Review of Canis lupus from Mongolia

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General E - Environment

ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

October, 2009

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge

CB3 0DL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136

Email: species@unep-wcmc.org

Website: www.unep-wcmc.org

ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION

MONITORING CENTRE

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring

Centre (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge,

UK, is the specialist biodiversity information

and assessment centre of the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), run

cooperatively with WCMC 2000, a UK charity.

The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight

the many values of biodiversity and put

authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the

centre of decision-making. Through the analysis

and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge

the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and

timely information for conventions, countries

and organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and

scientifically rigorous procedures and services.

These include ecosystem assessments, support

for the implementation of environmental

agreements, global and regional biodiversity

information, research on threats and impacts,

and the development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2009. Review of Canis lupus from Mongolia. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily

reflect the views or policies of UNEP or

contributory organisations. The designations

employed and the presentations do not imply

the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on

the part of UNEP, the European Commission or

contributory organisations concerning the legal

status of any country, territory, city or area or its

authority, or concerning the delimitation of its

frontiers or boundaries.

© Copyright: 2009, European Commission

1

REVIEW OF CANIS LUPUS FROM MONGOLIA

A positive opinion for the import of hunting trophies into the European Union of Canis lupus from Mongolia was formed on 11th November 1997. As there has been some trade to the EU including recent import applications, and as the opinion has been in place for many years, UNEP-WCMC was requested to produce a review of this species/country combination.

MAMMALIA CANIDAE

SPECIES: Canis lupus

SYNONYMS: Canis familiaris, Canis familiaris dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis lycaon, Canis niger, Canis rufus, Canis rufus floridanus, Canis rufus rufus

COMMON NAMES: Ujku (Albanian), Vuk (Croatian), Vlk (Czech), Ulv (Danish), Wolf (Dutch), Common Wolf (English), Grey Wolf (English), Timber Wolf (English), Wolf (English), Hunt (Estonian), Susi (Estonian), Susi (Finnish), Loup (French), Loup gris (French), Loup vulgaire (French), Wolf (German), Bheriya (Hindi), Bighana (Hindi), Nekra (Hindi), Farkas (Hungarian), Úlfur (Icelandic), Lupo (Italian), Lupo comune (Italian), Vilkas (Lithuanian), Lupu (Maltese), Ulv (Norwegian), Wilk (Polish), Lobo (Portuguese), Lobo comum (Portuguese), Lup (Romanian), Vlk dravý (Slovak), Lobo (Spanish), Lobo común (Spanish), Varg (Swedish), Kurt (Turkish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Austria (ex), Azerbaijan, Bangladesh (ex), Belarus, Belgium (ex), Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark (ex), Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary (ex?), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland (ex), Israel, Italy, Japan (ex), Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg (ex), Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar (?), Nepal, Netherlands (ex), Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea (ex?), Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ex), Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ex), United States of America, Uzbekistan, Yemen,

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Mongolia

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

2

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS:

Current positive opinion for hunting trophies from Mongolia formed on 11/11/1997.

Current Article 4.6 a suspension for wild hunting trophies from Belarus first imposed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009; from Kyrgyzstan, first imposed on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009; and from Turkey first imposed on 01/03/2003 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

Current positive opinion for hunting trophies from Canada first applied on 11/11/1997 and confirmed (for British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador) on 09/03/2006; for hunting trophies from Kazakhstan first formed on 10/09/1998 and confirmed on 27/03/2007; for hunting trophies from the Russian Federation formed on 11/11/1997 and confirmed on 09/03/2006; for hunting trophies from Ukraine formed on 22/02/2000; and for hunting trophies from the United States of America formed on 11/11/1997.

Previous positive opinions for specimens from Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania that were removed upon accession of these countries to the EU. Previous negative opinion for hunting trophies from Latvia formed on 10/11/1999 and replaced by a positive opinion on 07/11/2000, also removed upon accession to the EU.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Trade in this species, from Mongolia to the EU between 1997 and 2008, consisted mainly of sport-hunted trophies. Germany and Spain were the main importers. Full details are shown in Table 1.

The only indirect exports of Canis lupus, originating in Mongolia, to EU 27, 1997-2007 was one skin reported by Denmark as an import from Norway in 2001.

Exports to other countries were small with the only significant importer of commercial exports being Japan and the main importer of hunting trophies being the United States. Trade with Japan appeared to peak at 123 skins in 2002 and has declined to negligible levels since then (Table 2).

Mongolia had a quota for 150 hunting trophies in both 2001 and 2002 and trade appeared to be well within these quotas.

3

Table 1. Direct exports of Canis lupus, from Mongolia to EU-27, 1997-2008. All trade was in wild specimens.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Austria skins H Importer

1

1

Exporter

P Importer

20

1 1

22

Exporter

T Importer

Exporter

30

10

40

skulls H Importer

1

1

Exporter

P Importer

1

1

Exporter

trophies H Importer

1

1

Exporter

2

1 2 2 2 3

12

P Importer

1

1

Exporter

Czech Republic skins T Importer 20

20

Exporter 20

20

trophies T Importer

Exporter

1

1

Denmark skins H Importer

1

1

Exporter

P Importer

Exporter

2

2

skulls H Importer

1

1

Exporter

trophies H Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1

4

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Finland garments T Importer

Exporter

1

1

skins T Importer

1

1

Exporter

France skins P Importer

Exporter

1 1

T Importer

Exporter

1

1

trophies H Importer

Exporter

1 1

Germany garments P Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1

skins H Importer

1

1 2

Exporter 1

1

P Importer

1

8

1 10

Exporter

2

1

1 1 2

3 2 12

T Importer

Exporter 2

1

11

14

skulls H Importer

1

1

Exporter

P Importer

1

1

Exporter

T Importer

Exporter

1 1

2

trophies H Importer

2 1

2

5

Exporter

2 1

2

2 1

2

10

P Importer

1

1

Exporter

5

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Hungary skins P Importer

Exporter

3

3

T Importer

Exporter

3

3

trophies H Importer

Exporter

1

1

Italy live Q Importer

2

2

Exporter

3

3

skins T Importer

Exporter

1

1

trophies H Importer

1

1

2

Exporter

4 4

1 3

12

P Importer

2

2

Exporter

Netherlands skins T Importer

Exporter

1

1

trophies H Importer

Exporter

1

1

Poland skins H Importer

Exporter 20

20

P Importer

1 1

Exporter

1

1 2

T Importer

Exporter

2

2

- Importer

1

1

Exporter

trophies H Importer

2

2

Exporter

2

2

6

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Portugal trophies H Importer

2 2

Exporter

1

2 2

5

Slovenia trophies H Importer

5

7

12

Exporter

1 1

5

7

14

Spain garments P Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1

skins H Importer

Exporter

2

2

P Importer

Exporter 4

1

2

7

trophies H Importer

1 5 2 4 10 3 5 30

Exporter

2

3 1 4 14 6 5 8 7 50

T Importer

Exporter

1

2

3

Sweden skins T Importer

Exporter

1

1

trophies H Importer

Exporter

1 1

United Kingdom skins P Importer 1

1

Exporter

T Importer

Exporter 1

1

trophies H Importer

Exporter

1

1

Subtotals

skins

Importer 21 2

20 1

1 2 10

3 60

Exporter 48 5

31 5 3 12 6 3 12 5 4 134

trophies

Importer

3

1 1 7 4 9 12 15 7 59

Exporter

4 9 6 7 1 7 17 14 14 27 9 115

7

Table 2. Direct exports of Canis lupus, from Mongolia to countries other than the EU-27, 1997-2008. All trade was in wild specimens.

Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

garments P Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1

T Importer

2

2

Exporter

3

3

skeletons S Importer

16

16

Exporter

1

1

2

T Importer

10

10

Exporter

skins H Importer

8

8

Exporter 2

1

3

P Importer

1 13

2

4

20

Exporter

1 1 12 1 6 1

5 5 32

Q Importer

Exporter

2

2

S Importer

2

2

Exporter

1

1

T Importer 50

22 108 51 35 17 1

284

Exporter 61

15 28 127 59 57 58 20 11

436

- Importer 4

4

Exporter

skulls E Importer

48

48

Exporter

48

48

H Importer

1

1

Exporter

8

Term Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

P Importer

1

2

3

Exporter

1

1

S Importer

1

1

Exporter

17

1 1

19

- Importer 1

1

Exporter

trophies H Importer

3 7 7 8 4 6 9 8

52

Exporter

5 6 5 14 12 9 26 12 5 13 8 115

P Importer

1 1 1

1

4

Exporter

T Importer

1

1

Exporter

4

4

- Importer 2

6 1

9

Exporter

9

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states

Classified as of Least Concern globally by the IUCN with the following justification:

“Originally, the Grey Wolf was the world's most widely distributed mammal. It has become extinct in much of Western Europe, in Mexico and much of the USA, and their present distribution is more restricted; wolves occur primarily in wilderness and remote areas. Their original worldwide range has been reduced by about one-third […] Since about 1970, legal protection, land-use changes and rural human population shifts to cities have arrested wolf population declines and fostered reintroduction and natural recolonization in parts of its range. Continued threats include competition with humans for livestock, especially in developing countries, exaggerated concern by the public regarding the threat and danger of wolves, and fragmentation of habitat, with resulting areas becoming too small for populations with long-term viability.

Although the Grey Wolf still faces some threats, its relatively widespread range and stable population trend mean that the species does not meet, or nearly meet, any of the criteria for the threatened categories. Therefore, it is assessed as Least Concern” (Mech and Boitani, 2008).

Exploitation for the international trade was not reported to be a major threat to the species (Mech and Boitani, 2004; Mech and Boitani, 2008).

Mongolia: Occurrence reported in the country (e.g. Mech and Boitani, 2004; Wilson and Reeder, 2005; Clark et al., 2006b; Mech and Boitani, 2008), where 100% of the species‟ former range was reportedly still occupied (Mech and Boitani, 2004).

Reported from several protected areas in Mongolia, including Hustai National Park (Hovens and Tungalaktuja, 2005), Hustain Nuruu Steppe Reserve (Hovens et al., 2000), Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area (Clark et al., 2006a; Kaczensky et al., 2008), Takhiin Tal Nature Reserve (Clark et al., 2006a) and Bogdkhan Mountain Strictly Protected Area (Chieko et al., 2008).

Sillero-Zubiri (2009) considered the species to be “stable to fully viable in north and Central Asia”.

Reading et al. (2006) noted that “relatively large populations of wolves (Canis lupus) are common across much of Mongolian rangelands”.

In 1980 the Mongolian population was estimated at 30,000 individuals by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (Clark et al., 2006b), while more recent figures estimated over 10,000 individuals in the country (Mech and Boitani, 2004). Wingard & Zahler (2006) noted that “Unfortunately, we can only guess at the total number of wolves in Mongolia. No population studies have ever been conducted to determine wolf population densities, distribution, pack size, or range. In the 1970s, Mongolian biologists produced a map describing widespread distribution covering the entire country with no estimate of area-specific densities or population numbers. National and international experts believe the population has probably fluctuated greatly due to intense extermination and harvest campaigns and point to indicators, if not actual proof, of both past and present population declines. At least once in the past (1976 to 1980), concerns over population declines led to the banning of wolf hunting. Some biologists believe the same may be happening now because of extreme harvest numbers. However, we still do not have any assessment of the population.”

Mech and Boitani (2004) considered the Mongolian population to be viable but in possible decline.

The regional status of the species, following the IUCN Red List categories and criteria, was considered to be „Near Threatened‟ (Clark et al., 2006b). Clark et al. (2006b) stated: “it is clear that this species is declining, but the rate of decline is difficult to determine. It is therefore listed as Near Threatened, but further surveys may reveal that it should be listed as Vulnerable or even Endangered under Criterion A”.

Mech and Boitani (2004) reported that although extermination efforts against the species were active in Mongolia, they considered utilization of the species‟ fur in the country to be sustainable, a view confirmed by Mech and Boitani (2008). This contrasts with Wingard & Zahler‟s view that the levels of offtake were „almost certainly unsustainable‟ (Wingard and Zahler, 2006). Clark et al. (2006b) noted that the observed declines in population size were believed to be caused primarily by exploitation, persecution and disease. Wingard and Zahler (2006) noted that in Mongolia, wolves are targeted by

10

hunters because of livestock predation, perceived threats to humans, for sport, and for a growing domestic and international trade in wolf pelts for the fur market and other body parts for the traditional medicine market.

Clark et al. (2006b) reported: “Trophy hunters can purchase a hunting license to export trophies, from which $225 USD is allocated to the government (MNE, 2005). According to the Mongolian Law on Reinvestment of Natural Resource Use Fees, a percentage of this fee is designated to conservation efforts (Wingard and Zahler, 2006). There are no laws to protect this species from household or industrial hunting, no closed seasons and no quota limits. Approximately 13% of the species‟ range occurs within protected areas, however, wolf protection within protected areas is rarely enforced, and exceptions are made in some areas to protect rare wildlife and livestock.”

Clark et al. (2006b) reported that “Unsustainable hunting remains the dominant threat, as its skins are of commercial value and all body parts (including the tongue, spleen, ankle bones, and teeth) are used in traditional medicines, and it is also hunted as a sport (Mech and Boitani, 2004; Wingard and Zahler, 2006). Regarded as a pest species as it preys on livestock, and is therefore consequently persecuted. Hunting levels are believed to have reached 18,000 individuals in 1933 (Scharf et al., 2003), and between 1942 and 1960 the average number of wolves removed annually was estimated to be 5,827 (Stubbe, 1965). This figure is believed to have remained stable since this time, and surveys of wolf skins sold in Mongolian markets in 2003 estimated the total figure at around 4,900”.

Wingard & Zahler (2006) described similar historical figures and noted that “However, these are only the official numbers. Certainly, Mongolians hunted wolves in addition to official trade to protect livestock, for traditional medicines, and killed pups during extermination campaigns, none of which was ever recorded”. The authors also reported that the nationwide survey they conducted in 2004 suggested that more recent harvest levels may be higher: “Of the 949 hunters surveyed throughout the country, almost 40 percent (321) claim to hunt wolves. Extrapolated out to the entire population of hunters in the country (245,000), this means potentially 75,000 hunters actively harvest the animal. The adjusted mean take for these hunters was 3.4 animals with the highest harvest being 100 animals for a single hunter. Looking only at the hunter respondents in the survey, at least 1,777 wolves were killed in 2004. Total harvest volumes were difficult to estimate and are likely the result of exaggeration on the part of respondents. Without absolute certainty, we believe it is possible that Mongolian hunters may have taken at least 20,000- 30,000 wolves in 2004 with a potential market value of approximately $7 million.” (Wingard and Zahler, 2006).

Reading et al. (1998) analyzed commercial harvest data from 1932 to 1993 from Dornod Aimag, Mongolia. They found that wolf harvests varied from year to year and demonstrated significant decreasing trends. The authors also indicated that “wolves are strongly disliked and heavily persecuted by local nomads, officials, and biologists at all levels of government”. They also suggested that “all species harvested commercially in Dornod Aimag require more careful conservation management to ensure the continued existence of viable populations. Currently, little management or monitoring is occurring” (Reading et al., 1998).

Clark et al. (2006a) noted that conservation activities in Takhiin Tal Nature Reserve and in the Great Gobi Section B Strictly Protected Area include monitoring of Canis lupus.

Kaczensky et al. (2008) studied the impacts of hunting on Canis lupus in the Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area in Mongolia, and reported: “The Mongolian hunting law does not mention the wolf Canis lupus, which is generally interpreted in the way that wolves can be hunted anytime and anywhere, including in protected areas. […] Annual harvest in the park and its vicinity averaged 1 wolf/265 km2 in 2002/03, 1 wolf/120 km2 in 2003/04 and 1 wolf/310 km2 in 2004/05. However, hunting pressure was unequally distributed and particularly high in the northeastern corner of the park. During the active monitoring period of [one of the GPS-tracked wolves], 35 wolves were killed within her „resident‟ range, suggesting a high hunting pressure. Most wolves were shot from motorised vehicles […]. The market surveys revealed products from 2,000 wolves on the two border markets, a huge discrepancy to only 150 CITES permits officially issued annually. Although our data are insufficient to allow a truly quantitative assessment of the impact of human induced mortality on wolf conservation status in the Great Gobi B SPA, it points towards a potentially severe conservation problem requiring further attention”.

11

Wingard & Zahler (2006) reported:

“Even though numbers are no longer kept, this survey indicates that the gray wolf has been and continues to be important to Mongolia‟s domestic and international trade. In domestic trade, virtually all parts of the wolf have value. […]

Internationally, wolf trade is almost exclusively with China. Gray wolf carcasses, pelts, ankle bones, paws, skulls, teeth, and trophies were common items in most (64 percent) of the shops surveyed in 15 cities along China‟s border with Mongolia. Wolf pelts were openly displayed and priced as high as $250 for good quality and $35 for low quality. Teeth sold for $2 to $3 apiece. Ankle bones ranged from $3 to $10. Paws had a price tag of $6. Skulls were $5. Wolf carcasses commanded a small price of $50 compared to mounted trophies that sold for $375.

Given the market values and traditional medicine practices in both China and Mongolia, and Mongolians‟ relationship to the wolf, it is not surprising that it is the second most targeted species by hunters in Mongolia. […]

One market in Ulaanbaatar claims to have sold 50,000 wolf pelts in 2004 alone. We were unable to verify if all pelts were from Mongolia or from the same year. Given that Mongolia‟s maximum carrying capacity for wolves is likely to be somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 based on estimates from elsewhere, and the actual population is very likely well below this, the current level of off take is almost certainly unsustainable. While we are unable to state with any clarity what the true off take is for wolf in Mongolia, hunting levels appear to be highly unsustainable and evidence suggests that the wolf in Mongolia is currently undergoing a severe and precipitous decline in numbers. Circumstantial evidence points to localized disappearance of wolves in areas of the Gobi and Eastern Steppe. While herders have implied that wolf numbers are actually increasing due to an increase in livestock losses in some areas, this is more likely to be the result of loss of wild prey in the area (e.g., marmot, red deer, gazelle), which is forcing the remaining wolves to turn to livestock for food” (Wingard and Zahler, 2006).

REFERENCES:

Chieko, N., Khuukhenduu, T., Naoki, M., and Kazuki, S. 2008. Food habits of gray wolves in the Bogdkhan Mountain Strictly Protected Area, Mongolia. Bioshere Conservation: for Nature, Wildlife, and Humans, 9 (1): 1-8.

Clark, E. L., Munkhbat, J., Dulamtseren, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Batsaikhan, N., King, S. R. B., Samiya, R., and Stubbe, M. 2006a. Summary conservation action plans for Mongolian mammals. Regional Red List Series Vol. 2. Zoological Society of London. London.

Clark, E. L., Munkhbat, J., Dulamtseren, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Batsaikhan, N., Samiya, R., and Stubbe, M. 2006b. Mongolian Red List of mammals. Zoological Society of London. London. Regional Red List Series Vol. 1.

Hovens, J. P. M. and Tungalaktuja, K. 2005. Seasonal fluctuations of the wolf diet in the Hustai National Park (Mongolia). Mamalian Biology - Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde, 70 (4): 210-217.

Hovens, J. P. M., Tungalaktuja, K. H., Todgeril, T., and Batdori, D. 2000. The impact of wolves Canis lupus (L., 1758) on wild ungulates and nomadic livestock in and around the Hustain Nuruu Steppe Reserve (Mongolia). Lutra, 43: 39-50.

Kaczensky, P., Enkhsaikhan, N., Ganbaatar, O., and Walzer, C. 2008. The Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area in Mongolia - refuge or sink for wolves Canis lupus in the Gobi. Wildlife Biology, 14 (4): 444-456.

12

Mech, L. D. and Boitani, L. 2004. Grey wolf (Canis lupus), in Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M., & MacDonald, D. W., (eds.), Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 124-129.

Mech, L. D. and Boitani, L. 2008. Canis lupus, 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 24-8-2009.

MNE. 2005. Manual for foreign hunters and fishers. Annex 4 to government resolution No. 264/2001. Ministry of Nature and Environment (MNE), State Inspection Agency and German Technical Co-operation (GTZ). Ulaanbaatar.

Reading, R. P., Bedunah, D. J., and Amgalanbaatar, S. 2006. Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. USDA Forest Service Proceedings.

Reading, R. P., Mix, H., Lhagvasuren, B., and Tseveenmyadag, N. 1998. The commercial harvest of wildlife in Dornod Aimag, Mongolia. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62 (1): 59-71.

Scharf, K., Enkhbold, S., and Burnee, M. 2003. Hunting in Mongolia. Eastern Steppe Biodiversity Project, Wildlife Conservation Society. New York. Unpublished report.

Sillero-Zubiri 2009. Family Canidae (dogs), in Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A., (eds.), Handbook of the mammals of the world - Carnivores. Lynx edicions, Barcelona. 352-447.

Stubbe, M. 1965. Jagd, jagdgesetz und wild in der Mongolischen Volksrepublik. Beiträge zur Jagd-und Wildforschung, 4: 163-178.

Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Wingard, J. R. and Zahler, P. 2006. Silent steppe: the illegal wildlife trade crisis in Mongolia. World Bank. Washington D.C. Mongolia Discussion Papers, East Asia and Pacific Environment and Social Development Department.