There is more information needed about the size of the population, the mating patterns, the age structire and the sex structure of the population. The levels of threat for this species is also needed.

There is more information required about there habitat and also about climatic conditions where You will start conservations

1. try as precise as possible to map species' distribution range; gather all the literature, field and herbarium data; ask your peers for further information with regards species' occurrence

2. try to estimate population number

3. go and study species' reproductive biology! I believe this is one of the most important parts of your conservation efforts;

4. try to depict species' genetic structure; this is important if some re-establishment of populations in nature are planned in the future;

5. define its niche assembly, try to study some other habitat (abiotic) preferences of the species

6. go and prepare an effective monitoring programe

best,

Bostjan

Dear Inayat,

This study, where you are a co-author seems to provide enough information to plan conservation activities.

https://portals.iucn.org/2012forum/sites/2012forum/files/status-and-distribution-hangul-kashmir-india.pdf

I believe that in cases like this you have to focus on in situ activities, by trying to protect the habitat of the species from the external threats that are well described in this paper and in other reports by IUCN. Dealing with these threats, needs a horizontal approach involving different players with contrasting interests. This is not an easy task. You have to work more at the socio-economic level than at the biological-ecological one. There are several guidelines how to proceed with such wildlife conservation programs from conservation organisations, such as IUCN, WWF, etc. Another suggestion is that you need local knowledge to design an effective conservation plan. No matter what we suggest here, only the ones knowing the ocnditions and the relations between different stakeholders in the region can decide what should be done and what can be done.

Good luck!

Aristotelis

Any chance you might be able to translocate some individuals to another natural park with favourable ecological conditions? Then you could start a second population. Ideally the two areas should be connected by some kind of an ecological corridor.

Study the species in its current habitat to find out the factors that favour it and demographic characteristics. Even inside the same park, the species might have microhabitat conditions of preference. Find out the threats of the species in the same habitat. The findings will inspire of what strategies to take. Of course, in principle we try to maintain / protect the species habitat; we may also try to look for other suitable habitats elsewhere and translocate some individuals of the same species depending on the prevailing demographic characteristics of the species.

I would try to start from finding out & understanding why it became rare and endangered in a first place. And what does the species need to be successful? what are the bottlenecks ? So my opinion is very close to mr. Joseph Hitimana here above.

If plant species, it will be more easy than animals. Conservation needs a space. Space is important for the the future succession of any species.

What can be done to reach world peace on earth?

Hi,

The first step consists in understanding currents threads on the species; why do this species is endangered ? Together with the precise study of ecological requirements of the species.

Then, it is eventually possible to work on threads themselves while maintening and favouring population(s) inside the preserved area.

It is interesting also to find, protect and reinforce suitable habitats and translocate individuals in other suitable areas.

To respect already exiting related national and international agreements and conventions on habitat and species conservation and protection.

Factors that drive a species to extinction are multiple, diverse and may work in concert or singularly. Extrinsic factors e.g., Disease, habitat degradation, predators, competitors as well as host intrinsic factors e.g., genetic viability, population size etc are common drivers of extinction that need to be investigated and considered when planning any mitigation measures. In Kenya, we manage the critically endangered black rhino as metapopulation in sanctuaries where population dynamics and genetic flow is artificially aided

Difficult question ...

here or habitat protection

or artificial propagation

or both

First of all I think is very important to know the exact number of species in the world. For example, the last year 2013 (only 9 days before) more than ten animal species were discovered: Leoparda guttulus, two sharks, a tapir, a fish in the Amazon, the olinguito, Arapaima leptosoma and four new species of legless lizards were discovered in and around Los Angeles.

To change our attitude and to realize the importance of the species.

The specie number is about 210 to 235@ Fabian Mar.Efforts are being taken to prevent the specie to go extinction as at one time the no was 5000.The specie is a member of red deer and is the only specie that is found here only around the world

The most important and first question would be the total number of specimens in the protected population. If this population is numerous, then, all the questions related to protection will turn around the conservation fo the habitat and prevention of poaching etc... It this initial population is low (the "low" concept depends of the taxon), then the FIRST duty is to increase this population as quickly as possible in order to reduce the genetic drift by minimizing the founding effect. Then, two options are possible: IN SITU conservation or EX SITU breeding. If there are animals that can be easily breed, then EX SITU multiplication is to be considered. Cervus are animals that are quite easy to breed, so, if the wild population is already very low, EX SITU breeding could be a good "insurance". The best would be likely to conserve a part of the initial population as completely wild, removing some specimens EX SITU to increase the total number of specimens, without to take the risk of a massive poaching, epizooty or climatic viscissitudes. Of course, EX SITU operation look allways as a "last chance" but it is important to take this last chance when it is still possible to work with.

Bye, Pierre

Besides of the good advise provided by the other goleagues here, one aspect that I would recommend you to take into account is if the carrying capacity of the park is high enough to mantain a viable population of C. elaphus in the long term. Consider the size of the park and the resources it provides for the species, and try to stablish the minimum size at which the population of the deers can be sustained without tending to go extinct (of course this is not an easy task at all, but I guess it might be useful to have that information in order to design a management plan). You could use population viability analysis software, considering different scenarios, to have an idea of the the future tendencies in the population in the long term to assess if the current conditions of the park and the population are favorable for the conservation of the species.

Good luck!

First identify the threats to the species then you can decide whether to use insitu or expiry conversation approach

The important thing is that the hangul (Cervus elaphus hanglu) is not a species. It is a subspecies of the Red Deer. It is restricted to Dachigam National Park, which is rather small and more or less surrounded by densely populated areas. The populace there is largely unmotivated to protect wildlife.

I would urge the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to have a captive breeding program in a distant location, eg. Sikkim or Uttarakhand, so that unforeseeable events that might threaten the localized population with extinction will not result in the extinction of the subspecies. If it is a matter of state level pride, there could be an exchange program for captive breeding of the Sikkim Stag (shou) in Kashmir and the Kashmir Stag in Sikkim.

Besides this, the present in situ conservation efforts are not ineffective, which is proved by the continuing existence of the deer despite the depredations of lawless elements and the continuing state of tension being engineered in the Kashmir valley. So, on the ground measures are adequate, but the wider picture needs to be addressed. As in the case of the Asiatic lion, the jealousies of politicians and bureaucrats cannot be allowed to stand in the way of survival of the population by preventing the captive breeding or introduction of the animals in a distant habitat.

Remember the case of Pere David's Deer in China....

The most important aspect to save any species from extinction is to conserve the habitatat and manage this habitat. Many species go extinct as a result of habitat loss to expantion of agriculture and resulting conflict of humans with nature. I would suggest that to secure suitable land and then conserving the whole ecosystem would be the first step in securing the future of any individual species. This will have to be a joint effort from the government and also the community ie farmers in posession of land.

Protected populations are different from extinction,it IS REALLY a question to be explain by Evolutionary and fossil study scientists.

Its easy.

Spend more money (In the case of the US) than we do on anti-environmental initiates. The reality is that no effort is being made anywhere. There is just enough thrown at the problem to make it look like any government cares. Governments are made up of people who largely are interested in making money for themselves. Now, if we could find a way to bribe all the politiicians and government leaders, a lot woudl happen.

Captive breeding is one of the most important way to solve this problem, as it is the process of breeding rare or endangered species in human controlled environments with restricted settings, such as wildlife preserves, zoos and other conservation facilities. Captive breeding is meant to save species from extinction and so stabilize the population of the species that it will not disappear. Furthermore, private farming is also important. TQ

Knowledge of what species exist is limited and current records of geographical locations are biased, at least at spatial scales useful for conservation planning. Most field records are collected in a random manner from locations where the species of interest are likely to be found, or are conveniently accessible (Margules et al. 2002). Although the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) compiles database about threatened species on a worldwide scale, yet, it has limitations of being based on lesser taxonomic coverage, large gaps in collections and insufficient empirical data. For instance, out of the 1,236 threatened species in India, 690 species are placed under Data Deficient status, and thus 55.8% taxa lack sufficient data so as to be evaluated according to IUCN criteria (Reddy et al. 2009). As Diamond (1976) stated, conservation strategy should not treat all species as equal but must focus on species and habitats threatened by human activity. Ecosystem conservation is certainly be more efficient and effective than the conventional species-by-species approach and would support the goal of maintaining overall biodiversity. The conservation plans should be ecosystem based and prioritise those at greatest risk of further losses of biodiversity. When a suite of ecosystems qualifies for listing, these can be listed together and restored to viability through multi-species conservation planning (Murphy et al. 1994). There is now a growing realization that the species-level conservation efforts will never meet the desired outcome, unless we conserve the ecosystems which are the real repositories of biodiversity (Rodriguez et al. 2011). Therefore the threat assessment and prioritization of ecosystems, especially those facing increasing threats, can help in taking targeted conservation efforts at the ecosystem level. By C. Sudhakar Reddy, K.R.L. Saranya, Anzar A. Khuroo, P. Hari Krishna, C.S. Jha

The one that really bothers me is that as Saranya just stated, we need to know what is out there, but beyond that we also need to know something about the life histories of what is out there. Frankly, its kind of like the old "judging a book by its cover" philosophy. We put tons of money into describing species and determining their place in the evolutionary tree, but literally zero is put into life history research. In the US, there is not a single program that funds research to describe the life histories of any species. This is a critical unmet need in a global context.

Malcolm. Yes, we need a national biological survey. So, who can create this? Oh wait a minute, we had one since 1885 (Bureau of Biological Survey) in Dept Interior.  It became the U.S. Biological Survey and a small unit mostly focused on taxonomic matters but also ecology of species (the core group remains at the Natl Museum of Natural History). I was hired by them in 1972.  In 1993, Bruce Babbitt created the National Biological Survey but politicians did not like it, so merged us into U.S. Geological Survey a few years later. Today, there is no dedicated program to study life histories of species. Some excellent work happens but usually on listed species. In cave the "Survey" returns, I still have my t-shirt with it on the front!  Have degree, will travel.