DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS VOLUME 4 1960 Desert Bighorn Council

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS

VOLUME 4 1960

Desert Bighorn Council FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING

DESERT BIGHORI? COUNCXL

April 5 -8, 1960

San Andres National Wildlife Refuge

National Applied Resources Science Center BLM LIBRARY RS 150A, Bldg 50 Den,er Feder Center p ,O. BQX,25047 Denver, Cg 80225 DESERT BIGHORN COUWCIL April 5-8, 1960

Ias Cruces, Hew Mexico San Andres Rational Wildlife Refuge

SUBJECT PAGE

Program

A bibliography of Bi#iorn Sheep - John E. Wood Effects of climate on Desert Bighorn numbers Gale Manson

The possible impact of Barbary, Sheep in New Mexico Leuon Lee

Diseases and parasites of Barbary and Bighorn Sheep in thd Southwest - Rex W. Allen Radioactivity in Bighorn Sheep - Major& R. Fanner

Management responsibilities and pl'actices of the Bureau ,of Lapd Management as they relate to the Desert Bighorn .Sheep - WP1. L. Mathewe

Developing better public support for a Bighorn Management -Progr'am - Bill Sizer Hman encroachment on Righorn habitat Gerald E. Duncan

Human encroachment on Bighorn habitat John B. Van den Akker

Bighorn Sheep management recammendations for the State of Arizona - Warren Eo Kelly The Bighorn as a multiple use animal - Al Jonez The esthetics of Bighorn Management - Fred L. Jonera,

Information on tagging on the Desert Game Range James Ro Koplin

New developments on water requirements on the Desert Game Range - James Ro Koplin PAGE- Progress in trapping end transplanting Desert Bighorn - Thamas More rs

Lamb survival on the Desert Game Range Charles Co Han~en 60

Progress of Mexican Bighorn.Sheep life history and manegcmcnt Investigations in the Big Hatchet Mouatains of New Nexico - Jack E. Gross History, present and future status of the Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Guadalupe Mts. oe SE New Mexico and 1QW Texas - Jack E. Gross Desert Bighorn status on the Mt. Baldy District - of the Angeles Hationel Forest - Anselmo Mwie Hunting results in Nevada, 1959 - Kl Jonez Highlights of the 1959 Arizona Bighorn Sheep Hunt John &To Reed

Progress report on current Death Valley Burro , Survey - Ralph Welles Preliminary report of the food habits of the Wild Burro In the Death Valley National mnument - Bruce Browning Feral BRcrro study New develapnents in the.use of Tranquilizers James A. Blatsdell

Borregos y Berrendos en Mexico Jose Angel Davilo C Sheep and Antelope in Mexico an ran slat ion) Jose Angel Davila 6

Summary of discussions on talks - George E. Barclay

National Appl ied Resources Science Center BLM LIBRARY RS 150A, Bldg 50 Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225 DESHIT BIGHORIV COUNCIL

Mr. Warren Kelly, Chairman Box 1232, Wickenburg, bizona

Mr. Fred' L'. Jones, SeuretazpTreasurer California Department of Fish and Game 722 Capital Avenue Sacramento, California

PROGRAM

FOURTH ANNUAL #EETR?G DESERT BIGHOW COUmCJL April 58, 1960

Las Cruces, New Mexico Sen Andrea Efational Wildlife Refuge

Arrangements Committee Cecil A. Kennedy, Chairman Prof Jonathan J. Norris

Program Committee Cecil Ao Kennedy, Chairman, &w Wxico Tom Do Moore %xae John Po RUSSO Arizona Lowell Sumner Calif omia Dro Bernaf Jack Gross Fred L. Jones California - Meeting opens at 8:30 AoMo, April 5, 1960

Welcome : . Mro Jaaes Neleigh, Wayor, Las Cruces, N.M.

Opening Remarks: Mro John Co Gatlin, Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Region 20

Introductions: Attendants will stand up for self introductiono Roster will be circdatea for signatures and addresses.

ECOLOGY

Chairman: Gordon Fredine, Principal Biologist, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

9:00 to 9:15 Bibliography on Desert Bighorn. Wildlife0 Prof0 Jo E* Wood of New Mexico State University

Effects of climate on bighorn sheep numbers Gale Msnson, Yuma, Arizona Break

Map sharing climate and numbers of Desert Bighorn in each area throughout the Southwesto John Russo, Arizona State Game and Fish Departmen&.

BossfbPe impact of Barbary sheep on Desert Bighorn, competition, inter- breeding, etco Levon Lee, Chief, Game Management, State of New Mexico

Disease and Parssitcs, Barbary sheep vs. bighorn sheep. Rex Allen, Bureau of Animal Disease and Parasites. Agriculture Research Service, Las Cmces, New Mexicoo

~sdiotktivefallout as it pertains to bighorn sheep end other big game. Major Garland Farmer, D.V.M., U'S. Army.

Lunch

JohqlHall, Uo So Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Management -Responsibilities-+---- and practices of the BU4 as they relate to desert' bighorn.. IJm. L. Mat4ews

Developing. better public support for a bighorn mpnagusent program. Bill Sizer,: State of Arizona

Human encroachment on bighorn habitat. Gerald Duncan, BSF&W, Yuma, Arizona.

Human encroachment on bighorn habitat. John Van den Akker, BSFW, Desert Game Range, Nevada

Break

Panel: The bighorn as a multiple use animal. Ralph Welles, Chairman, U.S. National Park Service. Warren Kelly, Arizona Game and Fish, Al Jonez, Nevada Gem and Fish, Fred L. Jones, California Fish and Game. Adjournment 7:00 P.M Business Meeting

Meeting opens at 8:30 A.M., April 6, 1960

Chairman :

8:30 to 8:45 Information on tagging and new dmlo~- ments on water requirements on the Desert Game Range. James Re Ilopm, BSFW, Desert Game Range, Nevada. Presented by Charles Hansen.

Progress in trapping an8 transplating desert bighorn. Tom Moore, Tex- me and Fish Department .,

Lamb survival on Desert Game Range Charles Hansen, BSFBW, Las Vegas, fievqq

Break u - Progress Report on Hatchet State Gme Refuge. Jack Gross, Biologist, Hew Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

Present status of bighorn on Havasu* Lou Hatch, BSFlbW,'Parker, Arizona.

Progress in desert bighorn m8mgment - in Mexf coo Dro Bernarao Villa-R, Mexico. Past, present and future of bi@Om in Gusdalupe Wountains, Mew Mexico. Jack Grass, Biologist, New Mexico kpartment of Game and Fish.

Desert bighorn status on the BddY District of the Angeles Forest. Anselmo Levis, Ranger, US=, ~alifornl Lunch

RUHTING AND BURRO-BIGHOFtH PROBLEW

Chairman: Nelson Elliott, BSFW, Region 1

1:45 to 1:55 Hunting results in Bevada. Al anez Nevada Gsme and Fish Departanento

iii Hunting results in Mexico. Prof. J. Angel D'avila C'denm, Mexieo.

Break

Cnnrmittee on burro-bighorn competition. Burro-Bighorn Camnittee members. Lowell Smmer, Chairman, NPS, California.

New developments in the use of tranquilizers. James Blaisdell, National Park Service, Arizona.

ISvenfng Session - in;Pornal. Chairman; Ta be appointed. Suggest members bring color slides of interest for showing. Tapics of interest not discussed elsewhere. Unfinished business.

8:00 A.M., April 7, 1960 Group will meet at a place to be designated later for field trip into the San Andres National WiLdlife Refuge, and overnight camping trip. ---- - 7~00P.M. Evening session - informal. Chairmen; To be appointed.

April 8, 1960 Group will disband at their will. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BIGHORN SHEEP

Compiled by John E. Wood

In the assemblance of this bibliography an attempt has been made to bring together in one paper an extensive, yet unfortunately incomplete, collection of technical, semi-technical, and popular references on the bighorn sheep.

Included in this reference list are only those articles, bulletins, and books which deal primarily with bighorn sheep (0~18 canadensis spp. ) , give importsht regional or historical information concerning the bighorn, or give more than the casual reference to the species. TBxonomic references are limited to monographs which in turn will refer interested persons to original descriptions.

The many articles presented at previous Desert Bighorn Sheep Conferences and appearing in the transactions of these conferences have not been singled out but are referred to as a unit. Also omitted from the reference list are Pitban-Robertson completion reports unless they appear as a State bulletin.

Omissions other than those indicated are unintentional over- sights resulting froin the inadequacy of the compiler who offers his humblest apologies to the authors that delserved recognitiondin this - bibliogvphy but whose papers are not cited, ECOLOGY and MANAGEMENT

Anonymous. - 1928 Mountain sheep in Yellowstone Park. Science, 67 :12, January. AUSN, Joseph C. - 1939 Ecology and Management of Nelson's Bighorn on the Hevada mountain ranges. Trans0 ~ourthB. A. wild. ~onf., pp. 253-256. BAILEY, Vernono - 1923 Sources of water supply for desert animals. Science bnthly, 17:66-86. BRAPIA, A. R. - 1956 Saga of the bighorn. No Dakota Outdoors, 19 (6): 4-9, December. (18 bighorn from British Columbia released) BUECHIOER, Helmut K. - 1956 The future of the bighorn sheep. Animal Kingdom, 59 (1) : 2-10, Jano-Feb. (numbers in U. S. and Management ~ecomnendations) BUSH, Mo ~ndCo Ao KOFOIDo - 1948 . Ciliates fram Sierra Nevada bighorn Ovis canadensis sierrae Grinnell. Cal. Univ. Pub. Zoolo, 53 (6): 237-261. - (digestive track flora) COVEY, Fsyc-Me - 1950 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Montanae Bull. Montana Fish and Game -*, NO^ 2, pp. 90 -.----.I- - 1955 Idontam bighorn sheep. Proc. 35th Annual Conf. W. Assn. State Game and Fish Cams. , pp. 162-166. (general outlook and management in Montana) COWAH, Ian McTaggart. - 1947 Range competition between mule deer, bighorn sheep, and elk in Jasper Park, Alberta, Trans. 12th N. A. Wild. Confo, pp. 223-227. DAVIS, Willi~Bo - 1938 Summer activity of mountain sheep on Mto Washburn, Yellowstone National Parko Jour. Mmm., 19 (1): 88-94. (movements and behavior) - -...------and We P. Taylor. - 1939 The bighorn sheep of Texas. Jour. Mamma, 20 (4) : 440-455. (detailed ecological study) FERRY, Phillip0 - 1955 Burrow or bighorn. Pacific Discovery. 8: 18 -21 GODDEN, F. We and Lo To Gutman. - 1938 Bighorn sheep and mountain goat. Univ. of ~daho ill., 33 (22): 43-49. ( general ecology) GREW, B. Uo-1949 The btghorn sheep of Banff National Parko Canada Dept. Resources and Development, National Park and Historic Sites Serv., pp. 53. (life history and ecology) HALLORAN, Arthur Fo - 1949

Desert bighorn management. Trans. 14th NO Ao Wild. Conf., pp. 527.537. (~ofagame range, Arizona)

----I-..D and Co A. Kennedy. - 1949 Bighorn - deer food relationship in southern New Mexico. Jour. Wild. Mgt., 13 (4): 417-419. (33 plants eaten) ---el.D-- and Willard Eo Elanchard - 1950 Bfghorn ewe associates with cattle on Kofa game range, Arizona. Jour, I&mmO 31 (4): 463-464. -a---o-- and Harry B. Crandell. - 1953 Notes on bighorn food in the Sonoran zone. Jour. Wild. Mgt., 17 (3): 318-320. (52 plants on Kofa game range, Arizona) --.....-- --.....-- and 0. V. Deming - 1956 Water development for desert bighorn sheep. U. 6. Fish and Wild. Serv. Wildlife Mgt. Series Leaflet, pp. 12. ------and Oscar V. Deming. - 1958 Water development for desert bighorn sheep. Jour. Wild. Mgt a, 22 (1): 1-9. .(requirements and methods 'of improving) HOWS, R. F. and FY. Ma Frost. - 1942 A Wyoming bighorn sheep study. Wj~yoing.Game and Fish Dept., Bull No. 1, pp. 126. (natural history and management) JOKES, F. La - 1950 A survey of the Sierra Nevada bighorn. Sierra Club Bull., pp 76 . --(taxonolnic and ecological) ..111-1-.1 - 1955 Bighorn management problems in California. Proc. 35th Annual Conf. W . Assn. State Game and Fish Cams., pp. 177-181. (distribution in California, canpetition, and water) ------,Glenn Flittner, and Richard Gmdo - 1957 Report on a survey of bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Hountaine, Riverside County. Calif. Fish and Game, 43 (3) : 179-191. (numbers, distribution, sex and age ratios, and food indicators) LLOYD, Hoyes. - 1927 Rocky Mountain sheep transferred from Banff to Spence's Bridge, British Columbia. Canadian Field Nat., 41 (6): 140. MCCANN, Lester J. - 1956 Ecology of mountain sheep. American Mid. Nat. , 56 (2): 297-325. (Oros Ventre, I?. We ~yoming) -- BEWIGHT, 'lram La - 1958 /- I%e feral burro in the United States: di5tribution and problems. Jour. Wild. Mgt., 22 (2) : 163-178. (history, current distribution, habits, competition, controls, outlook, reccmmendations) MILLS, Harlow Be 1937 A preliminary study of the bighorn of Yellowstone National Park. Jour. Hamm., 18 (2) : 205-212. (natural history) MOW, P. J. - 1928 Bighorn sheep. Canadian Field Nat., Vol. 42, pp. 12-17. NICHOLS, A.A. - 1937 Desert bighorn sheep. Ariz. Wild. Mag., 7 (7): 9, 16 and 7 (8) : 3, 12, lov. -Dec. , 1937, and Jan. -Feb. , 1938 respectively. (needs for increasing numbers ) O'CWOR, Jack - 1945 The desert bighorn problem. Arizona Wildlife and Sportsman, Tucson, 6 (5): 8-9, ~a~h. OGREN, Heman A. - 1954 A population study of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (0vis- canadensis canadensis haw) on Wild Horse Island. M. S. thesis, Montana State univ., PP* 77 PACKARD, Fred Mallery. - 1946 An ecological study of the bighorn sheep in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Jour. Mamu., 27 (1): 3-28 (general ecology) PULLING, Albert Von S. - 1945 Porcupine damage to bighorn sheep. Jour. Wild. Mgt., 9:329. ROBINSON, Cyril So and Fred Po Cronemiller - 1954 Blotes on the habitat of the desert bighorn in the San Gabriel Mountains of California. Calif. Fish and Gaxne, 40 (3): 267-271. RUSSO, John PO - 1956 The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona, a research and management study. State of Arizona Game and Fish Dcpto,Federal Aid Proj., W - 55Re SHAIJTZ, Ho Lo - 1939 me bighorn and national forests. Conservation '5 (1): 34-36, Jan. -FebO(possible cause and remedits for decline ) SMITH, Dwight Ro - 1953 Ida40 bighorn sheep studied. Idaho Wild. Review, 5 (5) : 4-7,10, March-April. 1 ....,-- ID- - 1954 The bighorn sheep in Idaho, Its status, life history, and managemente Idaho Dept. of Fish aud Game Wild. Bull. 1: 1-154

SPENCER, Clifford C 0 - 1943 Hotes of the life history of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the 'h~ryal.1 Mountains of Colorado. Jour. Mam., 24(1) : 1-11. SUGDEX, Lawson 0. - 1957 ' A study of the California bighorn sheep ((hris- canadensis californiana Douglas) with particular reference to the Churn Creek Band. Me 8. T,hesis, Utah State Agro College, pp. 131, SlJMNER, E. Lo, Jr, - 1952 When desert bighorn meet wild burrow. kGraw Hill Book Co., pp. 547.

INWRFORIES and HUNTING RECORDS

BARCLAY, Go Eo - 1947 Mountain sheep are coming back. Arizona Wild. Sportsman, 8 (10) : 10-11, 22-23, October 1957. Big gamt inventory for 1957. U. S. Fish and Wild. Leaflet 399, PPO 3. BOLTON, Ho Eo - 1949 Coronado, knight of pueblos and plainso McGraw Hill Co., Inc., pp. 491. (16th century record of mountain sheep) BUECm, Helmut Ko - 1956 a . The bighorn sheep, our endangered wildlife. Nat. Wild. Federation, pp. 29-39, January.. (national survey of numbers and conditions) CAHALANE, Victor Ho - 1948 The status of matumals in theJ,. S. National Park system, 1947. Jour. Mamm., 29 (3): 247-259. (&y species discussed; bighorn extinct in Yosemite, Dinasaur, and saguaro) CARSON, Burch. - 1941 Desert bighorn mountain sheepo Texas Game, Fish and Oyster Comm. Bull; Noo 21, ppo 1-23. (150 sheep range in Beech, Diablo, and Baylor Mountains in 1941) ------1945 A fight for survival. Texas Game and Fish, 4(1) : 20-21, December. (status of mountain sheep in Texas) COOK, Harold Jo - 1931 A mountain sheep record for Nebraska. Jour. Mamma,12 (2): 170. COUEY, Faye - 1953 Are the bighorns doomed? Montana Wild., 3 (1) : 16-18, March. -I)------1956 The bighorns are back! Montana Wild., 5 (3) : 6-8.(status of herds in Montana, results of permit hunts) CRABTREZ, Co E. - 1949 Mountain sheep incident. Yosemite Aat. Hotes, 28 (10): 125 DXlN, Joseph S. - 1936 The status of the Sierra bighorn sheep. Proc. 1st B. A. Wild. Conf. pp. 641-643. ------and E. L. Sumner, Jr. - 1939 A survey of desert bighorn In Bath Valley National Monument, summer of 1938. calif. ~i~hmd G-, 25 (2): 72-95. DOWPJIXG, Stuai.t Cm - 1950 The Rocky Mount sin bighorn. Canadian Nature, 12 (4): 140 GRINNELL, J. - 1914 An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado Valley. Univ. of Calif. Press, 12 (4): 51-294. (distribution and abundance) GRIWNELL, George Bird. - 1928 Mountain aheep. Jour. Hamm., 9 (1): 1-9. (distribution and abundance in early times) GREW, Prank - 1954 Rams are rugged. Colorado Cons., 3 ( 5 ) : 4-8, Sept. -0ct. (bighorn hunt) HALLORAN, Arthur Fa - 1944 History and present status of bighorn in south central New Mexico. Jour. bmm., 25 (4): 364-367. ------1947 Bighorn on the border. Audubon Magazine, 49 (6): 332-337, NOL-Dec. (numbers and trends of bighorn along border) HALLORAN, Arthur F. - 1950 Arizona bighorn inventory. Arizona Wild. Sportsman, 11 (3), March. HORNADAY, William To - 1924 Saving the big game of Mexico. Nature Magazine, October. (distributi~n, abundance, and general description of the Mexican species of bighorn in 1924) -- JACKSON, He He To - 1944 Big game resources of the United States, 1937-1942. U.S.D.I., Msh and Wild, Service, Research Report No. 8. JENNINGs, willia~.~S. - 1956 The Texas bighorn. Texas Game and Fish, 14 (12): 9, 25, December. (past populations and distribution; plhmed stocking progrsm) LEOPOLD, Starker A. - 1947 Status of Mexican big game herds. Trans. 12th If. A. Wild. Conf*, pp. 437-448. LEMIS, Bill and Bill Sizer - 1960 Thirty years of progress. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Wildlife Views, 7 (10) 60. (history of hunts in Arizona) LIGON, J. Stskley - 1927 Wildlife of Hew Mexico; its conservation and management. New Mexico State Gme Comm., Santa Fe. pp. 212. (distribution and abundance of all game species) MAI3ERY, Chuck - 1953 Lo, the bighorn. Arizona Wild. Sportsman, 24 (3): 24-35, March. (bighorn hunt) MERRIAM, Cliff Hart - 1890 Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain region and desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona. North American Fauna, No. 3, pp. 135. (mountain sheep common along Grand Canyon of the Colorado in 1889) --I.DIIII - 1921 Former range of mountain sheep in northern California. Jour. Mauun., 2 (1): 239. MOSER, Clifford Ao - 1956 Bighorn in Colorado. Colorado Outdoors, 5 (5): 18-22, Sept. -0ct. (hunting to scatter herds for lung worn control) -101-1- - 1953 Battle for the bighorn. Colorado Cons., 2 (4) : 15-19, July-At. (history and status) NICHOL, A* A. - 1937 Alarming report on desert bighorn. Bird Lore, 39 : 369-370, Sept. PA-, Fred - 1954 Bighorn sheep hunt. Hew Mexico Mag., 32 (3): 26-27, 48, March. PILL)IMRE, Rich-d Eo - 1954 Report on bighorn. Colorado Cons., 3 (1): 19-22, Jan. -Feb. RUSSQ, John Po - 1952 What about bighorn? Arizona Wild. Sportsman, 23 (12) : 8-12, Dec. (history in Arizona and planned hunt) SHAW, Wesley - 19s Bighorn sheep hunt in Idaho. Idaho Wild. Rev., 10 (4) : 8-11, Jan .Fcb. SPENCER, C 0 - 1942 Bighorns on the march. American Forestry, 48 : 250-253. WEITE, Claude E., Jro - 1952 Bighorn. Colorado Cons., 1 (2): 1-4, March-April.

GI!XERAL REZWGXCES TO TAXONOMY, GEOGRAPBIC AREAS, and DISTRIBU!i!ION

BARBER, c. M~ - 1902 Notes on little known Hew Mexican mammals and species apparently not recorded for the territory. Proc. Biol. Soco, Washington, 15: 191-193.- BAILFY, Vernon - 1905 Biological survey of Texaso U.S.D.A. Biol. Survey, North American Fauna, 25: 1-222, ---I--- - 1913 Life zones and crop zones of New Mexico. porth American Fauna, No. 35. b -...---..I- - 1931 Mammals of New Mexico. North Americap Fauna, No* 53. .. CARY, &rritt - 1911 A biological survey of Colorado. North American Fauna, No. 33, pp. 256 COWAN, Ian McTaggert - 1940 Distribution and variation in native sheep of North America. Amer. Mid. Nato, 24 (3): 505-580. DALQUEST, Walter W. and Donald Fo Hoff'meister. - 1948 Mountain sheep from the State of Washington in the collection of the Univ. of Kansas. Trans. Kansas Aced. Sc., 51 (2): 224-234. 1957, 1958, 1959. Desert Bighorn sheep Council, lst, 2nd, 3rd annual meetings. Mimeographed. FRICK, Co - 1937 Horned ruminants of North Americao Bullo Amer. Museum of Nat. History, VO~.69, pp. 669 HORNADAY, W. T~ - 1901 Notes on the mountain sheep of North America with a description of a new specieso New York Zool. Soc., 5th Annual Report, pp. 77-122. ---I-...- - 1902 Mountain sheep of North America. Scientific herican, 53: 896898,

Nlarch 0 ------I- 1908 Campfires on desert and lava. Scribner'e, Hew York, pp. 366. --..11--11 - 1927 American natural history. Scribner ' a, New York. (origin and distribution of sheep of %he world) JAEX;E%, E* C. - 1950 Our desert neighbors. Stanford Univ. Press, pp. 239. m, L. M. - 1912 Report of the vertebrate paleontologist. Sum. Report hol. Survey, Canada, for 1911, pp. 346-349. LEOPOLS, A. Starker. - 1959 Wildlife of Mexico, game birds and mammals. Univ. Calif. Press, PP* 568 mS,Em A. - 1907 Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States, part 1. U. S. National Museum Bull. No. 56, pp. 530- (description of habitat, nmber, and distribution during 1880) MILLJZR, Gerrit S., Jr. and Remington Kellogg - 1955 List of North American recent mammals. U. S. National Museum Bull., No. 20St pp. 954. OSBOW, H. F. - 1910 The age of memmals in Europe, Asia, and North America. 'Ihc MacMillan CO., Hew ~ork,pp. 635 (fossils) SETON, Ernest T. - 1929 Lives of game animals. Doubleday Doran and Co., New York, pp. 780. SKETlRnN, Co - 1925 The big game of Chihuahua, Mexico. Hunting and C~nservation, Yale Univ. Press , ==---" STONE, A. J. - 1902 Mountain sheep of North America. Outing, 41: 185-200, November TOWNSEND, CO H. TO - 1893 On the life zones of the Organ Mountains and ad3aceat region in southem New Mexico with notes on the fauna of the range. Science, 22: 313-3150

PREDATION - PARASITES and DISEASE ALLEN, R. W* - 1955 Parasites of mountain sheep in New ~exicowith new host records. Jour. Parasitology, 41 (6) : 583-587. AONESS, Ralph and Kenneth Winters - 1956 What about bighorn? Wyoming Wild ., 20 (2) : 20-23, Feb~ary(Pneumonia) CARSON, Richard - 1943 Man, the greatest enemy of desert bighorn mountain shesp. Texas Game and Fish, 1 (10): 7, 15-16, Sept. (range conditions) DIKMANS, G. - 1943 The lungworm Protostrongylus rushi- Dihms, 1937, of the mountain sheep, Ovis- canadensis. Proc . Helmlnth Soc. , Washington, 10 ( 1 ) : 8-9 ( Yellowstone Park) HONESS, Ralph - 1942 Lungworms of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in Wyoming. TJniv. of Wyoming Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull. NQ. 255, pp. 24. ------and Kenneth Winters - 1956 What about the bighorn? Wyoming Wildlife, Vol. 20, Feb. , 1956 pp. 20-23. (lungworm dieoff) JAEGAR, Edmund - 1927 Possible disease in mountain sheep. Calif. Fish and Game, 13 (3): 222. KEWfEDY, Ca A* - 1948 Golden eagle kills bighorn lambs. Jour. Mamm., 29 (1):68 -69. MAAriQYU~~~,~illiam C. and C. M. Senger - 1956 Lungworms in the bighorn sheep of Montana. Proc. Helminth Soc., Washington, 23 (1): 68-69. MARSH, Hadleigh. - 1932 Pneumonia in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Jour. Mamm., 19 (2): 214 -219 0 POTTS, Merlin KO - 1937 Hemorrhagic septicemia in the bighorns of Rocky Mountain National Park. Jour. Mamm., 18 (1):105-106. ------.I - 1938 Observations on diseases of bighorn in Rocky Mountain National Park. Trans. 3rd No A. Wild. ~onf.,pp. 893-897. POST, George - 1958 The fifth sheep Wyoming Wild , 22 (4): 33-39, April. (ll bighorn sheep died). PILLMORE, Richard E. - 1957 Lungworm and its relationship to bighorn sheep management. Proc A, 37th hnu-al Conf W. Assn. State Game and Fish Comms., pp. 198 -205. RUSH, We Mo - 1927 Notes on diseases in wild game mammals. Jour. Irhumn., 8 (2): 163-165. (Montana) ------1928 Diseases in mountain sheep. Outdoor Life, pp. 36, October. - REPRODUCTION and MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

ANONYMOUS - 1937 Strange hybrid sheep results fram bighorn cross. Science Newsletter, 31 : 205, March 27, 1937. AIDOUS, M. Clair, Frank C. Craighead, Jr., and George A. Devan - 1958 Some weights and measurements of desert bighorn sheep (&is canadensis Nelsoni ). Jour. Wild. Mgt 22 (4): 444-445. (weights and measurements of hunted and trapped desert bighorn). BENSON, Seth B. - 1943 Occurrence of upper canines in mountain sheep. Amcr. Midland Nat. 30 3 786-7890 BROWN, C. Emerson - 1936 Rearing wild gmc in captivity and gestation periods. Jour. EPamm. 17 (1):lo-130 COTTAM, Clarence and C. So Williams - 1943 Speeds of some wfld animals. Jour. Mamm., 24 (2): 262-263. (desert bighorn 30 miles per hour, Aguila Refuge, Arizona 1/4 mile) FROST, No Mo - 1942 Gestation period of bighorn sheep. Jour. Mamm., 23 (2): 215-216. (~yoming- rutt late November to early January; lambs late May to early June) KAUOBPHY, Edward - 1946 Bighorn sheep of Yma County. Arizona Wild. Sportsman, 7 (1): 4, 8, January (breeding data, gestation) PILMORE, Richard E. and Richard D. Teague - 1955 Bighorn cross. Colorado Cons., 4 (1): 22-26, Jan. -Feb. (natural hybrids ) PULLING, Albert Von 6. - 1945 Hybridization of bighorn and dcmncs.i;ie sheep. Jou. Wfld.Mgt., 9 (1): 82-83. (fertile offspring) ------1945 Non-breeding in bighorn sheep. Jour. Wild. Hgt., 9 (2) : 155-156. (desert game range, Nevada

TECHNIQUES -US, N. Clair and Frank C. Craighead, Jr. - 1941 A marking technique for bighorn sheep. Jour. Wild. Mgt., 22 (4) : 445-446. (horn brand and plastic streamers) DEMING, 0. V. - 1952 Tooth development of the Nelson bighorn sheep. Calif. Fish and Game, 38 (4): 523-529. em...---- - 1955 Rearing bighorn lambs in captivity. Calif. Fish and Game, 41 (2): 131-143 H[rmTER, G. N., T. R. Swan, and G. S. Jones - 1946 The trapping and transporting of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado. Trans. 11th N. A. Wild. Conf., 364-371. (methods and time of trapping) ------and Richard E. Pillmore - 1954 Hunting as a technique in studying lungworm infection in bighorn sheep. Trans. 19th N. A. Wild. Conf., 117-1. MOORE, Tam D. - 1958 Immigrant on trail. Texas Game and Fish, 16 (9): 16-19. (trapping and transporting; stocking desert bighorn in Black Gap management area) PUTNAM, Euvern F. - 1950 \ Trapping bighorn sheep in Wyoming. Y;oming Wildlife, 14 (8): 12-15, 33- 36, September RUSSO, John P - 1954 Hunting, a key to research studies of Arizona bighorn. Proc. 34th Annual Conf. W. Assn. State Game and Fish Corns., pp. 145-200, May. TAYLOR, Walter, P. - 1947 Some new techniques - hoofed mammals. Trans. 12th N. A. Wild. Conf., PP 293-324 THOMAS Earl M. - 1957 The value of aerial surveys in bighorn sheep management. Proe. 37th Annual Conf. W. Assn. State Game and Fish Comms., pp. 2250229~

POPULAR ARTICLES OF GENERAL NATURE

ANONYMOUS - 1937 Action on threatened species: desert mountain sheep fellowship. Bird Lore, 39 : 22-24, January. (I...-- ll- - 1937 Desert Bighorn sheep refuges established. Bird Lore, 41: 111, March. -.1.11-.- - 1945 Bighorn sheep trapping; wild game is moved around to Improve blood lines. Life, 18 :98-100, April 16, 1945. ------1948 Fighting rams. Life, 24: 85, January 26, 1948. ABBOTT, Re Le - 1959 Bighorn master of the mountains. Science Digest, 45: 1548, February ADAXS, S. Ha - 1910 Tenderfoot for mountain sheep. Sunset, The Pacific M~nthly, 25 : 25 -34, July. AMRIDSON, Go A. - 1942 The bighorn sheep. Arizona Wild. Sportsman, April. , BAILEY, Vernon - 1931 Bighorns of plain and peak. Nature Mag., 18 :2*-282, November. BBRKER, R. C. - 1922 Justice of the wild. Overland, 80: 35-37, October BOWLES Em Eo - 1900 ding the Bighorn in the Colorado desert. Outing, 36: 53-58, April. BRAMBLE, C. A.-1900 Big game of Canada. Canadian Mag. 14: 543-548, April. BROWN, Em K. and G. W. Jones - 1946 What about the bighorn? Colorado Cons. Comments, 9 (3): 10-11, September. BURLQEIAM,J . B. - 1922 On the track of an unknown sheep. Scribner's Mag. 71: 389-402, April. CARHART' A. H. - 1921 - Forest oddities - the bighorns of Ouray. American Forestry, 27 : 37, January. I..--.--- - 1938 Goodby bighorn. Rocky Mountain Sportsman, 1 (3): 12-13, 27-28, August. CHAFWiN, W. and L. Chapman - 1939 Lords of the Rockies: photographing big game animals in their primeval surroundings; with color photographs. Nati0na.l Geog. Mag., 76: 87.128, JUY. CONTER, Roger - 1959 Bighorns of Rocky Mountain National Park. Parks Mag., 33 (137): 7-9. DOBIE, J. Frank - 1930 Hunting bighorns below the border. Country Gentleman, 95: 22-23, April. DWNING, Stuart Co - 1947 Mammals of the mountains. Canadian Nat., 3 (1): 30-31. GRZNNH;L, Joseph - 1935 A way to "bring back" the native bighorn to Yosemite. Sierra Club Bull., 20: 28-31. GUTHRIE, A. Bo Jr., - 1945 Sheep and goats; Ebntana's big game restoration program. Atlantic Monthly, 175: 113-114, April. HAYS, Robert Po - 1929 Why not bring back the bighorn? Yosemite Nature Notes, Vol. 8, pp. 9. (re-establishment in Yosemite) HORHADAY, To - 1908 Diversloxm In picturesque game lands. Scribnerl8 Mag., 44: 462-467, October. EWE, Be Be - 1935 Mountain sheep round-up. Outdoor Life, 76 (4): 20-21, 51, October. (transplanting in wyoming) JONES, C* J. - 191 Capture of mountain sheep. Harper's Weekly, 45: 45-46, January. KE~,v. - 1926 Hunting bighorn with a camera. Sci. Monthly, 23: U-IJ~,August. MY, Daniel W. - 1945 Big plans for the bighorn. Texas Game and Fieh, 3 (2): 23, July. MACMECEEN, E. C. - 1919 Saving bighorn sheep. Saint Nicholas, 46: ll34-ll35, October. MCCOWAE3, - 1927 Dwellers $n the high hills. Good housekeeping, 85: 34-35, Jul;y. HOBU, J. W. - 1954 We found the Death Valley bighorn. Saturday Eve- Post, Auguat 28, 1954. O'COIWORI J. - 1939 Saving the vanishing mountain sheep. Popular Science, l.35: 136-139, October. ------m - 1952 Desert revival. The bighorns are back! Outdoor Life, ll0 (3): 30-31, 92-94, September. OICOI?NOR, J. - 1954 Art of sheep hunting. Outdoor Life, ll4: 54-57, September. ------1954 Bearded Texas. Outdoor Life, U:44 -45, August. OREAR, L. - 1917 Battle of the crags. Outing, 69: 552-558, Feb~xy PACK, A. B. - 1931 / Sheep of Shovel Pass; chasing bighorns in Jasper Park. Hat- Mag. 17: 362-368; ~~neo ROawTs: R. - 1941 Saving the vanishing bighorn. Travel, 76: 28-29, February. ROOSE~LT,K. - 1912 Sheep of the desert. Scribnerls Mag., 51: 90-102, January. RUSH, William M. - 1940 Bighorns need a break. Outdoor Life, 85 (1): 38-40, 85, January. (Limiting factors, management suggestions ) SIBLEY~cb L. - 1912 Climber of the heights. Canadian Mag., 39: 435-437, September. ST(YIT, Ken, Jr. - 1945 Lo, the gentle lamb. Sen Diego Zoo. 18 (3): 3-4, March. !I!RES!E3, Laura Markham - 1946 Saving the bighorns. Frontier, ll (1): 3-4, 26, October. VOIGT, William, Jr. - 1946 Is the bighorn doomed? Outdoor America, ll (2) : 10, U, Jan. -Feb. WHIm, Milton C. - 1946 Hunting bighorn with a camera. Wyoming Wildlife, 10 (4): 17-18, April. WIWERDING, Walter J. - 1949 Know your big game: Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis. Sports Afield, 122 (6): 40-41, December. WECTS OF CLIMATE ON DESERT BIGHOFUV NUMBERS

Gale Monson

As s beginning, let me say that I feel I am on shaky ground in dealing with this subjecto It is true that, scientifically speaking, ve bow a good deal about climte, but =hen it ewes to long-range weather forecasting we're still ignorant and, to paraphrase Mark Twain, q although we may talk about it, there s still little we can do about it. In other words, if we are to use climate as a tool in desert bighorn management, we must perforce trust to good luck and set our course by what has happened in the past, not by what may happen in the future. And as for the bighorns themselves, well, we all know what unpredictable and unconforming creatures they areo

One thing should be kept in mindo The desert, in a climatic sengt, is an extreme, just as a Jungle or a snow-field arc extremeso We tend to feel pity for any creature who "must" live under such conditions. But the desert bighorn knows no other environment; he has lived in it for untold ages, and we hope he will enJoy it for as many ages to comeo The desert mountains are home to him, and we might say he is adjusted to them as well as my animal might beo For this reason, when we modify them in any way, such as by adding to the water supplies, we are tampering with his habitat, and so possibly incurring an element of risk, On the other hand, however, what way have we of knowing that, viewed in the light of centuries past, the desert bighorn is not slowly vasishing, despite what we might do, because of an inability to thoroughly adjust to a changing climate, or to some other undetectable factor? And to what extent might these factors be aggravated by human interference?

Climate is a basic thing, as bash as the rocks the desert bighorn ' climbs overo Temperature, rain, and wind detennine the charakter of a great many things, including the distribution of plants and their chemical and moisture contentse It decides the amount of free water that will be available at any time, any placeo It determines the mating season -- in fact, virtually anything that affects the bighorns. Over thousands of years the desert bighorn has apparently become attuned to his environment in its larger aspects, md he! is able to thrive under what might be called normal desert climatic conditionso

What keeps the picture from befng dl cut-and-dried, however, are the departures from "normal" weather conditions, and I believe these have a more significant effect on desert bfghorn numbers than we may realize. The most important variations occur in the amount of rainfall, rather than in wind velocities and temperature ranges, For instance, although the normal rainfall on a specific range of desert mountains may be eight inches of rain per year, in the next year the amount of rain may be only two inches, or 758 less, or it may increase to as much as 15 inches, almost P l00$ increase. The changes in the nature of the vegetation that accompanies these variations in precipitation are, as you all know, quite dramatic, and it follows that they could have a considerable effect on the well-being of the bighorns--this without taking into consideration the amount and distribution of free water, ma matter of relatively how much protein, vitamins, etc. are available under varying conditions of moisture is one which may be extremely important but remains to be discovered in the case of the bighorns.

Within the past five years we have had an experience in our own bailiwick that points to drouth as an effective agent in limiting bighorn populations. The 1955 summer rains were excellent, what some ranchers termed the best in twenty years. But the next winter hardly any rain fell. me summer of 1956 ~awvirtually no rain, and neither did the winter of 1956-57. The tot& precipitation in the cdendar year 1956 at the -Bob Roy Mine in the Kofo Mountains was only 1.60 inches, at Yumo it was only .30 inches, at Parker .34 incbes, at Ehrenberg .14 inches, at the Gila Bend Air Base 1.30 inches, and near A30 only 2.03 inches. To top it off, the summer of 1957 saw little rein, and not until October of 1957 did the precipitation return to anywhere near normal amounts. Any way you look at it, it was a terrific drouth period, even for the desert, with no rainfall of consequence from August 1955 until October 1957, more than two years of almost total drouth.

Because of a regrettable lack of field data for this dry period, we have very little information that would unquestionably link a fall- off in desert bighorn numbers (to say nothing of those of desert mule deer and many other forms of wildlife) to the paucity of rainfall. How- ever, during this time we found an unusual number of bighorn sheep dead due to causes other than predatory animals (human or otherwise) and any ' indicated disease epidemic. Our conclusi& was that those animals of the lowest vitality succumbed during this period due to food conditions and possibly water lack brought on by the drouth. This was supported by the fact that the majority of dead animals found were old, that is, past eight years in age. It was also reflected in the ewe-lamb ratio of our summer waterhole counts on both the Kofa and &iia Prieta Game Ranges.

Sometimes we are perhaps too prone to attribute low lamb survival and unthrifty conditions in our desert bighorn populations, or even low density of population, to disease, predation, or parasitism, when actually such seeming symptams are nothing:more than a manifestation of abnormal climatic conditions. We seek feverishly for same whipping boy and even embark on futile corrective programs, when a turn in the weather for the good will return the animals to their accustomed numbers and vigor. By this I do not mean to belittle the many factors that could be deleterious to desert bighorn, and ignore actual problems, but it is very often is so that we find problems where none exist and we should try to examine the welfare of the desert bighorn in the broadest ecological sense.

A particular phenomenon of the desert climate is that, apparently, it is unusual to have 8 good winter season followed by a good summer season, or vice versa. Seldom does it happen that there is a continuous twelve-month period of better-than-normal conditions, or poorer-than- normal conditions. Thus, the effects of extremes in weather conditions tend to balance themselves out. When we do have twelve months or more of extremely good, or extremely poor conditions, we can look for a considerable increase, or decrease, as the case may be, in bighorn numbers, to say nothing of the resultant age and sex compositions of the herd. More or less as a sidelight, I would bike to suggest that the well-known low population density of the desert bighorn is a reflection of the animal% ages-long adjustment to its present environment. Considering at any time the recent weather cmditions, there is a point beyond which the bighorns in a given area will not increase their numbers, in spite of what we might do. We can feel reasonably certain that this point is samewhat lower in numbers than is popularly assumed. This low density is simply an expression of a climate too arid to produce any but a scant vegetation.

I believe that the effects of clttmte, both in their long- range and in their more inmediate aspects, need to be better understood if we are going to be at all intelligent in our management of desert bighorns, whether it be habitat preservation or improvement, hunting, transplanting, dieease control, or any 0th~~phase. We must see the forest before we can really see the trees, Pf we can look at the desert bighorn's total environment, of which the weather is one of the most significaut aspects, and relate our more isolated findings to it, then I think we can say that we arc going to be oq as solid a basis as possible in our dealings with Ovis canadensirs ndesertino - THE POSSI#r.R IEaPACT OF BARBARY SlEXP IN NEW MEXICO

LEVON LEE, Chief of Game Management

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

The Barbary sheep, a strange and in some ways outlandish animal, resembling vaguely some of the goats and African antelopes, is the latest addition to New &xicogs big game resourceso Con- siderable controversy exists as to whether or not the creature is desirable as an addition to our hunting recreation, or an undesirable monster to be eliminated if at all possibleo The truth, as usual, lies aaewhat between the two issues.

The first thing the game manager is concerned with in the 'introduction of s new species, particularly one from off the continent, is what will its arrival do to the game species already here and looked upon as a very valuable resource o Barbary join mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, and javelina as an addition to our cloven-hoofed gameo Food habit studies carried on in New Mexico, under our able project leader on the Barbary sheep studies, indicate that the food habits of this anbd care directly competitive with both mule deer and domestic stock, This is not a new thing in New Mexico. Sheep, goats, cattle, hogs, horses, are in competition with our big game species an&~mallgame as well What the addition of the Barbary to these already samewhat - overcrowded ranges will bring about, remains to be seen* First reports of crop dmage have already come in from the Canadian River area where these sheep.exist in greatest abundance. The examination of the animals taken on the first hunt revesled some other rather disturbing facts, The Barbary sheep is very heavily parasitized with both eetoparasfitcs and endoparasiteso Living as they have in the heavily populated North African coast and being in contact with horses, mules, camels, dogs, pigs, sheep, goats and wild game, they have evidently been able to survive infestation with parasites common to one or more of all these animals, A list of their endoparasitcs sounds like a small monograph on the helminths

The possible results of the Barbary sheep transmitting some of these very undesirable parasites to other game or to domestic stock is, if it were to be the case, rather frightening, It would be particularly so in the case of the native bighorn sheep, which are happily free of . the more pathogenic parasites. Lungworm is present in the Rocky Mountain bighorns of the Sandfas, but it is not causing any particular trouble at this timeo The Mexican bighorn of the south is not known to have lungworm. Certainly none of the specimens taken betrayed any evidence of infestation by these parasites. We are determined at all cost to keep the Barbary sheep off the range of the desert bighorn or the Rocky Mountain bighorn. Aggressive, competitive, shy and wild, they could well displace the two native species of bighorn sheep. I do not look with disfavor at all upon the Barbary sheep because he's a foreigner but do view him with considerable awe and apprehension if he might contribute to the elimination of our prized native sheep

Among the favorable aspects of the introduction of the Barbary are these: The animal is certainly very accephble to the hunting public as a game species worthy of being sorght, The large flaring horns are a desirable hunter's trophy. Their w51d nature and the forbidding terrain they sometimes inhabit, challenge the best in the hunter,

The table qualaties of the meat, I an told, vary with the age of the animal and the care with which the meat is dressed, preserved and cooked. I understand that the younger mimale, have exceedingly high palatability, whereas others are reported to be so old or so stringy and tough as to be almost inedible. This of course, does not apply only to Barbary sheep, but to any game species. Indeed, a choice white-faced steer shot four or five times, particularly through the stomach, run until it is in a ectate of exhaustion and finally secured, would be far from what we expect when we sit down to enjoy a steak taken from the same kind of animal properly killed and properly prepared.

The Barbary sheep is undoubtedly here to st--main concern from the game management aspect, is to keep a wary eye upon this animal since we are receiving consistent reports of their widespread distribution in the state. Some of these reports are supported by pictures a-d the others are on almost indisputable authority.

If this animal were to scatter all over the state and intenmingle with our other big game on their ranges, it could cause sane serious problems. Likely, hunting could be liberalized enough to keep them under control. That, of course, would be the first tool in keeping them where they belong

Some of our neighboring states are alarmed, one might say, at the steady advance of the Barbary sheep toward their boundaries. Indeed, one of them may have Barbary sheep already; the second unauthorized entry of this particular band of sheqp into a state.

What the future holds one cannot say, but most assuredly Barbary sheep will not be allowed to become a tool to replace any of our native big game DISEASES AND PARASITES OF BARBAFtY AND BIGHORN SBlBl? . IN THE SOUTHWEST

REX0 We ALLEN

Animal Disease and Parasite Reasearch Division Agricultural Research Sewice U. So Departmrent of Agriculture University Park, New Mexico

Observations on Barbary and bighorn sheep in New Mekid and on bighorn sheep in Arizona afford an opportunity to compare the two species as to diseases and parasiteso The information is based largely on post-mortem examinations of seven Barbary shteq .collected along the Canadian River in 1955 (1), nine bighorn collected on Big Hatchet Mountain in 1954 (2), one bighorn collected on thc Sen Andres Refuge in 1951 (3), three bighorn collected on Sandia Mountain in 1959, and 12 bighorn collected on the Kofa Refuge in 1953 and 1954 (4). The~tcollections were made possible through the cooperation of personnel of the State Game Department concerned and, in the case of Fbderarl refuges, personnel of the Uo So Fish and Wildlife Service.

The collections and studies based thereon provided information on tick infestation, blood par'asites such as Anaplasma and Babesia, brucellosis, worm parasites, and gross pathologyo

There are records of gross pathology only in the Kofa sheep. In addition to noting horny dermatitis in one ram, Russo (4) observed that infection with Corynebacterim was quite common, and an observed high incidence ofshealed lung lesions supported this finding. These orgmiems, or closely related ones," we associated with a chronic disease called caseous lymphadenitis, which occurs in domestic sheep and probably in mule deer (5). This disease is characterized by involyement of the lymph nodes, which enlarge and become filled with pus or"caseous materialo Gross lesions occur frequently in the lugs. The lesians may resemble tuberculosis except that there is no cdci- fieation, Older sheep are usually the ones affected, and there is no known way of preventing the diseaseo . Results of all other examinations referred to in this report are listed in accompanying tables 1, 2 and 30 Table 1 lists the number of species of parasites recorded from wild sheep in the Southwest. It will be noted that Barbary sheep have been found to harbor 18 species - 17 species of worms and 1 of tickso Hachita bighorn had the next highest number - Six species have been recorded from each of the San Andres and the Kofa refuges, but, as will be shown later, the parasites from the two localities differed markedly. Only 3 species were found in the Sandia sheep, but thfs proved to be tha only locality where lungworms occurredo

Table 2 gives the breakdown as to the various conditions for which there was an examination, and the pes+ts thcrof. The winter tick occurred in all localities, with the highest incidence showing up in the Hachitta sheep. However, the value of the data on ticks may be questionable because an observer may not be able to examine a carcass immediately after an animal is shot, and if this is not done, same of the ticks may leave the host or be lost in some other manner and thus not be seen. Ear ticks were found only on bighorn sheep, and in only two localities - the Ssrn Andres and the Hatchets. Hunter's tickwasfbund only on sheep of the Kofa herd. Only a limited number of blood smears have been examined, but to date no blood parasites have bean found. A total of 11 Barbary and 35 bighorn have been examined for evidence of brucellosis but none hss bean found.

With the exception of one bighorn of the Kofa Refuge, all animals' examined had worm parasites. ginds of worms found, and their incidences are listed in Table 3. To be brief, only the common names of the parasites are listed. With few exceptions, each camon name covers more than one species of worm; five species of hairworms alone were encountered.

The most harmf'ul parasite listed is without a doubt the luge stomach worm; it wars found only in Barbary shaep and in Hachita bighorn, where the incidence was quite high. The most prevalent parasites throughout all the groups were the pinworms, which probably are not very injurious. They are very small and may be easily missed in porst-mortem examinations unless microscopic techniques are used. Ro injury to tissues has been associated with them, They are readily transmitted through direct contact of sheep because their eggs are immediately infective upon deposition. Whipworms are not generally considered to be pathogenic unless large numbers are present. Lung- worms may be extremely serious. They were found only in bighorn of Sandia Mountain, where all three animals exhimiyarbored them. Lung lesions in these cases involved only -a-s5.iall portion of the lungs, and it is probable that the sheep concerned were not adversely affected, at least at the time they were collected. Their condition supported this conclusion.

In addition to the data on lungwoh derived from post-mortem examination, fecal samples were examined for larvae as follows: Barbary, 9; Hachita bighorn, 17; San Andres bighorn, 1; Kofa bighorn, 9; and Sandia bighorn, 4. Three of the 4 Sandia samples were positive; samples from all other localities were negative.

The tapeworms listed in Table 3 are capable of causing extensive inflammatory changes in the walls of the bile ducts. Whether these changes are indicative of ankdverse effect on the health of wild sheep i.6 a question, Bladderwarme, due to their extensive migration through the livers of host animals, can be harmful if present in appreciable numbers at one time,

Table 3 shows a marked contrast in the kinds of parasites occurring in bighorn of Hachita and those of the Kofa. The Hachita sheep were parasitized principally by nematodes, with no tapeworms present at all. The Kofa sheep, on the other hand, were almost all infected with tapeworms, and no nematodes, except pinworms, were present. The explanation for this is not readily apparent, but several factors might be involved. Contact with livestock could be a factor of importance. Most of tk parasites found in the Hachita sheep could have been derived from, and propagated through, contact with cattle. At least all of the parasites found-in these sheep, except the pinworms, are commonly found in cattle. With the exception of the bladderworms, sll of the parasites found in the Kofa sheep were strictly sheep parasites, and even the bladderworms seem to occur in cattle only rarely. Tapeworms are frequently found in Rocky Mountain bighorn. Perhaps the presence of tapeworms in the Kofa sheep indicated that they have had relatively recent contact with Rocky Mountain bighorn, while the Hachita sheep haye been isolated for a longer period and have lost their tapeworms in the meantime. - Amws migration of sheep out of s tapeworm area might be an explana- tfon also, because while the sheep would take their tapeworms with them, new areas might lack suitable intermediate hosts. In this case the infections could be expected to die out after a time. Referring again to Table 3, all of the roundwm'brasites listed, except the lungworms, have direct life histories. !P.ranamission takes place directly fmh one sheCp to another, uaually after a few day's development on the grhd on the part of the egg or lams of the parasitee Moisture and high temperature promote this development. Lungworms are undoubtedly transmitted by snails, but there are other ramifications not too well known at this the, such as prenatal. - infection. The fringed tapworm and the Wyoming tapeworm probably are transmitted: by insect intermediate hosts. Bladderworms are intcr- media- stages of tapeworms which occur in coyotes, dogs, and other carnivores; thus the sheep is the transmitting agent, or intermediate ~OBt o

FKm1 an animal health standpoint, the significance of parasitism usually depend& on the number of worms present. ' Using information obtained from research on dmestic sheep as a standard, it cannot be said that the nmibers of worms found in either the Barbary sheep or the bighorn in the areas mentioned were indicative of pathogenic infections. However, since we know that potentially harmful parasites are in these animals, it makes good conservation sense to recognize that parasitic di~easemay occur if the conditions are right, and to be prepared to deal with it,

In this connection, there is an interesting publication (6) on the use in wild species of sheep and goats of several drugs commonly used to remove worms from domestic sheep. Unfortunately, bighorn sheep were not a part of the study. The toxicity of three compounds - tetrachlorethylene, copper-nicotine sulphate,uld phenothiazine - to mouflon, Barbary sheep, and Himalayan tahr was determined. While these animals did not all react in the same manner to the various compounds, it was determined that phenothiazine, the most effective drug now available for worm parasites, was non-toxic to all three animalse This suggests that phenothiazine-salt blocks should be investigated as a possible means of controlling parasites in wild aheep TABLE 1. Number of Species of Parasites Recorded from Wild Sheep of the Southwest

Barbary Bighorn Hachita San Andres . Sandia Kofa

TABLE 2. Incidence of Parasitism in Wild Sheep of the Southwest

------Y Hachita San Andre8 Sandis Kofe

NO NO* ' NO* NO. ' NO* NO NO* NO* WO* NO. Exam. Inf, &am. Inf. Barn. Inf. Ekam. Inf. Exarm. Inf.

Winter tick 7 1

Ear Tick 7 0

Hunter's tick 7 0 9 0 1 0 2 0 12 12

Blood protozoa 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Worms 7 7 9 9 1 13 3 12 11

L1 Information partidly from uss so (1956) TABLE 3. Incidence of Wonxi ParasitLsm in Wild Sheep of the Southwest

2 Barb- Bighorn ,,, -,,,,, ,,,,,,,_,,,,,_, ,,,, ,-,,-_,- ,-E~Q~~~~--,@N-&&~_~_---SSG&C-~-SQ~%----- Boo Examined 7 9 1 3 12

Large stomach worm

Medium stomach worm Hairworm

Thread-necked worm

Cooper's worm

Nodular worn

Whipworm

Pinworm

Lungworm

Fringed tapeworm

Wyoming tapeworm

B1 adderworm LITeRATURE CITED

(1) ALtgn, R= We, BecIrlud, W. W., and Oilmore, Re Em - 1956 Parasites of the Barbary sheep. 3. Parasitol. 42 (4-sect. 2): 19.

(2) ALLEI?, Re We - 1955 Parasites of mountain sheep in New Mexico, with new host records. J. Parasitol. 41: 583-587.

(3) w, R. W. and Kennedy, C. A. - 1952 Parasites in a bighorn sheep in New Mexico. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 39.

(4) RIBSO, Jo P* - 1956 The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Bull. Arizons Gente and Fish Dept.

_/-- (5) SWANK, W. 00 - 1958 / The mule deer in Arizona chaparral. Wildlife Bull. No. 3, Arizona Game and Fish Dept.

(6) TURIC, R. D., Warwick, B. Lo, and Berry, Re 0. - 1946 The use of anthelmintics with wild species of sheep and' goats. 3. her. Vet. Med. Ass. 119 : '\366-368. RADIOACTIVITY IN BIGHORN SmP

Ladies and Gentleman of the Desert Bighorn Conference:

First may 1 say that it fs a pleasure for me to be able to appear before you again, 1 do so on behalf of the officials of the*Unit-ed States Atomic Energy Cmmiasion, under whose auspices my program is operated. May I aesure you they acre most interested in the Desert Bighorn Program and fn anything we can do in a scientific way to help answer problems pertaining to the Desert Bighorn and, incidentally, the rblation of fallout to this mfiraaJo

Asr ysu may remember, I told you last year something of the program which has been undertaken in Eas Vegcaso Since 1957 the bones of the hock Joint sf Bighorn Sheep have been preserved and forwarded to varioue laboratories for Strontium 90 araalysfsa It is hoped that this system carried ever a period sf years will not oply indicate the relative uptake of Strontium 90 that we are getting in the Desert Bighorn, butlt will also serve to show if any effects are caused.

I should dae like to remind you that the Atomic Energy'Commission is also sponsoring the mdysess sf the hock Joint bones in deer, These deer are being collected from Southern Nevada, Willapa Flational Refuge in Washington, the Bison Bmge in hbntana, and the State of Minnesota. Results sf' the as;nalyses on deer are not 9n for the ciurent year, but I feel the results should be most interesting, considering the various - regions of the Unf tea States from which the material is collected.

Also, sup Off-Site Animal Investigation Project is operating on the Test Site as im&cmdedo If you remember, I told you last year that 50 head of cattle are mafntained in the Yucca Flat Region, These cattle are maintained in the old ground zero points and are exposed to as much radiation and fallout as it is possible for them to get, Ten cattle are slaughte~edeach year and %ihssues are furnished to the laboratory for analysis for the various isotopes we find. We are, of course, interested in effects that radiation may cause on these cattle, but as yet none have been observedo The ma8g.ses and tests conducted are very detailed and include histspcathsl.ogicd examinations at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathologyo Bere is where they would Book to find damage to cells caused from radiation and, as 1 stated before, none have been observed,

Before we go to the results sf these yearsg Strontium analyses on Desert Bighorn, 9 ehould like to talk to you a little more about radiation. Last year we talked some about fablbut and some of the characteristics of radiation, including production and decayo This year I would like to speak to you very briefly about the effects of radiation and the sickness which can be produced from it,

As a reminder, Pet us ffrst look at a slide showing the characteristics of the three radiations (alpha, beta and gamma) with which we deal. We see that the alpha particle will be unable to penetrate a sheet of paper; that is, the energy of the alpha particle is very small. Alpha particles are found almost entirely in bomb components and fallout, md are not considered a great hazard unless they are swallowed because of this low energy they possess.

Next shown is the beta particle, which will penetrate a relatively thick piece of aluminum compared with the alpha particle. Beta particles, therefore, have more energy and are capable of penetrating certain thick- ness of the skin. So if a beta emitter was to lodge itself on our skin surface, we would suffer froxu a beta burn. This is the destruction of the tissues of the skin and underlying structures which actually resemble them burn. During this destruction, the hair follicle is destroyed and when eventually this hair follicle regenerates itself, the pigment-fohing quality has been lost and only white hair will grow in. So beta bws can alwws be diagnosed rather easily by small patches of white hair or EL speckled condition. 'This actually does little or no harm to the organism since the beta rays are not penetrating and, again, must be swallowed to produce a high level of damage.

Lastly, we see the gamma ray, which is shown penetrating a relatively thick piece of lead. Gamma rays are highly-penetrating and nothing will really suffice to totally shield out gamma rays, They are a very, very high energy ray. Gamma rays are found in fallout and at the time of a bmb burst. Neutrons, not shown on this slide, are found only at the time of the bomb burst, so will not be discussed here, but they simulate gamma rays in their sickness-producing qualities. Associated with the various radiations is shown on this slide as the RBE or Relative Biological Effectiveness. This is a rough estimate of the relative injury the various particles or radiations will produce to tissue. ThaLis where X-ray or gamma rq or beta particle will destroy one ceeelatively speaking, an alpha particle would destroy 10. This seems not to coincide with our energy statement made before but can be explained if we associate the size of the particle and its locationo The RBE is a difficult factor to keep in mind but must be done when discussing the effects of radiation. First, we might discuss the acute radiatiob syndrome as opposed to the chronic radiation syndrome. It is characterized by nausea and vamiting, a latent phase during which the patient appears and feels well, then a fever, epilation or loss of hair, diarrhea, nervous derangement, and death- It is important for us to realize that not all of these need occur in one sickness syndrome; that is, a dose may produce the symptoms shown to include epilation and in another patient this may include diarrheao As the dosage is increased, we see nervous derangement and, finally, if in high enough doses, we see death.

This next slide is designed to help illustrate what types of death may occur in respect to the dose in roentgens, or radiation measurement, and the time it takes for these to occur. First we see that should a ' dose of about 300 to 400 roentgens be delivered in 32 to 40 days, we might expect what is termed a hematopoietic death. In this type of illness, we find that the blood-forming organs are completely destroyed. There is complete destruction of the blood-forming elements, including bone marrow, lymph nodes, platelets, etc. The dose is not high enough to cause the next syndrome or gastrointestinal death which starts with doses up to 600 roentgens and has an onset of around eight days. In this type death, the symptom is of a bloody or a%emos.rhagic diarrhea of a severe and profuse nature. The mucous membrane lining the gastrointestinal canal is destroyed in such an overwhelming fashion that it is not able to regenerate itself and carry out its functions. The early stages of the general syndrome axe observed but usually are quickly ~vershadowedby this development. Lastly, we see that with doses of around 3,000 to 4,000 roetgens, we get a cerebral death of from one to two days. Here the damage is to the central nervous ayatm in such massive proportions that death is manifested by coma and complete loss of nervous facultyo

Important to people working in radiation sickness is the effect that the radiations have on the white blood cell portion of our systems. It is of such importance that I have shawn here on the slide what we can expect. If in a normal person with a count of around 8,000 white cells, we find that after the first or second day there is a peculiar rise and fall in count, and then a fall in the count. This continues on until about the sixth week after exposure when we find a low point in the count which may be as low as 1,000, but then this gradually starts to build up if the patient is to recover. This is usually seen in doses of 100 roetgens or more. Quickly now, we will take a look at the chronic radiation syndrome. fPhfs may be in instances where radiation is administered in small doses over a long period of time. We see first a leukopenia or reduction in white cell count. lhis is followed by epilation, sterility, mutations, cancer, bane necrosis, and cataract. It is difficult to ascribe specified amounts of radiation which will produce these conditions, but it would usually add up to than those which in an acute sickness would produce marke The chronic syndrome is one that we would see fram fallout in the world% atmosphere and the one which gives the geneticist the most cause for concerno This is the area in which most investigation needs to be

It is hoped that this brief discussion will enhance your knowledge of the sickness produced by radiations. You may now be interested to know that of the 27 Bighorn Sheep Joints we had from DGR last Fall, results were gust furnished this past weeko I averaged these up and we get a Strontium count of 8.45 units. If you remember, last . year we found this figure to be 4.7. Many are going to be alarmed st . the high rate of increase, but let me add that this is still a very, very low figure and when we are dealing with so few numbers as we now have, it is not too wise to pay too much attention to averages at this stage of the game. This is what we will need to do five years from now when more figures and more tissues have been analyzed, and, of course, that why this program is so importanto

I hope to see you all again next year and wish to thank you for your very kind attentiono PAPER TO BE PRI3SENTED AT THE FOURTH ANNUAL WJ3TING OF !FEE DESERT BIGHORES COUNC IL

WMo L. MATHEWS Las Cruces, New Mexico, April 5 - 8, 1960 a. Management Responsibilities and Prmtices of the Bureau of Land ~Wageaentas +hey Relate to the Desert Bighorn Sheep

The Taylor Grazing Act provides the basic authority and sets forth the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management for the management of the Federal range resources in a manner that gives proper recognition to the wildlife needso Specifically, BW is required to make forage reservations necessary to accommodate reasonable numbers of wildlife. The wildlife management-obJectives of thekreau are attained th~ough cooperation with the State Fish and Game Departments and Federal agencies, particularly the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Generally speaking BLM is dependent upon other agencies for the actual management of wildlife and is often required upon the same land to administer other land useso Therefore, in order to maintain the range resource in proper condition, the utmost cooperation in the correlation of uses is needed.

Detailed BLM responsibilities, with respect to the Desert Bighorn, vary samewhat depending upon whether the area in question is within or without a Game Rangeo

Generally speaking, a Game Range comprises an area that has been withdrawn from most types of entry and disposition and is reserved for - use by a primary game specieo Use by other, or secondary, game species is subordinate to the needs of the prfmary specieso There are three Game Ranges where the Desert Bighorn Sheep is recognized as the primary game specieo These are the Desert Game Range in Nevada, and the Kofs and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges in Arizonao Within such areas the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has the primary responsibility for game management and BIN for livestock managemento Detailed cooperative agreements between these agencies set forth the management objectives for the Game Range together with general guidelines that will assist in attaining the objective desiredo Such agreements generally describe the relative amounts of use to be made by the primary game species and livestock together with agreement as to proposed range improvements and procedures to be followed regarding other management problems. The objective, as to livestock use, is to make conservative grazing use of game rangelands in order to keep soil and vegetative conditions in as productive a condition as possible, We strive to avoid livestock use that will adversely affect the Desert Bighorn; however, we are required to recognize qualifications for grazing use that has been established in accordance with existing regulationso Special attention is given to'the curtailment of domestic sheep on ranges both within and outside of Game Range that are used by the Desert Bighorn because of the susceptibility of this species to most of the diseases that affect domestic sheepo Only a few areas of game ranges are used by cattle and generally such use offers little competitfari to the Desert Bighorn. Other uses of Game Ranges, such as removal of timber and mineral leasing, are supervised principally by BLM in accordance with the cooperative agreements that have been developed.

As to the areas outside of Game Ranges, we work cooperatively with the State Fish and Game Departments who have primary responsibility for game management. In such areas the Desert Bighorn receives equal recognition with other wildlife species. The Bighorn is recognized as an important cnmponent of native wildlife. In general, forage reservations are made which actually serve more to guarantee conservative use of forage by livestock rather than a specific reservation of forage for game, since there is generally little direct competition for forage. Competition for water, especially in drier sections, is sometimes severe. Ordinarily, Bighorn Sheep will not tolerate much human activity and competition from other animals will often cause them to leave the area. For this reason, heavy use of water by burros or domestic livestock is likely to be detrimental to Bighorn activity.

In addition to the responsibflaty of' managing grazing, timber, mining, recpeation and other resources, the Bureau has an interest in perpetuating the availability of range6 in useable condition that are required for use of the Desert Bighorn. Retention of the key areas in a useable condition can be effected by classfffcation. Classification can serve to close specific areas to certain activities such as mineral leasing. Also, classification, can serve to withdraw an area from the effects of the various land laws that would lead to disposal. fi some instances, land exchanges that will improve the land pattern may assist in the management of the Bighorn ranges.

The primary problem of managing areas'&& by the Bighorn sheep appears to be one of" balancing both game ad'8 livestock use with available forage and watero Because of the drastic influence that periods of below- normal precipitation has on forage production, it is especially difficult to maintain a balance with the forage supply. Fortunately, livestock can be moved out of the area during the dry periods providing a degree of flexibility. However, such a management tool cannot be employed with the Bighorn.

In summary, it is our objective to make conservative use of Bighorn ranges by domestic livestock. Other problems include cooperation in the control of the burros and predator species, development of additional watering facilities, avoiding shifts in cattle use to domestic sheep use, and the preservation of the essential areas in public ownership.

The solutions to our problems depend chiefly on close coordination and cooperation wfth the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the State Fish and Game Departments. We hope to expand Joint studies of range utilization and condition and trend as well as acquisition of other basic data that will improve management. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you in this type of meeting. You can be assured that we are very interested in the Desert Bighorn Sheep and will work closely with all interested parties in striving to attain proper management of our Bighorn ranges. FOURTH ANNUAL DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP COUNCIL

Las Cruces, Mew Mexico April 5 - 8, 1960

DEVELOPING B.EFTH? PUBLIC SUPFORT FOR .A BIGHORN MANAGl3KENT PROGRAM

Talk by Bill Sizer, Wfonnation Officer Arizona Game and Fish Department

Delivering a talk on a subject such as this can hardly consist of much more than discussing ideas on the subject, because "public support" in itself -- whether for this or any other subject -- is little more than a frame of mind which hai'been brought about by establishing, or implanting, the desired ideas and attitudes in the minds of the people you're trying to win over.

€he ofthe biggest-problems in an effort such as this is finding out how you're doing, You csnPttally up your checking station figures and say you've won nX" number of enthusiastic supporters. You can't measure your progress by survey figures, hunt reports or research findings, nor can you even prove any claims you might want to make. Even if you -could carry out a particular phase of a program -- make a spirited speech, or something -- and move ybur audience to rousing cheers, you'd still only have an indication from one group, and you can't very well pack' an applause meter around with you to measure your achievements.

So, about all you can do is gauge your progress by the amount of resistance -- or lack- of it -- you meet with when you try to carry out your program. - How that I've used up quite a few words laying the groundwork, 1'11 come right out and admit we don't have any startling, foolproof, tried and true public relations packages to hand you. I do have a few of these "ideasn, though, and I'd like to go into those.

First off, before we start peddling our ideas, we must obviously make up our minds just what ideas we want to encourage. It seems to me the whole idea of a good public support program can be boiled down to three maJ-or phases: The first one of these is to sell the desirability of the animal you're trying to promote; convince people that here is an animal that's really worth having around. The next step is to sell the idea that this highly desirable animal must be managed, and the third is to generate enough enthusiasm for this animal to win support for your program once you begin stepping on a few toes.

All of these ideas overlap, of course, and as you work on one you can include the other ones. In fact you eanqthardly work on one without including the others, so let's take them one by one.

The first is fairly simple. The obvious qualities of the bighorn provide your best tools'for selling him, He's rare, he's hard to hunt, he lives in the most rugged country imaginable, he's beautiful, he's magnificent, and so on right down through a mighty impressive list of descriptions; all of which are -true. So, about all it takes is to make the public aware of the fact that there is such an animal, and the very fact that ninety-nine or more percent ofthe population have never seen one will sort of place him on a pedestal without any further effort on your part. This, of course, is all to your advantage, because it practically assures you of the bighorn's acceptance as something redly special. As an example of this, every time I talk to a civic club someone asks me about those "wild sheep in the Kofas...Have I ever actually -seen one? " And when I show some slides of bighorns the "om's and ahh's" that fill the room are ample reward for the guy who used a lot of patience to get those pictures, So...the desert bighorn is a natural for this sort of attitude, so letss get on to the second step.

Selling the idea that game must be managed is much the same for sheep as for any other species, and when you get to the point where you admit you might actually consider killing one of these magnificent creatures, you have to sort of follow the "why shoot does" line of reasoning. As far as the mechaniks of pushing this idea go, you can use the standard news releases, magazine articles, talks, films, and so on, but the reasoninathat seems to be work in^: well in Arizona is to streas the idea that all wildlife is a crop, and that a crop must be harvested. This, incidentally, goes over well with all age groups; even kids can understand about crops and harvests. In every talk I give, regardless of the specific subject, I tell the audience to remember =thing I say, even if they forget everything else I tell them, namely that wildlife is a _cro_~and that the job of the game and fish department is to see to it that this crop is properly harvested. It seems the harder you hammer these two words home, the more receptive your audience -- including- -- . the extreme "donst shoot anything" variety of individuals --all become. In a sportsmenss club, someone is apt to start arguing with you about how that harvest should be carried out, but even though they don't stop to realize this, they're on your side once they begin to admit that there -must -be a harvest. Pointing out the fact that nature will carry out her own harvest if man doesn't do the job is also very effective. You can list the methOds nature uses: starvation, predation, disease, parasites, old age, and with only a minimum of imagination you can make them sound pretty horrible when you compare them with quick death from a bullet.

Not long ago I had some indication sf how effective this line of reasoning can be, I went back to a school where I had given a program to junior high students over a year ago, and before the class began I asked the instructor -- who was a biology teacher -- gust what he'd like to have me cover. He said the same talk I had given before would be fine, and added that he stressed this idea of crop and harvest every time he could work it into one of his lectures. So when I actually gave the talk, I found that the kids were Bwayahead of me when I started making my spiel about crops and harvest. So this Idea does stick with people. They understand it and remember it. -

At this point I think I should go off on a tangent very briefly and apologize for the amount of "first person singular" in this talk... The fact that this is only the fourth annual meeting of the bighorn council, however, is my best excuse for drawing heavily 02-my own experiences. This whole effort is still in its infancy, so really, what I've seen in Arizona is all I have to offer...so much for that.

Hand in hand with the idea of selling the fact that game must be man-ed goes the job of selling the game manager himself. low I don't mean convincing him; I mean convincing the public that he's their best hope of getting the most out of their game herds. This, of course, is something you'll usually want to do subtly, without actually coming right out and saying what a bunch of bright boys you have in your department, but rather by pointing out their achievements and letting the public figure out for themselves who they have to thank. Once this confidence is developed, naturally, the game manager's programs are going to be a lot easier to sell.

The things I've been saying are all generalities, but I think you can apply all of them directly to the bighorn sheep.

Sometime between the second step we've been talking about and the third step, which is the real, rip-snortin' , f ire-breathin ' demon; you should stop, I believe, take stock of the situation and ask yourself a two-pronged question: First, WEprograms do you want to carry out to help the bighorn, and secondly, who's going to try stopping you? Who's going to interfere with your program? Some of the things you'll want to do won't meet any objections at all. No-one is going to get mad at you, for example, if' you make a survey or develop a-waterhole, but other programs or phases of the program that you'll want to carry out are going to =quire that you have strong public support, so we'll start talking about those now. - One obvious hurdle that you have to cross comes when you're ready to start hunting the sheep. WeDvebeen doing this since 1953, and we sold our first hunts on an experimental basis. The fact that the number of permfts was so small (20) of emrse helped, but the fact that we wanted the sheep for study specimens also helped a great deal. And we really wanted them for this. We weighed, measured, examined, and..."etceterald" each sheep taken on the hunt, and the information we got from them, of course, became a part of our management data, and it was very good public relations as well. As a result, the second hunt that came along was not too hard to sell, and for the next several years we continued on this same basis, with very little objection to the hunts.

Then, in 1958 we began'to hint that maybe we could go hunting for these things just to go hunting...like we would for any other game animal. By referring to survey information and past hunt records, we were able to gain commission approval for doubling the number of permits, with practically no opposition from the sportsmen.

Duping the summer of 1958, just before this increased hunt came about, we began paving the way for future,liberalizing with news releases and one magazine article which pointed out something we believe about the sheep, and that's the idea that they can be hunted much more heavily th& they had been in the past. We didn't come right out and say it just then, but certainly intimated it, and nobody objected. The following year we made our next jump. This was last year, and this was to expand the hunt even f'urther, and to up the number of permits another 454 or so, to 65 in all. Actually, 65 permits is a pretty insign- ificant number of permits in terms of most of our big game hunting, but when you conpare it to the fact that we had no permits just a few years earlier, it does, I think, show pretty good progresso

As far as hunting recommendations are concerned, I believe the biggest problem faced by our guys is to prove what they believe, particularly with the sheep; that we can hunt a lot more of these things without harming the herds. ButJ without solid survey infarmation to back up our claims we've had to work up to the larger hunts very gradually by increasing them a little at a time.

On this angle, it's ironic that the guy who stands to benefit from a hunt--the hunterq himself--is likely to be the one who objects the loudest. He s the one who insists upon restricting his own sport, and incidentally, though this may be very annoying at times. I think you'll have to admit that the guy who vants to cut off his own fun for what he believes is the good of the resource is living up to the name ~portsman''. He may be dead wrong, but you have to give him credit for his unselfish attitude.

So much for hunting, and promoting hunts. Let's take a look at some of the other problems you might have to face and see hov we can go about handling them. A quick look at some of these might include damestic stock, fences, cultural developments, competition from other game, animals, predators, poaching, and burros. I saved the burro for last, because he's probably the toughest one in the long run, as far as finding a solution is concernedo We'll talk more about him in a few Fs~though,but first letqsgo through this list and see where the pt-obluns lie.

q After weave done this, we ll discuss some ways you can aim your program at a specific problem. The first two phases are necessarily general, but when we get to the point where we want to sell =,particular point, we can bullseye our efforts at that point. Domestic stock in most of the areas in the Southwest where sheep range, will be on public lqd. This is a situation where wildlife managers will Just have to work along as c1ose.l~as possible with the various land management agencies. If there are &eas where sheep range on private land, about all we can do is hope the owner is sympathetic enough towards big- doubt if there are many areas horns to hold competition to a minimum. I q where this problem will arise, however. I don t know any of importance in Arizona. On this business of public land management agencies, we were very gratified recently when we had the opportunity to discuss proposed domestic sheep grazing on bighorn areas under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

The fact that we were called in to discuss this idea shows, I think, that we're making progress. Just whx the outcome of the applications will be, I don't know, but of course we're hoping to keep out any domestic grazing which will hamper our bighorns. Such things as fences, roads, towns and other cultural developments are inevitable, and although they at times interfere with the bighorn's 'wandering tendencies, it's doubtful if anything can be done to prevent them...or to be more practical; it's probably doubtful if we'd want to interfere anyway, except perhaps in an extreme case where vital sheep habitat would suffer. Predators are not a great problem as far as our studies have shown, but if any of you do have a problem, the Fish and Wildlife Service boys are pretty adept at keeping varmint pqulations maer control, so there's no need to dwell on that here. Poachingis conceivably a problem in some areas, but more enforcement men in the field, stronger penalties for violators adof course the long, slaw-process of building "conservation consciousness" in the minds of all potential poachers are just about the only weapons that you have against this problem in those areas where it does exist.

So now we come to the burro, and heress a situation where we can probably accomplish something a bit unusual; we can get help from the livestock people. Stockmen seem to hate the burro as much as the dedicated sheq biologist 8oes. According to J. C. Evans, who is Secretary of the Arizona Livestock Sanitary Board, wild burros are a grade-A headache to stockmen. As you people know, they can be mighty hard on water developments, and this applies to waterholes used by cattle and sheep as well as those used by bighornso

Mr. mans told me recently that he knew of several cases where burros not only fouled the waterholes and drove off domestic Stock; but actually killed calves. So here is a ready-made source of powerful

assistance when and if the timeq comes to really get moving on a program to end this burro menace. It s certainly no news to wildlife men that the stockmen are one of the best organized groups in the country, so2=let's - take advantage of their strength, If we want to bring this burro thing to a head, Ism sure we can count on their supporto

Now, everything I've said so far h'as been of a pretty general nature; things which I'm sure have occured to most of you already, but there's an idea which, as far as I know, is unusual; quite a bit out of the ordinary.

I'm talking about getting help from the real, garden variety dickey-bird lovers. Most of us are inclined to sort of snort when we think about dickey-bird lovers in general, but let's think about it a little further- Aren't we all dickey-bird lovers? I know I am; even in the ordinary sense of the term, I get a lot of pleasure out of listening to a mockingbird, and Ismeven been seen in the woods with a bird book in my pocket. I like to watch the sunset, and I get a tremendous charge

out of Just seeingwildlife,q even if I don't shoot it or even take a picture of ito And I m willing to bet most of you would pretty well fit this description,too. So, keeping in mind the fact that we've all got some dickey-birder blood in our veins, I thinks it's safe to say that whether or not a person falls into the extreme, protectionist type of dickey-bird lover is merely a matter of the intensity and direction of his feelings on the subject. Taking a typical extreme sp&iman of D-ickeybirdus loveri emericanus, your first reaction might be the same as mine; how are we ever gonna get past this guy to control the burro? He's a naturhl for unquestioning affectiap -- even adoration -F from "dickeybirduson He'sacturesque, he's loyal, he finds water, he won the West, he even carried Christ on his back. How noble can you get? Most of the time t& garden club dickeybirder merely sits on tbe side- lines and wrings his hands, while we go about aur "bloody slaughter" of all the lovable beasties, but will,- he just sit by when we start slaughtering, or in same less violent manner - cutting down on burro competition? It seems to me that this is apt to be the time when he'll quit just wringing his hands, and will, along with the recruits he'll gain from the ranks of the "field" variety of outdoor lovers, actually put up a real squawk and put a kink in any efforts we might make.

'So what can we do2

I suggest we start right now to uncrown the Southwest's ~ersion of=Americals sacred- cow bylgathering all the unpleasant facts we can tib@ut the burro?, Jet's take pictures o$ busted yater developments, and If-we can find one of those calves or deer killed by burros, let's get pictures of that! Let's write some news releases about what is happening'.

Let's even take same water samples of tanks fouled by burr(@-- have them analyzed by our state health labs--and send out,a news release was sayinn that contaminated water found in such and such q an area, in- thi only available water for "X" number of miles. Let s list- the contaminents, and let's make sure the burro gets the blame. Let's plant those we took in as many newspapers-as we can. In short, let's expose this picturesque, lovable, heroic, living legend, for the loud- mouthed, uncouth, ornery, degenerate varmint he-ly is! Turn your I8nE divisions loose on him. Give them all the material you can scrape up to work with, and let them plan their program to gradually paint a different colored picture of the burro-.

We've already started this with an optspoken article called "Burros or Bighorns?" in our Department magazine, and surprisingly, we got only one squawk that I've heard about. .And I might point out that this squawk came from a person who is pretty generally recognized as a real screwball.

At the same time you're doing this go to work on the ladies' clubs. Tell as many ladies as *you can corral what a magnificent animal this bighorn sheep is. Show them some slides of sheep silhouetted against the sunset and let them "ooo and ahh". Tell them that this animal was here when there were elephants roaming the southwest. Build him up, win him some converts...the best part of this sales pitch is, you wontt have to stretch the truth a doggone bito Make the ladies' clubs love the bighorn more- than they love the burro. When you get your audience feeling real good about the bighorn, then tell them about the problems he faces...and don't forget to mention the burro. You might be surprised how quickly people will waver in their allegiance after a presentation like this. It works. Try it, but remember, your I&E guys can help you on this if you will give --them the dope. They don't know as much &out bighorns as you do, so give them plenty of material to work with, and I'm sure they'll help you in every way they can.

If you can manage to get the extreme, garden club dickeybirder-and the stockmen both pulling in the same direction you want to go, you're well on your way towards whipping this problem. The mechanics of cutting down on the burro menace is something you'll have to work out carefully with these people, but getting Ithem on your side; getting them to admit that somethine must- be done is the real important step. It'll go slow at times, but then, all conservationists are used to working on long, slow 'pulls, so this won' t be anything new.

Mow, IPve talked more about burros than any other phase of this thing, but I've used it as an example of a specific program to solve a specific problem. I've done this because I think it's as challenging a problem as you'll find, and also because I feel something more- cap be done to solve it. Then, as I said before; all I have to offer is what I've seen Pram my own quite limited experience, plus an idea or two, and I'm not even a junior-grade, embryonic expert, so this is all I have to contribute. I hope it helps. Thank you. HUMAN ENCROACBE4ENT ON BIGEEORW HABITAT

GERALD Eo DUNCAN Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Presented by : ROGER D. JOHNSON

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Uo So Fish and Wildlife Service, manages two desert bighorn sheep areas in southwestern Arizona, These are the Kofa Game Range containing 660,000 acres located in Yma County approximately 40 miles north of the city of Yuma end the Cabeza Prieta Game Range of 860,000 acres located in Yuma and Pima Counties adjacent to the Mexican border. Both were established in 1939 to protect the remanent bands of bighorn in the various mountain ranges of these two areas.

Manu s encroachment dates back a great number of years. The earliest record that I have been able to locate is about 600 A. D. Excavations on the Sells Papago Indian Reservation, adjacent to the Cabeza Prieta, revealed a number of bighorn bones and horns. The period represented by these excavations dates between 600 and 1400 A.D. The activity of these Indians in that period and for many later was not confined to the reservation as it exists today, but to a much larger area including most of the gme range. Mounds of desert bighorn horns seen in the vicinity of waterholes attest to the fact these Indians were very active in killing sheep for food and other uses. These mounds of horns have been seen in the vicinity of tanks in the Cabeza Prieta, Tule and Granite Mountains by survey parties and others. The horns were -placed in this -particular manner as part of a ritual practiced by the Papago Indians0 Castetter. and Bell in their book, Pima and Papago Indim - Agriculture, described it as follows: "Anza in seeking toopen a land route from Sonora to California, observed in 1774 that in extreme south* western Arizona at what are known as Cabeza Prieta Tanks and other tinajas in the area, certain Papago always camped during the height of the dry season to hunt mountain sheep which came there to drink. In his description (Bolton) he states that whenever the Papago killed a sheep they were very careful to preserve its horns; these were carried to the neighborhood of the waterholes and piled there to 'prevent the Air from leaving the place'. Also they cautioned others against removing them because %hat element would come out to molest everybody and cause them to experience great troubles

The first white men to enter the picture were Coronado, on his journey through New Mexico and Arizona in search of the Seven Cities of Cibola in 1539 and 40, and Melchior Diez,vhen he marched from Sonora to the Colorado River in 1540. In 1699 Padre Kfno located the present route of the Camino del Diablo as far north as the north end of the Gila mountain range, In their travels, these parties camped at some of the waterholes and there encountered the bighorn, some of which were dis- patched for foodo Two trails lead northward from the Camino to Heart Tank, located midway on the west side of the Sierra Pintaso It was during the period of the first great overland rush to Calif- ornia beginning in 1849 and lasting through the early 50s that travel along the Cemino reached its maximum* When placer gold was discovered in various places in the Colorado Valley in 1859, Mexicans from Sonora came up through the game range on their way to these areas. Tinajas Altas, in the mountains of the same name, a few miles west of the game range, was an important stopover for travelers during the California gold rush mi: for a few para f~lla~ing.

Some of the later travelers coming to California to prospect for gold were disappointed and returned to the mountains of the Cabeza Prleta to seek their fortuneso Mining and prospecting continued on the area until the advent of World War 11, at which time the Army closed the entire desert south of highway 80 between Yuma and Gila Bend to the public and used this area for air-to-air and air-to-ground target practice. At present, the Cabeza Prieta Game Range is included in the aerial gunnery range of the Air Force and Marines and no public use is allowed. Our Bureau personnel have unrestricted access to the eastern one-third of the game range, and by agreement, are allowed access to the remainder during certain periodso

Indications are that the Kofa Game Range did not experience as much use by the Indians as did the Cabeza Prieta, That Indians did dwell in the mountains of the refuge is evidenced by the old campsites and artifacts in caves and alang washeso These Indians did not take up permanent residence but were on trading expeditions or otherwise traveling through the area, stopping Wng enough to replenish their food and water supplies and to rest. The same routes and campsites were used time and againe

//- !he first prospectors who reached the castle Dome Mountains in the southern part of the game range in 1863, found ancient surface workings overgrown with mesquite and palo verde trees, and old, well worn trails leading from these pits to the ruins of mde smelting furnaces on the banks of the Gila River, several miles to the southeast, It has been suggested that these early workings were the efforts of Aztecs or early Spanish explorers.

Gold, silver, lead and copper brought many prospectors and miners into the Kofa Game Rangeo Mining districts were established and a considerable amount of money was invested in several minee on the area. It was not uncwmon, in fact an established practice, for the miners and prospectors to utilize wild game for food, That this practice was justified in cases of emergencies is_ not denied. The so called "rightt' of these people to kill wild game whenever they pleased is a farce.

Poachers invaded both game rangeso There were two distinct types; the meat hunter and the trophy hunter. One such hunter in the former catagory related that he obtained a year's supply of jerky in one day at a waterhole in west central Yuma County, He killed four sheep, including two eweso Two other wounded animals were able to get awayo The trophy hunter was somewhat more selective, being interested in the large rams and consequently killed on a smaller scale- A considerable number of bighorn have been killed since mads encrambent on the haitat of this animalo That this animal has been able t~ survive in the mountains of southwestern Arizona can be attributed to two things: the ability of the bighorn to adjust to the unccsnpromising habitat in which it lives and to the protection afforded by the Federal and state governments in recent years. HUMAN ENCROACKMENT ON BIGHORm HABITAT

By : JOliN Bo VAN DEN AKKER U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(with slides)

Human encroachment is a relative term which needs considerable rationalizing to bring it into perspective as a factor affecting bighorn habitato Human encroachment takes place almost anywhere the sheep liveo Most of the effects of manus presence can be relatively minor, while the things he does might be disastrouso For example, a man hiking through sheep habitat might only disturb the sheep momentarily. But if he brings his livestock he might raise cain with the whole local sheep population by destroying or at least usurping the habitat.

The bighorn, like all living things, has certain minimum requirements which are associated with its existenceo We do not know the minimum amount of space he must have, but we know he does well in the cramped quarters of captivityo We are not certain of the minimum water requirements, but we know that when it is available the sheep are real guzzlers. We have learned some of the key plants, but to my knowledge we are not yet in a position to name those necessary for survivalo In each case we have seen a wide range of tolerance on the part of the sheep which has probably assisted his survival. And in each case, man, dlrectly or indirectly, has been a major influence.

Food habits studies reveal that many forms of wildlife as well as livestock are in competiti6n with the sheep. Since each is manage- - able there appears to be little reason to continue the competition. In this case we need 'the cooperation of the range rnanagets~ With wildlife, notably the deer, the wildlife manager has more support, - and generally there is little difficulty in controlling the competition from th& source,

It is not apparent at this time that sheep numbers will need to be controlled due to competition with their own kindo The immensity of area usually associated with the sheep gives the impression of unlimited food if left for the sheep alone, It is ironic that the adverse trend in climate has benefited the sheep by the resulting removal of livestocko

Water is generally assumed to be a magor factor in the well being of the bighorno How distinct is the encroachment of man when he brings his cattle, horses, sheep, goats, burros and even pigs. Inhabiting areas in which water is in short supply the sheep may have little to spare. An invading horde of livestock can use up all the existing water, pollute the reservoir or even destroy the sourceo Examples are noted of man in his effort to acquire more water having destroyed the source completelyo Also related to man% influence are examples of deer populations being permitted to grow into competition with the sheep for in- sufficient water supplies, This too is encroachment on sheep habitat. Man's association with water supplies is not all dark* Many of the cooperative grazing programs make provision for wildlife in the water developments. Wildlife managers are developing water sources and storage. Most of us would prefer to do what we can without the entanglements of livestock interestso

Most forms of wildlife have certain cover requirements. Due to the netme of the terseio the sheep hebitat genesdly is geoerously supplied with adequate cover. On the other hand with improved methods of transportation man is intruding more and more into the sheep strong- holds a

We have noted that sheep do well in the confines of coanparatively small enclosures. Our sheep in th-t Corn Creek pens thrive, have babies and raise them to adults with a success we wish were duplicated in the hills. In spite oi being able to make out in captivity it is reasonable to believe that In native habitat the sheep would prefer to be left alone without disturbance. This requires space, buewith the graving demand for outdoor recreation, the renewed popularity of the horse, the ability of the Jeep and the threat of: the 'copter the mountain hames of the sheep are about to be invadedo

It is easie=..t-olist the types of human encroachment than it is to appraise their effects, Bighorns had their problems before man entered the picture. That they have been here before civilization is indicated abundantly on the petroglyphso But before man encroached upon the scene there was same semblance of a balance, and no discussions on sex ratios, hunting seasons and Animal Use Months are recorded, I for one do not want to bring back those times. However, it gas-occurred to all of us that without man's encroachment these wondeFfful animals lived through thousands of years in harmony with their surrounding6 and within the limits of their habitat. But since man is indeed an effective factor, sometimes a determining one in limiting bighorn habitat, it is our responsibility within reasonable means to assure that the animal is given consideration. Furthermore, whenever possible, we should make effort to compensate for losses of habitat 'by improving existing habitat. .. . A form of human encroachment common to both the Kofa and the Desert Game Ranges is the growing activity of the military agencies. It would be foolish to attempt to estimate the effects, and no attempt will be made to do so. Certain activities are more effective than others. For example, the fast flying jets probably are more of a nuisance than a hazard. In contrast the helicopters cm cause extensive panic with resulting damage to the sheep,

At a minimum, by nature of the military activity in general, the installations, the number of people, debris, falling objects, all contribute to the total encroachment by man.

Barriers to normal movement by the bighorn may have an effect on his welfare. An example might be the impounding of rivers which would interrupt drift or migration. However, the possibility that the resulting creation of a dependable source of water might overshadow any detriment must be considered, Another type of encroachment is the highway which crosses bighorn habitat. It is difficult to see benefits to the sheep, and it is known that losses due to traffic are not unusual.

The discussion could go on and on and still not list all the types of human encroachment. Each may have only minor significance, but the combined effect of all adds up to an impressive influence.

In summation, for the purpose of this discussion no mention is made of climate as an effective factor* It is a prime factor in relation to habitat, yet for all practical purposes it remains an unmanageable factor. Human encroachment, on the other hand, within limits is capable of being managed, Encroachment has been extensive, yet the bighorn has had the ability to hang on. Singly, most of the types of human encroachment are not particularly effective, but in accumulation the results have been adverse. Were it not that the homes of the sheep are fairly inaccessible they might have been long gone. Now with improved transporation, including helicopters, man has intruded further into their natural refuges. The future welfare of the bighorn no doubt will be determined by the effective control of human encroachment on its habitat. BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT REC O~ATIONS FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

A paper presented to the Desert Bighorn Council Las Cruces, New Mexico April 5-8, 1960

The management of bighorn has had several phases in the state of Arizona. .When the people of the state recognized that the sheep populations of the state were decreasing the animals were placed on the protected list. This protection extends over a period of 40 years, and did little to increase the bighorn population appreciably. The next step was the establishment of two large refuges, the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges.

During the period beginning in 1937 and ending in 1943, four game surveys were made and the outcome did little more than indicate that same sheep did exiet in mountains in the southwestern part of the state. From 1941 to 1950 very little was done in the field of bighorn sheep management. In 1950, John Russo conducted a statewide project under P-R Project W-55-R. Results of this study contributed to the life history and management of the bighorn in Arizona. The project is being continued under P7R Project W-53-R. difficult to keep from trespassing into the field of research. Just where management stops and research begins is often a Sine line of distinction. It is evident from past experience that research and management must go hand in hand. Usually research is created through problems with which game management has come in contact.

The management program of bighorn sheep has six important segments: habitat improvement, competition, predator control, trapping and transplanting, range evaluation and carrying capacity, and hunting.

Habitat Improvement

Habitat improvement fn bighorn ranges is restricted to water developments and improvement of existing water. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has gone through several types of development construct- ions in past years, such as retention dams, concrete rainwater catchments and galvanized rainwater catchments. These types of developments have their undesirable points. The retention dam is difficult to seal and if the dam is sealed there may be cracks and fissures in the rock that allow the water to escape. There are few of this type development on the desert that have proved successful. The concrete rainwater catchment has a small water storage capacity (3,000 gals.) and the concrete apron provides poor runoff. This type of development cannot be considered in bighorn ranges because good roads are needed to transport construction materials. The galvanized rainwater catchment can be placed in rough terrain. However, this type development necessitates a mechanical device to make water available to the animals. Because of mechanical failures the game can be deprived of water when needed most. In many locations rainwater catchments must be fenced. However, it is poor policy to fence water holes in bighorn habitat because of the danger of animals being caught in the fence. Also, in building developments of this type, they must be placed an the friage of bighorn habitat, which tends to draw the bighorn from the protection of their natural range., Here, also, it exposes the sheep to competition with the desert mule deer for available food and water.

The ideal -water source for bighorn sheep is a "natural tank type" developznent that is blasted out of solid rock and uses the drainage as an apron. lhis type development has several advantages. They can be made with large storage capacities, they can be placed in ideal sheep habitat much easier, and they can be maintained at a low cost. A development of this type would cost more, but if the expenses were spread over a period of 100 years the initial cost would become negligible. It is doubtful if the other type developments would last half this long without constant and costly maintenance.

Development sites for this tm of construction must be selected with great care to determine the maximum runoff free of silt and gravel. Also, the area must provide good resting ground (caves, ledges, shade areas) and escape cover.

In addition to developing water for sheep, developments for deer should be constructed in areas that would tend to hold deer frm bighorn ranges, thereby reducing direct competition for food-anandwater. ,-/' Whenever they are found, death traps- at natural tanks should be eliminated.

Competition

One method of reducing bighorn-desert mule deer competition has been explained above. Another method is adequate harvest of desert deer herds.

Some of the greatest competition comes from domestic and feral animals. In areas such as the Kofa Game Range, where cattle utilize good sheep habitat, efforts should be made to reduce the animal units on this grazing allotment. The maJority of the bighorn sheep ranges are unsuited for cattle grazing. Competition lies in the use of water at natural tanks in lower elevations, and the utilization of forage in these areas. Currently, cattle grazing is restricted to the late winter and early spring months.

Domestic sheep create another problem other than direct competition for food and water. This is the introduction of disease and parasites that could possibly contaminate the range. Since the decline of most bighorn sheep populations in'the West can be directly correlated to the introduction of domestic sheep, every effort should be made to keep domestic sheep out of wild sheep rangeso

Feral animals create another problem for the bighorn, and this usually oonsists of direct competition for food, water and habitat. Feral burros and feral goats are the worst offenders and should be eliminated wherever they are in direct competition with the bighorn. Wild horses are few in number and at this time do,not present any problems

Predator Control

Predator control should be continued to give the maximum protection to ewes and lambs on the lambing grounds and during the summer months' when the sheep are concentrated near the water holes. More emphasis should be placed on working areas with steel traps to reduce bobcat numbers

Trapping an-d Transplanting

The trapping and transplanting of sheep is recommended. This program must have some strict guide lines since an operation of this kind is time-consuming and costlyo In carrying out the program there shoKLdbe extensive investigations of the tralnsplant sites in selecting the most acceptable areas. Any habitat improvements should be made at the release site prior to transplanting the animal

Areas that have small static populations should be considered as transplant sites, Before transplanting sheep into historic ranges efforts should be made to determine the cause of the decimation of the original populationso Also, before making releases into areas that have low static concentrations, efforts should be made to find if a limiting factor existso

Other important data can be determined from a trapping program if the animals are tagged and released at the trap s-iteo

Range Evaluation and Carrying Capacity

All bighorn sheep ranges in the state should be re-evaluated to determine present sheep populationso At this time bighorn distribution maps should be composed denoting primary, secondary and historic sheep ranges, The maps could also include possible transplant siteso On another map all the available water should be located and designated as to type (natural tank, catchment, spring, well, dirt tank, etc.), permanence and availability, A water trough inside a high fenced corral with closed gates is of little value to big gameo

Forage surveys should be continued to determine the amount and the preference of the forage that exists in the various sheep ranges. The vegetative types vary considerably from the northern to the southern ends of the bighorn sheep rangeso The difference in geological structure of the various mountains will cause different types and quantities of forage.

It would be very difficult to establish a carrying capacity figure for our bighorn sheep ranges. The western and southwestern mountains appear to have a low carrying capacity.

Many plants have been severely influenced by several years of drought. Efforts should be made to keep the maximum number of breeding animals possible on the range.

Hunting

Arizona has had eight successful bighorn sheep hunts and it is recommended that sheep hunting be continued in the future. Limited hunts to remove surplus old rams will have little effect on the sheep population as a whole. By holding annual hunts, much interest has been aroused and sportsmen cane from all over the Untted States to participate in this hunt

As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, problems arise that need solving; the answers to the following points would help make this management plan easier to carry out.

lo kvestigations are needed to improve the existing surveys.

2. Watering frequency should be determined for various temperatures. 3. Trap and mark sheep for migration /and movement studies.

Conclueion

\ Bighorn sheep management for the st& of Arizona consists of the following six points: To continue a progran of habitat improvement by improving existing water and through the construction of rainwater catchments in areas where water is absent or poorly distributed; to cooperate with other land management agencies in attempting to reduce competition between bighorn and domestic stock and to eliminate feral burros and goats from bighorn sheep ranges; to continue predator control to protect sheep on the laqbing grounds and when concentrated near the water holes; to carry on a trapping and transplanting program to restock depleted and historic ranges; to continue a program of range evaluation and determine present populations of bighorn in various mountain ranges in the western part of the state; and to continue the conservative harvest of old rams.

Some of the objectives of this policy will take some time to realize, but they do establish goals to work toward. TBE BIGCHORm AS A MULTIPLE USE ANIMAL

By: AL JONFZ District Supervisor Charleston District Nevbda Fish & Game Commission

In the wise managbent of our range land in the west, the multiple use concept whibh includes wildlife will have to be deligently practiced. fie bighorn sheep in Nevada will have to be considered an important user of the range as it is found over a good portion of southern Nevada. The first thought when you mention multiple use is of course, coaspetition between liveertock and wildlife. There are some instances where there is competition for both food and water in bighorn sheep areas. This competition!is not only between bighorn sheep and livestock but also between b$ghorn sheep and deer.

On the Desert Game Range, Sheep Range portion, there are several good examples of competition between deer and sheep far available water. There are examples of competition between sheep and burros for water in the Eldorado Range. There are probably other equally as good examples of canpetifion for watero

Competition for food is undoubtedly felt more in the lower elevations of the county where there is little feed at best. Here there will be competition between sheep both domestic and bighorn, cattle, burros, and horses; however, a saving factor is that there is usually not a large number of livestock using this type of range. Also there - are many areas that are too ruggea for domestic stock,

In 1952, a band of domestic sheep was being trailed from Needles to Boulder City. Many domestic sheep strayed from the flocks and were found in mountain ranges on both sides of the large valley that they were being trailed through, Domestic sheep were found in the bighorn sheep areas for over six months after the flock had passed through. If disease is a problem between domestic and wild sheep, then this would be a perfect time for such a problem to starto This situation was corrected in future use of the range when called to the attention of the Agency fnvolved.

Multiple use is the wise use of the range, taking'intoaccount, all animals using the range, When we get Into a discussion of A. U. Me's, that the bighorn needs on a given range and the population numbers that are present, we find that we lack a lot of information to answer these questionso

How are we going to answer these questions and what approach should we take in trying to answer these questions?

Multiple use also takes into account the economic values of the various animals using the range. It is not too difficult to determine livestock values but how do you attach a value to a tourist observation of the bighorn in the Desert Game Range or along the ahore of Lake Mead. Bow do you place s value to the 80 hunters that go afield in Nevada to bag a bighorn sheep?

The Nevada Fish and Game Co~missionwill receive $10 for each tag sold but tbt is a smd1 pa& of the inmiei; spezt OG the hwtfng trip.

We, in conservation, will undoubtedly have to try to place a dollar value on our wildlife someday to stay in business. We have done this already in some ways but we are going to have to think more along these lines as the- competition for space and range grows.

If you were asked what is the value of 200 bighorn sheep in this particular mountaiq range, what would you answer, especially if other interests wanted the use of' the area to the detriment of the bighorn.

In such meetings as this, discussions may stimulate thinking and actions so that same of the questions of how the bighorn sheep ffts into the multiple use concept can be answered. I wish I had the answer as do most men dealing with the bighorn. THE ~~ICSOF BIGHORN MANAGEMENT

by FRED Lo JONES Assistant Chief, Game Management Branch California Department of Fiski and Game

!he bulk of us in this group here todsy have received same training in the biological sciences, if not a considerable amount. Most of use are wildlife managers by profession, We have learned from textbooks and from experience that wildlife populations are in a constant state of turnover, and that in this process, there are certain rigid natural controls that limit the size of a pbpulation. We have learned that a great deal of waste of individual animals is created by these controlso In essence, we have learned the simple fact that more individuals are produced each year than can surviveo

I am not trying-to be pedantic here, nor sm I presuming to deliver a lecture on basic wildlife biology to people who are already well aware of the facts in the caseo But I am tiying to establish a point of referenceo

mis very waste provides the basis for most of our wildlife management thinking todayo And that basis is centered on the word rlharvest'l. What is being wasted can be utilized through harvest. The estions that occasionally arise from the esthete side of all of us is "Should this waste be utilized through harvest?" And herein lies the source of a growing conflict between the hunter on one hand and the esthete on the other, The thinking on bighorn sheep management epitomizes these divergent opinionso

The literature of the west has romanticized the bighorn. The image of this sure-footed creature. grmefully bounding from crag to crag in the roughest mountains, proudly carrying its gracefu sweep of massive horns, posing regally on the highest pinnacle in the last glow of sunset is firm in people's mindso And, lets face it, there is a certain amount of this feeling in all of us, or we would not have come here froan so many directions, and from such long distances, to talk only about desert bighorn for two entire days,

Bighorn have always been relatively scarce canpared to most other big game in North America, and there has been ample evidence of declines in bighorn populations since the days of early settlement,

The prevalent feeling among the general populace, that is at all aware of the animal, is that it is in periloizs straftso .This fear, coqled with the strong romantic.image, can combine to create an extremely powerful social reaction against hunting and for total protection,

In this discussion today, I am presenting the side of the esthete, and it is really the easiest in many wayso

In California we have an estimated 16,000,000 people. A net gain of about 1,500 occurs each day from new arrivals across the borders and and from births. About 9,000,000 of these live in southern California. The human congestion there is staggering by western standards - and it is getting worse. There are expected to be 22,000,000 people in Calif- ornia by 1970, with about 12,000,000 in southern California. These people are moving out to the east into the desert. Five-acre homesteads for winter relaxing are going like hotcakes. As these people poke armd with their jeeps, or hike, or dig for gems, or botanize: or merely loaf in the balmy climate, they learn about the desert. Eventually, either first hand or by word of mouth from more experienced desertites, they learn of the desert bighorn. And so the ranks of those interested in this animal grow.

Now, in California, there are about 600,000 hunters out of the 16,000,000, or a measly 4 percent. So, out of every 100 people that first learn of the desert bighorn, no more than 4 may want to hunt it, while 96 want to protect it! To further load the scales, at least two of the hunters would rather play golf than risk their lives in those inhospitable crags.

While this account may seem a little levitous, I have gradually acquired the conviction that wildlife managers must catch up to an increasing ecological sensibility an the part of the general public. The old terns of "hamestable surplusesn, and "annual cropstt connote a strictly hwting orientation. The photographer, the camper, the picnicker, the hiker, and more important, the Sunday driver, are becoming increasingly conscious sf the natural bounty that surrounds them, and are becoming more cognizant of the exploitative forces that can destroy.it.

Wildlife management cannot be for the sole benefit of the hunter. Wildlife is the province of the entire populacee> some highly sensitive areas, the hunter will have to step behind the'protectionist. The case of the desert bighorn is one of the foremost of these areas in California.

Let's take a quick look at the possible benefit to the hunting fraternity if bighorn were hunted in Califo~ia, 1 Of the 2,000-2,500 bighorn estimated to be in the State possibly 300 at the most could be safely.taken each year under a careful management program. Probably no more . than 600 hunters could*participate. This, balanced against the desires of the vastly greater number of interested non-hunters, hardly seas worth the impassioned controversy that would be certain to develop.

In California, the bighorn sheep is fully protected, and has been since 1873. This was one of the first wildlife protective statutes in the State. It may yet develop that this action by our grandfathers will serve to place California in a position of leadership in the coming era of social game management. INFORMATION ON TAGGING ON THE:DESERT GAME RANGE

By JAMES Re KOPLIM * Uo S. Fish Be Wildlife Service

Tagging of-bighorn sheep on the Desert Game Range has been dcacrfbed in previous confcrenecs, and the metkoii will be only briefly reviewed to bring you up-to-date. Sheep are baited to water and trapped, A colored plastic streamer is inserted into one ear and a metal identification tag is placed in the othero A number visible to the naked eye close up and visible with binoculars or spotting scope for a considerable distance is branded on each horn.

Thc purpose of such a tagging program is to aid in the determination of movements and longevity and to establish a density index. Results, hampered by rugged terrain and a widespread dispersal, have been very limited* We Bo have one observation record of ar tagged animal nine miles fram the original trap site. Also, in 1956 through use of the Lincoln Index method, based on tagging, we established'a theoret- ical population figure of 1,200 for the Sheep Range.

Several other attempts at tagging that might possibly be adapted to bighorn sheep studies have been described. Griffin (1952) used radioactive tags on wild birds to time their return to the nest. This method of tagging could be used on sheep to check drinking activities. LeMunyon designed a simple automatic snare necktag that has possibilities for use on sheep. The neck tag might be combined with the radioactive tag or the transmitter.

With reference to radioactive tagging Griffin recommends the use' of gamma emitters because of the greater range at which gamma rays can be detected after penetrating through solid materials that may come between the tag,and the detecting device. Also he contends that "alpha - and beta radiations increase the radiation dose inflicted on the tagged animal without materially facilitating the instrumental detection of the tag from any considerable distance,"

To minimize radiation injury to the animal and =to accurately determine the ~adiationintensity, the radioactive material should be placed at the center of a solid capsule of aluminum or same other light durable material "so that the shortest possible distance between radioactive material and the animal's tissues will be the radius of the capsule." A safe conservative radiation dose to be given most animals is 50 to 100 roentgens, However, where the tag can be small compared to the size of the animal as in sheep, values of up to 1,000 roentgens may safely be used.

Under natural conditions it is advisable to use a radioisotope with as short a half-life as possible since they automatically become harmless with the passage of time. Also the shorter the half.-life used the higher the initial radioactivfty of the tag may safely be, thus increasing the range of detection, which is only a matter of a few 'feet or yards with - present detecting apparatus.

Some of the radioisotopes Griffin recommends are:

Isotope Half life (days) ~e~9 46

&5 250

~r82 1.5

Radiation de'tectors powered by batteries and clockwork can operate for more than a week without attention. Several of these devices left at water holes would automatically time the entrance and exit of tagged sheep in those areas.

Some obvious considerations of the method are: only one animal at a time can be distinctively msrked in any one area, and the range of detection is limited by radioactive magnitude, which for reasons of safety must be relatively low. With improvements in detecting devices, and using directional detectors, there is a possibility of using the method to periodically locate tagged individuals with the aid of a helicopter.

A more powerful version of the radio transmitter designed by LeMunyan et al might be adapted to work on sheep. The specifications of their transmitter are as follows: size 3" x 1-5/8" x 5/8", weight 4.3 ounces, frequency range between 0.19 and 0.55 megacycles, and detecting range 25 yards. This particular frequency range was chosen so that Army Surplus receivers could be used and the detecting range was all that was required for their particular needs. It is readily apparent that the detecting range is too law for use on sheep. However, the dimensions of this unit could be enlarged resulting in a more powerful output. The exact size-weight-range relationships would have to be worked out. Maximum detecting range of such a transmitter would be dependent upon the method of locating tagged sheep. If the use of a smsll aircraft or helicopter was employed, the range should not have to be more than 114 to 112 mile. A range of three to five miles or more would be desirable otherwise.

The use of auto-tagging snares has been proposed by Romanov (1956) as a new method of mass marking. The principle of the automatic tagging snare is basically that of the snare trap. It differs from the snare trap in that the "col1ar"'of the snare is prevented from tightening to the full extent on the neck of the animal take3 and the animal is allowed to escape. The tagged "collar" locks in a position tight enough to prevent the animal to escape from it. The slipping movement of the loop is stopped before the noose is fully tightened around the animal's neck and the loop is prevented from moving back by the use of a snap-fastener,

The snare consists of two parts joined together by the snap- fastener through "eyes" at each end of it (see figure). The snare is made of a material that is easily broken by the scared animal after the snap- fastener with a'"col1ar" has been fixed to its neck. Romanov recommends the fishing line for this materialo

In describing the snap-fastener and collar Rornanov writes, "to the wider end of the snap-fastener is attached a collar with' ..a colored plastic streamer... and a soldered metal ring, whose internal diameter should be equal to the distance between the lower side of the snap- fastener and the end of the tongueo The collar is made of spring-steel wire and should be of a length corresponding to the circumference of the neck of" an adult sheep. 'It is necessary to allow a little extra length for the collar, so that the snap-fastener may work properlya''

The snares could be placed on sheep trails, preferably in close- walled canyons between rock outcrops and in narrow passes, a number of which are known to be used by sheep on the Desert Game Range. Also they could be placed at water holes fenced so as to allow entrance only through narrow passageso

It is readily apparent that should the auto-tagging method be adaptable to bighorn sheep, the radioactive tag or the radio transmitter could be placed on the collar in addition to or in lieu of the plastic streamer. Also by using combinations of colored streamers it would be possible to individualize a number of them. -

SUMMARY

Tagging on the Desert Game Range consists of a trapping-branding program, Each capture is given an individual brand number, a plastic marker is inserted in one ear and a metal identification tag in the other. The purpose has been to determine movements and longevity and to establish a population index, Results have been limited by rugged terrain and widespread dispersal of the animals. However, tagging has suggested travel distances, and some population density data have been obtained

Three new tagging methods, a radioactive tag, a radio transmitter tag and an automatic tagging snare, have been considered for possible adaptability to bighorn sheep studieso The radioactive and radio transmitter tags would have to be improved upon (mainly with reference to detecting range) before they could be seriously considered for use on sheep. The automatic tagging snare could very easily be used on sheep providing bighorns don t prove to be "snare -shy1'. The snare and the radioactive tag, or the radfo trasmitter tag, might be used in combination LITERATURE CITED

GRmIN, Donald R. - 1952 Radioactive Tagging of Animals Under Natural Conditions. Ecolow 33( 3 ) :329-335

%;EMUNYAN, Cobert D., William White, Ernest Nyberg and John J. Christian - 1959 Design of a Miniature Radio Transmitter For Use in Anima Studies. Jmr . WildJ.. Man. 23( 1) :107 -110. ROMANOV, A. N. - 1956 Automatic Tagging of Wild Animals and Prospects for Its Use. Zoological Journal, Moscow 35(12) :1902. hsi& Disrntte~ of Metal Ring NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON WA'XZR REQUIREMENTS ON THE DESERT GAME RANGE

By: JAMES Ro KOPLIN Uo So Fish & Wildlife Semice

Fortunately the magority of the little work done on the water metabolism of terrestrial vertebrates has been conducted on desert life formso Most of this work has been conducted by a husband-wife physiologist team, the Schmidt-Niels,enso For a general consideration of desert water requirements I will refer to rjome of their worko

For some time it has been suspected that kangaroo rats were able to survive in the prpsence of little or no watero It has been demonstrated that they could live in the complete absence of waterd The Schmidt-Nielsens have shown that these animals are able to obtain moisture by oxidizing their food. They are able to help conserve this metabolic water by urea concentrationo Water loss from lung evaporation is kept to a minimum by the animal's nocturnal and fossorial habitso They are above ground mainly only after dark, and they remain within burrows during the day, The relative humidity of the burrow is always higher than the air outside during the day. If these animals were to respire in this dry outside air with its low moisture content, the rate of evaporation from the lungs would exceed the rate of metabolic water, with a resultant water loss to the animalso The formation of metabolic water is adequate when the animal respires in the relatively mof st burrow air, In fact calculation has shown that there is a gain in watero

. I Other less specialized desert fauna are able to slow water loss effectively via lung evaporation by being nocturnal or fossorial or both, Some are known to aestivate during the hottest bddriest time * of the summer, Another desert form, the camel, has adapted to a desert life by being able to tolerate as much as 308 dehydration of the total body weight, The camel can also vary the body temperature as much as 11' F during a 24-hour period. This aids in slowing water loss through lung evaporation which is necessary to cool the homoiothermous body when air temperature exceeds body temperatureo

In attempting analogies between sheep water metabolism and the water metabolism of the kangaroo rat, camel and other desert fauna we came up with some interesting eon~eetures. We do not know for instance if sheep are able to produce metabolic water. To some extent they are able to concentrate ureao We know they are not fossorial and they are at best moderately crepuscular exhibiting very little nocturnal activityo We do believe that physical activity is minimal during the heat of a hot dry summer day, It has not been suggested that sheep aestivateo We do not know if sheep are able to dehydrate an appreciable, if any, amount of the total body weightJ We do not know if sheep are able to vary the body temperatureo

Sheep may be able to slow water evaporatfon from the lungs by moving to higher elevations and cooler temperatures in the heat of the summero In support of fact a series of eleven census transects systematically checked once a month was inaugurated in February of 1959 on the Desert Game Range. A twelve month analyses of data points to a seasonal vertical migration - the sheep are at higher elevations during the warmer months and down in the foothills and alluvial fans in the cooler months. If this vertical migration is real, then sheep would effectively slow evaporative water loss by moving into air temperatures at or below body temperature thus avoiding the necessity to cool the body.

Actual water consumption data for sheep are few and far between. We have same aata and a resume of these are given for your consideration.

During the summer of 1958 the amount of water consumed by the band of captive sheep at our Corn Creek sub-station was measured each day for 17 days. The band of six sheep was comprised of 2 rams, 2 ewes and 2 nursing lambs. The animals were kept on a dry diet of 3 pounds of oats and 1/8 bale of alfalfa hay per day. The average daily consumption was eight gallons for the band, or 1.3 gallons per animal per day. This, of course, cannot be interpreted as a min~malrequirement, but it does give some idea of the effect of an unlimited water supply on intake.

In 1957 we obtained three observations of sheep watering in which we were able to measure the amount of water consumed. A hydrograph mounted on the water tank at Rye Patch Spring was used for the determination. Initially the instrument was placed there to give a picture of watering activity so that we could begin trapping operations when watering became heavy enough. We were able to calibrate on the hydrograph to the nearest half gallon the amount of water consumed. Foklowing is a table of the results of three observations in 1957:

Temperature at Time commenced watering Age & sex Amount -Date time watered - 15 minutes of sheep Cmsumed 9/19/57 old male 1-112 gal. 9/20/57 old male 2-112 gal. 10/2/57 old male 2 gal.

A table of similar information obtained in the same way covering five observations for 1959;

7/1/59 prime ram 2-112 gal. 7/6/59 old ewe 2 gal. 7/7/59 prime ewe 2 gal. 7/12/59 prime ewe 2 gal. 9/3/59 prime ram 1-112 gal.

An analysis relative to 46 recorded watering6 in 1959 reveals the following:

Drinking between: '$ of total No. of waterinas 0515 and 0700 0715 and OgOO 0915 ad 1100 1115 and 1300 Drink%- between : of total No. of watering8

1-315 and 1500 1515 'and 1700 1715 and 1900 1915 end 2100 2115 and 2300 2315 and 0100 0115 and 0300 0315 and 0500

It is worthy to note that 82.5% of all watering activity took place during the daylight hours. That the remaining 17.5$ watered during darkness does indicate a fair amount of nocturnal watering activity, although part or all of this might be deer useo

From the table it can be seen that a small amount of watering occurs during the pre-dawn hours increasing through 0900, dropping slight between WOO and 1100 (sormc, question as to whether this "dip" is real or apparent), and increasing to a meximum between 1115 and 1500 when it drops fafrly rapidly to no activity at all by sundowne After dark a limited amount of activity is noted through to midnight dropping off to no activity at all until the pn-dawn hours of 0445, which was the earliest watering record obtainedo The latest watering record took place at 2430.

An analysis of our data to show the effects of temperature on watering activity gave no appaxent correlation, This is only another indication in support of the idea that moisture and related vegetative succulence is a more important factor in determining free water use than temperature alone.

SUMMARY

In general very little work has been done on water metabolismo The msJority of work done has been conducted on desert fauna, Having a limited knowledge of the water metabolism of the kangaroo rat, the camel and those desert forms that aestivate we can at least propose or dispose of some analogies between these desert forms and bighorn sheepo There is a possibility that sheep may be able to use metabolic watero Xhey may be able to concentrate urea in order to conserve watero They are not fossorial, and nocturnal activity is considered to be the exception rather than the rule; hence there must be a water loss by evaporation from the lungso In order to counteract the evaporative water loss there &s a possibility that shpmay be able to vary body temperatwe to correlate with die1 insolation and associated habitat temperature changes thus minimizing the necessity to cool the homoiotherm body by water evaporation when air temperature exceeds body temperatureo There is some indication that sheep, at least on the Desert Game Range, may exhibit a seasonal vertical migration, going to higher elevations in the heat of the summer. If this is true, then the animals would be able to effectively slow water loss from evaporation by moving into air temperatures at or below body temperatureo The band of six captive sheep at Corn Creek in 1958 used an average of 1.3 gallons of water per day per sheep for amperiodof 17 days observed. Eight watering8 observed in 1957 and 1958 at Rye Patch Spring indicate that rams drink from 1-112 gallons to 2-112 gallons per watering and ewes drink as much as two gallons per watering. The greatest watering activity appears to be from just before sun up, peaking at noon, and dwindling to nothing by sunset; after dark a limited amount of watering occurs. mere appears to be no correlation between watering and temperature. We submit rather that relative humidity records vould reveal a correlation between precipitation and watering activity.

POIID, Alonzo We - 1957 The Legend of the Camel. Natural History 66(5). SCHMIDT-FIIKISEA, Bodil ~d KKU~- 1949 The Water Ekanomy of Desert Animals. Science Monthly 69 ~80-185.

----E---mLIII - 1950 Evaporative Water Loss in Desert Rodents in their Natural Habitat. Ecology 31(1):78-85.

------PI------1953 The Desert Rat... &ientific American. 189 :73,74,76,78. PROGRESS IN TRAPPING AND TRANSPLANTING DESEElT BIGHORM

m::TB0M.M MOOBE Biologist, Texas Game 88 Fish Commfssian

Desert ~l~hornSheep Council Meeting April 5-8, 1960 Us Cruces, New Mexico

Texas and Arizona Game and Fish persame1 again conducted a bighorn sheep trapping,progrsm on the Kofa Game Range in Arizona during the summer of 1959. This Joint effort was for the purpose of securing brood sheepo Each state has constructed an enclosure of several hundred acres in which the trapped sheep have been released, It Is hoped that suffiuient sheep might be trapped and that reproduction will occur so that each state might restock some of its historical bighorn sheep rangeo

Three traps were operatedo Two of these traps were of the corral type made of nylon netting 8 feet in height and supported by steel posts weight, thus causing the gate to fall straight down when tripped. me gate was held high by a wire stretched to the blind and fell when cut by the observero The average vidth across the circular tpap was approx- - imately 20 feet. Each trap was located so that it encircled an old watering siteo Traps were observed from blinds throughout the daylight hours of a dayo Another trap, located at Tunnel Springs, a permanent watering, consisted of a sliding' gate supported by cables at the entrance. As the sheep entered the trap the gate was clbsed by uee of a rope stretched to the blind.

RFSULTS AND DISCUSSION

Observations started at traps Noo 7, 8,and at the Tunnel Springs trap on June 16, 1959. Several weeks prior to this date, various roads were improved and all potholes were siphoned dry in preparation for the operation. Five men from the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and 4 men from the Texas Game and Ffsh Commission were assigned to watch these trap siteso Weather conditions were unfavorable as scattered thunder- storms hit the general area on June 19 and temperatures exceeded the 110 degree mark on only two occasionso Despite the unfavorable conditions, 11 sheep, 5 males and 6 females were trapped. Three males and 4 females were trksported by pick-up truck to the release site in Texas. The trip required 21 hours of continuous driving and the sheep did not show any ill effects from the long rideo They ate lmge amounts of coffee berry, (shuondsia chinensis)a native shrub, while enroute. Two males and 2 females were released at the Arizona holding pen. In addition to the sheep transported, three ewes were lost from injuries caused by trapping operations. Numerous sheep were observed near the traps although they were in fewer numbers than in past years. !hie was particularly true at the RulneL Springs site. In June and July of 1959, the total number of sheep observed was as follows: 33 adult rams, 22 adult wee, 13 lambs, and 11 yearlings of both sexes. No laqe rams were desired; therefore, the traps were not cloeed on rams, or aged ewes and lambs in poor body conditiono Several catches were made which included3oth sexes, and in these cases the rams were released at the trap site. All sheep which were kept were in excellent conditiono One male lamb with its mother were transported. The lamb survived the trip and change of habitat well and is now alive in the Texas -pasture. Tranquilizer drugs (trade name ~iquil)were administered with good resulte. Injection6 for animals weighing 150 pounds or over amounted to 5 c. co whereas animals weighing in the vicinity of 100 pounds responded well to a dosage of 3 c. c. The drug was given in the Juglar veizrrather than intramuscularly for a fast reaction was essentialo Generally, bighorns of all weights became tranquil within 5 minutes after the drug was inJected. In addition, the sheep mrc given shots of shipping fever serum, vitamin C, and Meticorten. The vitamin C and Meticorten were given as shock preventatfves. Two h of each drug were given intrem~scularlyto each-bighorn sheep.

Showers over the region brought a halt to trapping on July 17, approxiarrtely 30 days after the operation was begun, Actually rainstorms 10 days earlier had put out enough water to stop the sheep from watering at the trapsiteso The crew merely stayed on watching the traps to make sure that no sheep were using the traps. The season on the Kofa was a dry one but the rains in 1959 came too early~~

At this time there are 9 bighorns in the Texas pasture. No lambs have been raised however since most of thg ewes were placed in the enclosure only last summer. Of the 9 she& in the pasture 3 are adult rams, one a yearling ram, and Pive are adult ewes, One adult ram placed in the pen two years ago died in 1959. The cause of death could not be determinedo All of the sheep appear in good body condition and are very wild, LAMB SURVIVAL OH TEE DESERT GAME RANGE

By: CWSGo HAMSEM

For the most part information for the following report was gathered from the files of the Uo So Fish and Wildlife Service. Most lqelpf'ul was a manuscript on "Lambs of the Nelson Bighorn Sheep in Hevada" written by 0. Vo Dcming when he vae a biologist at the Desert Game Rangeo My associates also have made eontributionso

The lambing study srea on the Deeert Game Range is generally in the southern portion of the Sheep Rangeo This area was chosen because of the large concentration of ewes that used that portion of the refuge in which to lamb. Thus the majority of the infomation presented here was obtained from that area,

The habitat in the study area fs rough, broken and rocky oountry, primarily in the Joshua ZoneD In 9t occur many sheltered nooks and sunny exposures. Also it is here that the grass appears to "green-up" earlier in the spring. There is no known "free watern here except when precipitation is abundant and pot holes or snow-drifts supply this commodityo Most years there is ample feed to meet the food requirements of the sheep; however, dependent upon the climate this food may be either green or dry.

The lambing season on the Desert Game Range generally runs from January to May. Our population increase has been very slow. Devan reports that an estimated 35 lambs survived to yearling age in 1959. This is out of a total estimated population of 1,000 animals on the Sheep Range. - Lamb mortality has many causeso Accidents account for many dead lambs; however, this loss may be a result more than a causee Broken bones and animals trapped in depressions are not uncommon, These accidents could be the result of a weakened condition due to such factors as disease or nutritional deficiencieso

Lamb diseases are difficult to determine, but intestinal disorders and pneumonia appear to be most frequently encounteredo Parasites, external and internalp are not found to be common; however, the amount sf study material is qufk scanty.

Conclusive evidence sf loss to predators does not exist although it must play a part in the survival of our lambs.

Deming puts some stress on the effect of yearly climatic changes. He found that more lambs survived during clear, mild springs than during cloudy, cold seasonso The most frequent early date for lambs born is approximately February 150 The bulk of the lambs are born during March, and by April 20 lambing is 9C$ complete.

Lambs begin feeding on vegetation early and are generally weaned at about six months of age. After the lambs are weaned, free water appears to be required by themo Weaning occurs commonly around the middle of September or the month of Octobero

Lamb census work on the refuge gets serious during the-month of March but does not get into full swing until the last of April and first of May. Fall water hole counts were used along with the usual population infomation to deteane the percent of lamb survival throe the summer months. Observations of yearlings made during the spring monthe contribute to the determination of lamb survival. The lambing success percentages from 1948 to 1953 were estimated at 76 to 808 a year. Later estimates showed figures of 20 to 40$ success. Lamb survival has been variously estimated at up to 50$ These percentages would indicate that in recent years lanibing success is down and that it could be cycl$c. During the clear mild springs green feed was available; thus water requirements were met through their food. On the other hand during uloudy, cold springs the ewes fed on dry feed and consequently were distributed fn relation to the available eater. The possibility of nutritional deficiencies was higher and the Incidence of penumonia md internal parasites appeared to be greater during those years with cloudy, cold spring weather. Considerisg the rugged conditions under which lambs are born and must- live, it is not inconceivable that their death rate would be - high. However, our estimated up to 50$ lamb survival does not appear to be ex@essivelyhigh for these desert bighorn sheego PROGRESS OF MICAN BIGHORN SEEP LIE HISTORY AXD WAGliNElW IIdVESTIGATICXfS I# TEiE BIG HATCHEZ MOTRWUNS OF NEW MEXICO

JACK Eo GROSS

Department biologist Paul Gordon reported to the 1957 Desert Bi@orn Council that the herd of Mexican bighorn sheep inhabiting the Big Hatchet MountaLns in southwestern Hew Mexico ha& declined from an estimated 125 to 150 head in 1953 to lees than 50 head in 1957. Since Mr. Gordon conducted no census, his reason for making this population estimate is not knowno However, he was correct in hie dudwent of the population trend bemuse recent investigations indicate thir bighorn herd has further declined in numberso The preeent populatidn is 6stimated to be not over 20 to 25 animalsQ Mr. Gordon was moved ?ram the area in the fall of 1956 end a three year period elap~edwhen a depastment observer was not present to follow crad record the development of the present situationo We can therefore, only aurmiee what OCCWXW~~ To follow the approximete developnents, a ground survey in February or 1956 accounted for 60 bighorn which included 17 ran, 36 ewer, one lamb, and six unclasrlfiedo During the rme cenaur, the deer herd was given 8 minimum estimate of 1,000 head. 8lnce the Elig Hatchet Mountalnlr deer and bighorn habitat cover0 about 60 r~uaromile6, the bighorn density was one animal par square mile and the deer dennity

The first indication of the reduced pogulatlon of bigholli was in January of 1959 when a census by conventional aircyaf't accounted fop five bighorn, all ewes. or ewes and young ramo Six weeks of ground - investigation followed this aerial ceneus but no bigh6m were obsem8. By this time, department personnel felt that a critic& situation existed as to gopulatlon numbers of bighorn in the Big Hatchet Mountadas. In of 1959, the department chartered a helicopter from Aetna Helicopters Incorporated of Aetna, California and the bighorn habitat was intensely surveyed in six and one-hslf hours of flyingo Much of the habitat was covered *fee and some areas known to be previous heavy use sites were flown three timeso Only four bighorn were counted, again all ewes or ewes and young ramso Gmund surveys since that date have accounted for eight bighorn, which included one half-curl ram, six ewes, md one lambo Therefore, there seems to be little doubt that a serioufi decline fn population density has occurredo mere was a possibility that theBig Hatchet Mountains bighorn herd had reached the point where there was a delicate balance between exfstanee and extirpation, The department therefope decided that every effort should be-made to preserve the animals and Improve habitat eondftfons, Be question was where to start when so little research had been accomplfshed during the present proJecto In trying to initiate a management program on a game animal and a habitat that was so little understood, some reasonable opposition was encounteredo This attitude was similar to that of the ole timer who didn't believe in modern game management, and was glad he didn't believe in it, because if he did, he might practice it, and he knew damned good- and-well it wouldnet worko In considering the decrease in population density in this amall geographic area, a mortality connected deoimating factor was at first not necessarily implied, for emigration could have been involved, The first theory advanced to explain the population decrease was that the Big Hatchet bighorn had migrated to same other area, Since past evidence indicates that migration occasd~nallyoccurred between the Boca Drande Mountains in Mexico and the Big Hatchet Mountains in New Mexico, that aspect; was considered. However, two reliable reports have been received which indicate that migration to the Boca Grandes was not involved. First, Dr. Villa-R from the University of Mexico reported that bighorn or bighorn sign was not evident in the Boca Grande Mountains during his field investigations in the winter of 1956-57. This was slightly prior to the period when the emigration was supposed to have occurred and could thus be inconclusive. me second report was received from Dro Robert Zeller,-an American geologist now working in the Boca Grsndeso Dr. Zeller has talked to all of the ranch mers in the Boca Grande Mountains area and reports that bighorn have not been seen in that mountain range for at least 15 years. Dr. Zeller has spent considerable time observing the bighorn in the Big Hatchet Mountains as a sidelight of his geological activities and is quite familiar with bigh6P.n and bighorn signo He confirms that bighorn use is not evident in the Boca Grandego Thus, unless the bighorn moved to sane completely new range, emigration seems not to have been involved.

An assumption must then be made that the animals died within the limits of the Big Hatchet Mountains habitat. Considering all of the known decimating factors, the villain seems to have been primarily starvation. Sometime between the censua in February of 1956 and the- census work in 1959, both the deer and the bighorn populations crashed. In 1956, southern Hew Mexico was subjected to the most severe drought in 733 years. Only 2.i'inches of rain fell in the Big Ha het-kuntains area. As a result of almost non-existant live water-2 d severely over-utilized browse in the bighorn and deer habitat, a known deer die-off was recorded that re-ached catastrophic proportions and so decimated the population that sight observations were rare o Department personnel feel that a just assumption can be made that losses were equ,dly severe in the bighorn population@ Although disease and predation magc have contributed to the initial die-offs, they were probably of minor importance, or were brought on by starvation and the weakened condition of the animalo

Considering that both the deer and bighorn populations were decimated in 1956, the apparent failure of both of these animals to recover population numbers during the three year period since the drought poses a problem, The estimated bighorn population is something less than 25 animalse According to deer pellet group transect analysis, the present density of deer in the Bi& Hatchet Mountains is between 1.2 and 1.4 deer per square mile. Although an estimated 50 to 90$ of the browse on parts of the mountain died during the droq&$, the remaining browse has fully recovered and annual growth on most species is vfgoroua. Utilization of mountain mahogany ( ~ercocarpusmontanus ) during the winter of 1959-19 60 was 10.79 of the 1959 annual growth. Utilization of other browse species appears to be comparable Therefore, browse condf tions seem to be favorable and cannot be linked to the apparent failure of the two species1 reproduction. The project leader on the previous bighorn investigations project reported that a ?allure of the lamb crop apparently occurred in 1955 and 1956. Of the 60 bighorn counted in 1956, only one was a lamb. Since that time, only one other lsarb ha6 been observed on the mountain* Whether the apparent lamb crop and fawn crop failures were due to a basic reproductive deficiency or to a loss of young stock to predator8 or disease could not be determinedo The lack of deer increase seems to definitely indicate a reproductive failure of some sorto The problem was therefore approached in sn attempt to correct both possibiPities of loss

!The possibilfty of a basic regrduction failure was first considered. Since there were at least 17 rams axid 36 ewes on the mountsin in 1956, the biological neceesities for reproduction must be considered a8 adequate at.that timeo Analyele of mineral conditions In the Big Hatchet Muntafns had indicated all neceesary elements were present in suf'ficient amounts to satisfy body requirements. Browee eonditione, though depleted, were adequate from the quantity standpoint. Disease and parasites rruf- ficient to create pathology condition8 were not and have not been evident. The situation finally rsrolved into a problem of water relationships. It mey well be that adult bighorn need wry little live water to eurvive during most of the year, but it is also possible that the maximum reproductive capacity cannot be maintained unless suitable live water is available above that required to satisfy the adults primary physiological functions. The lamb crop may be dependent on live water being available dying relatively short but key periods in breeding, gestation, or - lactationo During the past year, the Big Hatchet bighorn utilized water at'least during the months of June, August, September, December, January, February, and Marcho All bighorn observed on the mountain were within one and one-quarter miles of watero It is also considered to be more than coincidence that the Hatchet Ranch installed the only year-round watering and two late summer, fall, and early winter watering6 in the heart of the most heavily utilized hfghorn range on the mountain. These tanks furnish adequate water while they hold, but only the deep well is dependable for year round watero Th'e earthen tanks which rely on run-off to fill them are dry usually from March to June, which may be a critical period for the bighorno The department feels that water development is justifiable and has recommended the Instal-lation of two =three umbrella type steel st~ragetankso

!he second factor to be considered was the possible loss of lambs to predatorso Under normal deer and bighorn population conditions in the Big Hatchets, losses to predation are probably minoro However, a special situation may exist with the decreased ungulate populations. During the period from 1956 to 1959, the large deer population which had built up in a non-hunted status on the mountain crashed, Lion predation had been evident, and after the loss of deer, the scarcity-escape principal probably worked for the deer and against the liono As a result, the lions may have turned to the bighorn as a partial buffer species. The Hatchet Ranch started losing colts to lion predation in 1957 and finally had to move their young stock completely away from the mountain. In August of 1959, bighorn and at least five lions were watering at the same tank, we presume not simultaneouslyo In advancing the theory that lion were preying on the bighorn, we do not mean in a wholesale manner that is economically feasible to correct, but with the reduced bighorn herd, if they killed five larebs a year, the loss was more than the herd could stand. !i'herefore a lion trapping program was initiated by the federal government and by the state during the winter of 1959. Three lions have been caught, all in the ,post headly utilized bighorn range. fr Any results of these game ma&ement activities will not be realized for several years. The bighorn research project in the Big Hatchet Mountains is being de-emphasized in favor of a bighorn papula- tion study project in the San Andres Mountains. Browse studies and deer pellet group transects analysis, which are an btegral part of our bighorn management, will be contfiued.

0 SUMMARY

Ihc Mexican bighorn. sheep population inhabiting the Big btchet Mountains has decreased from an estimated 125 to 150 in 1953 to lees than 25 in 1960. The initial loss was primarily due to starvation for food and water. Secondary causes may have been disease and predation. Failure of the herd to increase since that date is probably due to lack of live water during key critical periods of the year and due to predation by lions in the reduced herd. An attempt is being made to improve conditions through Improvement of gem watering conditions and control of mountain lionso

GORDON, Paul - 1954 //. /-- Completion reports on Mexican border game'management investigations, w-68-~-1. Hew Mexico Dept.,. . Game & Fish. GORDON, Paul - 1956 Completion reports on Mexican border game management investigations, W-68-R-3. New Mexico Dept. Game 8t ~isd. GORDON, Paul - 1957 The status ~~~~~~~~~~~n sheep in New Mexicoo Proceedings Desert Bighorn Council Xeetigg, Las Vegas, Nevada HISTORY, PRESEIWP AND FUTlTRE STATUS OF THE DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CMADEIHIS WICMA) IN GUADALUPE MOU~TAINS OF SOUTBEASTERN NEW MEXICO AND NORTHWGS'E3.N TEXAS

By: JACK Eo GROSS

The east forks of the Guadalupe Mountains represent the remains of the Gapltan Reef, a giant Permian Era structure of gray limestone. !Phe range originates at Signal Peak in northwestern Texas and terminates near Carlsbad, New Mexico, about 45 miles northeast of Signal Peak. The southeastern elope of the range rises in an abwpt escwent whieh is bisected by steep-walled, precipitous canyons, some of which measure 1,300 feet from rim to bottom. Quadalupe Peek in Texas reaches the rna;llbmm elevation of 8,751 feet.

VEGETATION

Tbe ~uakupcMountains lie in the northeastern projection of the Chihuahuan Deserto Merriamqs Life Zones vary from the Lower Sonoran to the 'Fransitiono Tbe Low-r Sonoran Zone vegetation is typified by creosote-bush (~arreaspa) as the indicator, with companion species of catclaw (~cacia~crown-of -thorn (~oeberliniaepo ), mesquite (~osopia'~and yucca (yucca- spa ) . The Upper Sonoran tation is characterized by lechuguflla gave lechuguilla) as the Chihua- hum Desert indicator, with associated species of ca%claw, yucca, and sot01 (~asylerionspa j . The *ansf tion- Zone vegetation 1s-charkterized by ponderoea pilr* (Plnus sp. ), pinyon pine (pinus sp. ), lechuguilla - gave sp. ), miple -spa ) , desert willow~1opsissp. ), sumac (=us- sp. ), plus verious cacti and oak species The Upper Sonoran Zone is dominant in areao

HISTORY OF BIGHORN OCCUPANCY Ihe "Ty-pe Specimen" of the bighorn sheep (described as -Ovis canadensis texiana) inhabiting the Guadalupe Pbsuntafns was collected in 1902 near the Texas-New Mexico border by Vernon Bailey; ' In 1931, . Bailey repmted:

"The Texas bighorn comes over the line into New Mexico on the west slope of the Guadalupe Mountains, where in 1901 the writer found thefr trails and tracks common over the steep slope east of Dog Canyon. There were also traces of them on the more barren desert ranges west of Dog Canyon, but at that time he could not learn of their occurrence farther north. In 1909 the Forest Service reported them extending 24 miles north of the Texas line. In the report of the State Game and Fish Warden of New Mexico (de baca, 1914, p0 112), the number of sheep in the Guadalupe Mountains was estimated at 200, but a careful examination of the range by J. So Ligon in January, 1916, gave an estimate of probably not over 100 in this region."

Aldo Leapold reported in 1919 that the Guadalupe Mountains bighorn herd had sent out a branch herd into the Sacramento Hountains to the northwest and that interchange of animals between the Guadalupe Mountains, the Sacramento Mountains, the Davis Mountains in Texas, and 'the Diablo Mountains in Texas, occurred regularly, Vernon Bailey reported in 1928 that the bighorn population in the Guadalupe Mountains was about static, "with the most optimistic estimate not above 100 animals", and in 1931 he stated that all the reports from the Sacramento, Capitan, and Jicarilla Mountains indicated that no bighorn h'ad been known in those ranges in modern times. Thus, two noted wildlife authorities were in contradiction concerning the range of the bighorn in the Guadalupe-Sacremento Mountains area. During the l92O's, the bighorn population in the Guadalupe lbuntains was scattered along the heads of Slaughter, Big, Ranks, McKittrick, and Guadalupe Canyons. Bailey tkought the eastern slope of these mountains from Guadalupe Peak in Texas to Dog Canyon in Hew Mexico could support at least 1,000 bighorn, Two refuges were created in this area for the protection of the bighorn': - The Guadalupe Refuge of--23,000 acres and the Little Dog Refuge of 25,QOO acres, These'refuges were delelkd in 1954 and 1956 res- gedtively. And thus in 1927, even though the bighorn were by no means abundant, Ligon considered that a safe remnant of bighorn remained in the Guadalupe Mountains.

y 193Ogs, the inevitable nclashn occurred betwe the bighorn and domestic sheep and goats, During this period, domestic stock ranching developed into a large scale operation and, whether by cause-and-effect or by coincidence, the bfghom>wame-scarce soon after* Unfortunately, our records from 1932 to 1941 -sre sketch$ -and we know little concerning the bighorn population. We do have theEe b3ivtdua.l sight records, In 1936, a Mister Cadwalder of Highrolls, Nev Mexico observed 16 bighorn in Dog and lTelsonQsCanyons in the sacramento Mountains. Investigations in 1939 resulted in the sighting of four bighorn in the Guadalupe Mountains, all in'.~exas, At the Hugh' s Ranch in Dog Canyon, four hybrid lambs were born from a cross Qgtween domestic ewes and a bighorn ram or rams. ~n 1940, two bighorn rGs were seen! near the Y-0 crossing area, on the-east side of.the Sacramento Muntalns. Also in 1940, a local rancher found a dead ewe at the head of McKittPick Canyon in the Guadalupe Mountains In 1942, s ycmng ram ( ? ) was roped by cowboys in Dog Canyon, and Cecil Kennedy observed four bighorn in the south end of the Sacramento Mountains. This 'game year, a fresh head from a mature ram was sent to the Department of Game and Fish from the west side of the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation in the Sacramento Mountains. There are undoubtedly other reliable sight records but these listed are sufficient proof that bighorn were still existing in these mountain ranges when department work was inadequate to record events.

J. So Ligon and Olaus Murie conducted an investigation in the Guadalupe Mountains area between 1940-1944 and could find no bighorn nor evidence of bighorn occupancy. However, in 1946, District Game Warden Lo Wo Simmons found a-dature ram in the rim-rocks of Penasco Canyon which had apparently been dead for about one yearo He reported one old ram was still living in the same area, From these records, a bighorn population of some sort existed in the Guadalupe Bbuntains until at least 15 years agoo A population decline has definitely occurred during the past 50 years, But the cause or causes for the decline are not definite, Bailey (1928) considered "predatory animals and predatory man" as being the significant factor in the reduction of the herd. Barker (1938)%,blamed the lack of edequate law enforcement and predator control as contributing to $he bighorn decline. Snow (1939) stated "poaching has played a major role In decimating the bighorn populationsno Snow also reported that domeetic goats and sheep were utilizing portions of the range once used by bighorn and that these domestic animals died ennually in large numbers. Snow did not state the cauere of death, but Dr. F. Wo Thacker, Cerlebad Veterinerisn, reported that over 50 percent of the goats in the Guadalupee were infected with malte fever. Mgon (1939) suggested that there was a direct relation between the rapid increase of deer-elk end domestic sheep-goat populations and the disappearance of bighorn on the south end of the Guadelupes, The New l@xico Department of Game and Fish conducted a short investigation in the Guadalupe Mountalns'in 1954. Ihe results of the investigation were sane questionable bighorn droppings found on the eastern escarpment north of McKittrick Canyon and two old horns of a mature ram found under a cliff in the north fork of Big Canyon. The biologiet conducting this investigation reported that the allotted to search for bighorn in the more inaccessible portions of the range was inadequate and that in his personal opinion a sizable herd of bighorn could exist practically undetected in these areas. However, for prof- essional reasons, the report concluded that a resident population of bighorn in the Guadalupe Mountafns was unlikely, In 1956, efter a number of years had passed without a reputable - sighting, the skeleton was again dragged out of the closet when two reports of bighorn observations were received. 'Ihe first report was a sighting of seven bighorn at the head of SmithDsCanyon in Texas. The second report was a sighting of "more than 20" seen "a bit farther westn. These reports were unfortunately not investigated. Personnel of the National Park Service found an old horn of a mature ram in a cave in Carlsbad Caverns National Park in 1959. The most recent report of bighorn actiyity in the Guadalupe Mountains was received in July of 1959, A crop sprayer was flying a direct course from Carlsbad, New Mexico to Del City, Texas, While flying deep within a canyon on the eastern slope, he observed about 20 animals running along the side of the canyon. He is certain they were bighorn sheep. This report has not been pursued further, except for interviews with Mr. Jo S. Lfgon of Carlsbad, New Mexico. Mr. Ligori said that the most likely areas to search for bighorn would be Big Canyon, Dog Canyon, and Black Canyon on the New Mexico side. The crop sprayers flight path was most likely up Big Canyon.

FUTURE OF BIGHORN OCCUPANCY

The potential of the Guadalupe Mountains to meet bighorn sheep habitat requirements has increased in recent years. Domestic stock

68 ranching, particularly for sheep and goats, has decreased and now involves only a small part of the range area previously occupied. Mr. Ligon is of the opinion that the Guadalupe Mountains represent our best opportunity to restore a desert bighorn population in a.sizable habitat, He believes the Guadalupe Mountains are better suited to restoration efforts than the Big Hatchet Mountains because of more water for bighorn and less accessibility for humans. Mr. Ligon has advocated the rehabilitation of the desert bighorn in the Guadalupes and adJa@ent mountain ranges for many years, He and the United States .Porest Service were at one time planning to stock bighorp in Fresnall Canyon, between Alemogordo and Cloudcroft. Their opinion was that the area would make good bighorn habitat. This follows with Bailey' s statement that the southwestern slope of the Sacramento Muntains is ideal for bighorn country, The Forest Service was favorable to the extent of offering to convert their horse pasture in the c-yon into an exclusive enclosure to hold bighorn stocked in the area. A bighorn trap was constructed in the Big Hatchet Mountains for trapping and transplanting operations but the actual trapping was never completed. Research activities in the Gqadalupe Mountains were to be resumed by the New Mexico lkpartment of Game and Fish on a small scale this year, but plans were cancelled when arrangements were reached with White Sands Missile Range to conduct bighorn population studies in the San Andres Mountains.

A map of.historical and potential bighorn range In the Guadalupe Mountains has been preparecL (Pwe 71). The basis for delineating the potential range was : (1) known historical range, (2) greatest distance from domestic sheep, (3) present non-use status of the forest in most of this area, (4) excellent vegetative condition, (5) the remoteness and inaccessibility of the area.>fleXi-rable features include. (1) possible future use by daanes%ic sheep, (2) small size of the krea, (3) possible excessive deer population which may create severe competition for essential food items.

sux The Guadalupe Mountains bighorn herd numbered between 100 and 200 head and was considered to be static between 1920 and 1930. At that time, intensive domestic stock ranching for sheep and goats clashed with the welfare of the bighorn and the latter began to decrease in numberso By 1940, the bighorn herd had diminished to the degree that sight records were infrequent. Since 1940, occasional scattered sight records indicate the bighorn has not been completely extirpated from the Guadalupe Mountains but probably exists only in small numbers.

I wish to thank Mro Paul Spangle, Chief Naturalist, Carlsbad Gaverns National Perk, and Wo E. M. Lang, Pittanan-Robertson Co- ordinator, New Mexico Department of Game and Pish, for generously making available their publications, observations, ideas, and photographs for the preparation of this paper. My appreciation is also extended to Mr. Jo So Ligon, for the hours of discussion which clarified numerous points concerning the Guadalupe Mountains bighorn herd.

BAILEY, Vo - 1905 Biological survey of Texas* North American Fauna No. 25. Ii-rf~eauijf Bfalo$fcd. Survey, USDA, Wash. , D. C. wm, v. - 1928 . Animal life of the Carlsbad Caverns. Monographs of the American Society of Mammalogist, No. 3. Williams-Wilkins CO., Baltimore, Md.

BARKW, Elliot. S. The Guadalupe mountain bighorn sheep. Carbon of original on file; Dept. Game & Fish, Smta Fe, New Mex., md, 3 p. DAVIS, Wme B. and Walter P. Taylor - 1939 The bighorn sheep of Texas. Jour. of Mamology 20 (4)440-455. I+G, E. M. - 1956 Sheep stkey. Job Completion Report W-75hR-3. Work Plan 3, Job 8. Hew Mexico Dept, Game & Fish, Santa Fe, BTew Mex. L-, J. Stokley - 1927 Wildlife of New 14exico. Dept. Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mex. L Guadalupe bighorn survey report. Carbon on file; Dept. Game & Fish, Santa Fe, New Mex,, !Cy-ped and incatnplete* MILLER, Gerritt S. and Remington Kellogg - 1955 North American Recent Memmals. 3ul1. No. 205. U. S. Natl. Ms., Wash., Do C. p. 822. SNOW, Robert and Earl Zimmernlan - 1939 Bighorn Sheep Report. Carbon of Typed report; Files of Dept. Game & Fish, Santa Fe, New Mex., 5 pp. and incomplete.

o!mm SOURCES Personal Conversation - 1959 Cliff Baumeister, crop sprayer, Deming, New Mex. Personal Conversation - 1959 J. Stokley Ligon, Carlsbad, New Mex. Personal Conversation - 1959 Paul Spangle, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, White City, New Mex. Personal Conversation - 1958 Allan Andersen, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo. Historical Cuadalupe Bighorn Range

(hma Map Prepared by J. Stokley Ligon; Dec*mber 29, 1936)

7 mge Occupied in 1936.

Range Probably OEcuple? prior to 1936 and Suggested By Mr. Ligon As a Reatoration Range.

FIGURE - 1 DESERT BIGHORN STATUS ON THE MT. BAISY DISTRICT OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST By: ANSELMO LEWIS - Ranger USFS, California

The Mt. Baldy Districk of the Angeles National Forest is situated on the southern slopes of the Sari Gabriel Mountains in the extreme easterly partion of Los Angeles County. The terrain is characterized by steep and narrow canyons which rise abruptZy from the valley floor reaching an elevation of 10,064 feet on M. Baldy. The high-montsne portion of the bistrict is above the 5,000 foot level and supports a sparse, open coniferous forest. It is in this zone that the Desert Bighorn Sheep are found6 3 I

During the past fifteen years, we have had many opportunities to observe these sheep. Most of the observations have been made in the Mt. Baldy area of San Antonio Canyono

The sheep summer in the coniferous zone above the 6,000 foot level. During the winter and early spring the herd ranges in the Cold- water and Cascde Canyon areas, around the 3,000 foot level. !be sheep do not enter the checparral zone, Only one, a ram, has been obeerved in this zone since 1945. This was in the vicinity of Sunset Peak on a firebreak approximately one mile south of their normal range*

ummer and winter rages of the sheep are contiguous, with the nding to follow the snow lineo The actual range of the herd compasses a rather restricted areao However, individuals do stray and wander widely, It is very evident that the combination of cover and food requirements determines their habitat, Their foraging for herbaceous plants and roots takes them to the areas of better soils* Their escape cover consists of the typically rugged and cliffy areas for which the Bighorn are notedo Consequently, the sheep habitat is restricted to the summits and tops of ridges where the soils are deeper and where there are adgacent steep and precipitous terrain. A favorite habitat of the Bighorn is along the edge of the timber addacent to their escape cover. Here the sheep have their bedding grounds and drift out in search of food. How- ever, sheep do forage the rather dense tfnber sites on the north aide of Ontario Peak and me frequently found on a small natural clearing in We center of the stande !be root of the wild parsley seems to be the attraction in this area. Pot-holek resulting from the sheep pawing up the plants are widespread through-out this timber stand*

Forage plants are not abundant. The sheep have to range far and wide to fulfill their forage needsr Coneequently, the population can never be largeo A great variety of shrubs, forbs and roots are taken. The principal plants are mountain mahogany, ( Cercocarpus ledifolius ), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp ) silverly lupine (Lupinus breweri ), bunch grasses and annual grasses and herbso The latter are taken on the south faces at the lower elevations during March and Aprilo Yucca leaves are stripped of dl fleshy growth leaving Just the fibers, The escape cover supports a scattered stand of mountain mahogany which is readily taken by the sheepo Water is not present on tFie ridge topad The sheep obtained their water by dropping dminto the steep canyons and gulches. Distance does not seem to be a pralem as far as water is concerned. Sheep hove been observed drogping down a precipitous slope of about 1500 feet to water end returning to their bedding grounds in a period of less then two hourso

Strangely enough, water watr avilable to these sheep in the timber less than bne quarter of mile awq%* over relatively flat terrain. Although we have mpdc numerous checks of this area, we have been unable t~ find any evidences of the beep utilizing this source, wfiich iB the headwater of a small streamo me eheep grtfer to drop dmthrough a typiugl escape cover to water in the deeper canyon. We are unable to de$ennine- the reason for this, but i% is impontant as it indicates that the sheep have a definite preference for water sources that are fairly open ovar the close tbiber type.

The size of the herd has been estimated at 60 head. The most sheep ever counted in one day and in one herd were 27. There appears to be a good distribution of age classes, Young anim8le, labs snd yearlings predominated. From all observations, the herd appears to be maintaining itself and there is no danger of extinctiono

lU$ting spparently atarts in October or Eioveniber. On the Mte Baldy Fire, rams were obsemd fighting during the first week in December. The presence of 50 to 100 fire fighters in the immediate area did not and agileo /-- - _

// Tha Mat.Baldy herd is the remnaat ofysheepherds mich formerly ' extended across the summits -of the San Gabriel huntains for a distance of 60 miles to the west. Early records indicate their presence as far west as the &per Sespe in the 'h Padres Hational Forest. However, they have disappeared from these areas ~d their range is now confined to the vicinity of Mt. Baleb Thare are sane indications that there are Bighorn in the Mt. Islip area, but reports are fragmentaryo In the early 1900gs, sheep were quite numerous on the Mt. WdyDistrict. John To Cordon, an old time resident of Azusa, claimed that they shot over 50 head during the winter of 1895, for meat at the Bighorn Mine.

The disappearance of the Bighorn over most of its former range on the Mt. WdyDistrict can be attributed to meat hunting of this type, as there was considerable mining activity on the District fren 1860 through the early 1900gso

Why the Wo Baldy herd does not expand to the west is not known* The habitat looks ideal fram all standpoints. This problem is now being studied and we hope to come up with a solutfono It may require the transplanting of a few ewes to serve as a nueleus. From time to time, solitary rams have been reported in this area. The answer to this problem may be that the rams travel, but that the exes tend to remain'on their home range,

The Mto Baldy herd is unique in that it is maintaining itself in close proximity to a metropolitan area of 5,800,000 peopleo !he threat of disturbance is extreme. However, the sheep seemed to have ad3usted themselves to the situation and accepted human contact along the fringe areas of their range as part of the environmento For example, in San Antonio Canyon, the eounty highway and Mt. Baldy Chair Lifts, form a perfect barrier to the sheep. Yet sheep have been observed traveling through the summer hame tracts in Upper Sen Antonio Canyon and across the ski lift area. These observation$ were made during the week when travel and human occupancy was very lighto During week-end periods, when thousands of people are in the area, no observations of sheep have been reported. Total use of San Antonio Canyon is around 500,000 visitors a yeme

At San Antonio Falls, which is about 500 feet from an observation point on the road, Bighorn have been observed watering and resting in full sight of people on the road. Unless approached, the sheep ignored the public. This trait is not uncommon. On two ~oasions,we have sat in their bedding grounds and had the sheep move about us with no sign of alarm, providing we made no rapid movements. Sheep have approached within 50 feet on these occasions. Even when ve ate our lunches, they were not disturbed. Mules which had been ridden into the area, grazed nearby and were accepted by the sheep, Many of €he traits that I hime read, about the difficulty of stalking and the wariness of the Bighorn, is not a relatively etrong characteristic of the Mto Baldy herd. On a number of occasions, when approached cautiously, the herd has trotted into their escape cover and then returned within a very ehort period to the close proximity of the observers, On these occasions, *he observers were more or less in the center of the herd, w'ith the sheep coming as close as 50 feet at timeso Of sig~~iffcance,perhaps, is the fact that we were sitting in their bedding groounds at the time, which may have covered our scent, but we did talk and eat our lunches while observing the nearby sheep.

The Mt. Baldy Bighorn is most cooperative with those who wish to study them. On every occasion that we have taken visitors to see them, the sheep have always been there and permitted close approach, It is interesting to note the effect that the sheep have on the observer. Due to their close proximity to the highway, all observers are sworn to secrecy about the exact location of the sheep before being taken in. Once on the area and after seeing them, the observer becomes a staunch protectionist. As a result, the exact location of the herd is one of the best kept secrets in Southern California. Of the 5 million people that inhabit the area, not more than a few thousand know that the sheep even exist. Consequently, poaching md disturbance are no problems to date.

From all evidence, it is apparent that the herd will maintain itself. Although the ppulation pressures are tremendous, the fact that it flows and eddies around their habitat and does not actually penetrate, is significant. Of greater importance, is the fact that although the main canyons teem with people on week-ends and holidays from the adjacent valley, the area is practically deserted during the remainder of the. week, enabling the sheep to traverse from one side of the canyon to the other, if they so desire. Their watering places are not disturbed by humans or fouled by domestic livestock or burros, insuring an ample supply of clear and pure watero Although the sheep have contact with humans on the fringe area of their range, they are not molested or shot ato Consequently, it is possible that they are becoming accustomed to people and are beginning to accept them as part of the environment.

What are we doing about management of the Mt. Balh herd? Disturbance is probably the greatest danger. Consequently, the policy of giving no publicity to the sheep will be continued. Certain trails Peading into their areas have been abandoned and no new trail deveiop- ments are contemplated at this time. Some effort has been made to introduce other forage species such as, Mule Ears, (~yethiamo~lis) but without success. Efforts will be continued do& this line.

We are now studying the possibility of given the herd a vanishing species' qualification and establishing their range as a sanctuary. Also, the extension of the Cucamonga Wild Area to include the Ontario portion of their range, is under considerationo

In general, management direction will be directed toward the continued protection of the Mto Baldy Bighorn from shooting, and to keep human disturbance to a minimum. Additional study and experimenta- tion is needed to explore the possibilities of expanding the herd to all or a portion of its original range to the west. Until this is achieved, the Bighorn on the Mt. Baldy District will be of biotic interest onlyo HUNTING RESUL'FS IN NEVADA 1959

By: AL JOPJEZ

District Supervisor Charleston District, Nevada Fish & Game Commission

With the closing of the seventh bighorn sheep season, a total' of 1% rams have been harvested by Nevada hunters. The 76 hunters in the 1959 season killed 36 rams for a hunter success of 47.4 percent. Since legal hunting started in Nevada in 1952, hunter success over the seven year period has ranged from 18.3 percent to a high of 70.2 percent. The seven year average is 38.7 percent. Starting in 1954, portions of the Desert Gume Range were open to bighorn sheep hunting. Each year of legal bunking since then, a portion of the Game Range has been open to hunting along with the other open area. Data an the Desert Game Range hunts was gained from records maintained by the Geme Range

The maximum Boane and Crockett score in 1959 on the Desert Game Range was 169 418 and the minimum was 124. The average was 153 4/8, the same os 1958.

The maximum Boone and Crockett score in 1959 for the county area was 166 2/8 and the minimum was 111. The overage was 143 as compared to 147 in 1958.

The reason for the decrease in Boone and Crockett scores for the county area in 1959 is that four inexperienced hunters took young rams . The horns were the legal 3/4 curl, but they were small tapered horns. !he age of these four rams was between four and six years. These four rams cane from the same mountaAn range, the Muddy Mountains.

A look at Map 1 will show that the Muddy Mountains area has sustained the largest kill over the past seven hunts of any area, except the Sheep Range, During the 1959 season the hunters recorded 127 sheep seen in the Muddy Mountains of -which 24 were classed as legal rams by the hunterso Seven of the 12 rams killed in the county area came from the Muddy Mountains in 1959. There was undoubtedly duplication in these sight records, but they do show a large number of animals observed*

During the 1956 hunt in the Muddy Mountains, which was a highly supervised hunt, only nine legal rams were seen and a total of 27 sheep were seeno This hunt yielded mly one legal ram. There is apparently alot of'information still needed on what effect hunting has on a bighorn sheep populatione

Some interesting comparisons from the past two hunts show the unpredictable part of sheep hunting:

Average deys hunted by all hunters Desert Game Range County Average days hunted by successful hunters Desert Game Range County

.. Percent of successful hunters that hunted sheep before: Desert Game Range County

Hunter Success Desert Game Rmge County

'Fhe 1959 hunt was more successful than the 1958 hunt in most respects. One thing noted is that the total hunters expendadmore time hunting in 1959; however, the successful hunters put in less time to get their sheep. The 1959 hunters that killed their sheep were less experienced in sheep hunting than those in 1958, yet they averaged higher in percent successfulo

IR 1959 Desert Game Range hunters killed sheep with the same average head size as in the 1958 hunts.

Ihe 1959 hunt in Nevada occurred from ~9er-28to December 21. The hunting was broken down again into three -hunt areas,

B 1 Pintwater Range - Desert Game Range from December 18 to 21 for 10 tags.

I3 2 Sheep and Las Vegas Range - Desert Game Range from November 28 to December 13 for 35 tags. B 3 Clark County - from November 28 to December 21 for 35 tags.

Hunter succesls can be seen on table 1, As in the paat, the sheep hunting was restricted to residents of Nevada and a $10 fee was charged for the tags. Drawing for the tags was accomplished in Reno with 174 applications for 80 tags.

A few conclusions can be drawn from the hunts so far. !lhe last two hunts were identical in most respects. This is the first time that two consecutive sheep hunts held in Nevada were comparable. Usually there has been a variance in number of tags, time of year, supervision, etc. The 1958 and 1959 hunts were held at the same time of the year, the same number of tags were available, on both hunts the supervision was held to the bare minimum, and yet the overall pattern of the two hunts was very similar ~t appears that a fall-winter hunt of 80 tags will result in about 30 to 40 percent hunter success.

Hunters with Sheep Range or Pintwater tags are required to check in and out. This practice should be continued. There has been a variety of checking procedures for the county hunters. The past two hunts required the hunter to check in only if they killed sheep. Because of the number of places to hunt, this system was felt to be the only practical aystem. Msny times the hunters checked in several days after they killed their sheep and several did not check in at all. In order to get better Information in the future, a mandatory check in and check out will probably be necessary for the couxty.

The problem of hunters killing younger rams is alwa~rspresent, and possibly more effort expended along the line of pictures apd information to the hunters can reduce this to a minirmmn. At least it is worth a try.

No definite conclusions have been drawn,.fram the sheep hunting in Ievada as yet. Thus far it cannot be dunonstrated that the limited hunting has materially harmed the populations of bighorn sheep in Nevada. Research along this line is progressing on the Desert Game Range, and possibly a trend may be established as standardization of census techniques Is accomplished and population trend informstion is gathered.

LITERATURE CITED

Hunting the Desert Bighorn sheep in Nevada by Al Jonez, 1957. Nevada 1958 Desert Bighorn Sheep Hunt Highlights by Al Jonez. - Nevada Fish and Geme Commission Completion Reports on Bighorn Sheep. Records on Bighorn Sheep Hunts, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Desert Game Range. DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

SUMMARY OF ALL HUNTS

TAGS AVAILABLE NUMBER SUCCESSFUL ALL HUNTS SEASON . (NUMBER THAT ACTUALLY HUNTED) TOTAL TAGS (% SUCCESSFUL ') (Numbmr Actually TOTAL NUMBER % TOTAL (DAYS) I 1 C Huntid) I Pint-waters 1 Sheep.Ronge 1 County Plnt-waters Sheep Range County SUCC. HUNTERS HUNTER SUCC. '

15 31.2

15 28.3

NO HUNT HELD NO 1 HUNT I HELD Fall (22) Fall (16) 10 (7) 1 30 (30) 1 20 (20) Fall 10 (9) 35 (34) 35 (34) (24) Fall 10 (8) 35 (33) 35 (35) (24) ( (

Success figures are based on the number of hunters that actually hunted.

1952-53 were guided hunts. 1954-56 were supervised hunts. 1957-59 were unsupervised hunts. NEVADA TbCslrente I 1 LINCOLN COUNTY I HIGHLIGHTS OF TEIE 1959 ARIZONA BIGHORN SHEEP- EIUN'I'

By: JOHN J. REED District Leader

Arizona Game & Fish Department

Arizonaos 8th bighorn season was held from December 1-14. The season was lengthened from ten to fourteen days to include two weekends and give hunters a better chance to obtain a trophy. Quite a few of the resident hunters can only get out for a week-end or a few days at :a time and the second week-end gave some of them a chance to get out more than onceo This also seeommadated those other than trophy hunters that we are getting with increased permits. In unit 15 this increase was necessary because all of the hunters were out of the unit by the 10th day. Two hunters used the last week-end in unit 15 and on the southern units even more hunters took advantage of the last week-end.

One-hundred-thirteen applications were received from thirty cities in eleven of Arizonaus fourteen countieso Thirty-one applications were received from non-residents. Eight were from Texas, four each from California and Pennsylvania, two each from Alabama, Idaho, Illinois and New Mexico, and one each from Alaska, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Mississippi, Virginia and Ohio. Twenty-one of these non-

65 permits recommended by the biologist and approved by the Game & Fish Colrmmi ssion* a able 1 shows hunt results).

The same area was hunted as in the 1958 hunt but it was broken down from two units to five on a basis of sheep herds and mountain ranges (see map) This served to put hunters in more areas and make possible an increase in the number of pewits. In 1958 when unit 15 was combined with units 16 and 44 only two hunters hunted there, and both killed sheep. During the 1959 season nine hunters checked into the area and five of them were successful. Sixty-two persons hunted and took nineteen legal rams for a 30.68 hunter successo Two hunters killed illegal 1/2 curl 2 year old rams. One hunter paid a fine of $100.00 and the other person forfeited $150.00 ball. One of these hunters had killed two other sheep and the other one bas after his grand slam. This person might have been over anxious to get his fourth sheep because of emphasis placed on the grand slam by some sports writers and manufacturers. 8r,e person failed to check in but due to an oversite was not citedo One peysoi? failed to check out but pled illness as an excuse and his guide informed the checking station operator that he had gone home. Unit 43 is the original hunt area and what happened there this year is not known, It always produced several trophies pey hunt in the past but this year only one sheep was killed. More sheep were seen in the unit ou the 1959 water hole counts than were seen during the hunt and only three by hunters who got shots.

Average age of 18 Legal rams taken was 8.4 years with no age given for one animal.. The youngest was threi: years, next youngest were 3 seven year old animals. The oldest were a pair of eleven year old rams.

!I!he heaviest field dressed sheep weight 147 pounds and is the largedt animal by weight of any taken on a hunt in Arizona. Average weight field dressed was 1.13~6 pounds with a. range of 93-147 for sixteen sheep. These sheep were not weighed. Body condition was listed as poor for one rather bony looking sheep taken in unit 15. One was rated In fair condition and fifteen were rated good meaning that the body was well rounded ou't and %here was fat present.

Tvb capes were listed as fair meaning that they were badly rubbed or the hair was brittle so they were not in the best condition for a good mount. Seventeen were in good condition being fairly thick and the hair in fine shape. As Arizona considers the Bighorn as a trophy r'ather than a meat animal this is excellent evidence for support of continued fall hunts.

Blood damples from nineteen sheep were received at the two checking stations. !ko-of these werc' hemolyzed when they reached the laboratory. Tcsts were made forhcellosis on seventeen samples and sixteen were tested for Leptospimsis. me sample was unsatisfactory far the latter test. All results were negative.

Dr. Paul Murphy made a diagndsis of acute sinusitis on the ram his partner killed. Quote nWhen skull plot and horns were sawed off the accessory nasal sinuses were opened and found to be filled with a muco-pussulent material. Ihe mucous membrane lining the sinas cavaties were found to be markedly inflamed". Unquote. /

/---- The results of the hunt as a whole were'very satisfactory and it is expected next fallss hunt will be similar in-number of permits to the hwt just past with the possibility of additional open areas if survey figures warrant an expension of territory.

. . Unit Number of Number of Illegal Legal $I Hunter Success Number Permits Hunters Kill Kill Legal

TABLE 1 - HUNT RGSULTS

BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT APPLICATION INFORMATION SEASON: December 1 - December 14, 1959, inclusive.

LEGAL ANIMAL: Ram with at least a three-quarter curl.

BAG LIMIT for bighorn is one in a lifetime; therefore, no person who has previously kiIled a bighorn in Arizona can apply for a tag. NUMBER OF TAGS:

Unit 15 10 Unit 43 Unit 16 10 Unit 44 Unit 41 & 42 15 (combined)

DESCRIPTION OF OPEN AREAS: All of Game Management Units 15, 16, 41 & 42 (combined), 44, and 43 EXCEPT the Kofa Game Range and posted portions of the Cibola Wildlife Area.

ANY RESIDENT wishing to apply to hunt bighorn must first purchase a resident Class F combination general hunting and fishing license or resident Class G general hunting license and the number and class of this license must be given on his application. In .ddition, he must enclose with his application a money order, cashier's check or certified check payable to the Arizona Game and Fish Department in the amount of $25.00 for his resident bighorn tag.

ANY NONRESIDENT wishing to apply must give in the letter of application the number and class of his valid nonresident Class F combination general hunting and fishing license or nonresident Class G general hunting license or enclose (in addition to $125.00 for his nonresident bighorn a)$25.00 for a nonresident Class F license or $20.00 for a nonresident Class G license. Payment must be made by money order, cashier's check or certified check payable to the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

TAGS FOR EACH HUNT will be issued on a drawing basis. Apgications for such tags will be made by letter giving name, address and physical description and will be received in person or by mail at the Phoenix office on or after August 10, 1959, and before 5 p.m. October 5, 1959. Group applications will be accepted. The envelope must be MARKED ON THE OUTSIDE: BIGHORN HUNT APPLICATION and the desired UNIT NUMBER INDICATED. Quotas for the various hunts will be filled by public drawing on October 9, 1959, at the Phoenix office of the Game and Fish Department. Tags will be mailed from the Phoenix office not later than October 30, 1959.

BIGHORN SHEEP TAGS are not transferable and no refunds will be made after a tag is issued.

CHECKING STATIONS will be operated at Kingman and Salome. Checking station hours will be in accordance with Commission Order P-33. (FAILURE TO CHECK IN AND OUT OF THE CHECKING STATIONS OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY SECTION OF THIS ORDER IS A VIOLATION.) BIGHORN CANNOT BE LAWF'ULLY possessed outside the specified hunt area unless it has the proper seal attached to the horn by the checking station operator.

THE BIGHORN HUNT AREAS ARE CLOSED to all other hunting except small game and predator hunters with shotgun only, and except that it shall be lawful for the holder of a valid bighorn tag to take predatory animals. (Bighorn tag is not valid for the taking of predatory animals after a sheep has been killed). The use of dogs except for small game hunting is prohibited. PROGRESS REPORT ON CURRENT DEATH VAmY BURRO SURVEY

By: RALPH WELLES

National Park Service DVNM

The current Death Valley burro survey has been under way for aboe five weeks. It is to be completed by June 30, or about four months time, which is somewhat short of the @ years recommended by the Wild Burro Committee of the Bighorn Council.

We have outlined four main approaches to the problem of acquiring a desirably vast amount of infomation in a necessarily short amount of time. These four approaches resolve into an effort to clarify four areas of determinations:

(1) The ecological requirements of the wild burro, with an evaluation of water and food, etc., as major limiting factors.

( 2) Existing burro habitats, mapped, Kith their ecological history to date, with specific reference to ecological trends that have been caused or modified by the presence of burros.

(3) Ecological inter- relationships between wild burros and other wildlife, with special reference to dese bigh~rnand other large native animals.

(4) SigxcLficant life history activities, wltb emphasis on the social organization of specific herds,

Five weeks work can throw no conclusive light on many phases of this project and it seems unwise to project incomplete data into the field of speculation, since premature contact of the two tends to baild mountains of conclusiom from molehills of evidence.

We have come across some positive evidence pertaining to section 2 of the outline referring to ecological trends that have been caused or modified by the presence of burros, and to section 3 with reference to ecological inter-relationships between burros and bigborn*

This can best be presented by going back to the files of the Eational Park Service in Death Valley and to a memorandum from Chief Ranger Thomas Williamg to the Regional Office, dated November 18, 1937, and to a report by Park Ranger Wilbur Doudna dated 1939: MEMomm THOS. J. WILLIAMS - Acting Chief Ranger Wovember 18, 1937

"Yesterday, we made a successful search for a watering place that I had observed from the air several days previous. In a flight from Los Angeles with Ralph Hall, we passed over Wingate Pass country and immediately north of the Pass I observed a water hole that was unknown to me. Burro trails radiated from the locality, and numerous sheep trails also led into the area; these latter were distinguishable because of the type of terrain they crossed. By car, we were able to drive within a mile of the water, Burro trails were very numerous and heavily %raveled, and several burros were seeno

The water hole is divided by rocky dike that permits the burros to use only the lower portion sf the water, the upper half being reserved for sheep by the rough approach from that side, While we were looking at three old hunting blfnds, noting that they were of Indian construction and had not been used for several years, we were attracted by a movement on the ridge above us. Four rams of more than average size and one ewe were standing there observing our movements. They seemed untroubled by our presence and while they did not came in to water, they remairied for over thirty minutes to watch us.

With very little work it would be possible to drive all the way to the watering place, though I do not recommend such action."

A WORD OF OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE DESERT BIGHORN

WILBUR DOUDNA - Park Ranger 1939

"In the fall of 1937, late October or early November, Acting Chief Ranger Williems and I went into the Panamint Mountains in search of a spring not shown on our maps, which he had observed from the air in a recent flight over that areso In the first big canyon south of the Anvil Spring Canyon, we found the object of our search. Approaching from below we found a pool of water in a pot hole below a small fall over which the water was trickling. Here in a cool cavernous enclosure under overhanging rocks we found evidence of use by burros, but no evidence of use by sheepo Immediately above the small fall was an area of grass, willows and other vegetation which seemed also to be the source of the water below, .The bottom of the canyon was not more than three feet across and the sides precipitouso Here, not mere than 30 feet from where the burros water, but inaccessible to burro, we found much sheep sign, droppings, tracks and hair, as well as evidence of , browsingo This was the first and most striking evidence I have had of the extreme incompatability between the sheep and the burro- A short distance up the canyon from the spring we saw two rams on the mountain side above us, approximate elevation 3600 feet, While not wild they were more wary than the ones described in the preceding paragraphs. (Near Pinyon Spring ) .

A sub~equentvisit to this same area in the late fall of 1939 revealed a different picture. Water from a cloudburst had swept down the canyon, clewing away all underbrush and other obstructions so that burrows are using the upper water also, only a few sheep tracks and droppfngs were found, all of which were very oldo Apparently the spring has been entirely taken over by the burros,"

me exact location of th$s spring or a route to it not being given we have been unable to fhd it until March 14 of this year, 23 years after the "extreme inempatability between sheep and burros" was first suggested by the fact that they watered at different springs 30 feet apart. Twenty-one years ago he found that a flood had gone tLwu& the canyonp burro8 were whg both springs and "only a few sheep tracks an8 droppings were found, all of which were very old. Apparently the spring has been entirely taken over by the burros."

Similar reports are on $Ale regarding many other areas in Death Valley at that the, St was accepted as a fact tMt the eeologieal trend was t~warda sepheement of bighorn by burros. At Rest Spring, Burro Sprbg, Quartz, Goldbelt, Goldbelt Grade, Cottonwood Creek, Trail. Canyon adM~rning Glory, Hanaupah, Hungry Bill's, and all through the Panmints to Anvil dlnd Zns Spring, the water was found "so fouled by bmsthat bighorn Kill not drink it".

Something ha8 elxqed the pfcture in the last 20 years. In 1960 none of these water sources; were found to be fouled by burros. They were in use by bm~,the%s tracks were in the water's edge, but the water was clear and chin.

Some of these sowcee are not being wed by sheep in 1960- Why some are and some are not has not been determined.

luse of Quartz Spring has been obsemed for several years now. In Cottomoeia CanyonS 4 mile below the first spring, we found an area mile long heavily browsed by both burros and bighorn, the burros apparently ~oncentsatlmgon Frameria dumosa, while the sheep seemed to favor Bebbia jbm~ea~Perhaps here is another indication of the feasibility of co-cxisteWce between them. Their preference of food may be at least divergent,

At Twin Spring adBhskxmter in the Tuckb area the situation is reversed. TUB is bighorn ten5tox-y with no burro use, Reasons undetermined. A year ago in March a bad of 13 sheep passing between two groups of burros was photographed in Trail Canyon. We found heavy bighorn and burro sign at upper Hamupah Spr- for the first time in this studyo And the bst Spring described so despairingly in 1937 and 1939 still supports bmos but it also has an even bigger population of b%ghornthan it had then"

A.ecological trend appears to have stopped, an inter-relationship changedo This phase of the study w%PB be elaborated in full when the field work 2s completed, PRELIMINARY WORT OF THE FOOD aABITS OF 'I'EIE WILD BURRO IN TBE DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL MONUMENT

By : BRUCE BROWNING, Game Manager I1

California Dept. Fish and Game

Presented by: FRED Lo JONES Game Management.Supervisor California Depto Fish and Geme

DESCRIPTION OF AREA

Burro stomachs were collected by the National Park Service in Cottonwood Canyon in the Cottonwood Mountains of the Panamint Range which lies on the west side of Death Valley (inyo county). This canyon extends eleven miles from the valley floor into the mountains. At the upper end, at about 3,500 feet elevation , is a continuous running spring, about which grow cottonwood, willow, and two species of baccharis. The canyon wash-bottom is dominated by sticky rabbit- brush and occasional species of interior goldenbush, bricklebush and pygmy cedar. Allscale is prevalent on the deeper soils of the shoulders of the wash.

The flora on the canyon sides and ridges, which are rather steep and high in the area of the collection site, consists of a mixed association of creosote bush scrub and shadscale scrub dominants. Creosote bush, bur-sage, F'remont dalea, Anderson desert thorn and cheeseweed are the common representatives of the creosote bush scrub. Shadscale, spiny hop-sage, winter fat, broom snakeweed and black brush represent the shadscale scrub indicators.. Other common shrubs or suffrutescent forbs are California buckwheat, rush bebbea, bladder- sage, bush peppergrass and Mojave aster. During the spring of the year many, but scattered, forbs are in evidence, Chlorizanthe, phscelia, buckwheat species, cryptantha, evening primrose, ground- cherry, filaree and buckthorn weed are among the most prevalent. Galletia, a common perennial grass in the Colorado and Mojave deserts, is the only grass found abundantly on the steep canyon sides.

FOOD HABITS ANALYSIS

Wenty wild burro stomachs were sent to the Wildlife Investiga- tions Lab of the California Department of Fish and Game in Sacramento for analysiso Five were collected in April, 1959 and five in March, 1960. The other 10 stomachs were collected in November, 1959. The appended table presents the summary of food items eaten in volume percentage and frequency of occurrence. The food items were identified by resorting to rather involved microtechniques and working with the epidermis and cross-sections of stem fragments from the well macerated stomach contents. Approximate visual percentage estimates were made with the aid of a binocular, stereoscopic, dissecting scope and the results summarized by means of the aggregate percentage method.

DISCU8SIOR OF RESULTS 1 . --

A glance at the SLID&~~~of the food items reveals an insight to the feral burro's habits that is common knowledge to those acquainted with the animal; namely, that the burro exhibits superior adaptability to its envifonment. Almost every common browse in the collection area was utilized by the burro except creosote bush and even this resinous shrub has been recorded as used for food by the burroo The preponderance of bur-sage, especially in the fall diet, may show some preference, but also might reflect the abundance of this plant. Bur-sage is probably the most prevalent ground eover in the mixed association. It is noteworthy, horever, that the desert .bighorn sheep shows little or no preference for this shrub.

There is a significant shift in the diet of the burro between the spring cllih the fall. Forbs comprised almost 65 percent of the spring foods and several stomachs were completely filled with green forbs. Apparently the burr6 is able to seek them out wherever they are available. In the fall, of course, the forbs are dried up and the burro falls back on browse plants for food. Browse made up over 75 percent of the food found in the fall diet and the few forbs present were unidentified dry stem fragments.

Grass occurred in over half of the stomachs examined and made up 10 percent of both the spring and fall diets. Galleta, the common bunch .grass in the area, probably contributes phis-percentage, being utilized when green in the spring and--dso when dried up in the fall. It seems reasonable to say that the burro is an opportunist and, like many animals, will eat those food plants most available. 13.3 1.1 0.6 traae 4.4

9 trace 3.3 1.7 trace 0.6 0.6- - 25.6

=It should be em@mized that them peraentsgee aily -e ( AE- pirob- varies between 5-15%. FEW BURRO STUDY

1. Statement of the problem

For more than twenty years biologists have noted with growing concern the widening frapaet on native iilldlife ad vegetation in the Southwest caused by the multiplication and spread of the mn- native, feral burro. More recently, livestock interests also have become alarmed at the competition for food and water to which their herds have been subjected by the feral burro.*

In some states management and control of this animal has been reasonably effective, though not highly organized; in others, management has been severely hampered and even prevented by locally aroused but biologically uninformed public opinion. As a result, the feralburro is unique among Morth American animals in being a non-native species with virtually no natural enemies while at the same time being largely exempt from the management programs of most state and federal wildlife management agencies.

In the last three years a wider recognition has been developing as to the importance of the conflict between the feral burro and the native Desert Bighorn. The Desert Bighorn Council* and several of the Southwestern states and federal wildlife agencies have stressed the importance of expanding current bighorn studies to obtain more information on this vital but 1ittle;knovi-inter- relationship. Additionally, the Desert Bighorn Council is urging the establishment of a specific research project on the life history of the feralburro, with financial and technical assistance requested from appropriate scientific institutions, foundations and interested agencies on the basis that this is e subject of major ecological importance and scientific interest in its own right and is long overdue. The present outline indicates the proposed scope of the project.

2. Primary objectives of survey

(a) To determine the ecological requirements of the feral burro, with an examination of water, food and other requirements as major limiting factors.

(b) To assess existing burro habitats, their vulnerability to overuse and their ecological history to date, with special reference to ecological trends that have been caused, or modified, by the presence of burros.

(c) To ascertain and measure the ecological inter- relationships between feral burros and native wildlife species, with special reference to desert bighorn and other large native animals, and to native game birds.

(d) To ascertain and measure the popdation dynamics of the feral burro in all its major types of habitat in the Southwest, with smcial reference ts the adjustment of populations to food, water, terrain and cliptic limitations.

(e) To record all significant life history activiti,es, with emphasis on the' secial organization of specific herds. (£1 Tb prapose a sound and humane management program that will combine the maximum appropriate public enjoyment sf the burrow wikh adequate protection of desert vegetation, wildlife, watersheds and the burro itself. Agencies that will prsvide technical assistance National Park Service (~oodhabits, population estimates, problem mas, materials, bighorn- burro cosllpetition data. ) Nevada Fish and Game Commission California Department of Fish and Geme (~oodhabits, population estimates. ) U. %I Tisi axid Wildlife Sejecshe (EM-habits, population estimates. ) Arizona Game end Flsh Department State Universities Cooperating Agencies Desert Bighorn Council Bureau of Land Management Private foundations or Federal Aid support -

PmJect Personnel aqd Supervision Try to enlist one ar more state universities or carparable research institutions, or, try to secure Federal Aid ProJect status. Field of operation (a) Area of study: Nevada, southeast California, Arizona, other (b) Period of study: Five years for field studies; 15 years additional for preparing recommendations and a report for publication. General plan of work It is proposed that this program will result in a mono- graphic report adequately covering approximately the following life history outline :

Habitat- ~~ : Terrain Habitat: (contgd.) Climate Temperature Moisture Wind Snow Light Humidity Relation to Vegetation Type of watering places required Home area of individuals of bands Trails

Food: Kinds by season by age class and sex Shortages Nature of feeding periods Amounts eaten As a factor in distribution and survival of wild burros

Water: Requirements by season By age, class and sex Amounts taken Shortages As a factor in distribution and survival of wild burros - Reproduction: Males State8 in the rut Distances travelled Attention to females Fighting with other males Response to young Group activity

Females and Young Response to males ! Birth of young Growth and behavior of young Care of young

Activity: Daily activity Females and young Males Rest Manner Mature of area Seasonal activity by months General. Habits: Wariness By age class and sex Curiosity Length of retreat when frightened Response to noises Natural sound6 E~Pssives

Play By age class and sex Time

Fighting - By age chsand sex

Memory

Sanitation Defecation Frequency Usefulness in estimating populations Uri&ation

Communication: voice

Snorting A //-- Stamping Movement Running Vision ~earing Sense of smell \ Recognition

Structure: Size By age class and sex

Track Measurements By age class and sex Pelages Shedding, by age class and sex

Diseases and Parasites:

Incidence of sickness and type Ultimate fate of sick individuals Population Dynamics : Longevity Herd Composition by age classes On good ranges On poor ranges Effects of drought

Chief Cause8 of Mortality In sdults, by age classes In foals

Eaemies and Canpetitors:

Man By hunting By grazing domestic stock By frightening Desert Bighorn Competition for food competition for water

Summary of Management Needs

8. Budget (4 s Project leader $ 5,000 P*ae Assistant 3,000 p.a. 5 years field work $ 40,ooo 13 years preparation for publicatfon 12,000

f?) Travel : One four-wheel drive vehicle, 20,000 miles p& year @ .10 per mile, 5 years 10,000

( c ) Equipment and Supplies : One four-wheel driire vehicle 3,300 Cameras, typewriters, binoculars, and related equipment 700 Film and mfscellaneous" sbp- plies per year, $200 1,000

(d) Contingency (5 percent of total) ~otd,6+ years -2dE

(e) Publication: If published as a life history monograph by a university, add approximately $3,000. *cf . "'~hcFerd Burro in the United States: Distribution and Problems," by 'POpl L. &Knight, 1958. Journal of wildlife Management, Vole 22, pp. 163-179.

**cf= First Annual Meting, Desert Bighorn Sheep Council, 1957,, pp= 70-765 Second Annud- Meeting, Desert Bighorn Council, pp. ----- Third WUBj, Meeting, I)tstrt Bighorn Co~ncil, NEW DEVELOPraWTS IN TEE USE OF !EUNQUILIZHIG

By: JAEiaES Ao BLAISDELL Park Biologist Grand Canyon Hatiapal Park

Although my subJect deals with deer, I believe that it is the intention of our program chairman that I present ini~mation&lch my be useful to bighorn sheep masagere; it is hoped that this report will do Just thatr We are regulated, as are most of you here, by strict policies: we all have objectives for which we strive. Under the Park Service policies, the fundamental obdective of the National Park Service reads in part 'I0 .which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic obJeets and wildlife therein and to provide for the en3oyment of the same in surh manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Under another section entitled "Ad#erse Biological Forces," we note the following: "~lentsand animals which are inimical ka -the public health or welfare or wLtfch &tre destructive to historic, archeological or scientific structures, sites, features or records of primary importance shall be subJect to neutralization or control." To date, ve have limited our South Rim control to nuisance deer; we have concentrated on deer which we classify as garbage eaters, tame deer which endanger visitors or residents, create danger to drivers of vehicles along our mads, and are generally a nuisance around places of h€ibitst%ona personnel of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the NavaJo Tribe, all of &am assisted us in many wayso Wansportation of the deer was supplied by the Tribe and the baian Service; vehicles, consisting of pickups with one large box capable of holding six to nine deer in each, transported deer up to 350 milee without 108s due to transporto The Indian Service also supplfed same of the other materials needed, such as holding crates and drug-gun suppliesD Ihe; Game and Fish Department provided five much-needed traps and lent valuable help in the person of Mro Don Smith. Last year, during our 1959 operations, 57 deer were moved to the Piokaf Canyon area near MavaJo Mountain, Navajo Reserva- tion, Arizona. This plant, the purpose of ~~hiehwas to start a new herd building in this deerless area, wa so successful that the !l!ribe decided upon a supplementary plant at Hokai, and added three more areas, one in Arizona and the other two in New Mexicoo

The 1960 nuisance deer control program at Grand Canyon was accomplished during the five weeks from January 4 to February 4; during that time 103 deerxere trapped OP drugged and transplanted to the Reservation. It was the most successful operation of its kind we have experienced so faro

The Crosman C02 Cap-Chur-Gun was again put to use this year as an aid in the collection of deer, but its use was restricted to occasions when the ten Clover traps and two Colorado traps did not supply a full t~ckloadof deer for transport to the Reservation. We knew from pat experience that to attempt to obtain a half dozen deer through the use ' of drug-gun aldne would be futile became of the time aonsumed in hunting for and capturing each deero

This repart of our dart-gun activities is based upon 34 deer that were hit by darts in 1960 and 42 in 1959; it includes five deer cthlch were not a part of our Navajo transplanting program this year, but were for other special purposes. One of these was a doe which wae tagged and ear-crap-@ed near the village for future observation locations. me other four vere bucks, two of w'hich escapd with our darts using 1& cc. of 300 mg. per cc. of nicotine slkaloid, and two of which were captured quite satisfactorily with 2 cce 6f 300 mg. per CCO, and shipped with antlers attached in crates via Air Express to the Rachelwood Wildlife Researah Preserve in Johnstorm, Pennsylvania; both bucks arrived at their destination in a little on the stiff side, but otherwise in good conditiono

I am not in favor of reading a long list of numbers and percentages, but for camparison purposes, it is necessary to give a few. Referring to the "Catalog and Instruations" published by the Palmer ChemZ- cal and Equipment Company, we see that for white-tailed deer the recommended dosage of Cap-Chur-Sol, which is the nicotine alkaloid tranquilizer to be used in the gun, $8 1.5 - 2.5 q. per pound df body weight. Using this same recammendation for mule deer, we can figure that the proper amount for a 50-pound fawn would be 125 mg. and for a 100 to The female adults shot averaged 115 have used 285 mg.

Deer Shot with Hicotine Alkaglds- -- Comparing Results of Cons&t Dosages 1959 - Total 400 mg, 1960 - Total 600 mg.

Fawns Does l Bucks Total

1959 1960 1959 1960 1959 1960 1959 ' 1960 Proper Reaction 43s 404 29s 64$ 1@ 44$ 375 52%

In 1959 we used many different dosages, but concentrated mainly on 400 mg o total. This year we used mainly 600 mg., and here is the way the two years and twa dosages compared. In the "proper reaction" column, we find we had 37 percent in 1959 and 52 percent in 1960, and this latter was using 600 mg., or over double the recommended dosage. Tventy percent died each year; in 1959, 44 percent of the deer hit showed no effect, and 28 percent were in this category this year. =is dosage did not give us the higher results this year in fawns, however, nor did we get good reaction from the adult bucks. After observing the trend for several weeks, we concentrated on does, which gave us a 64 percent success in 1960 as compared to 3 percent last year. Even with this highep percentage, however, we still did not capture 36 percent of the docs hit.

Fawns Does Bucks Total 1959 1960 1959 1960 1959 1960 1959 1960

Died U% 5@$ 27% 69 - 25% 21 21% Escaped $ 17$ 375 25$ - 41s 339 3* *All figures do not total ZOO$ because of the small size of the sample. In looking over comparative ffgures for all dosages for both yeaxs, we come up with about the same results each year, In 1959, dosages ran from 300 mg. to 600 mg., but 74 percent of the deer shot were hit with 400 mg. In 1960, dosages ran from 300 mg. to 800 mg.,

also with 74 percent of the deer hit with 600 mg. In 1959, - 45 percent of the deer showed proper reaction, with 50 percent in this same group in 1960; twenty-one percent of the deer died each year, and 32 percent shared no effect in 1959 and 30 percent in 1960. Ia 1959, 13 percent of the fawns died, 38 percent escaped, while 50 percent died in 1960, and 17 percent escaped. Does gave ue the least trouble with 69 percent success in 1960 as colapared to 37 percent in

I agree that the above figures are too numerous to digest all at once, but they point out several interesting items such as:

1. In the case of adult deer, it was to our benefit to "overload" the darts. Utilizing 2 eco of 300 mg. per cc. we had more deer in the proper reaction class, the same number dead, and fewer escaped than with 1 c& of 400 OP 2 cc. of 200.

2. The 1960 dosages were too high for fawns, and not high enough for buckse As to the proper dose for fawns, how can one be given when with 400 mg., 43 percent of the fawns reacted properly 43 percent escaped, and 14 percent died; and with 600 mg., 40 percent reacted properly, 20 percent escaped, and 40 percent died?

3 'Ihe time required for the tranquilizer to become effective on those deer that it affected, varied from one minute to one hour. Some deer fell within a few yard6 of where they were hft, and others traveled at full speed, or falling and walking, for nearly a mile* In view of the results of the past years of dart-gun use, I will make the following statements :

In the future, as in the past!, utilization of the dart-gun will be restricted to supplementing our trap catch and special "one-shotn occasions. All will agree that the gun and the dart, the mechanics of the operation, function adequately well, but the Park Service would iike very much to see a better tranquilizer develeped; use of this drug is difficult because we never hew for sure Just what is going to happen!

We have learrraed this yeat to keep the animal in saght after a hit is made, but not to rush the animl. -If there 1s plenty of fresh snow, it is usually a simple thing to track a hit dte?, but only after giving the drug tlme to be effective.

This particular drug causes locking sf the Jaws, and the deer inhales easily, but cannot exhale because of its clenched jaws and paralyzed diaphragm. Articial respiratian is smetimes necessary to keep the anid breathing. Also, along the line of keeping.the animal alive, although the temperature during January and IPdbmary was extremely cold and na insects were about, I generally inserted 8-e Johnson's Antiseptic Cream in the wound to assist in healing.

Although we did not attempt the use of other tranquilizers er combinations of tranquilizers, the Palmer Company now recommends using two to three c .e. (depending upon the size of the deer) o Debon Laboratories' cortisene acetate. Other drugs mentisntd in their letter fer quieting animals in crates, traps, or far shipping, include trilafon (3 cc. ) er marine (5 cc. ). ese tranquilizers are of no value 'n reducing the stress orr @c heart or ether stresses on the animal due to the effects of the nicatine because they are sa slow in their actisn, requiring me ts one and a half hours before they affect the animal.

lhis cempletes my repert; let us hope the next one will centsin news sf higher success threugh the use ef impraved metheds and materials.

loo QEP~PADENCI~~DIRECCION GENERAL DE CAZA . DEPTO. D3 CORSERV. DE LA FAUTTA SILV. WUMFRO DEl; OhC10 EYPEDlENTE'

Alvaro Obreg6n Presidente C.onstituciona1 de 10s Esta do's Unidos Mexicanos, considerando 'inmoderada la 'caza del borrego y del berrendo, ved6 la caza de tales especies por un - t6rmino de 10 ai?os-, en Acuerdo de fecha 21 de septiembre de - ag22. La.violac'ih a esta dispos ici6n se castigaba' con mu& tas de 3 50.00 a $ 500.00, El 1.0. de septiembre de 1933 se dictd una segunda ve da permanente para las especies citadas con duraci6n tambih de 10 afios. En Acuerdo de fecha 22 de sept iembre de 1944,--regu-- lando las 6pocas de caza se veda permanentemente a borregos y berrendos. La Ley Federal de Caza de fecha 3 de diciembre de -- 1951 y vigente hasta la fecha, castiga las violsciones a la - veda establecida con multas de $ 100.00 a $ 10,000.00 y con-- fiscaci6n de vehiculos, productos y equiyo. En Acuerdos de fecha 4 de septieiabre de 1951, de 3 - de septiembre de 1954 y de 27 de agosto de 1959, psrsiste la veda establecida para borregos y berrendos. SITUACIO8 ACTUAL. - El estado actual de 10s borregos y berrendos en nueg tro pais, segh fuentes serias de inr^orrnaci(ln se presenta en la siguiente forma; En Coahuila, Chihuahua y norte de Durango, dichas eg pecies han desaparecido por ,complete , en Sonora se encuentran en peligro de extinci6n y solo en la Peninsula de Baja Cali-- fornia la poblacibn es afin abundante y se po&r& conservar o - aumentar con medidas estrictas de a2ministraci6n y vigilancia. El Prof. Bernardo Villa ~amirezasienta en uilo de sus infornes "En Baja California, el nfirnero de borregos cinarro-- nes es sorprendenGemente panden. En mharos redondos se calcula un total de 500 borrsgos cimarrones pars el Area compren- dida entre Cerro Kino, a1 oeste de 3an ire1i.e y en 1s Sierra - NUMF lo DEL. OPlClO EXPEDIENT.:

AGRICULTURA Y GANADERU de Santa Isabel, hasta las faldas oriytales de la Sierra -- de San Felipe y de cerca de 1.500 el numero de cimarrones en laporct6n sur de la Penineula de Baja California. Desgraciadamente y esto hay que reconocerlo las medi das de administraci6n aplicadas por la Secretaria de Agricul tura y Gapderia no han sido lo sificientemente estrictas y la solucion que se crey6 encontrar en la prohibicibn por ley, ha resultado letra muerta. "Cazadores" mexicanos y extranje-- ros recurriendo a1 compadrazgo algunas veces, otras a la cl6- sica mordida a autoridades venales y en la mayoria de 10s ca- sos derrochando dinero e influencia han pisoteado la Ley y -- han logrado sus prop6sitos durante treinta y ocho afios. Las violac iones en materia de caza y part icularmente las que se,.,fefieren a caza de especies vedadas (borregos y -- herrendos) on numerosas y prueba de ello son las valiosas co lecciones 'gue poseen f amosos ::cazadores tanto en nuestro pais como en el'extran j'ero.

SITUACLON FUIPURA. - En septiembre de 1959 se hicieron gestiones ante ;as autoridades del ramo para levantar un censo de la poblacion - de borregos y berrendos en Baja California, con objeto de cog probar 'si la poblaci6n ha aumentado como se ha venido repor-- tando y proceder a levantar la veda y abrir una teyorada de caza para un n6mero limitado de permisos que podrran venderse a cazadores mexicanos y extranjeros. Desgraciadamente en aquella fecha no se pudo reali-- zar el estudio, pero lo estamos planeando ahora con mayores - probabilidades de Qxito. La caza del borrego salvaje implica el contar con un buen equipo m6vi1, el alquiler de guias no autorizados, armas y parque de imejorable calidad y todo un tren de accesorios como agua, g?solina, lubricante y alim$ntos. Se calcula que cada excursion de esta naturaleza en Mexico no sale en menos de 12 a 8 15,000.00 (QUINCX MIL PESOS M.N.) 6 su equivalente en d6lares de 1000 a 1,400. Si a1 impacto de 10s ma1 llamados "Cazadores" agrega- mos las bajas causadas por 10s depredadores (coyotes, pumas,

s NUMFRO DEL OmClO EXPEDIENTII

r - lobos y bguilas) que han aumentado en proporci6n alarm ante,^ sobre 10s que no existe control alguno, la sequia que azoto durante mucho tiempo a la re i6n, etc., tenemos que recono-- cer que solo el potencial big tic0 de tales especies y gra--- cias a que se ha concentrado en picachos pelados e inaccesi- bles, es poeible su existencia. Con base en las razones anteriores la Direcci6n Ge- neral de Caza se propone durante el presente Go lo siguiente: 1.-Derogacih del Acuerdo que veda 10s borregos en la Peninsula de Baja California y como consecuencia la aper- tura de una temporada extraordinaria de caza para tal espe-- aie, en &reas,-perfectamente delimitadas y vigiladas, en las que se establecerian puestos o estaoiones hicos de entrada, salida y observacihn, atendidos por personal id6neo y capaci tado. Con ello se lo aria canalizar la caza entre 10s ver- daderos deporfistas, realizaci6n de estudios sobre la big ia,,ecolog~a, competencia, control de depredadores, cons- trucciop de abrevaderos, etc., que indudablemente redunda- - rfan en beneficio de la conservaci6n y aumento de las espe-- cies. 2.- Establecimiento de un reagio para el borrego - - cimarr6n en Sonora que comprenderia graii p&e de 10s Munici pios de San Luis R~OColorado, Caborca y Pitiquito, que ser- viria por una parte para restablecer la pob3acihn ya muy - - menguadQ y-como campo ex$erimental para realizar estudios -- bio-ecolbgicos y en un futuro, cuanda Pa poblacih de borregos hubiese aumentado repoblar zonas con 10s excedentes e - incluso abrir nuevas Breas a la caza deportiva y 3.-En caso de ratif icar la invitaci6n formulada a1 Gobierno Mexicano. para celebrar en nuestro pais la V Reuni6n del Consejo, acep-&, tal distinci6n y el comprorniso de or- ganizar debidamente tal evento en 1961.

Las Cruces, New Mexico, a 5 de abril de 1960.

GEL DAVILA C. TRANSLATION OF PWEDING PAPER Fresented by

JOSE ANGEL DAVILA C Biebl~gist

EL JEFE DEZ DEPARTAMENTO

SBEEP and ANTELOPE

I LEGAL STATUS:

Alvaro Obregon, Constitutional President of the United States of Mexico, considering that hunting af sheep and antelope was getting out ef bounds prohibited the hunting of such species for a term of 10 years, starting September 21, 1922.

Violation of this decree was punishable by a fine af $50.00 te $500.00.

On September 1, 1933 for the second time, the law prshibiting the hunting of the above species was again decreed for another 10 years.

In accord with the date September 22, 1944, regulating the e was made a permanent one.

The Federal Law of Hunting, dated December 3, 1951, and active up to this date punishes these violations with a fine of from $100.00 to - $10,000.00, and also confiscates Vehicles, products and equipment.

In accord with the dates September 4, 1951, September 3, 1954 and August 27, 1959, the Law prohibiting the hunting of sheep and antelapes still remains in effect.

ACTUAL STATUS :

The present status af sheep and antelope in our Country, according to the latest information is as follows:

In Coahuila, Chihuahua and north of Durango, these species have disappeared completely. In Sanora there is danger of their extinction and only in the Peninsula of Lower California are they in abundant numbers, but these can only be conserved or augmented with strict administration and vigilance.

Prof. Bernardo Villa Ramirez, has written in one of his informa- tive writings "In Lower California, the number of wild sheep is surprisingly large". In round figures, it is estimated that 500 wild sheep are in the area known from Cerro Kino, West ef San Felipe and in the Sierra of Santa Isabel, to the beginning of the Sierra of San Felipe and there are close to 1500 wild sheep ill th? southern region of the Peninsula of Lower California. Sad to say, and %his we must recognize, that the laws of administration applied by the Department of Agriculture and Cattle (~anaderfacould mean came) are not suffSciently strict, and the solution which was expected by establishing these regulations has proved ineffective. Hunters, (Mexican and foreign), taking advantage of certain "close friends" sometimes, and other times resorting to the classic "Mordida" (means bribe) to the authorities who are mercenary; the rnagority of these hunters flash enough money around and a-e influ- ential enough to be able to disregard the law, and have succeeded in getting their way for some thirty-eight years.

The violations in regard to hunting, in particular the species of the prohibited sheep and antelope, are numerous and proof of this is the valuable collections that are owned by famous hunters, Mexican as well as foreign.

Probably the Law could be enforced with strength by exposing the persons who violate it, without regard to social or political status of the person, or the economic situation of tnem. This might establish some control and avoid the destruction of these species.

FUTURE STATUS:

In September 1959 the authorities on the subgect were asked to promote a census of the population of sheep and antelope in Lower California, with the purpose of proving if the number had augmented as of these species and open temporarily the hunting by a limited number of permits which could be sold to Mexican as well as foreign hunters.

Sad to say on that date nothing was done'to go ahead with the census, but we are still. planning this with great hopes for its success.

The hunting of sheep and antelope requires a good vehicle and good auto equipment, beware the hiring of guides who are not authorized, the proper ammunition and a whole train of. accessories such as water, gasoline, oil, and food. It is estimated that each excursion of this nature in Mexico will cost no less than f~om$12,000.00 to $15,000.00 (pesos - mexican money), or its equivalent in dollars from $1,000 to $1,400.00.

If to the impact of the damage caused by these so-called "hunt;rsl' we add the destruction caused by tae destructive wild animals, coyotes, pumas, wolf and eagles, which have augmented in an alarming number and over which there exist6 no control, also the drought which hit the region for so long, we=have to recognize that only the hardy species Who have niddsn themeebves in high peaks, and iuaccessible places have been able to exist.

Basing these faets on the reasons heretofore explained, the Direction General do Caza, proposes the following for the present year:

1. Abolishing the $resent lay which prohlbits the hunting of sheep in the peninsula of Lower California, followed by a temporary period of hunting 3f the speetes, in .wass ~crfectlgrmanaged with limitakfane and vigilance, in which will be established stations governing Pneoming and outgoing trdfic, aktended by capable persmeP0 With this we hope to be able to regulate the hunting and limit it to %he %me sportsmen, the realization sf studies of the species, and control of the deetructive wild animals, construction of watering places, in all the benefits derived would be great in conserving and augmenting the species.

Establishing a refuge Prsp the wild sheep in Sonora would comprise a great par%of the area of San Luis Rio Colorado, Caborca and Htfquito, and would serve to increase their number which is now very small, ad d88 88 an experimental field to the biological and ecohsgieal studies and in the future when their number has increased, repopulate zone8 with the excem numbers and also open new areas for sports hunting and

In ease of ratifying the invitation formulated the Mexican Govern- ment to celebrate in our country the Fifth Reunion of the Advisory Council and accept such distinction with the promise of organizing such event in 1961. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS ON TALKS

given at Desert Bighorn Council Meeting

By: GEORGE Eo BARCLAY Chairman

"Management Responsibilities and practices of the BIM as they relate to desert.blghornn, by#illiam Mathews, BLM, Washington, D.C. Discussion was brief. In response to questions, Mr. Methews state'd that on lands controlled entirely or in major part by the BLM, BLM9s policy is that wild life can have reasonable use of water developed for livestock purposes. He also said that no AUM values have been placed on bighorn sheep.

"Developing better public support for a bighorn management program," by Bill Sizer, State of Arizona. This talk was presented ae a tape recording, which made an effective, if novel, way of delivering it since Mr. Sizer could not be present. During the following discussion, Mr, Welles queetioned the accuracy of some of the statements made, particularly that concerning the fouling of water by wild burros, and made an ardent plea that bighorn workers at all times in dl cases stick absolutely to the truth and never resort to propaganda in any form.

"Human encroachment on bighorn habitat" by Gerald Duncan, BSF&W, Yuma, Arizona. Read by Roger Do Johnson, BSF&W, Ajo, Arizona. There was no significant discussion following this paper, which confined its subject matter to the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges. -

National Applied Resources Science Center BLM LIBRARY RS 150A, Bldg 50 Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225