introduce new legislation with a number of hunting restrictions and to establish real controls, oversight, and penalties for poaching. For the sustainability of wildlife resources, it is necessary to begin with some basic measures for hunting and hunters.

1. The main task of governmental nature protection organizations is to involve local rural communities in the protection of wildlife from poaching. To do this, the state hunting legislation needs to promote the establishment of local hunting societies that would protect wildlife on their own hunting grounds located close to their settlements and provide adequate benefits to the local people from these assigned areas. Local rural societies should have the advantage in gaining hunting grounds over private trophy companies. In addition, local societies need more participation in the hunting industry. The government could establish unions of all amateur hunters into societies and primary collectives. Most importantly, governmental wildlife protection organizations need to pursue a policy for providing rights to local societies to protect their own hunting areas, and use the results of their wildlife protection efforts in future evaluations. Any government official involved in poaching at any level should be dismissed from his position and will not be allowed to hold any other post in the government.

2. Private trophy companies need to provide continuous monitoring of game species and protect their own territories from poaching all year round. These companies could obtain the licenses only if they increase the number of hunting species or establish a high enough population density. A continuous decrease in the number of hunting species over a several year period could result in the loss of hunting grounds and the termination of contract with the government.

3. When an owner of a private hunting reserve does not fulfil the terms of his agreement for renting an area(such as failure to protect the area from poachers, failure to monitor the number of hunted animals and birds, or violating established hunting laws, rules, and methods), the renting agreement must be terminated immediately,and the owner will not be allowed to participate in competition for new hunting areas in the future. Hunters who violate established hunting laws and regulations will be punished in accordance with the amount of the fine specified in the hunting laws. In addition, poachers must be excluded from hunting and their weapons must be confiscated, as well as the cars and horses used for poaching.

4. For sustainable use of wildlife resources, it is recommended that: (1) to establish effective administration and social control for the hunting laws and to take actively work to prevent poaching as the most important task,because poaching is the biggest threat to wildlife survival; and (2) to develop strong controls on hunting legislation with restrictions on hunting times and hunting methods to determine the hunted animal species and the quantities.These laws and rules must be enforced for all people, irrespective of a hunter’s social or economic status.

5. All rifled weapons from free trade should be stopped to use to hunt. All free trade in hunting weapons and ammunition should be prohibited and restricted only through the hunters’ societies only. Further, forest rangers and various field workers are also prohibited from the use of rifled weapons during their expedition work. Further,no weapons, especially rifled weapons, are needed for protection from wolf attacks, and shepherds and herdsmen should be limited to signal pistols, which is enough. In addition, it is necessary to limit herdsmen to no more than two dogs for protecting their livestock.

6. It is recommended to prohibit the use of the term “harmful” species and stop hunting these species, because“harmful” is intrinsically inappropriate. Studies of carnivore biology have made it obvious that their significance to human existence changes with the seasons, years, and regions, and can be evaluated in various ways. In nature,no species is wholly harmful or wholly useful. The advantages and disadvantages of a species are determined by the conditions in which the species live, and it is very important that people preserve the highest variability of species and habitats in nature. No species should be subjected to completely extinction, if the number of animals can be controlled so that the damage to human activity is imperceptible.

7. Finally, it is very important to define hunting facilities, assess hunting area, register hunting grounds, expand hunting grounds for state, private and local societies, and implement biotechnical measures. It is also necessary to establish new nature reserves, preserves, and protected breeding areas for recovery of wild species and monitor animal population numbers and habitat status in all areas (Sludskiy, 1969; Danilkin, 2016).

5. Potential for the improvement of the hunting economy in Central Asia

The dramatic decline in the number of animal species should not be explained by human altering the natural landscape or disturbances. In fact, most of the decline in wildlife populations is due to catastrophic extermination and poaching, in which hunting weapons and ammunition are easily available to everyone. In addition, the controls for poaching and the management of the hunting economy by governmental protection organizations are very weak. Private companies engaged in trophy hunting contribute little to wildlife conservation.

However, we found that it is not the hunting itself we need to blame for this situation, but the poor management and ineffective protection efforts for reducing the impact of poaching and an inadequately regulated hunting industry, where trophy companies do not participate in conservation efforts. Inequitable distribution of hunting grounds related to inadequate legislation eliminates the local communities from the benefits of the hunting industry that leads to negative attitudes toward trophy hunting and increases poaching. Only decentralising ownership of hunting areas to local communities and allowing their greater participation in the hunting industry can lead to sustainable development of the hunting economy (Mayaka et al., 2004; Lindsey, 2005).

In addition, the experience in other foreign countries demonstrated that it is possible to reach an exceptionally high number of hunting animals in highly developed industrial and agricultural economy. For example, the former Czechoslovakia ranks first in the world for the strength of its hunting economy (quantity of prey per area). In the former Czechoslovakia, hunters received 0.8×104t of meat from wild species every year (Kim, 1964) (Table 1), as well as 4.5×104red foxes, 3.0×104polecats, 50.0×104muskrats, and up to 0.5×104martens (Smirnov, 1965).England and Canada are world champions in partridge and ungulate hunting, respectively. The same thing occurred in Poland, where the population density of hunting game species is very high and hunters provide a lot of game meat and skins (Table 1). In Estonia, workers assess the level of the hunting economy by the density of the game animals and birds, allowing the country to reach very high efficiency (Table 1). Actually, the number of hunting species per area unit is the best index for measuring the successful development of a hunting economy.

Table 1Number of hunted species each year from three European countries.

The republics of Central Asia also have the abilities to organize a sustainable hunting industry by increasing the effectiveness of wildlife consumption. Governments of these countries have to understand that the intensive use of wildlife resources can only be possible through careful management of natural resources: first, there have to be real protections for hunted species to reach a high level of population survivability; second, the sustainable use of these resources should not only cooperate with trophy companies, but also with local societies. Establishing a sustainable level of hunting requires not only good hunting and conservation laws, but also faithful adherence to those laws by all, including government officials at all levels, responsible attitudes, and sustainable consumption of wildlife resources.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Strategic Priority Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences(XDA20020101). We are grateful to Ms. Patricia Johnston for her suggestions and remarks and constant help in English editing of this manuscript.