CONSERVATION OF ARABIAN GAZELLES - Nwrc.gov.sa

eflect the truly remarkable output of one man, and his extraordinary efficiency in eliciting and
collating reports from antelope and other wildlife workers around the world. Part 4 should be out in
the near future, after publication of the IUCN Antelope Red Data Book (East, pers. comm.).
A precursor to Volume 4 exists in the form of a paper presented recently by Rod East to the
joint SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) - ASG - AAZPA Antelope Taxon Advisory
Group meeting, held at the Li ving Desert, Palm Desert, California in January 1992 (East, 1992a).
This summarizes the information collated to date on the 23 species of antelope known from North
Africa and Asia.
The goal of the ASG international conservation policy is "to ensure the long term survival of
all antelope species by maintaining as many viable populations as possible of each species in as wide
a range of its habitats as is practical" (East, 1988). This begs the question: "What is a species" and
hence the present very thorny and sometime controversial considerations over species and subspecies,
probably nowhere more knotty than amongst the gazelle, duiker and hartebeest.
The three volumes produced cover three major regions of Africa - essentially East, Southern
and West - and have each been treated on a political country case, ending with an overview of
antelope and general conservation status for the region, and finally action plans for each region.
These plans have tended more to specific geographic locations within the region and their antelope
populations. These locations are in the main existing protected areas such as National Parks.
The results of the survey to date have been more of a qualitative than quantitative nature. It
has been possible to collate species lists for most countries, and to a greater or lesser extent determine
their distribution and conservation status. The species/subspecies question comes up in every volume
and in the main the criteria used have been based upon recognition by the International Commission
of Zoological Nomenclature, with mention made of prominent subspecies as recognized in the area or
country concerned. Quantitative data is limited to those protected areas and countries where wildlife
conservation is well-established and sufficient expertise and resources have existed for some time.
This is particularly true in some East and Southern African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia).
It is evident that much more detailed information is required on antelope numbers and trends.
These are best obtained from repeated aerial and/or ground censuses and nation-wide monitoring of
all wildlife species. This is an expensive process, in terms of funds, personnel and time, and one
which can be supported by few developing countries. Kenya established the Kenya Rangeland
Ecological Monitoring Unit (KREMU) over a decade ago; Tanzania recently established the
Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Monitoring Progranune. Similar programmes exist in other African
countries, usually operated by the national wildlife management authority. Elsewhere, subjective
assessment of antelope numbers and trends have been made, usually by people with long-standing
experience of the area concerned.
The survey stage of the process is not an end in itself; it is not a "stamp-collecting" exercise
to accumulate all the academic knowledge possible on the existence of antelope species. It is an
attempt to collate the relevant information and data required in order to plan for the long-term
maintenance of components of the complex three-dimensional ecological processes on which the
future of the earth, and thus maTikind, depends. Antelope conservation is but a part of the overall
environmental conservation strategy, taking full account of, and integrated with, human development
needs (East, 1988).
129