Since Burrard’s (1925) hunting account, Himalayan Tahr has been known to traverse the steepest precipices. In general, they inhabit steep rocky mountain slopes, between 3,000–4,000 m asl, with woods and rhododendron Rhodondendron sp. scrub (Smith et al. 2008).

In Nepal, various surveys—like those in Kang Chu area (Schaller 1973), Everest National Park (Ale 2007), Langtang National Park (Green, 1979) and Annapurna Conservation Area (Gurung 1995)—reported that tahr occupy various habitat types from open alpine grassland and subalpine scrubland to sparse or even dense forests (tahr winter habitat). Precipitous cliffs break the continuity of these habitats. The best tahr habitat in the Everest region can be described as cliff faces broken by ledges supporting grasses, forbs and shrub mats at higher altitudes (mean 3,863 m, SE=0.9, range 3,260 m - 4,800 m, n=191) and patches of open pine or birch forest at lower altitude (mean 3,621 m, SE=1.4, range 3,300 m - 4,031 m, n=66). Tahr was reported from as high as 5,200 m (e.g., in Langtang: Fox 1974) and as low as 2,500 m in Kang Chu (Schaller 1977). In these mountains, steep hill slopes and undulating terrains are often characteristically interrupted by abrupt cliffs which act as oasis for these cliff-huggers whose presence is often predictive in these enclaves. This cliff-hugging behaviour of tahr restricts its own distribution (Ale 2007) and perhaps limits its group size as well.

Himalayan Tahr is diurnal, with varying group sizes depending on the degree of habitat ruggedness that characterizes particular localities. Group size of tahr is also influenced by the abundance of food and predation pressure. For instance, in Everest, group size ranged from 1-46 (average of ca. 8, n=277), during 2004 to 2006 (Lovari 1992, Ale 2007). The average group size increased over the decade in Everest perhaps in response to the return of snow leopards to the region (Ale 2007). Tahr formed comparatively larger groups in Annapurna Base Camp, Annapurna Conservation Area (13.8, range 1-57, n=134: Gurung 1995) and Langtang (average 15, largest group 77: Green 1979). Both Annapurna and Langtang lacked large predator, such as the snow leopard, in alpine and subalpine habitat, but most of these areas were characterized by undulating grasslands and scrublands thereby providing more plant forages for herbivores.

The prevalence of local hunting may also influence the average group size. In Himachal Pradesh, western Himalaya (India), group size was very small (ca. 1.7, n = 7) with severe hunting in the past (Gaston et al. 1983). This may have been reflected in the overall density reported from different study sites. In Everest, the tahr density was ca. 3.4/km² (with no human hunting but presence of large predator). Gurung (1995) reported tahr at the density of 7.7/km² from Annapurna, with no human hunting and no large predator. In the absence of local hunting or natural predation, food can be the principle factor liming the size of populations. In overall Langtang (with no large predator and no human hunting), Tiwari (2006) reported 8.72 tahr/km² (8 herds, 218 individuals, in an area of 25 square kilometre). In the Langtang region of Langtang National Park, local density of tahr reached as high as 24/km² (Green 1979: 170 in 7 km²), where tahr was neither hunted nor its habitat grazed by livestock. On the other hand, Yala region of Langtang National Park, with ten times more domestic sheep and eight times more cattle than Langtang region, reached low tahr density (6/km²). In the absence of hunting in parts of New Zealand, tahr attained densities of >30/km² (Tustin and Challies, 1978). Female groups can reach very high densities in New Zealand, with groups of 100–150 commonly observed in areas that have not been hunted (D. Forsyth, unpubl. data). With regular hunting their population, however, maintained a density of ca. 5/km² (Tustin and Challies 1978)

Mating occurs from October to January, with it peaking around the first half of December (Lovari, S., unpubl. data). One or occasionally two kids are born in June and July after a gestation of 180-242 days. The age at sexual maturity is 1.5 years, with captive animals living up to 22 years (Smith et al., 2008). Females have home ranges of about 2 km² centred on rock bluffs. Males appear to be highly mobile, and outside of the rut are segregated from females (D. Forsyth, unpubl. data).

Himalayan Tahr is known to eat grass, herbs and some fruits. On Mt. Everest, tahr’s diets consisted typically of such grasses and sedges as Carex, Avena, Poa, Trisetum, Cyperaceae and Imperata. (Shrestha et al. 2002): overall, the diets were composed of 47% herbaceous plants and shrubs, 28% grasses and 25% sedges. This was similar to that Green (1979) reported for tahr in Langtang valley (38% herbaceous plants and shrubs, 34% grasses, 21% sedges, 4% ferns and 4% mosses). Green (1979) found in winter tahr supplemented its diet with small amounts of mosses and ferns, presumably because other food is less readily available. The diets of livestock and tahr were similar in the Everest region, but the proportion of woody plants (Rhododendron and Cotoneaster) was higher and that of grasses and sedges were lower in the diet of livestock than tahr.

Himalayan Tahr is found in the Himalaya of China, India and Nepal spread over an estimated 44,200 km², however the actual area of occurrence may be much smaller given extirpation and currently unsuitable habitats in between. Outside the Himalayas, tahr was introduced to the South Island of New Zealand and Western Cape Province in South Africa (Grubb 2005). They were accidentally released in Cibola National Forest Mountain (New Mexico, USA) from a game ranch, and in Neuquén province and Parque Diana ranch of Argentina perhaps illegally by ranchers (Flueck 2010), and possibly now extinct from Neuquén (Guichon et al. 2016).

In China, Himalayan Tahr was discovered in 1974 in Quxiang of Buoqu Valley (aka Zhangmu Valley) in southern Tibet (Beijing Natural History Museum and Qinghai Institute of Biology 1977). Since then, there has been no additional information pertaining to its occurrence or status. A confirmed report of species presence came from Tibet’s Geelong-Buoqu Valleys (Wang et al. 1984, Feng et al. 1986, Wang 1998, Smith et al. 2008, Hu et al. 2014) and Qomolangma Nature Reserve (pers. comm., Labaciren) where numbers of tahr have been sighted regularly in the Rongxia and Chentang valleys.

In India, Himalayan Tahr occurs along subalpine regions across southern forested slopes in Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Sikkim (Sathyakmuar 2002). Populations are patchily distributed from south-central Kashmir through the southern part of Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) between c. 2,000 and 3,300 m (Gaston et al. 1981, 1983). They are widely present at similar elevations from northern Uttarakhand all the way to the border of Nepal. Small numbers of tahr also inhabit east Sikkim (nearby India-Nepal border) and west Sikkim (close to India-Bhutan border).

In Nepal, Himalayan Tahr formerly had a continuous distribution between 1,500 m and 5,200 m, but this has been increasingly disrupted by human activities such as livestock-grazing and subsistence hunting (Green 1978, 1979, Ale, S. B. unpubl. data). Overall, in Nepal, tahr inhabits temperate to sub-alpine forests and alpine meadows, mainly between ca 2,500 m and 4,000 m, but individuals at times venture up to 5,200 m. Schaller (1977) mapped fourteen locations of tahr in Nepal, but there are undoubtedly more.

In Bhutan, tahr is reported from the Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve (Tshewang et al. 2018). However, Bhutan Government’s Nature Conservation Division of the Department of Forest and Park Services has not confirmed its presence in the country (Sonam Wangdi, December 2019, pers. comm.).

Himalayan Tahr is not listed under threatened category of CITES.

It is listed as Category I species in China. Conservation measures proposed for China included undertaking surveys to determine the species’ distribution and status in Qomolangma Nature Reserve (Hu et al. 2014). Qomolangma Nature Reserve started the snow leopard program in 2015 funded by Vanke Foundation. The program undertook a large-scale wildlife survey and subsequent conservation projects that included educating local communities about tahr and other wildlife.

In India, protected areas with Himalayan Tahr include: Jammu and Kashmir – Kishtwar National Park (locally threatened); Himachal Pradesh - Great Himalayan National Park (confirmed), and Daranghati (locally threatened), Gamgul Siahbehi, Kanawar, Khokhan, Kugti, Manali (locally threatened or extinct), Rupi Bhaba, Sechu Tuan Nala, Tirthan and Tundah (locally threatened) Wildlife Sanctuaries; Uttarakhand -Nanda Devi and (probably) Valley of Flowers National Parks, Govind Pashu Vihar and Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Sikkim - Khangchendzonga National Park (Gaston et al. 1981, 1983, Green 1987; Kathayat and Mathur 2002). Tahr uses rugged forested slopes with temperate oak and pine forests, well below the subalpine areas where it is often currently located. This suggests that its current range distribution may reflect displacement from formerly used lower elevation areas. Conservation measures proposed for India include: 1) extend the Great Himalayan National Park as proposed, 2) establish the proposed Srikhand National Park (Himachal Pradesh), 3) devise innovative community based reserves for the species outside protected areas (these need to include community based protection, tourism, awareness, etc.), and 4) include areas with tahr in the innovative, participatory, landscape level planning and action under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Project Snow Leopard. Overall, the country’s conservation strategy clearly states conserving species in and outside protected areas.

A significant proportion of Nepal’s tahr occurs within protected areas, but its population is widespread in areas outside of protected areas (e.g., the region that lies between Manaslu and Langtang, Bhimthang valley between Manalsu and Annapurna, and Dolpo, Jumla, Mugu and Humla districts). The species occurs in all mountain protected areas of Nepal: Langtang, Rara, Sagamartha (Everest), Makalu-Barun and Shey-Phoksundo National Parks; Api Nampa, Annapurna, Manalsu, Gaurishankar and Kanchanjunga Conservation Areas, Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, and Khaptad National Park.

Conservation measures proposed for Nepal: 1) maintain the current, closely controlled, legal hunting program in Dhorpatan, 2) consider a regulated program of low-level subsistence hunting by local villagers, and 3) undertake surveys to understand the increasing fragmentation of tahr populations and offer mitigation measures. The first steps to address this issue would be to begin in selected areas by mapping tahr habitat features such as cliffs (using 1:50,000 topographic maps), followed by ground surveys to validate the species’ presence/absence.

Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve is the only reserve in Nepal that allows trophy hunting of Himalayan Tahr along with blue sheep. From 2008 to 2011, Karki and Thapa (2011) reported 34 Himalayan Tahr were harvested: 18 in 2008/09 (100% harvest; quota set by the government), 11 (61% in 2009/10) and 5 (28 % in 2010/11). A quick glance on the numbers harvested indicates they were not so small numbers if adult males have been the only target. It would mean some 10-15 % of the adult male (trophy) population (Sandro Lovari, pers. comm). Perhaps the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation – Nepal should consider revaluating the trophy hunting of tahr on a sustainable basis.