The saiga’s recovery: a conservation success that is not secure

The saiga antelope is not currently disappearing at the rate implied by older accounts. After severe losses from poaching and disease, populations recovered enough for the IUCN Red List to reclassify Saiga tatarica from Critically Endangered to Near Threatened in 2023. That is a major conservation success, but it does not mean the species is safe. Saigas migrate across large open landscapes and can still be hit by rapid mortality events that remove thousands of animals in a short time.

A recovery after a severe collapse

Saigas once ranged across a much broader part of Eurasia. By 2005, poaching and other pressures had reduced the global population to roughly 48,000 animals. Recovery in Kazakhstan, supported by anti-poaching work and habitat protection, drove a large increase. The 2023 IUCN assessment moved the species to Near Threatened after estimating a strong rebound. Near Threatened means it is close to qualifying for a threatened category; it is not a declaration that the species has returned to a secure state.

A later Kazakhstan report gives a striking regional figure. FBRK, the Foundation for Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan, reported in August 2026 that the 2025 count was 3.978 million, divided among the Ural, Betpak-Dala and Ustyurt populations. The report attributed those numbers to census data, but its summary did not describe survey design, confidence intervals or how the estimate related to seasonal births and mortality. It should therefore be quoted with its year, geography and source, not silently converted into a precise global total.

This is why older text claiming that the species is simply “vanishing” needs revision. Recovery changed the conservation problem. Large herds can compete with livestock for pasture, cross roads and railways, and prompt pressure for population control. These are management questions shaped by migration routes, local livelihoods and evidence about population trends. They should not erase the history of poaching or the continued need to protect the species.

Why a large population can still be vulnerable

Saigas gather to give birth, often in large seasonal aggregations. That can make populations vulnerable to infectious disease when environmental conditions favour transmission. In 2015, more than 200,000 saigas died in central Kazakhstan in about three weeks. A multidisciplinary study identified hemorrhagic septicaemia associated with Pasteurella multocida type B as the proximate cause. Weather measurements before the event were unusual, and researchers argued that environmental conditions likely contributed to the outbreak. They did not show that climate change alone caused it.

Mass mortality is not a forecast that another event must occur on a set schedule. It is evidence that a large herd can suffer a severe shock. Veterinary surveillance, rapid field response and transparent reporting are important because a die-off can begin before scientists know which pathogen is involved. Disease risk also differs from illegal hunting and habitat disruption; each needs its own evidence and response.

Movement is central to the saiga’s ecology. Seasonal migrations connect calving areas with pastures and winter ranges across Kazakhstan, Russia and Mongolia. Fences, railways, roads and other infrastructure may impede routes or raise mortality, although the effect varies by location and crossing design. Protecting only small patches while severing the corridors between them can leave a population numerically large but ecologically constrained.

Conservation after downlisting

The global Red List category and a national count should be read together but not confused. The IUCN assessment used its own population data and risk criteria; the 2025 Kazakhstan figure reflects a later report for one country. The two figures have different dates and scopes. Neither, on its own, tells us whether every migration route is open, whether population regulation is sustainable or whether a smaller population elsewhere is recovering.

Good conservation asks how the increase is distributed, whether animals can complete their migrations and how people who share the steppe experience the return. Independent monitoring and public methods help distinguish natural fluctuations from survey differences. If management includes removals or culling, the reasons, numbers, disposal and ecological outcomes should be transparent and reviewed against population data.

The saiga is therefore both a success and a warning. Rapid recovery shows that protection can matter. The 2015 die-off shows that abundance alone cannot insure a migratory animal against disease and environmental extremes. The great bustard, another steppe species, also depends on open landscapes where agriculture and wildlife conservation must be planned together.