Three subspecies of Banteng have come to be generally recognised (Lekagul and McNeely 1977, National Research Council 1983):
1. Bos javanicus javanicus on Java and Bali,
2. B. j. lowi on Borneo, and
3. B. j. birmanicus on the Asian mainland.

Grzimek (1990) argued against separating these local forms into true subspecies because a number of the small populations of wild Banteng which remain have been affected by interbreeding with domestic or feral cattle. Corbet and Hill (1992) did not recognise any valid subspecies of Banteng either. Frequent reports of interbreeding between wild Banteng and domestic livestock on Borneo (S. Hedges pers. comm. 2008) have yet to be substantiated in Sabah and Java (J. Burton pers. comm. 2016). Phylogenetic studies of B. j. lowi are confounded by the difficulties of obtaining samples. Recent genetic studies have produced contradicting results with regards to the taxonomic status of Banteng on Borneo. Mitochondrial DNA evidence suggested that the Bornean and Javan Banteng have such large genetic distances as to constitute separate species (Ishige et al. 2016, Handayani 2023). However, nuclear genomic data refutes this hypothesis and suggests that Bornean Banteng affiliates strongly with the Javan Banteng (Sun et al. 2022).

Until there is sufficient information on its genetic description, current population size, and status of B. j. lowi should not be included within B. javanicus. Pending further morphometric and genetic analysis Bos j. javanicus and B. j. birmanicus are provisionally accepted here in recognition of the relatively pronounced phenotypic differences which exist between Banteng on Java and the Asian mainland.

Banteng is considered Critically Endangered (A2abcd+4cd) due to an estimated ongoing global population decline of >80% over the past ~21 years (generation-length estimated to be seven years). This decline is likely to continue hence listing under both A2 and A4.

Dramatic declines have been estimated for most subpopulations across the species’ range, including for the former largest global stronghold in Cambodia. Declines are primarily driven by illegal hunting for meat and trade in horns, by-catch in traps set for other species, and extensive habitat loss and degradation in mainland southeast Asia, Sabah, and Kalimantan. Deaths and injuries due to increasing levels of snaring are placing high pressure on remnant populations across most of the species’ geographical range.

Long-term monitoring of Banteng within three protected areas (8,920 km²) in Eastern Cambodia show a twelve-year population decline of c. 90% (Groenenberg et al. 2023), with an estimated three-generation decline of 94–99%. We assumed these rates of declines were representative for other areas of suitable Banteng habitat in the wider Eastern Plains Landscape Cambodia (>10,000-km²). In the Northern Plains of Cambodia, the three-generation population decline rate was estimated at 90%. The three-generation rate of decline for most other subpopulations were estimated to be lower than those in Cambodia. For Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Kalimantan, and Myanmar, the rates were all over 50% (weighted mean rate of decline 70% for these four locations). Despite equal or higher illegal hunting levels in these countries compared to Cambodia, the initial population size was much smaller which leads to a lower overall magnitude of change. On Sabah, intrinsic population growth rates were estimated using population models and accounting for an annual harvest rate (i.e. illegal hunting) of 4% (Gardner et al. 2021) (three-generation rate of decline was between 12–46%). Assuming an offtake rate of 5%, all Sabah populations were estimated to become extinct within a 39 year timeframe (Gardner et al. 2021). The population recovery of Banteng populations in some parts of Thailand, especially in the Western Forest Complex, resulted in a net positive nation-wide population trend despite declines and extirpations in other parts of the country. The population trend in most national parks in Java is assumed stable. The estimated 3-generation global population decline rate (weighted by the estimated population sizes in 2003) is just over 80%.

The current total global population is estimated at approximately 3,300 mature individuals (2,475–4,900). A three-generation global decline rate of 80% would have required a 2003 global population size of c. 16,500 mature individuals. High quality habitat with relatively low hunting levels (such as seen in some areas in Eastern Cambodia between 2010–2014) can have densities of c. two Banteng/km² (Groenenberg et al. 2020). As such, 16,500 Banteng would have required ≥8,250 km² of suitable habitat which is plausible.

The species historically occurred from southern China (Yunnan) and, probably, northeast India throughout mainland southeast Asia, through Peninsular Malaysia to the islands of Borneo, Java, and probably Bali (see below).

No fossil evidence is known from Bali, and Grubb (2005) stated that Banteng was introduced to the island; Corbet and Hill (1992) did not include Bali in the range of wild Banteng and various other sources simply state that it occurs as domestic animals. Nevertheless, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that Banteng should be included among the native fauna of Bali since several Indo-Malayan animal species are known to have penetrated eastwards as far as Flores and Timor during times of lowered sea-levels in the Pleistocene (Hooijer 1975). On Borneo (East Kalimantan, Indonesia), ancient cave art (circa 10,000 BP) depicting a bovid figure, thought to be Bos javanicus, was found in 1994 (Chazine 2005), which suggests the natural range of Banteng extended up until Wallace’s line. Ashby and Santiapillai (1988) treated the small number of free-living Bantengs which occur in west Bali as wild animals as did Watling (1991); although Watling noted that interbreeding with domestic Bali cattle is a problem and the population is unlikely to consist solely of pure-bred animals. Wind and Amir (1977) had earlier raised similar fears. If any wild Banteng persists in Bali to date, they are likely only a small population (<10 individuals) suffering from genetic introgression with Bali cattle (J. Burton and C. Bailey pers. comm. 2024).

Domestic Banteng has been introduced to several of the islands of eastern Indonesia including Sulawesi, Sumbawa, and Sumba (van der Maarel 1932, Rollinson 1984). Feral Banteng occurs in Kalimantan (National Research Council 1983). Introduced Banteng (probably feral animals) occurs on the Indonesian islands of Enggano (off Sumatra) and Sangihe (off Sulawesi) (Corbet and Hill 1992, Grubb 2005). Domestic Banteng has also been introduced to New Guinea and Australia and there are now large feral herds in the Northern Territory (Kirby 1979, Bowman 1993, Bradshaw et al. 2006).

Wild Banteng currently occur on Java and on Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo), on Sabah (part of Malaysian Borneo), and in Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Viet Nam. The small remaining Banteng population in Sarawak (Malaysian Borneo) reported in 1988 (D. Labang, cited in Caldecott 1988) is now considered extinct (Boonratana 1997). Banteng is also thought to be extinct in Brunei (Borneo) (Payne et al. 1985), Bangladesh (Gittins and Akonda 1982), and in India (Prater 1971, IUCN 1978), if it ever occurred there. Groves (2003) stated that “there have been constant reports from Manipur, but there is as yet no confirmation”. In West Malaysia it has probably been extinct since at least the 1950s (Hislop 1961). Medway (1983) thought that Banteng may have still occurred in parts of Kedah and Kelantan after that time, but there have been no recent records. In China, there has been only one record of Banteng in a site in southern Yunnan, around Tongbiguan Nature Reserve (Yingxiang and Banjiao 1987). However, the evidence for this record is unclear and recent extensive field surveys in reserves in southern Yunnan do not confirm any Banteng presence (L. Fei pers. comm. 2023).

In Cambodia, the species was historically widespread in the northern and eastern forests as well as parts of the Cardamom Mountain range, but it’s range has significantly decreased over the last two decades. The bulk of the Cambodian population remains in protected areas in the eastern forests, centred on Mondulkiri province (see Population).The majority of Banteng in the Eastern Plains Landscape remain in the contiguous Phnom Prich and Srepok Wildlife Sanctuaries (WS) in Mondulkiri province (Groenenberg et al. 2023). Smaller populations persist in Keo Seima WS (Mondulkiri), and Lomphat WS (Ratanakiri province) (Griffin and Agger 2021; NatureLife Cambodia pers. comm. September 2023). Whereas, government rangers in adjacent O’Yadav Narional Park (NP) (Ratanakiri province) reported no recent evidence of Banteng, although more research is required to confirm absence (PDoE, pers. comm. 2024). There are also no recent confirmed records from northeastern protected areas, including Virachey (Ratanakiri) (T. Sakhorn pers. comm. 2024) and Veun Sai Siem Pang NPs (Stung Treng province) (FFI unpublished data 2022–2023, MoE pers. comm. 2024). In Northern Cambodia, small scattered Banteng populations occur at very low densities within several Wildlife Sanctuaries across multiple provinces. These include: Stung Treng Province inside Siem Pang WS (Loveridge et al. 2018), Preah Vihear province inside Chhaeb Roka WS(Suzuki et al. 2017, E. Auda, WCS unpublished data 2023), and Kulen Promtep WS (E. Auda, WCS unpublished data 2021–2023), Siem Reap province inside Phnom Tnout Phnom Pok WS (Muñoz 2021), and in Prey Lang WS which straddles Stung Treng, Kratie, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom provinces (Auda 2023). Recent camera trap studies in Phnom Tbaeng Natural Heritage Park did not record any Banteng (E. Auda, WCS unpublished data, 2023). Outside of Wildlife Sanctuaries in the north, small populations also persist in several community forests including Prochum Met and Phnom Chumroksat in Stung Treng (N. Leroux, WA unpublished data, 2022–2023), Chamreth forest and Changkran Roy (Siem Reap province), and Monks’ (Oddar Meanchey) Community Forests (Jones et al. 2016). Research conducted by Jones et al. (2016) was unable to confirm Banteng presence in the majority of Community Forests to the west of Kulen Promtep WSin Oddar Meanchey and Siem Reap provinces. In Southwestern Cambodia, an isolated Banteng population (ca 40-50 individuals) occurs within the Prambei Mom community forest in Kampong Speu province (Marx 2020). Recent (2023) local reports and sightings suggest that two herds consisting of 12–20 individuals may occur around the O’Truong mountains nearby Phnom Samkos WS in Pursat province (Nang 2023) but this is yet to be confirmed. Based on camera trap and other surveys, it seems there are no recent additional records from Cardamom Mountain range in southwestern Cambodia (N. Leroux pers. comm. September 2023; MoE 2024, WEA 2024, CI 2024).

In Thailand, the Banteng population of the Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) has increased and expanded over the past two decades, but the nation-wide range has contracted with at least eight extirpations recorded (DNP et al. 2024). The largest and most important population of Banteng remains in WEFCOM, especially in the protected WS Huai Kha Khaeng. Another important WEFCOM population occurs in Khuean Srinagarindra NP, and smaller populations occur in the Thung Yai Naresuan WSs (West), the Mae Wong NP, and the Salakphra WS (DNP et al. 2024). The Banteng population in the Mae Wong NP was a result of natural recolonisation after an absence of the species of over 40 years (Phoonjampa et al. 2021). The Mae Wong subpopulation migrates between the Mae Wong NP and Huai Kha Khaeng WS (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024). The repopulation of Banteng in Salakphra WS, after an absence of over 30 years, is a result of a conservation reintroduction programme (Chaiyarat et al. 2018, 2023a, 2023b). Between 2014 and 2019, 13 Banteng were released (Chaiyarat et al. 2019a) and the population is currently breeding in the wild (DNP et al. 2024). The availability of unoccupied patches of suitable habitat both within the Huai Kha Khaeng WS as well as in the broader WEFCOM, suggests potential for further expansion of this significant population (Jornburom et al. 2020). The Huai Thap Salao-Huai Rabum Non-hunting Area was established to support future population expansion.

Another important breeding subpopulation exists in the south-central parts of the country, especially in the Khao Ang Rue Nai WS, and to a lesser degree in Khao Khio-Khao Chomphu WS (introduced population; Chaiyarat et al., 2018). A few individuals may persist in the Khao Sip Ha Chan NP, but there are no confirmed sightings over the past decade in the Khao Soi Dao WS and the Khao Chamao – Khao Wong NP (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024). Small populations also persist in the East with breeding herds confirmed in Thap Lan NP; Pang Sida NP; Dong Yai WS; and Ta Phraya NP (DNP et al. 2024). A few non-breeding Banteng persist in the Buntharik-Yot Mon WS, but presence could not be confirmed in Phu Chong Na Yoi NP; Yot Dome; Huai Thap Than-Huai Samram; and Phanom Dong Rak WSs (DNP et al. 2024). Very small populations persist in the northwestern Salawin and Om Koi WSs (DNP et al. 2024). Some Banteng may migrate between Om Koi WS and Mae Ping NP (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024). A few lone individuals might persist across protected areas on the Malay Peninsula, such as in the Kui Buri NP and the Namtok Ngao NP, although strong evidence is lacking, (DNP et al. 2024, NP Research Center, Surat Thani, 2016), and the species has been largely (or fully) extirpated from this part of the country. Presence of Banteng could not be confirmed in Kaeng Krachan, Khao Sok, and Kaeng Krung NPs (K. Sribuarod pers. comm. 2022). The species may also be extinct from northern-central parts of the country including from Phu Luang WS (R. Chaiyarat Unpbubl. Data 2019), Phu Khiao WS, and Nam Nao NP.

Banteng is now extirpated across most of its former range in Viet Nam and Lao PDR. Currently, small fragment populations of Banteng persist in two protected areas in the central highlands of Viet Nam: Yok Don NP (N.M. Ha and T.L. Quoc, pers. comm. 2023) and Ea So Nature Reserve (NR) (N.M. Ha pers. comm. 2023). Very small populations may persist in Ninh Son in Ninh Thuan province in the Nha Ho - Dong Me area (Nguyen 2018; A. Tilker pers. comm. 2023). Since the early 2000s, Banteng has gone locally extinct from Chu Mom Ray NP (Kon Tum province), Dak R’Lap District (Dak Nong province), Ta Dung and Nam Nung NRs (Dak Nong province), Bu Dang District and Bu Gia Map NP (Binh Phuoc province), Nam Cat Tien/Cat Tien NP (Dong Nai province), Bi Doup Nui Ba NP and Cat Loc (Lam Dong province), and Nui Ong NR (Bin Thuan province) (Nguyen 2009, Pedrono et al. 2009). Recent extensive camera trapping surveys re-confirm the extirpation of Banteng from Cat Tien NP (A.T.T. Nguyen pers. comm. 2023). A tiny remnant populations persisted in Krong Trai NR (Phu Yen province) in 2005–2007 (Pedrono et al. 2009), but recent (2017–2023) camera trap and interview surveys confirm it is no longer present (A. Tilker and L.T. Quy pers. comm. 2023). By 2010, further population extirpations had occurred in Ma Noi (Ninh Thuan Province), Dong Phu District (Binh Phuoc province), Ea Sup District (Dak Lak province), and Cu Jut (Dak Nong province) (N.M. Ha pers. comm. 2023).

With the exception of the southern parts of the country, Banteng is almost definitely completely absent from Lao PDR (R. Akchousan, pers. comm. 2023). Small remnant populations are confined to protected areas in the South: Xe Pian NP (in Champasack and Attapeu provinces), Dong Ampham National Protected Area (Attapeu province), and Phou Xiengthong National Protected Area (Salavan province) (P. Phiapalath pers. comm. 2023).

Small Banteng populations are scattered across Myanmar. One major stronghold is located in the legally unprotected Nga Wun and Lenya reserved forests in southern Dawna-Tenasserim Landscape (Tanintharyi region, bordering with Thailand) (Shwe et al. 2023). The species is also recorded inside six protected areas: Hukaung Tiger Reserve (Kachin state), Htamanthi WS, Alaungtawkathapha NP, and Mahamyaing WS (Sagaing state), North Zamari WS (Bago state), and Shwe U Daung Wildlife Sanctuary (Mandalay state) (Hein et al. 2020, MONREC 2020).

On Java, the vast majority of Banteng are contained with four protected areas: Ujong Kulon NP to the west, and Baluran NP, Alas Purwo NP, and Meru Betiri NP to the east. Smaller population occur, or may occur, across central and east Kalimantan and perhaps southern Kalimantan (see Population).

On Borneo, the species occurs in four isolated parts of Sabah (Malaysian Borneo): (1) along the southeast coast including Tabin and Kalumba Wildlife Reserves (Lahad Datu and Kinabatangan districts); (2) in the central forest reserves (FR) including Tangkulap; Segaliud-Lokan; and Deramakot (Central-north in Tongod, Kinabantang, and Beluran districts), and Malua FR (Kinabantang); Maliau Basin Conservation Area and buffer zone (Tongod); and Kuamut (Tongod) and Sapulut FRs (Nabawan district) (Central-south); (3) in secluded patches in the southwest of Sabah close to the Kalimantan/Sarawak border including Sipitang FR in Sipitang district; and (4) in the highly fragmented habitat along the north and northeast of Sabah including Paitan and Sugut FRs (Beluran district) (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2019, Gardner et al. 2021). Compared to previous surveys (Davies and Payne 1982, Boonratana 1997), the distribution has retracted and Banteng are now largely confined to protected reserves, commercial forests, and a small area of unprotected forests (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). Banteng are now considered absent from the Dent peninsular, Kinabatangan WS, Trusan Kinabatangan and Lower Kinabatangan, Beaufort, Keningau, and Kudat districts, and Bonggaya FR. The presence of Banteng could not be confirmed during the most recent (2011–2016) state-wide survey in the Ulu-Tungud FR (also known as Tunkut FR), Silabukan FR, Kabili Sepilok FR, the Lower reaches of River Segama and River Kinabatangan, Malubuk FR, Tawau Hills Park, Kinabalu Park, and Tanjung Linsang proposed reserve (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019).

The world population of Banteng is likely to be approximately 3,300 (2,475–4,900) individuals. Four subpopulations of more than 50 animals occur on Java (Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia and Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024), three in the Western Forest Complex in Thailand (DNP et al. 2024), two in Cambodia in the Eastern and Northern Plains (Groenenberg et al. 2023, Muñoz 2021), and one in Central Sabah (Gardner et al. 2021, Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). A once fairly widely distributed species, it is now largely reduced to small isolated subpopulations, most of which are still in decline.

In Cambodia, Banteng probably declined by 90% or more between the late 1960s and the early 1990s (Gardner et al. 2016). Yet, it was reported to remain widespread in low numbers, in northeastern lowland forests, and somewhat more sporadically, in the south and west including the Cardamom Mountain range (Kimchhay et al. 1998, Daltry and Momberg 2000, Timmins and Ou 2001). Further declines took place from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s, with quite probably more than a 50% decline in this time period for the nation as a whole, and the resultant loss of Banteng populations from significant parts of the still forested landscape (Bezuijen et al. 2008, Timmins and Ou 2001, Tordoff et al. 2005). Distance-based line transects conducted between 2010 and 2011 across 3,400 km² of the core areas of Srepok WS (SWS , formerly named Mondulkiri Protected Forest) and Phnom Prich WS (PPWS) estimated a Banteng population of 3,201 individuals (95% CI range 1,982–5,170) (Gray et al. 2012). Line-transect density estimates in Keo Seima WS (KSWS; formerly named Seima Protection Forest) revealed several hundred individuals persisted there around the same time (Griffin and Nuttall 2020, Agger et al. 2022). In addition, Banteng were known to persist outside of the boundaries of these protected areas. As such, the landscape population was estimated around 4,600 individuals in 2016 and assumed the largest global population of Banteng (Gardner et al. 2016). However, accelerating threats (particularly illegal hunting; see Threats) meant that only one decade later this subpopulation has decreased again by over 90% and only a few hundred individuals now remain (Griffin and Nuttall 2020, Groenenberg et al. 2023).

The most recent systematic line-transect surveys estimated a population of 122 Banteng (95%CI: 12–454) in SWS and 195 Banteng (95%CI: 97–832) in PPWS (Groenenberg et al. 2023). In KSWS, no direct observations have been made of Banteng during line transect surveys since 2018 (Griffin and Nuttall 2020, Agger et al. 2022). Camera trap records and expert opinion suggests that perhaps 15–30 Banteng remain in KSWS (C. Agger pers. comm. March 2023). In Lomphat WS camera trap records and patrol data suggest a small population (<50 individuals) persists (NatureLife Cambodia pers. comm. September 2023). Although some Banteng occur outside protected area boundaries in eastern Cambodia, they mainly consist of lone individuals and a few small herds (Bosco et al. 2020). Both the line-transect based estimates inside SWS, PPWS, and KSWS, as well as the broader estimates that include camera trap records and expert opinion, indicate that the Banteng population in Eastern Cambodia has decreased with over 90% since 2010, and with c. 99% over the past three generations. Remaining subpopulations in Northern Cambodia are small and fragmented and are unlikely to exceed 50 individuals. One exception may be Phnom Tnout Phnom Pok WS (PTPWS), where active protection has led to a population trend stabilisation over the past five years (B. Davis pers. comm. 2023) and an estimated population of 46–119 Banteng (Muñoz 2021). The combined northern plains population estimate based on confirmed records is c. 400. In the southwest, Prambei Mom community forest supported approximate 40–50 individuals (Marx 2020). As such the national estimate of the Banteng population is estimated not to exceed 1,000 individuals.

Ongoing dramatic population reductions in Viet Nam are largely driven by illegal hunting. Pedrono et al. (2009) estimated the overall population, in five contiguous areas in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam, between 74 and 103 individuals based on data collected between 2005–2007. The largest populations were in Yok Don NP (n=30–44), and Ea So NR (n=23–31). The populations in these two NPs have since declined and the species has been lost from the other three protected areas in the central highlands (A. Tilker and N.M. Ha pers. comm. 2023). In the Yok Don NP, there were no visual observations of Banteng during an extensive line transect surveys in 2018-2019, although signs are still sporadically encountered during patrols and camera trap images captured (WWF-Viet Nam, 2019). If Banteng persist in Ninh Son, their total population is unlikely to exceed 20 individuals (A. Nguyen and A. Tilker pers. comm. 2023).

Numbers in Lao PDR are now likely to be very low, with a nation-wide population size estimated to be below 50 individuals(P. Phiapalath pers. comm. 2023). Steep declines were already reported in the 1990s (Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Duckworth et al. 1999), but the Banteng population in southern Lao PDR was still considered of global significance by the early 2000s (Steinmetz 2004). Local community reports and a short field survey (2018) confirm the continued presence of Banteng in Xe Pian NP, where the resident population is thought to be c. 15 individuals (P. Phiapalath pers. comm. 2023). A recent (2021) camera trap survey in Phou Xiengthong National Protected Area captured one image of a Banteng and the total population is estimated at 7–10 (P. Phiapalath, unpubl. data 2022). The Phou Xiengthong Banteng may be resident or a transboundary population with movements into the Pha Taem NP of Thailand (P. Phiapalath pers. comm. 2023).Although research in the Dong Ampham National Protected Area and Nam Kong Protection forest is lacking, a tiny population (≤15 individuals) may persist here (P. Phiapalath pers. comm. 2023).

There are no robust population estimates of Banteng in Myanmar. However, based on evidence from camera trap surveys and patrol data, the total nation-wide population size is estimated at c. 250 individuals (MONREC 2020).

Thailand is among the few countries where partial recovery of several Banteng subpopulations is starting to be observed, especially in the Western Forest Complex. However, declines continued in other parts of the country and local extirpations have occurred. The total country-wide population was estimated at 2,300–2,500 in 1970 after which it plummeted by over 80% to an estimated 470 individuals by 1995 (Srikosamatara and Suteethorn 1995). However, these estimates were not based on systematic surveys and did not cover all subpopulations in the country, and thus likely underrepresented the population size at the time (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024). Banteng range probably declined by approximately 85% in Thailand from 1980 to 2000 (S. Hedges pers. comm. 2000), and has continued to decline over the past two decades (DNP et al. 2024). Nevertheless the population increases in WEFCOM appear to have been greater than the losses elsewhere, resulting in the nation-wide population curve bending towards an increase with the total population currently estimated at 761–1,086 individuals (DNP et al. 2024).

The country’s most significant population, in Huai Kha Khaeng WS did not increase during years 2006–2008 (DNP and WCS, 2010), but it has increased since then and is currently estimated at 400–500 individuals based on camera trap and sign data (DNP et al. 2024). On the other hand, it was thought in 2013 that Kaeng Krachan NP may be among the rare populations with over 50 individuals (A. Pattanavibool pers. comm. 2013), but it is currently considered to be one of (at least) eight protected areas where Banteng have been extirpated in the past 13 years (DNP et al. 2024).

The largest subpopulation of Banteng (n= 503–695 individuals) in Thailand occurs in WEFCOM (n=400–500 in Huai Kha Khaeng WS; n=51–100 Huai Thap Salao-Huai Rabum Non Hunting Area; n=100, Khuean Srinagarindra NP; n=31–50, Salakphra WS; n=50–60, Thung Yai Naresuan West WS; n=9–10 in Mae Wong NP) (DNP et al. 2024). The south-central Wildlife Sanctuaries of Khao Ang Ruenai and Khao Khio-Khao Chomphu harbour 190–240 Banteng (n=160–200, and n=30–40 respectively) with perhaps a few individuals remaining in Khao Sip Ha Chan NP (DNP et al. 2024; R. Chaiyarat Unpubl. data, 2022). The Khao Khio-Khao Chomphu WS subpopulation originated from an accidental release of thirteen Banteng from a local zoo (Chaiyarat et al. 2018). The eastern parks of Thap Lan, Pang Sida, and Ta Phraya are each estimated to hold approximately 11–30 Banteng, with 11–15 individuals in Dong Yai WS (DNP et al. 2024). There might be tiny populations of perhaps 3–10 non-breeding individuals scattered over Buntharik-Yot Mon WS, Phu Chong Na Yoi NP, and Yot Dome WS (DNP et al. 2024). However, presence is uncertain in the latter three parks and is currently based on foot print evidence that may have been mistaken with gaur (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024). In the northwest, tiny breeding populations persist in Salawin WS (n=11–20) and Om Koi WS (8–10) (DNP et al. 2024).

Another present-day stronghold of Banteng is Java, where six large subpopulations (those with more than 50 animals) occurred in 1990, but these declined to only four by 2023 (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). The largest subpopulation occurs on the east of the Island, primarily inside three protected areas: Baluran NP (an estimated 348 [277–365] individuals by 2023); Alas Purwo NP (n=310±90 [219–405] by 2022); and Meru Betiri NP (n=72 [60–72] by 2021) (Ministry of Environment and Forestry Indonesia, and Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). Another important subpopulation occurs on west Java in the Ujung Kulon NP (n=209 [169–259] by 2022) (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024).

Several smaller subpopulations have likely gone extinct, including the Leuweng Sancang NR (n=10 in 2000, extinct in 2003) (Pudyatmoko, 2004) and the Cikepuh-CiBanteng NR (surveyed in 2015) (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). Various small populations were recorded in Java in the 1970s and 1980s for which there have not been any confirmed records over the past two decades (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). Pudyatmoko (2004) estimated: Bonjonglarang-Jayanti Region (a small stable population of unknown size in 1988, with no recent data available), Cimapag Region (occurrence recorded until 1970, with current status unknown), Cikamurang Region (occurrence recorded until 1970, with current status unknown), Pangandaran NR (n=25–65 in 2003, with current status unknown), Kediri Region (occurrence recorded until 1970, with current status unknown), Coast of Blitar (10 individuals in 1988, with current status unknown), Coast of Malang (n=6 in 1988, with current status unknown),

Up until at least the early twentieth century, Banteng was still found throughout what is now Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo), albeit disappearing in some areas (in particular, in South Kalimantan) (Gardner et al. 2016).By the early 2000s, Banteng was thought to be widespread but rare in East Kalimantan, on the basis of (mid- and late-1990s) reports from many areas, including Kayan Mentarang NP, and within or close to Hutan Kapur Sangkulirang (an unprotected area that has been proposed for protection since the early 1980s) (Hedges and Meijaard 1999; E. Meijaard unpubl. data). Banteng still occur in East Kalimantan in Kayan Mentarang NP (minimum population counts at grazing areas estimated at least 18 individuals in 2019 and eight in 2020); in Kutai NP (few individuals confirmed with camera traps in 2018); and perhaps along the river Lebau and in Mahakam Ulu (anecdotal evidence); and in Hutan Kapur Sangkulirang NR (no recent confirmed records) (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). There are concerns over the genetic integrity of Banteng in this area because of the presence of domestic cattle, abandoned in 1979 by villagers, which might have interbred with the wild Banteng (Hedges and Meijaard 1999). A 2018 study found 20–30 Banteng in at least two herds occurred in the Belantikan Hulu concession in Central Kalimantan (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). Further anecdotal evidence from local reports exists for Pararawen and Sapat Haung NRs in Central Kalimantan and for the Batulicin area in South Kalimantan (Indonesian Species Specialist Group pers. comm. 2024). As such, the total Indonesian population is estimated at c. 1,000 individuals (770–1,200).

The total population on Sabah (Malaysian Borneo) is currently estimated at c. 326 individuals (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). The population is in decline primarily because of hunting for trophies and meat using firearms and snares (Boonratana,1997; Gardner et al. 2019b, 2021). Additional main causes of decline include the continual loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat, and human disturbance causing displacement (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). Quantifying accurate population sizes is problematic and continues to be confounded by a range of issues including the inhospitable habitat, the shy nature of the species, and detection and quantification of the species. Prior to the 1940s, Banteng was reported to be common in riverine areas in the east, and in many areas of shifting cultivation. However, the subsequent widespread use of firearms led to the species' rapid extermination from most areas. In 1982, it was reported to be locally common in logged forest on flat terrain, but under threat as its habitat was converted into permanent agricultural land (Davies and Payne 1982).

The state-wide population estimate in 1982 was 300–550 individuals (Davies and Payne 1982) but this was based on community surveys in accessible locations and did not include all Banteng populations. The biggest population decline occurred during the intensive and extensive timber operation and transformation of lowland forests large-scale plantations (palm oil, cocoa and other crops) late in the twentieth century (Ahmad AH pers. comm. 2008). During this period (years 1970–2000) of intensification, the decline in Banteng was thought to be over 50% on Sabah and Borneo as a whole (B. Giman pers. comm. 2008). In 1990, Banteng still occurred south of Gunung Lumaku (in the upper reaches of the Padas River) but it had been extirpated from all other parts of southwestern Sabah according to local people (Payne 1990).

Since this time, new road infrastructure has opened up the interior of Sabah and vast land-use changes continue to remove much of the natural forest habitat. Encroachment and hunting have undoubtedly increased over the past four decades as a result of habitat conversion and extensive networks of logging roads. Some populations are known to have been eradicated in the past four decades (Melletti and Burton 2014, Sabah Wildlife Department 2019).

Four main subpopulations can be distinguished on Sabah, namely in the Southwest, Southeast, Northeast, and Central regions (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). The inhospitable monoculture plantation habitat that separates these subpopulations effectively prevents or severely limits any genetic exchange (Struebig et al. 2011, Gardner et al. 2021). The largest subpopulation persists in the central forest block, comprising of approximately 122 individuals in the Central-south (n=36 for the Malua Forest Reserve, n=40 for the Maliau Buffer Zone, n= 30 for the Kuamut Forest Reserce, and n=16 for the Sapulut Forest Reserve), and 85 individuals in the Central-north (n=17 for the Tangulap Forest Reserve, n=46 for the Segaliud-Lokan Forest Reserve, and n=22 for the Deramakot Forest Reserve); followed by an estimated 82–152 individuals in the Southeast (n=52 for the Tabin Wildlife Reserve, and n=30–100 for the Kulamba Wildlife Reserve); 35 individuals in the Northeast (n=18 for the Paitan Forest Reserve, n=15 for the Sugut Forest Reserve, and n=2 for the Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve), and 33 individuals in the West (Sipitang Forest Reserve) (Gardner et al. 2021, Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). A number of individuals persists in unsurveyed locations such as Kulamba Wildlife Reserve (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). Gardner et al. (2019b) found extremely low population densities in Tabin and Malua reserves using a spatially explicit capture-recapture framework ranging from 0.5 (0.21–1.48) individuals per 100km² to 0.56 (0.15–2.09) in Malua Forest reserve and from 0.61 (0.32–1.16) to 0.95 (0.54–1.66) in Tabin Forest Reserve. Population models demonstrate substantial probability of extinction of all subpopulations over a forty-year timeframe if current hunting offtake rates persist, with the smaller subpopulations being especially vulnerable (Gardner et al. 2021).

Wharton (1968) summarized information about Banteng habitat from throughout its range and he concluded that on the Asian mainland it avoids evergreen forest and even extensive tracts of closed canopy semi-evergreen forest, and is usually within more open dry deciduous forests; but within the more humid areas of Java and Borneo it occupies secondary forest formations resulting from logging and fires, and enters tracts of sub-humid forest on occasion. On the eastern plains of Cambodia, there is no evidence for any change in ecology. In Thailand, reintroduced Banteng prefer low elevation, with flat terrain at further distances from villages and without human disturbance (Chaiyarat et al. 2019b, 2018) but it has been found higher than 1,700 m in Thung Yai Naresuan (West) Wildlife Sanctuary. In Myanmar, Banteng is reported to prefer flat or undulating terrain with light deciduous (particularly dipterocarp indaing forest) or mixed deciduous and evergreen forest, with grassy glades which burn annually, and patches of bamboo; but it has purportedly retreated to denser hill forest in the face of advancing cultivation. (Peacock 1933, Tun Yin 1967, Wharton 1968, Prater 1971). Similarly in Thailand, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and Lao PDR, Banteng occurs (or occurred) in open mainly deciduous forest with glades, parklands, and dense forest patches; and ‘it is claimed by some that they prefer rocky, slightly hilly country, but they are certainly at home wherever the Kouprey [Bos sauveli] was found. Their range in Cambodia (and elsewhere in South-east Asia) suggests that Banteng are more adaptable than Kouprey and perhaps less exacting in their habitat requirements’ (Wharton 1957, 1968). An attachment to open, more deciduous forest types was reported in Xe Pian National Protected Area, Lao PDR (Steinmetz 2004). The documented and reported distribution of the species in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam (based on many sources, but principally summarised in Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Duckworth et al. 1999 and AWCSG 2011) quite clearly corresponds in large part to the distribution of deciduous dipterocarp forest, but also includes other habitats especially mosaic habitats that include open-canopy formations and grasslands, including for example pine forests. In Thailand, Banteng have been associated with mixed deciduous forest and even agricultural areas (Chaiyarat et al. 2018, Jornburom et al. 2020). In contrast there is a clear paucity of records of Banteng from extensive tracts of closed canopy evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, with no records from the heart of any such dense forests. The supposition that it might prefer rocky, slightly hilly country has not been borne out by recent observations. In the Eastern Plains Landscape, Cambodia, Gray (2012), based on analysis of camera-trap records, considered that Banteng occurred in both very open deciduous dipterocarp forest and denser mixed deciduous forest. It was also suggested that, in the largely homogenous deciduous dipterocarp forest of the Cambodian Eastern Plains Landscape small patches of mixed deciduous forest are important for Banteng at the height of the dry and burning seasons.

On Java Banteng occurs in semi-deciduous monsoon forest with small clearings, more open grassland-monsoon forest mosaics, and ‘parkland’ formations (Halder 1976, Hommel 1987; S. Hedges pers. comm. 2008 based on unpubl. data 1991–2002). Banteng in Ujung Kulon NP prefer forests in lowland areas with high primary productivity of food sources towards the centre of the park (Rahman 2020, Rahman et al. 2019). On Sabah (Malaysia Borneo) Banteng inhabits tropical lowland and upland dipterocarp forest, lower montane forest, seasonal freshwater swamp forest and beach forest (Melletti and Burton 2014). It also uses open grassland, mature timber plantations (seven years), and abandoned cultivated land. Suitable habitat is associated with specific soil types, is within or close to intact or logged forests with pioneer vegetation and accessible terrain, and in areas with relatively higher precipitation in the driest quarter of the year (Lim et al. 2021). Forest edges, interior openings, abandoned logging roads and river banks are important for foraging, socialising and movement (Payne et al. 1985, Gardner 2015). Human disturbance heavily influences habitat use. In forest habitat that is mature, Banteng travels to interior grassy openings within the forest to forage or travel to the forest edge to forage during undisturbed hours (Gardner 2015).

Banteng generally occurs from sea level up to at least 2,100 m asl (Hoogerwerf 1970, National Research Council 1983, Pudyatmoko 2004; S. Hedges pers. comm. 2008 based on unpubl. data 1991–2002). The observed maximum elevation of Banteng in Sabah is approximately 1,330m asl. (P. Gardner pers. obs.).

Banteng reportedly drinks large quantities of water and prefers feeding grounds near a permanent water supply (Hoogerwerf 1970). When conditions are favourable it drinks daily, preferring standing water; but during droughts animals can survive several days without drinking (National Research Council 1983). Mineral licks are also an important feature of Banteng habitat; in coastal regions which lack mineral licks animals seem to meet their mineral requirements by occasionally drinking seawater (Halder 1976, Payne et al. 1985, Alikodra 1987; S. Hedges pers. obs.).

Although probably a grazer by preference Banteng should perhaps be considered an intermediate feeder since it can and does consume a lot of browse and fruits depending on season and local food availability. It eats grasses, sedges, herbs, bamboo, as well as the leaves, fruits, flowers, bark, and young branches of woody shrubs and trees including palms. The young shoots of Alang-alang grass Imperata cylindrica are apparently a favoured food source (Hoogerwerf 1970). Lists of food plants are provided by Wharton (1957), Hoogerwerf (1970), Halder (1976), Sumardja and Kartawinata (1977), Djaja et al. (1982), Alikodra (1987), Prayurasiddhi and Smith (1993). However, very little is known about the Banteng’s nutritional requirements, seasonal and annual variation in dietary preferences, or the composition and quality of diet. Hoogerwerf (1970) believed that Banteng was largely dependent on grasses and sedges and, with reference to Ujung Kulon in West Java, he stated that ‘there were no proofs that browse formed a substantial part of the diet’. However, Schenkel and Schenkel-Hulliger (1969) reported that Banteng and deer in Ujung Kulon are forced to travel widely in the dry season and ‘feed on bamboo, young palm leaves, bush, and saplings as well’. A recent study showed that Banteng supplement their diet with the invasive Cluster Sugar Palm Arenga obtusifolia during the lean dry season (Rahman et al. 2019). The stomachs of a number of bulls which were shot in the South Tjiandur region of Java were almost completely full of non-graminaceous species. In Pananjung-Pangandaran Reserve in West Java Banteng were observed to graze on a variety of plants but appeared to prefer the grasses Ischaemum muticum, Axonopus compressus, Paspalum conjugatum, and Cynodon dactylon; and a woody forest shrub. Grazing intensity was lower in the forest than in the open fields where it was inversely proportional to the amount of Chromolaena odorata [was Eupatorium odoratum] and Imperata cylindrica although they did eat these species (Sumardja and Kartawinata 1977). On Sabah, Banteng was found to forage on eight species found within open canopy sites: Mikania cordata, Chromolaena odorata, Cyperus difformis, Fimbristylis littoralis, Scleria sp., Desmodium triflorum [now Gona triflora], Eleusine indica, and Selaginella sp. (Gardner et al. 2019a).

When undisturbed, Banteng displays a more or less fixed diurnal pattern of behaviour with periods (usually two to three hours long) of feeding alternating with rest periods of a similar length during which the animals ruminate. In areas which are subject to frequent human disturbance it becomes rather nocturnal and generally enters open areas only at night, although in especially attractive localities it will tolerate human presence to a certain extent (Halder 1976). In undisturbed areas Bantengs “do not differentiate much in their activities between day and night, but...really large assemblages on open plains occur almost exclusively by day...”. This round the clock activity (which is, however, interrupted countless times to rest and/or ruminate) may not be regarded as abnormal’ (Hoogerwerf 1970: 211–212).

In undisturbed forest habitat in Sabah (Malaysia Borneo) Banteng activity peaks at dawn and during the early morning hours of 05:00–07:00 hours when the animals emerge from the forest to forage and socialise. Activity decreases mid-morning until early afternoon when they rest and ruminate and at dusk, a second peak in activity occurs during which they forage and socialise (Gardner et al. 2015, 2019a). Banteng activity decreases around 20:00–21:00 hours and again at 03:00-04:00; the reasons for this are unknown (Melletti and Burton 2014, Gardner 2015). Analysis of 160 Banteng camera-trap encounters from the Cambodian Eastern Plains showed nocturnal activity with over 80% of encounters between 18:00 and 06:00 hours (Gray and Phan 2011).

The basic social group appears to be female–juvenile unit (as in the other large Asian Bovini) with larger groups tending to be more-or-less temporary assemblages. Maternal herds containing several adult cows, juveniles, and calves occur; these groups can often contain one or more subadult and adult males. Groups of cows without calves are also seen. For much of the year (adult) Bantengs are largely sexually segregated and all-male groups are frequently encountered at this time. Solitary animals tend to be mature bulls or sometimes old cows. The composition of small groups of cows with calves or juveniles, and the solitary state of old individuals may remain the same for months or even years. The composition of other small groups, particularly the unisex groups, usually varies from day to day. During the mating season the male groups disband and dominant males compete for access to receptive females (Hoogerwerf 1970, Halder 1976; S. Hedges unpubl. data 1991–2002). In large open areas small herds of Banteng and solitary individuals regularly gather to form large temporary assemblages. These large herds will often spend up to two days together during which time they will forage and ruminate, socialise, and re-establish their hierarchy.

Large herds of more than 100 animals have been reported in Java but these herds appear to be temporary associations formed when smaller groups and solitary animals arrive in an area to feed and the animals tend to reform into smaller groups when they leave the feeding areas. The composition of these groups often varies on a daily basis although there may be a stable nucleus of animals which returns to the same clearing day after day. The large herds may have an established dominance hierarchy but it seems to vary depending on the habitat. In more densely vegetated areas solitary animals or small groups, generally with fewer than eight animals, are more typical (Halder 1973, 1976; S. Hedges unpubl. data 1991–2002). In the Eastern Plains Landscape, Cambodia, mean Banteng herd size (estimated from counting individuals in independent camera-trap encounters) was 2.6 individuals with 14% of encounters estimated to comprise groups of more than five individuals (Phan and Gray 2010).

In Thailand the mating season is in May and June (Lekagul and McNeely 1977); while breeding reportedly occurs the whole year round in Myanmar (Peacock 1933). Wharton (1957) collected information from Cambodians living within Banteng habitat which suggested that the majority of births occurred in December and January which, assuming a gestation period of about 10 months, suggests that most conceptions take place in March and April. However, Hermanns (cited in Hoogerwerf 1970) believed that Bantengs in mainland Asia mate from September to October. Hoogerwerf (1970) recorded mating taking place all year round in West Java but there was a peak of activity in October; and he thought that those cows which mated outside the peak period were probably exceptional. He suggested that Bantengs in both East and West Java generally calved in July and August which would suggest that mating generally took place from October to December; more recent observations in East Java have also revealed evidence of year-round mating (neonates have been seen in all months) but with an apparent peak of births between June and September (S. Hedges unpubl. data 1991–2002).

Illegal hunting is the most pressing threat in much of the current southeast Asia Banteng range and is largely driven by a growing demand for wild meat consumption (Harrison et al. 2016, Ripple et al. 2016). Common hunting methods include the use of domestic dogs, firearms, and snares, and it is the latter that is likely to have the most devastating impact on Banteng (Gray et al. 2018, Belecky and Gray, 2020). Approximately 53,000 snares were removed per year from 11 protected areas alone in five Southeast Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Viet Nam) in the period between 2005–2019 (Belecky and Gray 2020). Protected areas in Cambodia have experienced steep increases in snares over the past 5–10 years (Gish et al. 2021, Groenenberg et al. 2023, Rostro-García et al. 2023).

Forest clearance and fragmentation also pose a significant threat to Banteng persistence across most of its range. In Viet Nam and Lao PDR, where the rate of lowland forest loss is also accelerating habitat loss, this is primarily a concern for the future viability of national populations, the species having been hunted out of forests long before they are cleared. In Indochina generally, habitat loss and fragmentation are secondary to hunting, largely acting indirectly by increasing accessibility of remnant Banteng populations to hunting. Although huge tracts of suitable habitat were lost in the twentieth century, and continue to be converted, this has probably occurred largely after Banteng was hunted out (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Thus, the hunting is the proximate cause of decline, but habitat loss is continually reducing the maximum population possible if hunting issues were to be controlled, and is increasing the ease with which remaining animals can be hunted.

Several Thai Banteng subpopulations, especially outside the Western Forest Complex, are not increasing or are even declining and continue to face serious threats from habitat loss and habitat degradation, poaching, and loss of genetic diversity (Chaiyarat et al. 2018, Jornburom et al. 2020). Loss of lowland deciduous forest (and hence Banteng habitat) in northern and eastern Cambodia has occurred due to widespread allocation of large-scale economic land concessions for industrial agriculture (particularly rubber and cashew plantations). Approximately 16% of the total forest cover in the country, was allocated to economic land concessions (Magliocca et al. 2020). Timber logging, land clearing, and illegal hunting intensified within the boundaries of these concessions (Davis et al. 2015, EIA 2019). Since 2012, changes in the management of forests and protected areas by the Royal Government of Cambodia led to the revocation and downsizing of a substantial proportion of the economic land concessions and may have mitigated this threat to an extent (Diepart 2016, Ingalls et al. 2018). Nonetheless, the integrity of Banteng habitat in Cambodia continues to be severely threatened by large-scale commercial agro-industry expansion, infrastructural developments (especially roads), and more recently extractive mineral mining. For example, eight mining licenses are currently active inside the two protected areas with the highest concentration of Banteng (Phnom Prich and Srepok wildlife sanctuaries), including within the officially designated strictly protected core zones (Crouthers 2021). The tackling of above threats is severely hampered by significant shortfalls in effective protected area management, particularly in Indochina, which in turn is linked to the long-term uncertainty and loss of adequate external funding necessary to maintain high standards of adaptive management and possible gaps in political support necessary to uphold high protection standards (Belecky and Gray 2020). In Myanmar, wildlife law enforcement is hampered by the current civil war (N.M. Shwe pers. comm. 2024).

During the 1980s–1990s, when poaching and land conversion were relatively well under control in Javan NPs, the chief threat to the large population of Banteng in Baluran NP was loss of grazing area to invasion by the introduced tree Acacia nilotica [now Vachellia nilotica] (Fabaceae) that converts open grassland to dense thorny scrub-forest (Caesariantika et al. 2011). This plant was introduced (without adequate risk assessment) as part of an attempt to create a living fire-break around the park's grasslands, wild fire then being adjudged the major threat to the park’s monsoon forests (Sutomo et al.2019). Since that introduction, repeated cutting of Vachellia has led to coppicing into very dense thickets that contain little or no grass or other herbs and are difficult for the cattle to penetrate. Invasive Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) is also a problem in Banteng habitat in Baluran NP and other NPs on Java (Padmanaba et al. 2017). Habitat loss and degradation and illegal hunting for trade and consumption are currently the key threats to be addressed on Java (Burton et al. 2020) and on Kalimantan (Dewi et al.2020).

One Sabah, Banteng decline is primarily attributed to widespread loss of habitat and conversion to agro-intensive tree plantations that cultivate Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis), Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), and fast-growing timber species (Acacia/Vachellia spp.) (Gardner et al. 2019b). Disturbance from agriculture and logging intervals in commercially managed forest also causes displacement and stress, potentially influencing breeding of Banteng (P. Gardner pers. obs.). Approximately 11% of the surface area of Sabah is estimated to contain suitable Banteng habitat, and only 12% of suitable habitat is located within formally protected forests (Lim et al. 2021). Banteng populations in Sabah are now confined to remote forest and swamp habitat which are highly fragmented. Habitat connectivity is severely constrained by the presence of oil and nipah palm monoculture stands (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019); the prevention of gene-flow between fragmented populations may compromise the genetic-integrity of future generations. Approximately 60% of suitable Banteng habitat is located within production forests (Lim et al. 2021), but timber plantations are not considered to be a main habitat of Banteng due to the temporary status of the forest and the regular eradication of the vegetation which forces the Banteng into nearby natural forest. Geothermal and hydroelectric development and the extractive mining industry are considered emerging threats to Banteng in Sabah (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019).

On Sabah, illegal hunting of Banteng is rampant and has led to historic extirpations from parts of its’ range (Payne et al. 1985, Melletti and Burton 2014) and ongoing population declines leading to extremely low population densities across the island (Gardner et al. 2019b, Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). Hunters in Sabah are now targeting remnant herds, removing mature breeding individuals important for sustaining herds (P. Gardner pers. obs.). Snare wounds have been identified on Banteng camera trap footage in commercial forest reserves in the north (Sugut Forest Reserve) and central (Segaliud-Lokan Forest Reserve) (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019).

Bali cattle have long been interbred with other cattle: Banteng and Bali cattle can interbreed with both common cattle and Mithun Bos frontalis (Fischer 1980, National Research Council 1983). Hybrids between Banteng and common cattle Bos taurus of the zebu type are fully fertile; in hybrids between Banteng and Bos taurus of the European type the males are sterile (Jellinek et al. 1980, National Research Council 1983). Domestic and feral livestock are thus a potential threat to the genetic integrity of wild Banteng populations and a number of reports suggest that wild Banteng does interbreed with domestic cattle. For example, Hoogerwerf (1970) referred to several sources from the 1930s and 1940s which mention that many groups of Banteng in Kalimantan (particularly East Kalimantan) were no longer pure-bred having interbred with stray domestic cattle.

The possible erosion of genetic diversity and/or introgression with domestic cattle could pose a potential emerging threat to Cambodian Banteng as population sizes continue to decline and become fragmented sharing resources and forage nearby livestock. However, there is no genetic evidence to suggest introgression is currently occurring. Introgression with domestic cattle is also not believed to be a main current threat to Banteng in Sabah but genetic studies are in their infancy. It is possible that hybridisation has occurred as a result of poor management of domestic cattle at logging camps. One historic report suggested a feral Bali cow or a Banteng/Bali cow hybrid with (white spotted) pelage was hunted within the southwest of Sabah. A separate report suggested domestic cattle were left in abandoned logging camps in Deramakot FR at some point in the past three decades and may have interbred with wild Banteng. Molecular evidence suggests that a feral hybrid Banteng-Bali cattle populations persist within the Felda Kalabakan oil palm plantation in the southeast of Sabah (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). However, in the majority of locations that utilise domestic cattle their security is maintained with fenced enclosures. Nonetheless, there is substantial possibility for disease transmission from domestic livestock as Banteng is found in close proximity to water buffalo and domestic cattle in forest habitat located adjacent to plantations and private land. Disease transmission from domestic cattle to wild Banteng is also a growing concern across Banteng’s extant range on the mainland. For example, the first case of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus was detected in Cambodia in 2021 as a result of disease transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface (Porco et al. 2023). Domestic livestock are a potential source of gastrointestinal parasites for Banteng (Watwiengkam et al. 2024).

Loss of genetic diversity of Banteng is of primary concern on Sabah, where fragmentation and isolation of populations now prevents movement of individuals and the transmission of genes between populations. The removal of mature individuals by illegal hunting will disrupt breeding behaviour and the social structure of the herds, in addition to the direct loss of genetic diversity. Small and isolated populations across the Southeast Asian range are susceptible to inbreeding, which will undoubtedly lead to a loss of allelic diversity and increase the risk of identical genotypes. Genetic homogeneity in the Banteng will decrease their overall fitness, and their ability to resist diseases and deleterious genetic mutations. Active genetic management of wild Banteng stock in Sabah is most likely the only way to prevent loss of genetic diversity and the imminent threat of extinction.

The Banteng is hunted for food, traditional medicinal substances, sport, and trophy horns. A growing regional and domestic economy has led to an increase in the demand for natural resources, Banteng amongst them, and the potential benefits of hunting Banteng with possibilities of significant market value must make it a lucrative target.

The magnitude of the threat posed to Banteng by international trade in trophy horns is difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, given the small size of the remaining population and the number of trophies found for sale in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Viet Nam, during what were essentially opportunistic surveys, it was clearly a major threat on the Asian mainland (Srikosamatara et al. 1992; Baird 1993; Srikosamatara and Suteethorn 1994, 1995; Martin and Phipps 1996; Srifa La-Ong et al. 1997; Duckworth et al. 1999; Timmins and Ou 2001). The threat posed by use of traditional medicinal substances derived from wild oxen is even harder to determine in the case of Banteng and essentially remains unknown, although it is thought to be a source of significant threat (Timmins et al. 2008). Occasionally Banteng horns can be found at local markets on Sabah and their use is thought to be for soups (believed to increase general vitality) (Gardner et al. 2016). Reports suggest an international trade in trophy heads originating from Kalimantan and sold across the Sabah border however first-hand accounts have yet to be substantiated. Local informants reported at least 24 Banteng killed between 1950–2015 in Belantikan Hulu on central Kalimantan, likely a representing a vast underestimation of the true number (Dewi et al. 2020).

The widespread consumption of wild cattle meat in logging camps during the 1980s and 1990s in the West, Central and Northeast regions of Sabah (Malaysian Borneo) is well documented (Kleinschroth and Healey 2017). Timber roads subsequently opened up previously remote forests, contributing to a further increase in poaching pressure (Gardner et al. 2021). Banteng poaching remains widespread on Sabah to date, although quantifying its exact extent is challenging as the majority of incidents remains unreported. Social media postings and occasional news paper reports provide photographic evidence of poaching incidents. In recent years, pictures of hunters with Banteng carcasses emerged from Sipitang, Tabin, Maliau Basin Conservation Area and Ulu-Segama (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2019). The true number of successful Banteng hunts are known to be much higher due to the number of reports obtained from locals and timber contractors, the high frequency of photographic captures of hunters, and the reports of intimidation of forest rangers by military personnel and officials conducting sport hunting within protected forests.

There are a number of captive animals within zoos and other menageries, but these constitute an insignificant offtake in recent years from wild populations.

There is a domesticated form of Banteng, but its uses supply needs/markets independent of those supplied by wild caught animals.

This species is legally protected in all range states. A proposal for inclusion into CITES Appendix I was submitted (Hedges 1996), however, there have been no developments and the species is not currently listed.

The most significant known Banteng populations remaining are in Java, Cambodia, Thailand, and Borneo (Sabah, Malaysia), and it is in these countries and around these populations that conservation efforts should be focused.

Banteng is mainly confined to protected areas throughout South-east Asia (see Population). Unfortunately, in most protected areas of Lao PDR, Viet Nam, and Cambodia which still retain Banteng, protected status offers little if any protection to the species (Groenenberg et al.2023, Nuttall et al. 2022). The immediate conservation needs are to continue strengthening site-based conservation management to reduce anthropogenic threats within and around core Banteng range areas. Improvements should include the strengthening of law enforcement to reduce all forms of hunting and unplanned habitat conversion as well as more effective engagement with local communities (Linkie et al. 2015, Wright et al. 2016, Belecky et al. 2019). Identification of existing populations and distribution across Cambodia is crucial to ensuring all populations and conserved and managed accordingly. Conservation breeding and translocation programmes may now be necessary to support population recovery in well protected areas and the feasibility of such programme is currently being assessed for Siem Pang Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia (J. Lyon pers. comm. November 2023).

The recovering population trend of several Thai Banteng populations is probably attributed to a combination of factors including: (1) the effects of decades of conservation outreach, media attention, and education that has increased ethical and conservation concerns for wildlife, and shifted social norms and cultural values away from hunting (Steinmetz et al. 2014, GlobeScan et al. 2021); (2) a shift in local hunting practices, which tend to target small wildlife species rather than large ungulates (Phumanee et al. 2020); (3) improved law enforcement (Duangchantrasiri et al. 2016); (4) effective logging bans (R. Chaiyarat pers. comm. 2024); and (5) habitat management targeted at ungulates, particularly the creation of grasslands, saltlicks, and water sources which can increase population growth rates of ungulates (Fryxell et al. 2014). Law enforcement in conjunction with local stakeholder engagement is essential to tackle poaching (Steinmetz et al. 2006, 2014; Jornburom et al. 2020). Maintaining and expanding suitable habitat and connectivity between fragmented populations will be essential for gene flow and long-term population viability (Trisurat et al. 2010, Suksawat et al. 2018, Phoonjampa et al. 2021). Successful Banteng reintroductions have occurred in Salakphra WS and, in conjunction with careful genetic management of both the source and wild stock, proved an effective conservation strategy to prevent extinction (Phoonjampa et al. 2021, Chaiyarat et al. 2023b).

Java has highly fragmented natural habitats and has done for centuries, reflecting longstanding high human population densities. Many protected areas were established during the Dutch colonial period but from independence up until the 1970s they were largely under-funded and neglected. After hosting the World Parks Conference in 1982, the Indonesian government gazetted a swathe of NPs and more structured conservation planning began, funded by the World Bank and other donors. The focus was largely on the 'multi-function' NPs and much money was spent on infrastructure, some staff training and increased personnel. The 'lesser' protected areas such as "game reserves" and "Nature Reserves" still had few staff and resources, and that has continued to the present. There was some habitat loss from protected areas through illegal logging, agricultural encroachment and other off-take, but the NPs of Java (several of which contain ideal habitat for Banteng and, at least into the mid 1990s, large populations) remained remarkably close to intact for much of the period. During the 1980s and early to mid 1990s guns were tightly controlled and the military and police were feared and respected. The strong culture of caged bird keeping meant that hunting, including that within protected areas, was primarily for birds and some smaller mammals, through various forms of trapping, including snaring. Thus there was relatively little hunting of Banteng and populations were stable or even increasing. Socio-political changes from 1997 led to a reduction in the respect for the police and military and the rise of a viewpoint that protected areas were the people's resources and would therefore benefit from decentralised management (M. Tyson pers. comm. 2008). This policy change, which risked a ‘tragedy of the commons’, has indeed led to increased destruction and poaching in the past two decades.

The Directorate of Species and Genetic Biodiversity Conservation (KKHSG) and the Indonesian Zoo Association (PKBSI) are leading the Javan Banteng metapopulation management approach through the Action Indonesia Global Species Management Plan (GSMPs), which aims to coordinate cooperation between national and international conservation institutions to increase ex situ and in situ populations. Currently, Javan Banteng metapopulation management activities are being carried out in four NPs, namely Baluran NP, Alas Purwo NP, Meru Betiri NP, and Ujung Kulon NP, to understand the current population conditions in each park and maximize genetic diversity in each subpopulation. Conservation actions have included two years of park wide camera trap monitoring in Alas Purwo NP, long term monitoring for Banteng in Baluran NP, and work with Ujung Kulon and Meru Betiri NPs to align Banteng data for a consistent monitoring method. Conducting systematic and consistent surveys across the Banteng home range using robust methods (such as camera trapping with Random Encounter Model) is recommended. In 2023 and 2024, the four parks are working together to conduct biopsy sampling on Banteng individuals in order to identify their genetic diversity. This programme is expected to improve island-wide management of Banteng in Java as a unitary population to allow the wild population to increase.

The Sabah Wildlife Department published the Bornean Banteng Action Plan for Sabah 2019–2028 in 2018 (Sabah Wildlife Department 2019). The seven major non site-specific priority objectives include: law enforcement and patrolling to combat the poaching threat; to establish a captive breeding and cryopreservation programme in Sabah in order to conserve the remnant genetic diversity and increase numbers for future reintroduction; to maintain suitable habitat for Bantengs and prevent further loss and degradation; to establish and maintain landscape connectivity throughout the range of Banteng in Sabah; to conduct research on hunting prevalence and trends; to provide education and raise awareness with relevant stakeholders in the vicinity of protected areas; to establish an Endangered Species Conservation Unit that will monitor the implementation of the action/conservation plans. Further site-specific priority actions are also identified for each of the four management units.

A large feral population of Banteng exists in the northern territories of Australia, however, this is thought to be derived from Bali cattle (Bradshaw et al. 2006). Three zoological associations manage ex situ populations of Banteng (Bos javanicus javanicus). The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (population size = 20), the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (population size = 108), and the Indonesian Zoo Association (PKBSI; population size = 65). They all participate in a Global Species Management Plan to cooperatively manage the species at global level to ensure long-term demographic and genetic viability.