[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15620-15629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List
the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered Throughout Its Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
that the classification of the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii)
as endangered throughout its range is warranted, pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). The best available information indicates that the total
population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the past
three decades such that it is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. This decline has resulted primarily
from overutilization for commercial purposes and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. Habitat impacts, especially those
caused by domestic livestock grazing, appear to be a contributory
factor in the decline, and could have potentially greater impacts in
the near future. Accordingly, we are listing the Tibetan antelope as
endangered, pursuant to the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective April 28, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this rule is available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of
Scientific Authority, at the above address; or by telephone, 703-358-
1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii sensu Wilson and Reeder
1993) is a medium-sized bovid endemic to the Tibetan Plateau in China
(Tibet Autonomous Region, Xinjiang--Uygur Autonomous Region, and
Qinghai Province) and small portions of India (Ladakh) and western
Nepal (although there is no evidence that they still occur in Nepal).
The Tibetan antelope is also known by its Tibetan name ``chiru.''
Adult males are characterized by long, slender, antelope-like black
horns. Although the Tibetan antelope has been placed in the subfamily
Antilopinae, recent morphological and molecular research indicates that
it is most closely allied to the goats and other members of the
subfamily Caprinae (Gentry 1992; Gatesy et al. 1992; both cited in
Ginsberg et al. 1999). The species is uniquely adapted to the high
elevation and cold, dry climate of the Tibetan Plateau (Schaller 1998).
Seasonal migrations constitute a critical aspect of the Tibetan
antelope's ecology and help define its ecosystem as a whole. The sexes
segregate almost completely during the spring and early summer (May and
June), when adult females and their female young migrate north to
calving grounds. They return south by late July or early August,
covering distances up to 300 kilometers (km) each way (Schaller 1998).
Previous Federal Action
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to make a
finding known as a ``90-day finding'' on whether a petition to list,
delist, or reclassify a species has presented substantial information
indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum
extent practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following
receipt of the petition and published promptly in the Federal Register.
If the 90-day finding is positive (i.e., the petition has presented
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be
warranted), Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to
commence a status review of the species if one has not already been
initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In
addition, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act also requires the Service to
make a finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on
whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted
but precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this finding is
referred to as the ``12-month finding''). The 12-month finding is also
to be published promptly in the Federal Register. On October 6, 1999,
the Service received a petition from the Wildlife Conservation Society
(Joshua R. Ginsberg, Ph.D., Director, Asia Program, and George B.
Schaller, Ph.D., Director of Science) and the Tibetan Plateau Project
of Earth Island Institute (Justin Lowe, Director) requesting that the
Tibetan antelope be listed as endangered throughout its entire range.
The petition was actually dated October 7, 1999, but was received via
electronic mail the previous day. On April 14, 2000, the Service made a
positive 90-day finding on the Wildlife Conservation Society--Tibetan
Plateau Project petition (i.e., the Service found that the petition
presented substantial information indicating that the requested action
may be warranted). That finding was published in the Federal Register
on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24171), thereby initiating a public comment
period and status review for the species. The public comment period
remained open until June 26, 2000.
In our 90-day finding, we stated that we had reviewed and
considered all known relevant literature and information available at
that time (April 2000) on the current status of and threats to the
Tibetan antelope. Since then, a limited amount of relevant new
information has become available as a result of the status review and
public comment period. That information was incorporated, as
appropriate, in the 12-month finding, which was published on October 6,
2003 (68 FR 57646). Together with the 12-month finding, in that
document we proposed to list the Tibetan antelope as endangered
throughout its range, and we sought public comments until January 5,
2004.
In accordance with the Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species Act Activities published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we selected three appropriate independent specialists to
review the proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that
listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analysis. We selected three appropriate independent specialists to
review the proposed rule who have considerable knowledge and field
experience in Tibetan antelope biology and conservation. We also sent
letters requesting comments from the Management and Scientific
Authorities for CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild
[[Page 15621]]
Fauna and Flora) in the range countries of China, India, and Nepal.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We received 272 comments during the public comment period on the
90-day finding, including 1 comment from a range country government
(People's Republic of China), 4 comments from non-governmental
organizations, 41 letters from individuals, 86 postcards from
individuals, and 1 letter of petition signed by 140 individuals. All
comments fully supported an endangered listing for the Tibetan
antelope, although only five comments provided any new information on
the status of or threats to the species. Particularly important among
these was the letter from Zhen Rende, Director General of the CITES
Management Authority of China, in which he expressed strong support for
listing the species as endangered. The comments were used in the
development of the proposed rule to list the species.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 11
comments: 2 from range countries, 3 from peer reviewers, 4 from non-
governmental organizations, and 2 from private individuals. Except for
one reviewer and a private individual, all comments were strongly
supportive of the endangered listing.
A range country Scientific Authority response was received from Mr.
Wang Sung, Research Professor, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, and Executive Vice Chairman, Endangered Species Scientific
Commission, Beijing, China. We also received a response from The
Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), a non-governmental organization, in New
Delhi, India. These commenters supported the listing rule.
With the exceptions of the peer reviewers, range country contacts,
a private individual, and William Bleisch, PhD, China Programme
Manager, Fauna and Flora International, Beijing, China, all other
comments were submitted by the following organizations: American Zoo
and Aquarium Association (AZA), Earth Island Institute (EII), The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and International Fund for
Animal Welfare (IFAW). Most of the comments supported listing the
Tibetan antelope as endangered.
Opposition to the Proposed Listing of the Tibetan Antelope as
Endangered
There were two opponents to listing the Tibetan antelope as
endangered. These were one private individual and one peer reviewer.
Issue 1: The private individual claimed that the proposed rule
relied on anecdotal population information and lacked quantitative
trend data necessary to determine whether or not the population is
declining. This person also noted that, even if a decline is
determined, it may be indicative of a natural long-term population
cycle.
Service Response 1: In making our determination, the Service relied
on the best available scientific information. Thorough population
censuses are difficult with this species due to its relative isolation
and the harsh environment of the Tibetan Plateau. We have received
population information from experts, such as Dr. George B. Schaller,
who has observed the Tibetan antelope throughout its range and has
estimated and compared current and historical population numbers and
distribution. Based on our review of the literature and comments we
received, Dr. Schaller's 1998 estimate remains the best scientific
estimate of the Tibetan antelope population.
Additional quantification of a decline was provided by a reviewer
and another commenter. The reviewer commented that the Service failed
to include the quantitative trend assessment of Tibetan antelope in
Yeniugou, Qinghai Province, China (Harris et al. 1999). Observations
made on foot and horseback as well as interviews with local and
provincial officials indicated that the population of Tibetan antelope
declined from over 2,000 animals in 1991 to 2 animals (observed) in
1997. The authors concluded that an entire subpopulation of the Tibetan
antelope can be extirpated in the short term. They hypothesized that
the decline may be due to increased poaching or the antelope moving to
alternative areas, or both. The commenter provided population estimates
that indicated a decline from 13.6 individuals/km\2\ to 5.9
individuals/km\2\ between 1991 and 2001 in the summer calving grounds
north of Mount Muztagh Ulugh in Xinjiang Province, China (Bleisch et
al. unpublished). The decline was attributed solely to poaching. It
should be noted that a decline caused by natural, non-anthropogenic
factors could also place a species in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Issue 2: The Service provided few details regarding the threat of
habitat destruction.
Service Response 2: We disagree. The Service has reviewed the
scientific literature and explained that human activities, such as
resource extraction, livestock grazing, and road or railway
construction, have resulted in habitat fragmentation or desertification
throughout the range of the Tibetan antelope. We described some
specific projects and how they have obstructed Tibetan antelope
migration routes to calving grounds (See Factor A below).
Issue 3: It is unclear what conservation benefits will accrue to
the Tibetan antelope from listing under the Act. The species is listed
in CITES Appendix-I, yet current laws within range countries do not
seem to effectively deter poaching or habitat loss.
Service Response 3: Listings under the Act are not restricted to
species that will benefit from the protections of the Act. Rather, the
Act calls for listing if the species meets the definitions of
endangered or threatened, following an analysis of threats factors. In
addition, the protections of the Act, along with the current
protections under CITES, may provide a conservation benefit by further
limiting import and export from the United States. Upon listing, import
and export into and from the United States as well as movement and sale
in interstate or foreign commerce of Tibetan antelope, including parts
and products, will be prohibited under the Act unless authorized. Such
activities can be authorized, but only for scientific purposes or to
enhance the propagation or survival of the species. Thus, for example,
if the Service receives an application to import a live Tibetan
antelope or Tibetan antelope parts or products, the import can only
occur if the Service determines that the activity is for scientific
purposes or will enhance the propagation or survival of the species.
Support for the Proposed Listing of the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered
Issue 1: One reviewer noted that the only quantitative trend
assessment of any Tibetan antelope population (Harris et al. 1999) was
not cited in the proposed rule. The commenter provided a copy of the
article.
Service Response 1: We acknowledge the oversight and are including
the assessment in our Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Factor
B) analysis. The article strengthens our conclusion that wild
populations have declined precipitously in the short term.
Issue 2: In the proposed rule, we had concluded that fences will
have the effect of excluding Tibetan antelope from grassland needed for
forage (68 FR 57647). One reviewer claimed that although this may be a
legitimate concern, there is no data to support the statement for this
species.
Service Response 2: We reported that changes in Chinese Government
policy
[[Page 15622]]
have resulted in an attempt to permanently settle many Tibetan
pastoralists. This has led to a proliferation of rangeland fencing on
portions of the Tibetan Plateau (Miller 2000, Los Angeles Times 2002).
Increasingly, nomads are fencing grasslands for livestock grazing and
fodder production, thereby excluding Tibetan antelope from the fenced
areas. Tibetan antelope need open range to survive (Miller and Schaller
1997). Thus, fencing reduces habitat that would otherwise be available
to Tibetan antelope.
Issue 3: The same reviewer added that gold mining in Qinghai
Province, China, is declining. Another reviewer stated that itinerant
gold mining in China has until recently been legal.
Service Response 3: Professor Wang of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences agreed with the proposed rule and emphasized that human
activity, including road construction and mining (legal and illegal),
is detrimental to the species' survival. These activities are discussed
in the proposed rule and Factor A (below).
Issue 4: A reviewer indicated that there has been increased
coordination of anti-poaching activities in Qinghai, Xinjiang, and
Tibet, which included a workshop in Xinjiang in 2002. According to one
organization, workshop participants included national and local
agencies from China and the Tibet Autonomous Region. The workshop
resulted in a resolution calling for increased habitat protection, in
situ conservation of the Tibetan antelope, and international
collaboration to eliminate illegal trade. In addition, the CITES
Management Authority of China and the CITES Secretariat convened an
enforcement workshop in Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, in August 2003.
The workshop covered international and national wildlife law
enforcement, intelligence techniques, and collaboration with other
international law enforcement agencies as well as national agencies.
Service Response 4: The workshop information has been considered in
the Factor D analysis of this rule.
Issue 5: One reviewer noted that the Service erred in saying that
the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act has not been amended to
comply with India's national wildlife protection law (68 FR 57650). The
reviewer stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act was
amended in June 2002 so that the Tibetan antelope has been elevated
from Schedule II to Schedule I of the Act, thus providing complete
protection to the species, parts, and products. While the amendment
conforms to the national wildlife protection act, the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir is not implementing the new provision, and the
manufacture of shahtoosh shawls and trade continues in that State. The
reviewer provided photographs, a testimonial letter from a visitor from
the United States, and a newspaper article attesting to the weaving and
sale of the shawls in the State. Indeed, the WTI has filed a case in
the Supreme Court of India against the State of Jammu and Kashmir to
force the implementation of the amended wildlife law. The CITES
Secretariat prepared a document for the 13th Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to CITES in which the Parties were asked to support new
language in Resolution Conf. 11.8 (Rev. CoP12) ``* * * that the State
of Jammu and Kashmir in India halts the processing of such wool and the
manufacture of shahtoosh products'' (CITES Secretariat 2004). However,
the new language was rejected by the Conference of the Parties (October
2-14, 2004). So culturally entrenched is shahtoosh shawl manufacturing
in Jammu and Kashmir that a recent WTI-IFAW census of shahtoosh workers
indicated that 14,293 individuals were directly involved in shahtoosh
production (Gopinath et al. 2003, submitted during the comment period).
This number appears to be lower than expected and declining due to
legal restrictions and alternative employment for pashmina production
(cashmere from the domesticated mountain goat Capra hircus).
One reviewer noted that a study conducted by the WTI in partnership
with IFAW in December 2003 found shahtoosh shawls available illegally
to tourists in New Delhi and other towns in India. From his study of
the shahtoosh trade since 1992, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Senior Advisor and
Trustee, WTI, observed that methods of concealment and porous borders
between Tibet, India, and Nepal have made enforcement of Tibetan
antelope protection laws difficult. Indeed, in 2004, the Dubai
Government seized 100 shahtoosh shawls from Kahmiri traders (Bindra
2004). The shawls are believed to have been manufactured in India.
Service Response 5: The new information about the Jammu and Kashmir
shahtoosh trade was considered in the Factor D analysis of this rule.
Issue 6: One reviewer recommended that the United States adopt a
registration scheme for privately owned shahtoosh shawls as India has
done.
Service Response 6: Such a process would be difficult to
administer. However, once the listing becomes effective, the Service's
Office of Law Enforcement will seek information on the legal origin of
shawls (for example, if the shawl qualifies under the pre-Act
exemption) if there is evidence of a violation of the Act.
Issue 7: New information that strengthens our argument for listing
the Tibetan antelope as endangered was provided by Dr. William Bleisch,
China Programme Manager, Fauna and Flora International, Beijing, China.
Since 1998, Dr. Bleisch has been working on a Tibetan antelope
conservation project in the Arjin Mountain Nature Reserve and has
recently been involved in community-based wildlife conservation in the
Qinghai Province of China. To our list of protected Tibetan antelope
populations and habitat in western China (68 FR 57648), Dr. Bleisch
added the recent approval by the Chinese Government of the Snowlands
Three Rivers Source National Nature Reserve (158,000 km\2\ in Qinghai
Province) and the Mid-Kunlun Mountains Nature Reserve (size not
provided, in Xinjiang Province). He noted that the five contiguous
reserves protect most of the remaining habitat for Tibetan antelope.
Based on his experience, Dr. Bleisch commented that the reserves are
only partially effective in protecting the Tibetan antelope because of
the impact of illegal mining operations, inconsistencies in
governmental jurisdiction, and lack of environmental safeguards. He
also provided unpublished population information on Tibetan antelope
observed from vehicle-based transects through summer calving grounds
north of Mount Muztagh Ulugh in Xinjiang Province. In 1999, he observed
a density of 13.6 individuals/km\2\. The same transects revealed 5.9
individuals/km\2\ in 2001 (Bleisch et al. unpublished). The decline is
believed to have been caused by poaching, which reduced the density of
females by about 50 percent in just 2 years.
Service Response 7: We have added the areas mentioned by Dr.
Bleisch to our list of protected Tibetan antelope populations and
habitat in western China discussed under Factor A. The new population
and threats information was also considered in the analysis of this
rule.
Issue 8: Dr. Bleisch disagreed with our assertion in the proposed
rule that poaching has declined in some areas because there are not
enough animals to warrant an organized poaching effort (68 FR 57649).
He said that poaching has decreased even where Tibetan antelopes are
still abundant and believes this is due to increased law enforcement
within China and in other countries
[[Page 15623]]
coupled with a lower international demand for shahtoosh wool.
Service Response 8: Although there may be evidence of less poaching
at the summer calving grounds since the peak in 1999 when 909 carcasses
were observed, we do not have enough information to determine whether
or not poaching declined due to better law enforcement, lower demand,
or our original assertion that there may not be enough animals to
warrant an organized poaching effort. It may be due to any or all of
these factors.
Issue 9: Two commenters representing two non-governmental
organizations commented that a specific threat to the Tibetan antelope
in southwestern Qinghai Province is the construction of the Qinghai-
Tibet Railway, which began in 2001. The railway and the highway that
runs parallel to it bisect the migratory route of the antelope in that
region. The ideal construction season coincides with the peak
migration. Population of the area with construction personnel and
eventual further human settlement along the railway and highway may
further destroy antelope habitat and may reduce the antelope population
size, particularly if females cannot migrate to calving grounds.
Service Response 9: The Service acknowledged this threat in the
proposed rule.
Issue 10: The same two commenters also provided the Service with
recent examples of seizures of Tibetan antelope wool and shahtoosh
shawls. Of particular concern is the continued poaching in Kekexili
Nature Reserve in Qinghai Province at which most of the animals killed
were pregnant females en route to the calving grounds. One commenter
noted that John Sellar, Senior Enforcement Officer at the CITES
Secretariat, told the Workshop on Enforcement of Tibetan Antelope that,
despite international and national initiatives, ``* * * we seem to
still be disappointingly far away from eliminating the poaching of the
Chiru and the illegal trade in its parts (Sellar 2003).''
Service Response 10: Although we addressed law enforcement issues
in the proposed rule, we have included the assessment by John Sellar in
our Factor D analysis of this rule.
Issue 11: One commenter suggested that the Service use the term
``tsod'' instead of ``chiru'' or ``Tibetan antelope'' because it is the
term recognized by native Tibetan speakers.
Service Response 11: While we try to be sensitive to local or
native names, due to the pervasiveness of ``chiru'' and ``Tibetan
antelope'' and the absence of ``tsod'' in the international literature,
we will continue to use the terms ``chiru'' or ``Tibetan antelope.''
Issue 12: This commenter also pointed out that the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) lists the Tibetan antelope as endangered due
to the sharp decrease in animal numbers and distribution as a result of
commercial killing for the shahtoosh underfur (IUCN 2003).
Service Response 12: This information has been added to the Factor
B analysis.
Issue 13: The same commenter provided additional information about
the number of Tibetan antelope in Ladakh, India, and poaching and
commercial killing in China, and reiterated the information provided by
other commenters regarding the regulation of shahtoosh trade in Jammu
and Kahmir, India. The commenter noted that listing the Tibetan
antelope as endangered will encourage U.S. law enforcement personnel to
more effectively control and prosecute shahtoosh-related crimes.
Two other commenters representing non-governmental organizations
also agreed with the proposal. One organization offered its assistance
to the Service should we consider long-term captive breeding,
reintroduction, and recovery programs for the Tibetan antelope.
Service Response 13: We thank the commenters for their comments and
offer of assistance.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists.
A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species
on the basis of one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the Tibetan antelope
are as follows:
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
Tibetan antelope are endemic to the high Tibetan Plateau. Most of
their range lies above 4,000 meters (m) in elevation, but they occur at
elevations as low as 3,250 m in parts of Xinjiang (Schaller 1998). They
prefer flat to rolling topography and alpine steppe or similar semi-
arid plant associations (Schaller 1998). They occasionally occur in
alpine desert steppe habitats, at least on a seasonal basis, but are
not known to have occurred in the Qaidam Basin of Qinghai Province
(Schaller 1998). They do not occur in alpine meadow areas receiving
greater than 400 millimeters (mm) annual precipitation (Schaller 1998).
Although the current east-west distribution of Tibetan antelope
appears much as it was described a century ago by Bower (1894, cited in
Schaller 1998), the distribution is now fragmented where previously it
was continuous. Schaller (1998) determined that Tibetan antelope no
longer occur, or occur in low numbers, in several areas where early
explorers noted them to be abundant. The current range is divided into
two areas: a northern area of about 490,000 km\2\ and a central area of
about 115,000 km\2\. Distribution between the two areas was continuous
until recent decades, and there may still be rare contact near the
western end. However, current Tibetan antelope populations in the
central Chang Tang of the Tibet Autonomous Region are highly fragmented
and occur in small, scattered herds. The range has also contracted in
eastern Qinghai Province (Schaller 1998).
Changes in Chinese government policy have led to increasing human
development and activity on the Tibetan Plateau, including
transportation development (roads and railways), resource extraction
activities (minerals, oil, and gas), permanent settlement of
traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists, and rangeland use
for domestic livestock grazing (Ginsberg et al. 1999). These activities
have already adversely modified or destroyed Tibetan antelope habitat
in some areas and threaten to modify or destroy habitat over a large
area in the near future.
Nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists have grazed a mix of domestic
livestock (primarily sheep, goats, yaks, and some horses) on the
Tibetan Plateau for millennia in relative harmony with the environment
(Miller 2000, 2002). Livestock can directly and indirectly compete with
Tibetan antelope for available vegetation resources, both within and
outside established protected areas (Schaller 1998; Ginsberg et al.
1999). In recent decades, as a result of government policy changes,
excessive livestock grazing has degraded or destroyed Tibetan antelope
habitat in some areas, and could eventually lead to the destruction of
some portion of the species' range through physical displacement,
overgrazing, or both, which may contribute to desertification (Ginsberg
et al. 1999; Miller 2001). Recent changes in Chinese Government policy
have resulted in an attempt to permanently settle many Tibetan
pastoralists, with a resultant proliferation of rangeland fencing on
[[Page 15624]]
portions of the Plateau (Miller 2000; Los Angeles Times 2002).
Livestock frequently graze year-round in antelope habitat, and
increasingly, nomads are fencing for winter-spring grazing and fodder
production, thereby excluding Tibetan antelope from the fenced
grassland resources. Tibetan antelope need open range to survive
(Miller and Schaller 1997). Although not studied specifically for this
species, enclosure and conversion of grasslands may disrupt antelope
habitat, posing a particular threat in the spring, when weakened
Tibetan antelope are attempting to rebuild their energy reserves, and
in the fall, as antelope are preparing for the harsh winter.
The Tibetan Plateau has extensive gold deposits. Gold mining can
have significant impacts on Tibetan antelope habitat. Mining degrades
or destroys habitat through environmental contamination and
disturbance, and through pollution of surface waters (U.S. Embassy,
China [USEC] 1996).
Oil exploration and some production have commenced within the
Tibetan antelope's range, and pose threats of destroying habitat;
polluting the environment with toxic production chemicals, effluents,
and emissions; increasing disturbance levels; and increasing the
incidence of poaching by drawing additional settlers into the region
(Ginsberg et al. 1999). In 2001, Chinese researchers announced the
discovery of a potentially huge oil and gas deposit, extending over 100
km in length, in the Qiangtang Basin of the Tibet Autonomous Region
(Global Policy Forum 2001). The deposit could potentially produce
hundreds of millions of tons of oil.
Construction of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, currently in progress,
threatens to destroy important Tibetan antelope habitat and, perhaps
more importantly, significantly disrupt Tibetan antelope migration
corridors in southwestern Qinghai Province. One news service report
mentioned that construction on the railway, the first to link the Tibet
Autonomous Region with the rest of China, was temporarily suspended in
June 2002 because up to 1,000 migrating Tibetan antelope were unable to
cross the construction area (People's Daily 2002; Xinhuanet 2002a). All
activity was stopped and construction workers removed from the area
until these animals had passed the construction site. Although the news
service report mentioned that a passage specifically for animals will
be set aside when the railway is built, so as to ensure the free
migration for wildlife in the locality, it is not certain how
successful such a passage would be in ensuring freedom of movement for
thousands of migrating Tibetan antelope.
Five contiguous protected areas have been established to protect
Tibetan antelope populations and habitat in western China: Chang Tang
Nature Reserve (approximately 334,000 km\2\ in the Tibet Autonomous
Region), Kekexili (aka Kokoxili or Hoh Xil) National Reserve
(approximately 45,000 km\2\ in Qinghai Province), Arjin Shan Reserve
(45,000 km\2\ in Xinjiang Province), Snowlands Three Rivers Source
National Nature Reserve (158,000 km\2\ in Qinghai Province), and the
Mid-Kunlun Mountains Nature Reserve (size not provided, in Xinjiang
Province). The five reserves protect most of the remaining habitat for
Tibetan antelope. A sixth protected area, Xianza Reserve (40,000 km\2\
in the Tibet Autonomous Region), also includes some Tibetan antelope
habitat. These reserves are only partially effective in protecting the
Tibetan antelope and its habitat due to a combination of inadequate
management, limited enforcement capacity, illegal mining operations,
inconsistencies in governmental jurisdiction, lack of environmental
safeguards, an influx of settlers, and domestic livestock grazing
(Bleisch in litt. Jan. 2004; WTI-IFAW 2001). Whereas many of the
protected areas in the Tibetan Plateau region encompass high-elevation
rangelands, protected areas at lower grassland elevations are scarce
(Miller 1997).
It has been difficult for reserve staffs to keep poachers and
illegal gold miners out, a fact that prompted the Qinghai Provincial
Government in late 1999 to close the Kekexili Reserve to all activities
that were not expressly authorized in advance by the State Forestry
Administration (SFA) (China Daily 1999).
The Chang Tang Reserve staff lacks the funding, experience,
personnel, and equipment to adequately prevent Tibetan antelope
poaching and other threats to the species (SFA 1998). Formerly nomadic
pastoralists are establishing settlements within the Chang Tang
Reserve, and immigrants from other parts of the Plateau are moving into
protected areas. Increased human presence, whether temporary nomadic
aggregations or in permanent settlements, can adversely affect Tibetan
antelope habitat and be a detrimental disturbance factor.
Therefore, based on the best available information, we find that
the Tibetan antelope is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range from the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) lists the Tibetan antelope as
endangered due to the sharp decrease in animal numbers and distribution
as a result of commercial hunting for the shahtoosh underfur (IUCN
2003). There are no accurate estimates of Tibetan antelope numbers from
the past, although the few early western explorers who ventured onto
the Tibetan Plateau noted the presence of large herds in many areas
(Schaller 1998). For example, Rawling (1905, cited in Schaller 1998)
wrote, ``Almost from my feet away to the north and east, as far as the
eye could reach, were thousands upon thousands of doe antelope with
their young. * * * Everyone in camp turned out to see this beautiful
sight, and tried, with varying results, to estimate the number of
animals in view. This was found very difficult. * * * as we could see
in the extreme distance a continuous stream of fresh herds steadily
approaching; there could not have been less than 15,000 or 20,000
visible at one time.'' Bonvalot (1892), Wellby (1898), Deasy (1901),
and Hedin (1903, 1922) made similar observations (all references cited
in Schaller 1998). Schaller (1999) has suggested that upwards of 1
million Tibetan antelope roamed the Tibetan Plateau as recently as 40-
50 years ago. Historical population estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000
appear to be reasonable based on the limited information available.
Although data on the current population dynamics of Tibetan
antelope are fragmentary and preliminary (Schaller 1998), it is clear
that the total population has declined drastically in the past 30 years
and is continuing to decline. Schaller (1998) estimated that the total
population in the mid-1990s may have been as low as 65,000-75,000
individuals. More recent estimates from China quote a population figure
of 70,000, although the scientific basis for the estimate is not given
(Xinhuanet 2002b). A recent survey of Tibetan antelope in Yeniugou,
Qinghai Province, China (Harris et al. 1999), based on observations
made on foot or horseback as well as interviews with local and
provincial officials, indicated that the population of Tibetan antelope
declined from over 2,000 animals in 1991 to 2 animals observed in 1997.
The authors hypothesized that the decline may be due to increased
poaching or the antelope moving to alternative areas, or
[[Page 15625]]
both. The authors concluded that an entire subpopulation on the Tibetan
Plateau can disappear in the short term.
On the summer calving grounds north of Mount Muztagh Ulugh in
Xinjiang Province, the population of Tibetan antelope declined from
13.6 individuals/km\2\ to 5.9 individuals/km\2\ between 1999 and 2001
(Bleisch et al. unpublished, Schaller 1998, Harris et al. 1999). The
decline was attributed solely to poaching. If one assumes that the
historical population of Tibetan antelope was 500,000 individuals (an
apparently conservative estimate), then the most recent estimate of
70,000 represents a population decline of greater than 85 percent.
The principal cause of the Tibetan antelope population decline has
been poaching on a massive scale for the species' fur (wool) (Bleisch
et al. unpublished), known in trade as shahtoosh (``king of wool''),
which is one of the finest animal fibers known (Ginsberg et al. 1999).
Shahtoosh is processed into high-fashion scarves and shawls in the
Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. These items are greatly valued by
certain people of wealth and fashion around the world. The
international demand for Tibetan antelope fiber and shahtoosh products
is the most serious threat to the continued existence of the Tibetan
antelope. Although overall mortality rates are not known, mortality due
to poaching was estimated to be as high as 20,000 individuals per year
in China (SFA 1998). Poaching appears to have declined in some areas in
recent years (Xinhuanet 2002a), most likely because there are not
enough animals to warrant an organized poaching effort. But Chinese
officials acknowledge that poaching is still far from being eradicated
in China (Xinhuanet 2002c). Annual recruitment of young has been
estimated at around 12 percent (Schaller 1998). If one assumes that the
total population of Tibetan antelope is 70,000 individuals and that the
population is currently declining at a rate of 1,000 to 3,500
individuals per year (admittedly a rough estimate, given available
data), then the species could go extinct within the next 20 to 70
years. The species' role as the dominant native grazing herbivore of
the Tibetan Plateau ecosystem has already been significantly
diminished, and its influence on ecosystem structure and function would
likely be substantially reduced or eliminated well before the species
actually goes extinct.
Although the shahtoosh trade has existed for centuries, killing of
Tibetan antelope on a widespread, commercial basis probably began only
in the 1970s or 1980s, resulting from an increase in international
consumer demand and increased availability of vehicles on the Tibetan
Plateau. Schaller and Gu (1994) noted that, with the increasing
availability of vehicles beginning three decades ago, truck drivers,
government officials, military personnel, and other outsiders had
greater access to shoot wildlife. Most Tibetan antelope poaching takes
place in the Arjin Shan, Chang Tang, and Kekexili Nature Reserves by a
variety of people, including local herders, residents, military
personnel, gold miners, truck drivers, and others (Schaller 1993;
Schaller and Gu 1994). Organized, large-scale poaching rings have
developed in some areas. Poachers always kill Tibetan antelope to
collect their fiber. No cases of capture-and-release wool collection
are known, nor are naturally shed fibers collected from shrubs and
grass tufts, as is often claimed (primarily by people within the
shahtoosh industry). Poachers shear the hides, and collect and clean
the underfur of the antelope, or sell the hides to dealers who prepare
the shahtoosh (Wright and Kumar 1997).
Schaller speculated that, during the 1980s and 1990s, tens of
thousands of Tibetan antelope were killed for their wool (Ginsberg et
al. 1999). One Tibetan antelope carcass yields about 125 to 150 grams
(g) of fiber. In the winter of 1992, an estimated 2,000 kg of wool
reached India, and consignments of 600 kg were seized (and released) in
India during 1993 and 1994 (Bagla 1995, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999).
This amount alone represents 17,000 Tibetan antelope. In October 1998,
14 poachers in the Tibet Autonomous Region were convicted of
collectively killing 500 Tibetan antelope and purchasing 212 hides, and
were sentenced to 3 to 13 years imprisonment (Xinhua 1998, cited in
Ginsberg et al. 1999). The largest enforcement action to date within
China, involving several jurisdictions and dubbed the ``Hoh Xil Number
One Action'' by Chinese authorities, resulted in the arrest of 66
poachers and the confiscation of 1,658 Tibetan antelope hides in April
and May 1999 (Liu 1999, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). The WTI-IFAW
(2001) report lists 77 known seizures of Tibetan antelope hides, raw
shahtoosh, and finished shahtoosh scarves. Recent documented seizures
have been of 39 kg of raw fiber in March 2001 along the Tibet-Nepal
border (WTI-IFAW 2001) and 80 shahtoosh shawls in New Delhi in March
2002 (Wildlife Protection Society of India [WPSI] News 2002). In Dubai,
100 shawls were seized from Kashmiri traders (Bindra 2004). A
consignment of 211 kg of raw shahtoosh was seized by wildlife officials
in New Delhi in early April 2003 (A. Kumar, WTI, pers. comm. with K.
Johnson, Division of Scientific Authority, April 6, 2003). This
quantity of raw wool represents the killing of almost 1,800 Tibetan
antelope. In June 2005, Swiss customs confiscated 537 shahtoosh shawls,
the largest seizure of shahtoosh in Europe (IFAW 2005). Tibetan
antelope are also killed for their horns (used in traditional medicinal
practices), hides, and meat (Ginsberg et al. 1999), although these uses
are secondary to the use of fiber.
Illegal mining activity also opens another avenue for profiting
from poaching (USEC 1996). Bleisch (1999) noted that illegal gold
mining camps in the Arjin Shan Reserve in Xinjiang have served as bases
for poachers and have provided them with essential logistical support
and access. Without this support, poachers would have a difficult time
operating in these remote regions. As a result, poaching has already
had a profound impact on the Tibetan antelope population of the reserve
(Bleisch 1999).
Several areas where calving females formerly congregated are now
empty of Tibetan antelope during the calving season (Bleisch 1999). In
2002, researchers spent 2 weeks on foot locating an unknown calving
ground in the western Chang Tang only to discover that its location was
less than 2 days' overland drive from a new gold mine that had sprung
up in the previous few months (Ridgeway 2003). They wrote, ``That same
dirt road [a 60-mile (96.6 kilometer) dirt road built by miners in the
previous 3 months] gives us an easy way home, as we cart toward our
waiting vehicle. But it could also give poachers easy access to the
calving grounds. From the mine we estimate a four-wheel-drive vehicle
could make it cross-country in 2 days * * *. With the chiru's calving
grounds suddenly vulnerable, we feel a new urgency to report our
findings.''
Governments may periodically enforce mining bans in sensitive
areas, and have done so in Tibet, but in general it is difficult to
control illegal miners over extensive areas of remote lands with poor
road access. Tibet has reserves of many other valuable minerals, among
them uranium, copper, and cesium, and mining of these minerals may also
impact Tibetan antelope habitat and lead to poaching.
Therefore, based on the best available information, we find that
the Tibetan antelope is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range from overutilization for
[[Page 15626]]
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Schaller (1998) has documented Tibetan antelope mortality caused by
disease and predators such as the wolf (Canis lupus), snow leopard
(Uncia uncia), lynx (Lynx lynx), brown bear (Ursus arctos), and
domestic dog (Canis familiaris). He suggested that wolf predation may
at one time have been a substantial mortality factor for Tibetan
antelope, particularly on the calving grounds. At the present time,
neither disease nor predation is considered to significantly threaten
or endanger the species in any portion of its range. However, one or
both of these factors may become more significant as populations
decline and become increasingly fragmented because of other mortality
factors. Therefore, based on the best available information, we find
that the Tibetan antelope does not appear to be in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future from disease or predation.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Tibetan antelope was listed in Appendix II of CITES in 1975; it
was transferred to Appendix I in 1979. All three countries that
constitute the species' natural geographic range, China, Nepal, and
India, are CITES Parties. The only reservation ever held on the species
was taken by Switzerland in 1979 and withdrawn in October 1998.
Shahtoosh is smuggled out of China by truck or animal caravan,
through Nepal or India, and into the State of Jammu and Kashmir in
India. This is in violation of CITES as well as of domestic laws of the
countries involved. The shahtoosh industry in the Srinagar region of
Jammu and Kashmir is controlled by a wealthy, influential group of 12-
20 families (Wright and Kumar 1997). There are about 100-120 family-run
manufacturing operations that employ more than 20,000 people who
prepare, weave, and finish the raw shahtoosh into scarves and shawls
(WTI-IFAW 2001). The scarves are sold throughout India and smuggled
abroad in violation of Indian law, CITES, and domestic legislation in
many of the importing countries (Wright and Kumar 1997). Shahtoosh
products have been made in Jammu and Kashmir for centuries, but the
current high levels of poaching are a result of consumer demand in the
West, including the United States. The CITES Secretariat prepared a
document for the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in which
the Parties were asked to support new language in Resolution Conf. 11.8
(Rev. CoP12) ``* * * that the State of Jammu and Kashmir in India halts
the processing of such wool and the manufacture of shahtoosh products
(CITES Secretariat 2004).'' However, the Parties rejected the proposed
language.
The Tibetan antelope is protected at a national level by China,
Nepal, and India. In China, the Tibetan antelope is a Class 1 protected
species under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the
Protection of Wildlife (1989), which prohibits all killing except by
special permit from the central government. Although China has expended
considerable effort and resources in an attempt to control poaching, it
has been unable to do so (SFA 1998) because of the magnitude of the
poaching, the extensive geographic areas involved, and the high value
of shahtoosh, which gives poachers great incentive to continue their
illegal activities. On several occasions, China has appealed to other
governments and organizations to eliminate the demand for and
production of shahtoosh products, most recently at the 1999
International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan
Antelope held in Xining, China, in October 1999 and in a Resolution
adopted at the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES
in April 2000 which was revised at the 13th Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to CITES in October 2004 (Resolution Conf. 11.8 [Rev.
COP13], http://www.cites.org/eng/res/11/11-08R13.shtml). China re-
iterated its commitment to Tibetan antelope conservation at the 12th
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in November 2002
(Decision 12.40, http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid12/12-40.shtml).
There has been increased coordination of anti-poaching activities
in Qinghai, Xinjiang, and Tibet, including a workshop in Xinjiang,
China, in 2002. Participants included national and local agencies from
China and the Tibet Autonomous Region. The workshop resulted in a
resolution calling for increased habitat protection, in situ
conservation of the Tibetan antelope, and international collaboration
to eliminate illegal trade. In addition, the CITES Management Authority
of China and the CITES Secretariat convened the Workshop on Enforcement
of Tibetan Antelope in Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, in August 2003.
The workshop covered international and national wildlife law
enforcement, intelligence techniques, and collaboration with other
international law enforcement agencies as well as national agencies.
Despite these efforts, John Sellar, Senior Enforcement Officer, CITES
Secretariat, told the participants that international and national
initiatives have done little to stop the poaching of the Tibetan
antelope and the illegal trade in its parts (Sellar 2003).
In Nepal, the Tibetan antelope is listed as an endangered species
under Schedule I of Nepal's National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Act (Wright and Kumar 1997). Smugglers use Nepal as a transit route
from China to India (Government of Nepal 1999), and recent
investigations by WWF Nepal Program and TRAFFIC India have documented
the routes used. Although Nepal has made some effort to stop the
illegal trade, including the confiscation of several shahtoosh
shipments, it has been unable to eliminate or control the trade. This
has, in part, resulted from the lack of CITES-implementing legislation
at a national level (Government of Nepal 1999). In its national report
to the International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in
Tibetan Antelope in October 1999, the Government of Nepal indicated
that it had recently prepared CITES-implementing legislation, which was
awaiting approval by the Government (Government of Nepal 1999). That
legislation apparently had not yet been enacted as of the 53rd Meeting
of the CITES Standing Committee (SC) in June 2005 (SC53 Doc 31, http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/53/E53-31.pdf).
In India, the Tibetan antelope is listed on Schedule I of the
Wildlife Protection Act (1972), which prohibits hunting and trade in
any part of the species (Wright and Kumar 1997). The northern Indian
State of Jammu and Kashmir has a separate wildlife act, The Jammu and
Kashmir Wild Life Protection Act (J&K Act), which is independent of
national law. Prior to June 2002, the Tibetan antelope was listed in
Schedule II of the J&K Act which permitted the manufacture of and trade
in shahtoosh under certain conditions. Under Schedule II, shahtoosh
dealers had to be licensed and were required to report to the
government any import of Schedule II animal products (Ginsberg et al.
1999). The J&K Act was amended in June 2002 to elevate the species from
Schedule II to Schedule I, which provides complete protection to the
species.
Despite the fact that no shahtoosh dealers had ever been licensed
(Government of India 1999), the production and sale of shahtoosh shawls
and other products occurred under Schedule II and continue to occur
[[Page 15627]]
under Schedule I in Jammu and Kashmir. In response, the Wildlife Trust
of India (WTI) has filed a case in the Supreme Court of India against
the State of Jammu and Kashmir to force the implementation of the
amended wildlife law. So culturally entrenched is shahtoosh shawl
manufacturing in Jammu and Kashmir that a recent WTI-IFAW census of
shahtoosh workers indicated that 14,293 individuals were directly
involved in shahtoosh production (Gopinath et al. 2003). This number
appears to be lower than expected and declining due to legal
restrictions and alternative employment for pashmina production
(cashmere from the domestic mountain goat Capra hircus). According to
Dr. Ashok Kumar, Senior Advisor and Trustee, WTI, a study conducted by
WTI in partnership with IFAW in December 2003 found shahtoosh shawls
available illegally to tourists in New Delhi and other towns in India
(A. Kumar, WTI, in litt. January 5, 2004). From his study of the
shahtoosh trade since 1992, Dr. Kumar observed that methods of
concealment and porous borders between Tibet, India, and Nepal have
made enforcement of Tibetan antelope protection laws difficult.
Sale of shahtoosh shawls occurs elsewhere in India as well,
although sale is prohibited by national law. Despite the fact that
CITES and Indian Customs Law prohibit the commercial import and export
of shahtoosh and shahtoosh products, raw shahtoosh fiber still enters
India and finished products still leave. Indian authorities have made a
number of seizures of raw fiber and finished products over the years
(Wright and Kumar 1997; Government of India 1999), but because of the
conflict with Jammu and Kashmir, they have been unable to end the
production of shahtoosh products.
In the United States, the Appendix-I listing of the Tibetan
antelope has not completely prevented the illegal import and sale of
shahtoosh products. Besides CITES, the United States has an additional
domestic measure that regulates the trade of this species. The Lacey
Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) makes it unlawful to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase mammals or their products
that were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of State,
Federal, or foreign laws or regulations.
Although several investigations have revealed a market for
shahtoosh products in the United States, the first successful
prosecution was in 2001. On May 29, 2001, a Los Angeles-based clothier
agreed to pay a $175,000 civil settlement for importing and selling
shahtoosh shawls in violation of the Endangered Species Act (which is
the U.S. CITES implementing legislation) and the Lacey Act (press
release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of New Jersey, dated
May 29, 2001).
CITES provisions of the Endangered Species Act prohibit engaging in
trade contrary to CITES and the possession of any specimen traded
contrary to CITES. Thus, once a shahtoosh shawl is successfully
smuggled into the United States, enforcement officers must currently
prove the unlawful import in order to seize that shawl. Listing the
Tibetan antelope under the Act would prohibit the sale or offering for
sale of shahtoosh products in interstate or foreign commerce as well as
delivery, receipt, transport, or shipment in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial activity. This would give U.S.
prosecutors additional means of fighting shahtoosh smuggling and the
illegal market within the United States. In addition, penalties can be
greater for species that are listed under both CITES and the Endangered
Species Act.
Therefore, based on the best available information, we find that
the Tibetan antelope is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range from inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Tibetan antelope are known to have died from exposure and
malnutrition associated with severe winter weather (Schaller 1998). A
blizzard in Qinghai Province killed a disproportionate number of young
and yearlings, and resulted in reproductive failure in the following
year. Although, at the present time, inclement weather does not
significantly threaten or endanger the species in any portion of its
range, it may become more significant as populations decline and become
increasingly fragmented because of other mortality factors such as
poaching. Therefore, based on the best available information, we find
that the Tibetan antelope does not appear to be in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future from other natural or manmade factors.
Conclusion
In developing this rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the threats
facing this species. This information indicates that the total
population of Tibetan antelope has declined significantly over the past
three decades. This decline has resulted primarily from overutilization
for commercial purposes and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. Habitat impacts, especially those caused by domestic
livestock grazing, appear to be a contributory factor in the decline,
and could have potentially greater impacts in the near future. Because
these threats place the species in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (in accordance with the
definition of ``endangered species'' in section 3(6) of the Act), we
have determined that the Tibetan antelope is endangered throughout its
range, pursuant to the Act. This action will result in the
classification of this species as endangered, throughout its entire
range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition of conservation status,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies and
groups, and individuals. The protection required of Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against take and harm are discussed, in part,
below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or upon
the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be
listed or is listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
proposed or designated critical habitat, if any is being designated.
Because the Tibetan antelope is not native to the United States, no
critical habitat is being designated with this rule.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered species in foreign countries.
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage
conservation programs for foreign endangered species, and to provide
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. As such, these prohibitions are applicable to the Tibetan
antelope. These prohibitions, pursuant to 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the
[[Page 15628]]
jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of
these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or
export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered wildlife
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard
to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Office of Management and Budget approved the information
collection in part 17 and assigned OMB Control numbers 1018-0093 and
1018-0094. This final rule does not impose new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. We cannot conduct or sponsor and you are
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
References Cited
Bagla, P. 1995. Sustainable tigers? BBC Wildlife 15(5):55.
Bindra, P. S. 2004. 100 shahtoosh shawls seized in Dubai. The
Pioneer. August 7, 2004.
Bleisch, W. 1999. Pers. Comm. to the Tibetan Plateau Project via
email.
Bleisch, W. V., H. B. Zhang, D. H. Xu, and H. M. Wong. Unpublished
population density estimates for Tibetan antelope north of Mount
Muztagh Ulugh, Xinjiang Province, China, 1999-2001.
Bonvalot, G. 1892. Across Tibet. Cassell, New York.
Bower, H. 1894. Diary of a journey across Tibet. Macmillan, New
York.
China Daily. 1999. Qinghai closes nature reserve. December 30, 1999.
CITES Secretariat. 2004. Conservation of and control in Tibetan
antelope. Document 31 for the 13th Convention of the Parties. http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/13/docs/E13-31.pdf.
Deasy, H. 1901. In Tibet and Chinese Turkestan. Longmans Green, New
York.
Gatesy, J., D. Yelon, R. DeSalle, and E. Vrba. 1992. Phylogeny of
the Bovidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia), based on mitochondrial
ribosomal DNA sequence. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9:433-446.
Gentry, A. 1992. The subfamilies and tribes of the family Bovidae.
Mammal Review 22:1-32.
Ginsberg, J. R., G. B. Schaller, and J. Lowe. 1999. Petition to list
the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as an endangered species
pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Wildlife
Conservation Society and Tibetan Plateau Project.
Global Policy Forum. 2001. Potentially massive oil and gas find in
Tibet. September 5, 2001. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/China/2001/0905disc.htm.
Gopinath, R., R. Ahmed, A. Kumar, and A. Mookerjee. 2003. Beyond the
Ban: A Census of Shahtoosh Workers in Jammu & Kashmir. Wildlife
Trust of India and International Fund for Animal Welfare, New Delhi.
Government of India. 1999. Chiru and shahtoosh. Paper presented by
S.C. Sharma at 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and
Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
Government of Nepal. 1999. Some facts, problems and working
strategies of shahtoosh trade in Nepal. Paper presented by T. Maskey
at 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade
in Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
Harris, R. B., D. H. Pletscher, C. O. Loggers, and D. J. Miller.
1999. Status and trends of Tibetan plateau mammalian fauna,
Yeniugou, China. Biological Conservation 87:13-19.
Hedin, S. 1903. Central Asia and Tibet. 2 vols. Hurst and Blackett,
London.
Hedin, S. [1922]. 1991. Southern Tibet. Vols. 3 and 4. Reprinted by
B. R. Publ. Corp., Delhi.
IFAW-WTI (International Fund for Animal Welfare and Wildlife Trust
of India). 2001. Wrap up the trade: An international campaign to
save the endangered Tibetan antelope. 79 pp.
IFAW 2005. Poaching remains main threat to Tibetan antelope. http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=139700.
Liu, J. 1999. China resolves to end chiru poaching. China Daily,
June 30, 1999.
Los Angeles Times. 2002. Progress hems in nomadic herders of Tibet.
August 10, 2002.
Miller, D. J. 1997. A photo essay of Himalayan and Tibetan
pastoralism. In: Rangelands and pastoral development in the Hindu
Kush-Himalayas. International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu.
Miller, D. J. 2000. Tough times for Tibetan nomads in Western China:
Snowstorms, settling down, fences, and the demise of traditional
nomadic pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples 4(1):83-109.
Miller, D. J. 2001. Poverty among Tibetan nomads in western China:
Profiles of poverty and strategies for poverty reduction. Paper
prepared for Tibet Development Symposium, May 4-6, 2001, Brandeis
University.
Miller, D. J. 2002. The importance of China's nomads. Rangelands
24(1):22-24.
Miller, D. J., and G. B. Schaller. 1997. Conservation threats to the
Chang Tang wildlife reserve, Tibet. Ambio 26(3).
People's Daily. 2002. Railway construction makes way for rare
antelope. August 7, 2002.
Rawling, C. 1905. The great plateau. Edward Arnold, London.
Ridgeway, R. 2003. 275 miles on foot through the remote Chang Tang.
National Geographic Magazine 203:104-125.
Schaller, G. B. 1993. In a high and sacred realm. National
Geographic Magazine 184.
Schaller, G. B. 1998. Wildlife of the Tibetan steppe. The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago. 373 pp.
Schaller, G. B. 1999. Natural history of Tibetan antelope. 1999
International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in
Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
Schaller, G. B., and B. Gu. 1994. Comparative ecology of ungulates
in the Aru Basin of northwest Tibet. National Geographic Research
and Exploration 10:266-293.
Sellar, J. M. 2003. Opening address. Proceedings of Workshop on
Enforcement of Tibetan Antelope. CITES, Geneva.
SFA (State Forestry Administration). 1998. Conservation status of
the Tibet antelope. China State Forestry Administration. December
1998. 4 pp.
USEC (United States Embassy China). 1996. Gold mining in China:
Taming the wild west. http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/english/sandt/goldw.htm.
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder. 1993. Mammal species of the world:
A taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd ed. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC. 1206 pp.
WPSI News (Wildlife Protection Society of India). 2002. 80 shahtoosh
shawls seized in Delhi. March 18, 2002.
Wright, B., and A. Kumar. 1997. Fashioned for extinction: An expose
of the shahtoosh trade. Wildlife Protection Society of India, New
Delhi. 48 pp.
Xinhua. 1998. Tibet punishes poachers. October 28, 1998.
Xinhuanet. 2002a. Railway suspended for Tibetan antelope migration.
June 26, 2002.
[[Page 15629]]
Xinhuanet. 2002b. China curbs poaching of Tibetan antelopes. October
29, 2002.
Xinhuanet. 2002c. Extinction of Tibetan antelopes very possible if
poaching persists: expert. August 19, 2002.
Zhen, R. 2000. For future of [the] Tibetan antelope: Proceedings of
the 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade
in Tibetan Antelope held in Xining, China in October, 1999. 147 pp.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Michael Kreger, Ph.D.,
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES section; telephone 703-358-1708).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical order
under Mammals, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Antelope, Tibetan................ Panthalops hodgsonii China, India, Nepal Entire............. E ........... NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 23, 2006.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 06-3034 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P