2 weeks Ago By Vivek Mishra
No breeding programme has been started in Indian zoos for the conservation of musk deer, classified as ‘endangered’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, according to a recent report. “There are currently no reports of captive musk deer animals in any recognised zoo, indicating that no breeding programme has been initiated for this species,” Plant Breeding Programmes in Indian Zoos: Assessment and Strategic Actions (2024), released by the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) in December 2024 and accessed by Down To Earth ( DTE ), notes. The report also reveals that there is no information available on the population of alpine musk deer ( Moschus chrysogaster) .
DTE twice sought information on musk deer conservation programmes from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, both times, the ministry replied that its job is only to help the states in conservation. No answer was given to the question asked in the RTI about the Himalayan Musk Project started in 1982.
“I have no hesitation in saying that breeding programmes like captive breeding or conservation breeding of musk deer in India have been a total failure. At the same time, China has not only succeeded in increasing their breeding but has also invented a technique of extracting the strong and distinct fragrance emanating from the musk pod (the gland present near the navel of the male deer) without killing them,” BC Choudhary, a retired senior wildlife biologist from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), was emphatic as he talked to Down To Earth ( DTE ). India does not even have founder stock for breeding musk deer, so how can the country think about further science, he asked.
‘Founder stock’ means the pair from which breeding can be carried forward. The musk deer is still plagued by poaching for the sake of perfume and medicines which are more valuable than gold. Apart from this, the problem of genetic purity has also arisen due to misidentification of wildlife.
Choudhary said the 1982 project was started so that steps could be taken for the proper welfare of musk deer. This also included in situ conservation, or the process of trying to preserve an animal or plant in its natural habitat. He further added, “However, the project was forgotten and now everything seems to be centered on the tiger ( Panthera tigris ).
” Efforts have been made to breed musk deer since 1965. However, according to Choudhary, all efforts made before the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 were not for captive breeding or conservation breeding. Their aim was not conservation.
In 1993, S Sathyakumar, a scientist from WII, along with the International Zoo Authority, published a report titled Status of Captive Himalayan Forest Musk Deer (Moss. chrysogaster) in India . The research paper states that in India, captive breeding of the Moss Chrysogaster species started in 1965 and was taken up seriously after 1975.
This government scheme had two main objectives — first, to prepare a healthy captive population for future release into the wild and second, to extract musk for medicine. These deer breeding centers were built in Kufri, Almora and Chamoli. All these centres failed to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
According to the website of Beauty Without Cruelty-India , an international educational charitable trust working for animal rights based in Pune, the musk deer is the state animal of Uttarakhand. Despite this, no attention has been paid to it there. According to data from this website, there were about 1,000 musk deer in the 1980s.
In 1982, a captive breeding centre was set up within the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary with only five musk deer. Their number increased to 28. But later, all these deer died due to reasons like snake bites, pneumonia, upset stomach or heart attack.
In 2006, the centre was closed and the only surviving deer was sent to a zoo in Darjeeling. The number of animals being bred in captivity in various zoos was mentioned in a 2017-18 list of the CZA. According to this, there was one male musk deer in Darjeeling.
However, after seven years, the latest status is still not clear. DTE contacted officials of the Authority but could not get an updated list. Choudhary said Himalayan states have not been able to form a common group to save these endangered species.
Only local-level data can give some idea of the number of these species. At the same time, the latest report of the CZA, accessed by DTE , says, “No recent estimates of the current population of the Alpine musk deer in its natural habitat are available. According to the ICUN’s 2014 assessment report, the population of this species is declining.
It has been categorised as “critically endangered”. There is no record of captive breeding of this species in any zoo in India.” The most shocking fact that came to light in this report was that even the species brought to the zoo for captive breeding could not be properly identified.
The CZA report said, “This antelope is found mainly in the central to eastern Himalayas and has been identified for planned breeding programme. But there has been confusion in distinguishing it from the Himalayan musk deer ( Moschus leucogaster ), which ranges from the western to the eastern Himalayas. Since the geographical ranges of both are similar, it is possible that the zoos have made a mistake in identifying them.
” The report further said, “It is believed that the zoos in Himachal Pradesh probably housed Moss Leucogaster , while the zoos in Uttarakhand and West Bengal probably housed Moss Chrysogaster . The deer kept at the Musk Deer Breeding Centre near Chopta in Uttarakhand and the Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoo in Darjeeling are probably Moss chrysogaster .” According to the report, “Orders such as Artiodactyla , Carnivora and Galliformes are rich in biodiversity and many of their species are considered important for conservation.
Breeding plans have been created for these groups but the review shows that many of these plans have either not been started or are not being run properly.” For example, mistakes in the identification of species such as the Alpine musk deer and the Himalayan serow ( Capricornis sumatrensis thar ) have complicated the management of populations. Additionally, the limited number of original breeding animals and the inability to systematically track the identity or lineage of animals is affecting the genetic purity of captive populations.
Although breeding plans for gaur ( Bos gaurus ) and Indian chevrotain ( Moschiola indica ) have made good progress, these successes have also revealed that major issues remain, such as poor record keeping, uncoordinated animal transfers, and poor care systems. The species declared endangered by IUCN to be introduced in India through captive breeding include not only the musk deer but also the Tibetan antelope, Nilgiri tahr, Ganges river dolphin, wild water buffalo, pygmy hog and Hangul. No breeding programme has been initiated yet for these.
The natural population of the wild water buffalo is estimated to be around 2,500 and is declining (IUCN, 2016). The species is classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ and no captive population is recorded in any zoo in India. The Chhattisgarh government is setting up a conservation breeding centre at Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary where six wild-born buffaloes captured from Assam’s Manas National Park (1 male-1 female adult pair and 4 female juveniles) are being kept.
In addition, 13 presumed hybrid (7 male, 6 female) water buffaloes, mixed with domestic animals and kept in the Udanti-Sitanadi Wildlife Sanctuary, have been excluded from the breeding programme. At the same time, the natural population of the pygmy hog is believed to be between 100 and 250. This species is also in the critically endangered category (IUCN, 2016).
It is occasionally kept in small numbers in some zoos in India. A conservation programme is underway for this species in Assam, which is being jointly run by the non-profit Aranyak and the Government of Assam. This programme covers conservation breeding and reintroduction.
As per amendments in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, it may be necessary to obtain recognition from the CZA in the future. Though there is no official data available on the number of animals kept in captivity, 116 animals have been released in the wild since 2008 as per a report by Aranyak. In India, efforts made by individuals or some institutions have still shown good results.
Vultures are an excellent example of this. However, problems such as individuals of unknown sex and insufficient founder stock used for breeding show that better genetic and demographic monitoring is needed. Similarly, the Nicobar pigeon of the order Columbiformes and the red-crowned roofed turtle of the order Testudines have small and stable populations but lack systematic management to improve their conservation.
In contrast, for species such as the Shaheen Falcon and the Malabar Pied Hornbill, no concrete conservation efforts have yet been initiated, and their populations are mainly based on solitary or rescued individuals. It has been made clear in the report that it would not be right to add new species to planned breeding programmes now. At the same time, the IUCN Red List is quite old and it reflects the global perspective, not the situation of any particular country.
In such a situation, India will have to work on its list. Choudhary said that there is no dearth of scientists in the country to work on matters like de-extinction science. However, lack of funds and research and development and obstacles in even collecting blood and tissue samples of animals are holding us back.
“Forest officials never allow tissue and blood samples to be taken, citing damage to wildlife. Even today, we do not have genome information for many endangered species. The Laboratory for the Conservation of Endangered Species has been set up in Hyderabad.
However, it is also not affiliated with a zoo. The laboratory has some genome information, but it does not have information about all the endangered species. Today, there is a need for investment in these,” said Choudhary.
.
