sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mount Pinos, Mount San Antonio, San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Wilderness, San Gorgonio Mountain, San Jacinto Mountains

Chapter 6 Chapter 6 – and Other High-Interest Species

The childhood training of hunters is not so much practical training as the opening of spiritual doors.... Hunting had put a premium on physical good health, on sensitivity to environment and to the nuances and clues in a delicate and beautiful world, on independence, confidence, persistence, generosity, and had given them a powerful sense of the non-human creation. — Paul Shepard (1973)

There is a value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called ‘sportsmanship.’ Our tools for the pursuit of wildlife improve faster than we do, and sportsmanship is a voluntary limitation in the use of those armaments... a peculiar virtue of wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact. — Aldo Leopold (1966)

Key Questions nia head for the lakes, where a variety of popu- • What is the current status of major lar sport fish are planted. These lake fisheries game and other high-interest are primarily managed by local water districts populations in the coastal mountains and the Department of Fish and of ? Game (CDFG), usually with minimal involve- • What are the primary management ment from the public land management issues for these species? agencies. For this reason we do not address lake sport fish in this report. For those who This chapter examines the current status prefer flowing waters, there are many fishable and trends of the most popular game mountain streams. The primary sport fish in in the region as well as several other species these streams is the rainbow trout. that are of particularly high interest to people. Hunting and are popular activities in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) the assessment area. State and federal land and Status and Distribution: Rainbow trout resource management agencies invest consid- occur throughout the assessment area. A few erable time and effort managing habitats and populations of native steelhead remain (an monitoring populations of game species. anadramous or ocean-going rainbow trout; see Many of the same habitats that are important “Fish” section, chapter 4) primarily in the Los to rare and at-risk species are also important Padres National Forest where some are now to game animals. landlocked by downstream barriers to the ocean. However, most of the trout found in southern Fish California today are stocked hatchery fish. Many The majority of anglers who go to the streams in the region are regularly restocked to mountains and foothills of southern Califor- maintain a recreational fishery.

317 A few local streams that support produc- tive, self-sustaining trout populations have Quail, turkeys, and pigeons are addressed been designated as “wild trout streams” by the in this section because they are the most com- CDFG. These include and Piru monly hunted game birds in the assessment Creek in the southern Los Padres, the West area. Waterfowl and doves are not addressed Fork of the San Gabriel River in the San because, although they do occur in the moun- Gabriel Mountains, and Deep Creek and Bear tains, they are not found in large numbers and Creek in the few people go to the mountains to hunt them. (Deinstadt et al. 1990). These streams have special fishing regulations, including catch- California Quail (Callipepla californica) and and-release requirements and barbless hooks. Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus) Wild trout management plans have been de- Status and Distribution: California quail veloped for Deep Creek and Bear Creek and mountain quail are native gallinaceous (Hoover 1983; Hoover and Deinstadt 1989). birds found throughout the assessment area Several other local trout streams have the in a wide variety of habitats. California quail special catch-and-release and barbless hooks range from sea level to about 5,000 feet, while regulations. These include the San Antonio mountain quail extend from below 2,000 to River, South Fork of the San Jacinto River, over 9,000 feet (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The and Pauma Creek and the West Fork of the range of these two species overlaps broadly, San Luis Rey River on . but they have distinct habitat and behavioral Habitat: Rainbow trout can tolerate a va- differences. Mountain quail occur in more riety of water conditions but prefer cool waters. densely vegetated habitats and are dispersed They do best in streams that have deep pools in relatively small coveys of fewer than fifteen and a well-developed canopy of riparian trees birds. California quail prefer more open habi- that shade the water (Deinstadt et al. 1990). tats and typically form coveys of forty to sixty Aquatic vegetation provides excellent cover for birds, with some containing well over one trout. hundred (Leopold et al. 1981). California Management Issues: The biggest issue for quail tend to burst into flight to escape a threat, the region’s trout streams is maintaining ad- while mountain quail have a greater tendency equate stream flows. Most of the wild trout to flee on foot. The larger coveys, propensity streams lie below dams, and their survival is to fly, and occurrence in open habitats make dependent on sustained water releases from the California quail more desirable to hunt those impoundments. Organizations such as and thus a much more popular game . Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, and Habitat: Mountain quail typically inhabit Trout have played a major role in persuading forested habitat and dense , while water agencies to commit to sustained water California quail tend to frequent openings and releases in these systems. Trout stocking pro- edge habitats (Leopold et al. 1981). Prime grams must increasingly consider the effects habitat for mountain quail is extensive and well of this activity on native fish and , represented on public lands within the assess- many of which are rare and declining. The ment area. This is less true for California quail; special regulations applied to keep wild trout commonly called “valley quail,” they reach waters from being overfished generally seem peak abundance in valley and foothill bottom to be working. Many of these streams are in lands where there is a good mix of openings, back-country areas that are relatively difficult brushy cover, and water. These productive to access. This helps reduce fishing pressure bottom-land habitats are predominantly in on these waters. private ownership and many acres have been converted to croplands and subdivisions that support few quail. California quail do occur in the chaparral-covered hills but mostly at low 318 Chapter 6 densities. Biswell et al. (1952) found 100 quail niques have improved substantially over the per square mile in unbroken chaparral, with last thirty years and wild populations numbers increasing to 250 per square mile in are now established in many parts of Califor- areas where small openings had been created nia, particularly along the west side of the by burning. and in the northern and cen- Management Issues: The California tral coast ranges (CDFG 1990). quail’s popularity as a game bird, combined Turkey populations have been well estab- with the fact that much of its prime low- lished for many years in the foothills of elevation habitat has been converted for other Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and northern uses, make it a higher priority for management Santa Barbara counties (Smith and Browning attention than mountain quail. California 1967; Garrett and Dunn 1981). The south- quail do best in habitat mosaics that contain a ernmost mountains of California are some of mix of open feeding areas and protective the last areas of potential habitat in the state brushy cover. Small clumps of trees and shrubs to have self-sustaining wild turkey popula- scattered among open feeding areas provide a tions. A population was successfully maximum of “edge” and are ideal for quail established in the San Bernardino Mountains when water is available (Leopold 1977). Large, north of Lake Arrowhead in 1988. It is now a continuous blocks of a single vegetation type very popular resource that attracts hunters provide poor habitat. Thus large stands of from throughout southern California and unbroken chaparral support low numbers of Nevada (S. Loe, San Bernardino NF, pers. quail. comm). In 1993, turkey populations were es- The most commonly encountered habi- tablished on private lands at several locations tat limitations for quail on national forest in the mountains of San Diego County. In- system lands are lack of water and lack of suit- troductions are also proposed for the able openings in the chaparral. Over the years, Cleveland National Forest but have been de- a large number of water developments (e.g., layed by litigation over the potential impact guzzlers and catchments) have been installed on native species. However, the turkeys to improve habitat for quail. Local chapters planted on private lands have dispersed widely of Quail Unlimited have been particularly in- and some presently occur on the Cleveland strumental in organizing and implementing National Forest. these projects. Prescribed burning has been Habitat: Turkeys can occur in a variety of used to create openings and increase age-class habitats but are found primarily in , , diversity in the chaparral. and mixed / woodlands. Im- portant habitat components include large Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) roost trees, openings that contain herbaceous Status and Distribution: This popular plants, and the production of crops, es- game bird is native to much of pecially . Water is a critical habitat but was not present in California at the time requirement for turkeys; they need to drink of its discovery and settlement by Europeans at least once a day and thus require a depend- (Burger 1954). Believing that the distribution able year-round water supply (Schorger 1966). of the wild turkey was restricted by geographi- In southern California, the limited availabil- cal barriers and not by a lack of suitable habitat ity of year-round water substantially reduces in California, the State Division of Fish and the amount of suitable habitat for this spe- Game began, in the early 1900s, to experi- cies. It is perhaps significant that the turkey’s ment with introductions of turkeys in various native range corresponds quite closely with parts of the state (Burger 1954). Most of the portions of the country that receive appreciable early introductions failed, often because the and dependable rainfall in the summer planted birds were too tame to survive for long months. in the wild. Yet, transplant and release tech- 319 Management Issues: Little is known about tionships between individuals, organizations, the effect of introduced turkey populations on and agencies that should be working together California’s native flora and fauna. There are to gather the necessary information and find no published scientific studies that directly workable solutions. address the subject; research on turkeys in California has focused on their numbers, Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) movements, and food habitats (Schorger 1966; Status and Distribution: The only pigeon Smith and Browning 1967; Grenfell et al. native to California—and not to be confused 1980). On one hand, it can be accurately ar- with rock pigeons found in urban areas— gued that there is no evidence that turkeys are band-tails occur throughout the assessment imperiling native species. However, it can be area and can be abundant in lower montane equally well argued that there is no evidence woodlands. The word “palomar” is Spanish for demonstrating that they do not cause harm. “pigeon roost,” and thus Palomar Mountain This uncertainty has led to recent controversy is named for this species. There is little cur- over the appropriateness of introducing tur- rent information on the status of band-tailed keys into areas where there are rare plants and pigeon populations in southern California. animals that could potentially be harmed (via Statewide Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data increased competition or direct consumption). indicate a slight declining population trend A California Department of Fish and since 1980, but it is not statistically signifi- Game plan to introduce turkeys on public cant (Sauer et al. 1997). lands in San Diego County has been stalled Habitat: Band-tailed pigeons are closely by a lawsuit, filed by the California Native tied to , occurring both in pure stands and Plant Society, over concerns about the impact in conifer/oak woodlands. They spend the on native species. These concerns have also summer months primarily in montane wood- triggered opposition from the California De- lands but commonly move downslope into the partment of Parks and Recreation. Turkeys that foothills in winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981). wander onto Cuyamaca Rancho State Park Management Issues: Band-tailed pigeons from nearby private lands are now being do not receive a lot of management attention. trapped and relocated outside the park’s A fast-moving bird found primarily in densely boundaries (LaRue 1995). CDFG is currently wooded areas, the band-tailed pigeon is often conducting a study to assess the effect of in- difficult to shoot. This probably explains why troduced turkeys on native species. Hopefully the birds do not experience a lot of hunting the results will be sufficiently conclusive to pressure in the assessment area. Protection of resolve this controversy. oak and conifer/oak woodlands is important This has been a frustrating process, par- to this species. ticularly for those who have long sought a huntable turkey population in the San Diego Mammals area. It evokes deep-seated concerns among The most popular game and nongame sportsmen who have watched the wildlife animals tend to be large mammals. Those that management agencies increasingly shift their generate the most interest in the assessment focus to threatened and endangered species, area are addressed below. often at the expense of game management programs. Unfortunately, this understandable (Odocoileus hemionus) frustration has caused some individuals to Status and Distribution: The mule deer publicly suggest that an anti-hunting agenda is the most important big game animal in is driving the land management agencies han- southern California. The annual fall deer hunt dling of the issue (Zieralski 1996). These attracts thousands of people to the mountains baseless allegations only serve to polarize rela- and foothills. The California Department of Fish and Game’s management of this harvest 320 Chapter 6 is aimed at providing a sustained yield and deer (fig. 6.1) (Loft et al. 1998). Longhurst et keeping the deer population within the food al. (1952) estimated that there were 79,000 supply of its natural habitat, thus preventing deer in the unit in the late 1940s, damage to native habitats, agricultural crops, but 1990s estimates range from 16,000 to and . 24,000 (Loft et al. 1998). This decline is at- Recent harvest rates and CDFG popula- tributed primarily to large-scale habitat loss tion estimates (fig. 6.1) suggest that the deer on private lands as southern California’s hu- population is relatively stable in the southern man population has grown. half of the assessment area and increasing in Habitat: Characteristics of deer habitat use the northern half (Loft et al. 1998). CDFG vary geographically. Deer are essentially estimates populations by geographic deer as- nonmigratory in the low-elevation mountain sessment units (DAUs). The northern half of ranges that lack extensive conifer forests (i.e., the assessment area is in the “central coast the , San Diego County’s (south)” unit or DAU #9, and the southern mountains, and most of the Los Padres Na- half is in the “south coast” unit or DAU #10 tional Forest). In these areas deer reach their (Loft et al. 1998). The central coast (south) highest densities in oak woodlands, riparian unit is the only one in the state that showed areas, and along the margins of meadows and an increasing population trend from 1990 to grasslands. They occur in lower densities in 1996 (Loft et al. 1998). No explanation is open scrub and young chaparral but tend to given for this increasing trend. avoid dense brushfields. In chaparral habitats, The central coast unit is 15,600 square deer thrive on early successional vegetation miles in size and the south coast unit encom- that is prevalent for a period of one to ten years passes 7,800 square miles. The central coast after a fire (Bowyer 1981). unit is twice the size of the south coast unit Bowyer (1984, 1986) studied habitat use but reportedly has over four times as many of mule deer in a low-elevation mountain

Figure 6.1. Deer population estimates for 1990–1996 by deer assessment unit (DAU)(from Loft et al. 1998). These units extend beyond our assessment area boundaries, but the Central Coast DAU encompasses the four northern mountain subareas (southern and northern Santa Lucia Ranges, southern Los Padres ranges, and Castaic Ranges) and the South Coast DAU encompasses the five southern subareas (San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Santa Ana mountains, and San Diego ranges).

120,000

100,000

South Coast 80,000 Central Coast

60,000

40,000 Estimated Number of Deer 20,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

321 range—on 4,900-foot East Mesa in the habitat quality and increasing risk of preda- Cuyamaca Mountains of San Diego County. tion. The upper-elevation summer habitats He concluded that these southern mule deer were of higher quality, but moving to and from are primarily a species of meadows, oaks, and them each year increases the risk of predation. . Meadows were found to be particularly Monitoring of radio-collared deer found that important fawning habitat. Deer grass migratory females did have higher mortality (Muhlenbergia ridgens), a tall bunch grass, was rates than nonmigratory females and the mor- used extensively by fawns for concealment tality occurred exclusively during migration cover. Adult deer typically bedded down in (Nicholson et. al. 1997). oak and pine stands. The partial deer migration pattern ob- The availability of free water during sum- served by Nicholson in the San Bernardino mer was also a major factor regulating the Mountains probably occurs in the other high- distribution of mule deer on East Mesa. Areas elevation mountains as well. Vaughn (1954) farther than 0.6 miles from free water received and Cronemiller and Bartholomew (1950) limited summer use. Areas without sources of note the occurrence of upslope migrations in summer water typically were devoid of fawns. the . Thus, habitat manipulations greater than 0.6 Management Issues: During all seasons, miles from summer water sources are unlikely Nicholson (1995) found that deer largely to increase populations of mule deer (Bowyer avoided areas regularly occupied by humans 1996). (e.g., campgrounds and summer cabins), to In the higher elevation mountain ranges the extent that they did not utilize habitats (i.e., and the San Gabriel, San that would otherwise be of high quality (e.g., Bernardino, and ), deer riparian and meadows). He concluded that commonly undertake altitudinal migrations mule deer primarily avoid negative features of between summer and winter ranges. the environment and consequently often avoid Nicholson (1995) and Nicholson et al. (1997) potentially valuable resources at the same time. studied tradeoffs associated with migration in The tendency of mule deer to avoid areas a mule deer population within the upper Santa where there is frequent human use is a signifi- Ana River watershed in the San Bernardino cant management issue. Of particular Mountains. In this area, deer exhibit a mixed significance are meadow and riparian habitats pattern of migration—some migrate every that are preferred fawning areas and extremely year, others migrate in some years, and others limited in extent. Such habitats are also desir- never migrate. able locations for recreationists and, as the Migratory deer move upslope for the sum- number of recreationists increase, it becomes mer months, into well-watered habitats on more difficult to find areas that do not receive north-facing slopes. These areas are dominated frequent human use. In the San Jacinto Moun- by pine forest but also contain openings, tains, Schaefer (1999) reported that deer meadows, and riparian habitats that the deer reproductive rates in 1994 and 1995 were rep- utilize. Nonmigratory deer spend the summer resentative of a nutritionally stressed on lower slopes, primarily utilizing the lim- population. This could be because they are ited pine forests that occur there as well as oak selecting remote areas that do not contain woodlands. In winter, deer congregate on high-quality foraging habitat. lower, south-facing slopes where they heavily Bowyer and Bleich (1984) studied the ef- utilize oak woodlands. Use of chaparral and fects of cattle grazing on mule deer in the sagebrush also increases in winter (Nicholson mountains of San Diego County. They used et al. 1997). spotlight transects and pellet group counts to Nicholson et al. (1997) suggest that mi- compare deer abundance in two areas of simi- gration presents a tradeoff between optimizing lar meadow habitat, one which was grazed (Laguna Mountain) and one which was not 322 Chapter 6 (Cuyamaca Rancho State Park). They found oped areas to survive. If they had other op- deer to be significantly more abundant in the tions on where to go, they presumably would ungrazed meadows, with mean densities of two try to avoid developed areas. Nicholson’s study deer per 100 hectares (240 acres) in the cattle indicates that in remote areas, where they have grazed meadows and twenty-two deer per 100 the ability to avoid developed areas, they tend hectares in the ungrazed meadows (Bowyer to do so even if it means living in lower-qual- and Bleich 1984). The deer pellet group analy- ity habitat. sis had a similarly significant result. Second, the habitat reserves in the bay area Bowyer and Bleich (1984) attribute the are not open to hunting; thus, for many years reduced densities of deer in cattle-grazed ar- now, deer in those areas have not been hunted. eas to changes in habitat condition. Important This undoubtedly increases their ability to forage plants for deer were either absent or habituate to nonthreatening human activities. reduced on the grazed range, and these areas Studies have shown that mule deer can ha- also lacked dense stands of deer grass, which bituate to predictable events such as highway are known to provide valuable cover for does traffic, which they learn is not dangerous with fawns. Bowyer and Bleich (1980, 1984) (Yarmoloy et al. 1988). However, in remote used old photographs to determine that deer areas where deer are annually hunted and they grass was also scarce in Cuyamaca’s meadows have choices on where to go, it is highly prob- when they were grazed by livestock prior to able that they will continue to avoid areas the state park’s establishment. The deer grass where there is high human use. recovered after cattle were removed. It should Habitat Management: The most common be noted that when this study was done in habitat manipulation used to benefit deer is 1979, the intensity of grazing on Laguna prescribed burning, usually in chaparral. Burn- Mountain was much higher than it is now. It ing creates openings in the brush and would be useful to repeat this study to com- temporarily increases the quality of deer for- pare ungrazed conditions with the more age (Dasmann and Dasmann 1963). After moderate grazing regime that is in place to- observing marked increases in deer harvested day. in San Diego County following the Laguna North of the assessment area, in the San fire in 1970, Bowyer (1981) developed deer Francisco Bay region, there is now considered management guidelines that emphasize burn- to be a deer over-abundance problem in many ing to rejuvenate browse. suburban areas (McCullough et al. 1997). Bowyer (1986) points out that the prox- Evidently, deer in this area have become in- imity of burned areas to other vegetative types creasingly tolerant of human development and preferred by mule deer may be a critical factor no longer avoid valuable resources in their vi- in determining the response of deer popula- cinity. While this type of behavior has long tions to alterations in old-growth chaparral. been a management issue for white-tailed deer Short-lived increases in forage quality in areas (Odocoileus virginianus) in the eastern United with few deer will do little to promote popu- States, it is rarely reported for mule or black- lation growth. Thus, chaparral burns will be tailed deer. most effective when they are conducted in ar- There are several reasons why it is unlikely eas that adjoin meadow, oak, or pine that the tolerance of human disturbance ex- vegetation types that contain summer water hibited by deer in the Bay area sources. will spread to more remote areas. First, the Based on the aforementioned work of remaining wildland habitats in the bay area Nicholson et al. (1997) and Bowyer and Bleich are highly productive for deer but very lim- (1984), additional consideration should prob- ited in size and surrounded by development. ably be given to management of recreation Thus, carrying capacity is easily exceeded and facilities and livestock grazing in key deer deer move outside natural habitats into devel- fawning areas. 323 Nelson’s but is believed to be declining (Torres et al. (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) 1994). Originally considered to be a popula- Status and Distribution: The Nelson’s big- tion of twenty-five to fifty animals, it is now horn sheep is an animal of high public interest believed to support fewer than twenty-five ani- and is considered both a viability concern and mals (fig. 6.3) (Torres et al. 1996a). Sheep in a game animal in various parts of its range. the San Bernardino Mountains are considered Southern California populations are concen- to be two separate populations, the larger in trated in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains the vicinity of and and eastern San Bernardino Mountains, with the other on the northern edge of the range in a small reintroduced population around San desert-facing canyons such as Furnace, Bousic, Rafael Peak and Cobblestone Mountain in the Arctic, and Marble canyons. southern part of the Los Padres National For- The bighorn sheep population in the San est (fig. 6.2) (Torres et al. 1994). Gabriel Mountains is, or at least was, consid- The San Rafael Peak/Cobblestone Moun- ered the largest single sheep population in tain population was established in the 1980s California (DeForge 1980; Torres et al. 1994).

Figure 6.2. The distribution of Nelson’s bighorn sheep in the southern Los Padres, San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains.

324 Chapter 6

Figure 6.3. The estimated size of Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations in the assessment area as reported by Torres et al. (1994, 1996).

Population Size Class Population Status 1993 1995

San Gabriel Mountains Native > 300 (400-600) 101-150 San Gorgonio (San Bernardino Mts.) Native 101-150 101-150 Northern San Bernardino Mts. Native < 25 < 25 San Rafael Pk./Cobblestone Mtn. Reintroduced 25-50 < 25

Several research projects in the 1970s and early sus data. However, census data collected since 1980s generated detailed information on the the early 1980s suggest that the San Gabriel distribution, abundance, and habitat relation- Mountains’ bighorn sheep population has de- ships of sheep in this range (Weaver et al. 1972; clined substantially over the last twenty years Light and Weaver 1973; DeForge 1980; (fig. 6.4). Harlacher 1980; Holl and Bleich 1983). Sev- Habitat: For detailed analyses of bighorn eral distinct herds have been identified, with sheep habitat utilization in the San Gabriel primary concentrations in the Bear Creek Mountains, see Light and Weaver (1973) and drainage (San Gabriel Wilderness), the upper Holl and Bleich (1983). Escape terrain is iden- East Fork of the San Gabriel River and Cattle tified as the single most important habitat Canyon (both in the Sheep Mountain Wil- component for sheep in these mountains. Es- derness), San Antonio Canyon, Cucamonga cape terrain is defined as steep slopes (80 Canyon, and the South and Middle Forks of percent or greater) with abundant rock out- . Population estimates across this crops and sparse shrub cover (canopy cover area ranged from 665 to 740 animals between of 30 percent or less) (Holl and Bleich 1983). 1976 and 1982 (Holl and Bleich 1983). These Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains range estimates were extrapolated from aerial cen- widely in elevation—from 3,000 to 10,064

Figure 6.4. Bighorn sheep census data collected from 1977 to 1998 in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. These data come primarily from annual aerial surveys conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game, although they also include some ground survey results.

500

400

300

200

100 Number of Sheep Observed 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

325 feet (i.e., the summit of ). range, disease, human activity, and drought During winter and spring, they are primarily (Torres et al. 1996a). distributed in lower canyons between 3,000 The apparent stability of the bighorn and 6,000 feet, where they occupy escarpment population around Mount San Gorgonio may chaparral, particularly ceanothus-mountain be related to the remoteness of the area. Most mahogany associations. In summer, bighorn of the occupied sheep habitat is within the San sheep use all elevations. Their distribution Gorgonio Wilderness Area, and the surround- within an area is dependent on escape terrain ing area to the east and south is largely and open vegetation types. unroaded. This population is deemed stable Management Issues: The primary factors enough to support an extremely limited an- affecting Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations nual hunt. Since 1997, CDFG has issued one in the assessment area are human disturbance, tag per year to hunt bighorn sheep in the San vegetation condition, water availability, and Gorgonio area. predation. Bighorn sheep are considered sen- sitive to the presence of humans, particularly Tule (Cervus elaphus nannodes) high levels of human activity in their line of Status and Distribution: Tule elk were sight, and may abandon habitat due to hu- once abundant in California’s Central Valley man encroachment (Light and Weaver 1973). and adjacent valleys and foothills. However, The effects of human activity on sheep in the the fertile valley habitats they preferred have San Gabriel Mountains have been studied by been almost entirely converted to agricultural Light and Weaver (1973), Hamilton (1983), land, and the tule elk now occurs only in es- and Holl and Bleich (1983) with varying find- tablished reserves and in areas outside or on ings and conclusions. Light and Weaver the fringe of its native range where introduced (1973) suggest that increased human use in populations have persisted (e.g., the Owens the Baldy Notch area, particularly summer use Valley and Point Reyes) (McCullough et al. concentrated around the Ski 1996). Approximately twenty-two tule elk popu- Area base facility, has caused sheep to avoid lations can currently be found in scattered areas areas that were previously utilized. Conversely, across California, three of which are in or near Holl and Bleich (1983) suggest the absence the assessment area in San Luis Obispo and of sheep in that area may be more related to Monterey counties (McCullough et al. 1996). habitat condition. However, both agree that Tule elk herds occur (1) in valleys on both increased summer use on the north-facing side sides of the southern half of the La Panza of Mount San Antonio would have a negative Range, (2) on Camp Roberts along the Sali- effect on bighorn sheep. nas River, and (3) within Fort Hunter Liggett Torres et al. (1996a) attribute the pro- on the eastern side of the northern Santa Lucia nounced decline of sheep in the San Gabriel Range. (fig 6.5). Population estimates from Mountains to lack of recent fires, resulting in 1994 indicate that the La Panza herd is the habitat succession that has altered the abun- biggest in the state, with between 550 and 600 dance of suitable sheep habitat and enhanced animals. There are an estimated 200 to 250 the vulnerability of sheep to mountain lion elk on Fort Hunter Liggett and 90 to 100 on predation. The high sheep numbers observed Camp Roberts (McCullough et al. 1996). All in the late 1970s coincide with recent fires in three of these populations were established in those areas. As vegetation matures it becomes the 1980s through relocation of elk from the less palatable and there is a reduction in the Tupman Reserve, , and Potter amount of open, escape terrain. CDFG is cur- Valley. rently conducting an analysis of factors that Habitat: Tule elk prefer open habitats and, are potentially related to the population de- where available, they tend to congregate in cline. These factors include changes in winter marshy or ephemerally flooded areas that pro- vide high-quality forage. Historically, tule elk 326 Chapter 6

Figure 6.5. The general areas where tule elk occur in the central Coast Ranges.

used upland foothill areas during favorable sizes in those areas to minimize habitat degra- plant-growth periods, and most calves were dation and damage to agricultural products, born in those areas in March and April. As and (3) maintaining genetic diversity in the the upland plants dried up, the elk returned remaining populations, which are relatively to bottom lands where they remained for most small and isolated (McCullough et al. 1996). of the year (McCullough et al. 1996). This The La Panza herd utilizes valley habitats that pattern still occurs today in a few of the larger are on private lands. Carefully regulated fall areas where elk can make seasonal movements. hunts are held at La Panza and Fort Hunter However, agricultural crops such as alfalfa are Liggett to maintain herd sizes at levels the often utilized now in place of marshy bottom available habitat can support. lands. Management Issues: The primary man- agement issues for tule elk are (1) ensuring the long-term availability of large enough blocks of suitable habitat, (2) managing herd

327 Black bear (Ursus americanus) Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains is be- Status and Distribution: Black bears re- lieved to be primarily descended from those portedly did not occur in the assessment area supplemental introductions. Black bears ap- when the California grizzly bear still inhab- parently migrated across ited the region (Storer and Tevis 1978). After into the San Jacinto Mountains, where a small the grizzly was extirpated around the turn of bear population remains. the century, black bears started to appear in Black bears now occur throughout the as- Ventura and Santa Barbara counties (Grinnell sessment area with the exception of the Santa et al. 1937). The Department of Fish and Ana Mountains and the mountains in San Game supplemented this natural range expan- Diego County (fig. 6.6). They are most com- sion by moving twenty-eight black bears from mon in montane conifer forests in the San the Sierra Nevada into the San Gabriel and Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Moun- San Bernardino mountains during the early tains, and the Mount Pinos/Pine Mountain 1930s (Burgduff 1935; Vaughan 1954). The region. Black bear populations are reported current black bear population in the San to be increasing statewide (CDFG 1998), and

Figure 6.6. Distribution of black bears in the coastal mountains of southern California.

328 Chapter 6 hunter take figures from southern California Novick et al. 1981), and Boyer (1976) studied suggest they are either stable or increasing in food habitats of black bears in the Banning Can- most of the assessment area (fig. 6.7) (CDFG yon area of the San Bernardino Mountains. 1998). Some recent bear sightings in the Management Issues: Black bears have be- mountains of San Diego County suggest that come a management problem in some they may be dispersing south from the San recreation areas (e.g., Forest Falls and Barton Jacinto Mountains. Flats in the San Bernardino Mountains). In- Habitat: Black bears occupy a variety of dividual bears become habituated to feeding habitats, but populations are densest in mon- in these areas, particularly where food and tane forests with a wide variety of seral stages trash are not properly managed and kept in (CDFG 1998). In the southern California bear-proof containers. This has led to increased mountains, black bears will also follow ripar- human-bear encounters and even several well- ian corridors down into low-elevation habitats. publicized “attacks” where people were Habitat diversity is important to bears, which threatened or injured by bears who were ex- eat herbaceous vegetation in the spring, car- hibiting aggressive behavior or entering rion and invertebrates in down woody material occupied tents in search of food. in the summer, and mast from shrubs and oaks Black bears also periodically wander into in the fall. residential areas at the base of the mountains, A number of studies of black bear habitat particularly along the front of the San Gabriel utilization have been done in the assessment Mountains. These incidents generate a lot of area, all by graduate students at California media attention and are potentially danger- State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Moss ous, particularly if a disoriented bear becomes (1972) and Stubblefield (1992) studied black cornered and reacts aggressively. However, the bear ecology in the San Gabriel Mountains. incidents which have occurred to date have Novick investigated habitat preferences and not resulted in human injuries and Fish and denning characteristics of black bears in the Game wardens are usually able to scare the San Bernardino Mountains (Novick 1979; bear back up into the mountains.

Figure 6.7. Hunter take of black bear from 1990 to 1997 in southern California counties (data from CDFG 1998).

30

Los Angeles Riverside 25 San Bernardino Santa Barbara Ventura 20

15

10 Number Taken by Hunters Taken Number 5

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

329 Mountain lion (Puma concolor) mountain lion attacks on humans (Torres et Status and Distribution: Mountain lions al. 1996b). From 1910 through 1985, there occur in all of the mountain ranges within the were no verified mountain lion attacks on assessment area. Circumstantial evidence sug- humans in California. Since 1986, there have gests that lions have become more numerous been nine verified attacks on humans, with in California in the past several decades (Torres two fatal attacks on adult women in 1994 et al. 1996b). This widely suspected, but (Torres et al. 1996b). At the same time, there poorly documented, population increase has is legitimate concern about the long-term vi- been linked to increased predation of bighorn ability of some mountain lion populations sheep and deer and increases in human-lion (e.g., in the Santa Ana Mountains) that are encounters. On the other hand, mountain li- being isolated by urban encroachment (Beier ons are considered imperiled in some of 1993). southern California’s highly fragmented wild- Nowhere is the management dilemma bet- lands. Beier (1993) conducted a radio-tracking ter exemplified than in the mountains and study of mountain lions in the Santa Ana foothills of southern California. While their Mountains and . He found that continued existence is threatened in some parts the population in this area consists of of the region, lions are also causing some seri- only about twenty adults and is in danger of ous problems. In 1986, two nonfatal lion dying out if movement corridors are not sus- attacks on small children in Caspers Wilder- tained to allow immigration from Palomar ness Regional Park (Santa Ana Mountains) Mountain. Termed the “Pechanga Corridor,” resulted in the closure of that park to children this habitat linkage between mountain ranges for several years. In 1994, a woman was at- is primarily private land. tacked and killed by a mountain lion while Habitat: Mountain lions are habitat gen- hiking in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park (San eralists. They tend to be most common in the Diego County). In 1995, a man was attacked habitat types preferred by their primary prey— but escaped injury while mountain biking in mule deer. Within these habitat types, lions the (San Gabriel tend to prefer rocky cliffs, ledges, and other Mountains). Pet depredations have also in- areas that provide cover (Dixon 1982). They creased along the wildland-urban interface have extremely large area requirements; in the (Torres et al. 1996b) and there is evidence that Santa Ana Mountains, only about twenty adult lion predation is having a negative impact on lions occupy over 800 square miles of wild- ’ bighorn sheep populations land habitat (Beier 1993). (USDI Bureau of Land Management et. al. Management Issues: Management of 1996). mountain lions in California has become a controversial and politicized issue. Much of Wild pig (Sus scrofa) the controversy centers on whether regulated Status and Distribution: The wild pig is mountain lion hunts should be allowed. an that has become well Mountain lion hunting has not occurred in established in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and California since 1972 (Torres et al. 1996b). Santa Barbara counties (fig. 6.8). In Monterey In 1990, a state ballot initiative (Proposition County, wild pigs have been reported at den- 117) was passed into law designating the sities of 1.3 to 2.1 per square mile (Pine and mountain lion as a “specially protected mam- Gerdes 1973). Increases in hunter take over mal.” This designation allows for the issuance the past six years (fig. 6.9) suggest that the pig of depredation permits but does not permit a population may be gradually increasing. hunting season. Habitat: Wild pigs occur in riparian ar- There has recently been an increase in eas, oak woodlands, grasslands, and mixed depredation incidents and in the number of hardwood-conifer forests. Mast crops

330 Chapter 6

Figure 6.8. Distribution of wild pigs in and around the assessment area.

particularly acorns, are an important food taken, typically has little effect on the popula- (Zeiner et al. 1990). tion size. Management Issues: Wild pigs are a fairly popular game animal, but there is also con- Wild horse (Equus caballos) cern about the habitat damage they cause in Status and Distribution: A wild horse some areas. Pigs can become abundant in some population exists in the interior valleys on the habitats. Where they occur in high numbers, east side of the southern Santa Lucia Range their tendency to dig up the ground in search (fig. 6.10). Referred to as the Black Mountain of food can cause major disturbance to soil herd, in 1996 it reportedly consisted of eighty- and vegetation. They also compete with na- one horses (BLM 1996). tive wildlife for food, particularly for mast Habitat: Wild horses can occur in a vari- crops such as acorns. Wild pigs can become ety of habitats, but they typically prefer open difficult to manage in areas where they have grasslands. become abundant. A year-round hunting sea- Management Issues: The Wild Horse and son, with no limits on the number that can be Burro Protection Act of 1971 provides

331 1200 Monterey 1000 San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara

800

600

400

Number Taken by Hunters Taken Number 200

0 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98

Figure 6.9. Hunter take of wild pigs from 1992 to 1998 in southern California counties (data from CDFG 1999b).

direction for managing wild horse popula- burro herds had become habituated to humans tions. This legislation directs federal land and taken up residence in housing tracts on management agencies to maintain herd sizes the east side of the Big Bear Valley. In August at sustainable levels while minimizing resource and September of 1997, seventy-seven of these and property damage. When herds become too “town burros” were rounded up and taken out large, animals are captured, transported to of the area. holding facilities, and ultimately sold at pub- Habitat: Burros are primarily found in lic auctions. The Bureau of Land Management arid desert-montane habitats. They are (BLM) is in charge of the wild horse and burro pportunistic herbivores that roam across large adoption program. areas in search of food resources. Because of the limited amount of suitable Management Issues: The Wild Horse and habitat at Black Mountain, roundups are held Burro Protection Act of 1971 provides direc- approximately every two years to keep the herd tion for managing wild burro populations. size at or below twenty animals. About two to This legislation directs that burros removed four horses are rounded up each time and from the wild are to be cared for and put up transferred to BLM facilities for adoption. This for adoption at public auctions. management strategy appears to be working Wild burros roaming residential areas in well, since the habitat on Black Mountain is the Big Bear Valley have been a management not being degraded by the current level of use problem for many years. These burros have (K. Cooper, Santa Lucia Ranger district, pers. been adored and fed by some residents and comm.). disliked by others, primarily because of their habit of knocking over trash cans and dispers- Wild burro (Equus asinus) ing the contents. Their presence along highly Status and Distribution: A burro popu- traveled roads also created a dangerous safety lation of approximately fifty to sixty animals problem for both burros and people; on aver- currently exists in the eastern San Bernardino age, thirteen burros a year were hit and killed Mountains (fig. 6.10). This population is or- by vehicles in the Big Bear area (USDA, Forest ganized into multiple loose herds that stay Service 1998). Fortunately no people have been primarily in wildland habitats east of Baldwin killed in these accidents, but the potential is Lake. Prior to a roundup in 1997, several large clearly there.

332 Chapter 6

Figure 6.10. The general areas where wild horses and wild burros occur in the coastal mountains of southern California.

After a lengthy environmental review and public involvement period, the Forest Service conducted an extensive roundup of the town- habituated burros in 1997. The animals were taken to BLM holding facilities and subequently put up for adoption. This action has greatly reduced the number of burros hit by vehicles; only one has been hit since the roundup.

333